OK: here's the story, as I see it: i.e. the most important points.

'Iran has agreed to tell the IAEA about previously secret details of its atomic program. According to the plan agreed on August 21, Iran says it will answer a series of questions on its program....the IAEA... has hailed Iran's cooperation as a "significant step in the right direction."'

Now this, to me, is the 'real' story. Good news? Well you would have thought so. But, by quoting the rest of this piece from the Asia Times we see why the paragraph above is not likely to represent the 'thrust' of the story when it finally makes its way to the front pages of the Western press.

'Officially, they are committed to a peaceful resolution of the Iran nuclear crisis, and yet their behavior - of refusing to endorse fully the Iran-IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) agreement and rushing toward another sanctions resolution at the United Nations Security Council - speaks louder about the true intentions of the US government and some of its European allies. ...secretary general Ban Ki-moon has reiterated the Security Council's demand for a complete suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities. This is in contrast to the position of IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei, who has called for a "double timeout", that is, the simultaneous halt to UN sanctions and to Iran's nuclear-fuel-cycle program, to give diplomacy a "breathing chance".

Unhappy with the European Union's failure to endorse fully the IAEA's agreement with Iran, which sets a strict timetable on resolving the so-called "outstanding questions", ElBaradei showed his displeasure this week by walking out of an IAEA session in Vienna at which the EU's statement on Iran was being circulated.

ElBaradei is not alone, as the 118 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) have thrown their weight behind him and the IAEA by endorsing the agreement and criticizing some nations' "interference" in IAEA affairs. They also fully support Iran's rights to peaceful nuclear technology. The NAM's position on Iran was supported by the Russian delegate to the IAEA meeting, thus indicating signs of a coming US-Russia rift over Iran.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly agreed to visit Iran in mid-October for a summit of Caspian littoral states. This is excellent news for Iran, given that at the recent summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), unlike China's president, Putin refused to hold a meeting with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Putin's willingness to visit Iran at this critical juncture represents a bad omen for Washington and, more especially, for US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Her State Department has been trying, rather desperately, to maintain the fragile coalition against Iran at the UN.'

Meanwhile

WASHINGTON, Sept. 13 (Xinhua) -- The United States is working with other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany on another Security Council resolution on Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in an interview released by the State Department on Thursday.

    "We are going to work on another Security Council resolution," Rice said.

    Rice said that by working with Britain, France, Russia, China, or the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany, two U.N. Security Council resolutions have been passed against Iran.

    Moreover, the United States is putting "a lot of pressure" on Iran's economy by sanctioning Iran's banks as well as individuals, Rice said. '

This despite the fact that, as the Teheran Times so rightly states 'Security Council's interference would ruin Iran-IAEA deal.'

So to cut to the chase: there is a deal on the table to resolve the issue of Teheran's nuclear capability, and the US (and the Europeans) are deliberately attempting to scupper this deal.