IAEA's ire

This resolution is Iran's reprimand for what the International Atomic Energy Agency says are activities which could only be linked to a nuclear weapons program. It expresses "deep and increasing concern" about that program including "the existence of possible military dimensions" but it stops short of giving Tehran a deadline for addressing those concerns and does not threaten referral to the UN Security Council.

A tougher document backed by the United States, Germany, Britain and France failed to get backing from Russia and China. In the interests of maintaining unity among world powers the compromise resolution was adopted.

Emmanule Ottolenghi, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, told Deutsche Welle the resolution lacks decisiveness.

Falling short?

"I think the resolution is an admission of failure because the IAEA has just published a report which leaves very little room for the imagination on what Iran is doing," said Ottolenghi who was on a visit to Vienna to speak to the Stop the Bomb coalition, an NGO pushing for further sanctions against Iran.

As diplomats wrangled over the wording of the resolution IAEA chief Yukiya Amano defended a recent tough report in which he said nuclear weapon related activities may be continuing in Iran. "Now that I have this information and assessment I must alert the world," he told journalists and described it as "my duty as director general."

However Iran remains defiant despite the mounting pressure and evidence. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's senior envoy to the IAEA, directed his anger at the IAEA chief accusing him of making Iranian scientists "targets for assassination by the Israeli regime" and the "United States of America intelligence services."

Iran continues to insist its nuclear program is entirely for peaceful purposes and regularly points out its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty to develop nuclear energy facilities including the enrichment of uranium as fuel for an atomic power station.

Analysts agree this latest resolution signals the continuation of the West's policy of diplomatic pressure, combined with existing United Nations sanctions, as the best way to deal with Iran, at least for now.

Unknown quantity

Responding to journalists questions while visiting Canada, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told journalists that US analysis shows a strike on Iran would set back its nuclear program by one or two years at most. He went on to reinforce Washington's reluctance to use force.

"There are going to be economic consequences that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy," Panetta said.

At the same time neither the United States nor Israel rule out the use of military strikes if they believe Iran is close to obtaining a weapon.

Given the possible scenario of military action with all of its unknown consequences, it begs the questions why Russia and China refused to back a tougher resolution with the threat of even more United Nation's sanctions.

Emmanuele Ottolenghi thinks the two Security Council members are happy to see the West's influence in the region diminished.

"I think, in their cost and benefit analysis, they prefer to see the West challenged and cut down to size."

He says there may also be a cynical calculation. "They would rather be seen in the aftermath of an attack as having sided with Iran rather than having cooperated with those who will attack."

Author: Kerry Skyring, Vienna
Editor: Rob Mudge