FT has “excerpts.”:http://news.ft.com/cms/s/381a5768-b3c2-11da-89c7-0000779e2340,s01=1.html So does “Reuters.”:http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-15T022502Z_01_N14826_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&related=true

According to “that news agency,”:http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-03-15T153815Z_01_N14224204_RTRUKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-UN.xml&archived=False this is the part that the P5 are arguing about:

“Requests that the director general of the IAEA reports to the Security Council in [14] days on Iranian compliance with the requirements set out by the IAEA board, and agrees to keep this issue under review.”

Note the brackets.

It’s unclear, however, that Russia and China’s minds would be changed by giving Iran more than 14 days:

“We are still discussing,” Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya told Reuters at the close of the hour-long session at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.

Russia and China are resisting a proposal from Britain and France — and backed by the United States — for a council statement that would express “serious concern” about Iran’s nuclear program and urge it to abide by resolutions from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Wang said he did not consider the talks deadlocked, and Russian Ambassador Andrei Denisov said there had been progress although he declined to elaborate.

But Wang said Russia and China still had problems with a proposal that the Vienna-based IAEA be asked to report to the council within 14 days on what progress Iran had made towards meeting the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency’s demands.

Both view the reporting requirement as shifting the focus of the Iran dossier to the Security Council, which has the power to later impose sanctions, from the IAEA. They would like any report on Iran’s compliance to go directly to the 35-nation IAEA governing board.