There have recently been several postings as well as some very interesting and thought-provoking comments on FTOI regarding Islamic Republic's nuclear issues, especially the signing of an additional NPT protocol. I have also been reading a lot about this matter in Iranian newspapers. It seems to me that there have been enough articles written about this additional protocol to give one a fairly good understanding of the implications of signing (or not signing) it.
However, having read the GOV/2003/69 resolution, there appears to be a very common misconception - even among Iranian journalists - as to what exactly it is that the board calls on Iran to do by the end of October 2003.
If one takes a cursory look at the text of the resolution, one of the first things that catches one's attention is the series of underlined words in it, such as "calls on", "stressing", "recognizing", "decides", etc. I am certainly not an expert on international law but I reckon these underlined words signify legal terms which have specific connotations. For example, the board has in some cases, "decided" that Iran should cooperate whereas in other cases it has "called on" or even "requested" Iran to take some sort of action. Having said that, here are a few observations which I believe would help us better understand the situation:
Iranian politicians, as well as the media, have somehow (intentionally or otherwise) managed to lead everyone, at least in Iran, into believing that the issue, i.e. the deadline, is about signing the additional protocol, whereas the issue is really about Iran coming clean on its already committed material breaches of the NPT; and that I think is the real dilemma the Islamic Republic is facing. We all know what happens if Iran does not comply with the resolution, but even if they in fact do fully comply with GOV/2003/69 then they will have to confess to an already committed breach.
There are two outcomes here, both of which could potentially lead to sanctions against Iran, unless the Islamic Republic somehow manages to cut a secret deal with the Americans and/or the Europeans so that they would cut them a little slack and turn a blind eye on their past breaches in return for God knows what, but certainly including Iran's full compliance in the future which could also include the signing of the additional protocol. It is quite possible that the foreign minister's latest trip to New York was just about cutting this very deal.