To gain unanimity of the Security Council, the focus has been on the lack of confidence in the purely peaceful intentions of Iran's nuclear program. By making that issue the centrepiece, it's been possible to get four resolutions adopted without a single country voting no. That has included Libya twice voting to sanction Iran.
But this has required keeping these resolutions very narrowly focused. The constant refrain in the resolutions is that Iran needs to suspend its activities--not to stop them, but to suspend them--until Iran has re-established international confidence in the purely peaceful intentions of its program. The position of some governments, including a number of European governments, has been to announce publicly that they do not see how they can have confidence in Iran's purely peaceful intentions so long as Iran's leaders continue to threaten the existence of another United Nations member, but that has certainly not been in the Security Council's resolutions.
However, I would think it would be a very useful formulation to say that to meet this condition the Security Council has set down about establishing confidence in the purely peaceful intentions will require that Iran clarify the meaning of the statement of its president threatening another United Nations member.