WASHINGTON . Iraq's rejection of any new United Nations resolution that toughens the terms of disarmament appeared calculated to widen the gap dividing the United States and Britain from the other big powers at the United Nations as they were struggling to find a common approach to confront Saddam Hussein.

But if it stands as Iraq's last word, this refusal could also mark the beginning of the transition from diplomacy to war in the Persian Gulf, as President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were already wheeling their military forces to higher states of readiness.

The verbal blast from two of Mr. Hussein's top aides, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan and Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, made it apparent that Mr. Hussein was seeking to disrupt the Bush administration's diplomacy as American and British diplomats were engaging in urgent consultations with France, Russia and China.

But the tactic could backfire. The fiery statements from Baghdad may actually please the Bush administration because Iraqi intransigence will make it easier to argue the case for military action. At the same time, the Iraqi defiance may make it more difficult for critics here and abroad to question the Bush administration's unrelenting campaign to bring the Iraq situation to a head.

It seemed possible that Iraq's intervention could further alarm Europeans who are already opposed to or jittery about war and who have argued that no immediate threat to security has been established. That would strengthen the position of those Security Council members who would like the United States and Great Britain to tone down their insistence on tight deadlines and maximalist demands that to some appeared too provocative and, therefore, unlikely to test the possibility for a negotiated outcome.

Baghdad's determination to pre-empt a return of United Nations inspectors without any conditions to hamper their work, on the other hand, shows that Mr. Hussein understands the gravity and potential consequences of the Bush administration's approach, which calls for sending an armed security force with the United Nations inspectors. A team of diplomats from the Security Council's five permanent members would also accompany the inspectors and supervise their work.

And Mr. Aziz's sober warning that "the assault against Iraq will not be a cakewalk" but rather "a fierce war during which the United States will suffer losses they have never sustained for decades," was timed to exploit the concerns expressed by American political and military figures that the task of removing Mr. Hussein's government could devolve into punishing urban warfare and thousands of American casualties.
The Americans and British have been lobbying hard, but with little success, for a dramatically stronger weapons inspection program for Iraq. Washington and London planned to submit a new resolution to the Security Council this coming week with the new terms.

Their draft resolution began to circulate Friday and its text was still being closely held, but diplomats said it declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of past resolutions and carried a threat of force if it did not return to compliance.

It also called on Baghdad to fully disclose information about its hidden weapons programs under a seven-day deadline and then to allow intrusive inspections to verify those disclosures under a further 23-day deadline.

The draft resolution was regarded as provocative by a number of European governments, Western diplomats said, and the hope of opposition within the Security Council may have prompted Baghdad's effort to pre-empt the diplomacy before Washington could win over the other permanent members of the Security Council.

"That can never fly," a German diplomat said after he learned from the French the basic outline of the draft. Germany joins the Security Council as a non-veto member in January and has strongly opposed war with Iraq.

"Even the British have informed the Europeans that they were clearly insisting on a real option for Saddam Hussein," the German diplomat said. "Either there are to be inspections and the destruction of weapons of mass destruction, if they are found, or the destruction of the regime.

"But any text," the diplomat said, "must clearly give the impression that there is a real option, not a zero option or something so narrow, in order to take as quickly as possible a decision on military action."

The Iraqis could not have missed the testimony of three retired four-star American generals who issued a series of cautions in testimony to Congress this week.

Among them was Gen. John P. Hoar, who noted that Mr. Hussein appeared to be preparing for a defense of Baghdad. General Hoar said he feared a "nightmare scenario" of six Iraqi Republican Guard divisions and six additional tank divisions ringed by several thousand antiaircraft guns.

"The result would be high casualties on both sides, as well as in the civilian community," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "U.S. forces will certainly prevail, but at what cost? And at what cost as the rest of the world watches while we win and have military rounds exploding in densely populated Iraqi neighborhoods?" he asked.

Separately today, Mr. Hussein dispatched his foreign minister, Naji Sabri, to the capital of his old enemy, Iran, seeking an 11th-hour alliance against the United States.

"Arab and Muslim governments have rejected the option of an attack against Iraq, and the peoples of the region will stand together against an eventual attack," Mr. Sabri said in Tehran.

Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi of Iran met Mr. Sabri at the airport and told reporters, "It is absolutely imperative we make serious efforts to prevent a new war in the region, because the region cannot support a new war" that would touch off "insecurity and instability."

In Arab countries, reports about the American-British draft resolution were touching off other concerns, and Mr. Hussein seemed bent on exploiting them.

Saudi officials have signaled the Bush administration that they would join an American-led campaign to topple Mr. Hussein as long as it is conducted under the mandate of the United Nations.

But one adviser to the Saudi leadership asked after hearing a description of the resolution, "Are they just trying to intimidate him to say no?"

Another Saudi diplomat said he was distraught about the prospects for war. "You know all of the Arab nations would like to wake up tomorrow and hear that this guy has died in his bed. I say that with all heart because the Iraqi people do not deserve this, to be controlled by a crazy guy, but they also do not deserve a war that will be a disaster for the area."

Saudi interests could be affected, as one oil analyst pointed out.

"In Afghanistan, you were bombing opium fields, but in the Middle East you will be bombing oil fields," the Saudi official said, adding that in the latter case, the United States could be hit by soaring oil prices and economic disruption.