What’s the end game on Iran?

It looks like the IAEA will pass a resolution on Iran — what happens after that is unclear. Here’s the gist from the New York Times‘ Mark LandlerRaising the stakes in the West’s confrontation with Iran, Britain formally proposed Friday that the Iranian government be reported to the United Nations Security Council for its failure to comply with treaties governing its nuclear program. But in a sign of the deepening rift over Iran on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Britain submitted the weaker of two draft resolutions, which leaves open the timing of such a report to the Council. After a rancorous debate over when to vote on the measure, the 35-member board agreed to reconvene on Saturday. Diplomats here said they expected it to be passed by a solid majority, though Russia, China, and several other countries have signaled they were likely to oppose it. [NOTE: John Ward Anderson reports in the Washington Post that the minority might try to deny a quorum vote today–DD] The resolution, drafted by Britain, France and Germany, and endorsed by the United States, said there was an “absence of confidence that Iran’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.” Under the circumstances, the resolution said, the issue should be taken up by the Security Council…. Russia’s likely opposition, as well as China’s, sets up a confrontation on the Security Council, where both hold permanent seats. The European nations’ aggressive move reflects their frustration with Iran, which announced last month it would abandon an earlier pledge to suspend its conversion and enrichment of uranium. Iran had agreed to halt such activity while it tried to negotiate a settlement with Britain, France and Germany. The goal of reporting Iran to the Security Council is not to impose sanctions, said diplomats involved in the negotiations. “Our goal is not to punish Iran, but to put further pressure on Iran,” said a Western diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the talks. “We have no intention of sanctioning Iran; we recognize that sanctioning Iran would hurt Russia and China.”…. Iranian officials did not speak during Friday’s board meeting, but diplomats here said they showed two unsigned letters to some board members. In one, the Iranian government said that if the resolution were passed, Iran would resume uranium enrichment at a plant in Natanz. In the second, Iran said it would withdraw from a set of agreements with the atomic energy agency that provide for more intrusive inspections…. The agency’s board has passed seven resolutions on Iran since June 2003, all unanimously, which chided Iran for its concealment and urged it to grant inspectors unfettered access. By early this month, when the agency’s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, issued his latest report, patience was running thin. Departing from the agency’s usual tone of studied neutrality, the report said, “In view of the fact that the agency is not in a position to clarify some important outstanding issues after two and a half years of intensive inspection and investigation, Iran’s full transparency is indispensable and overdue.” Still, officials at the agency viewed this resolution with chagrin. The debate over the vote on the measure was as vitriolic as some here could recall, and they said it could harm efforts to seek consensus on Iran. Mr. ElBaradei is said to be reluctant to report Iran to the Security Council now, according to officials familiar with his position, who said the director general believes the Europeans and the Americans do not have a strategy for managing the issue before the council. (emphasis added)

Count me in with ElBaradei here. I think I know what the endgame is for this, but it’s not clear to me if the risk is worth the reward. If sanctions are off the table, and force is clearly out of the question, what is left for the Security Council to do? Presumably, passing some kind of resolution that upbraids Iran and threatens more punitive action down the road. Except, given Russia and China’s opposition, it’s far from clear the Security Council would even agree to that. So, one of two things will happen — either the U.N. Security Council will look fractured, or they’ll pass a toothless resolution. Either way, the Iranians have made clear what they will do if the issue goes to the Security Council. So what’s the benefit of going to the UN? If the consensus is that Iran is actually further away from developing a nuke than we previously thought, why make them accelerate their timetable? I’m not saying that a move to the Security Council won’t make sense at some point. But given the oil market at present, Iran has more economic leverage than they might in the future. Readers are invited to submit their endgames in this latest standoff.