remarks by assistant secretary philip crowley
on
engagment with Iran
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
December 22, 2009
Excerpts
. . .
MR. CROWLEY: This morning here at the State Department, Under Secretary of State for Policy[1] Bill Burns participated in a teleconference with his P-5+1 counterparts at the political directors – as part of their regular consultation on developments related to Iran. Their last meeting was in November, so it made sense to touch base before the holidays about the path ahead. As we have said many times, the President has stressed that we and our partners will be assessing Iran’s responsiveness here as we approach the end of the year, and we’ll be talking about future steps in that respect.
. . .
QUESTION: Can I ask about the conference call?
MR. CROWLEY: Sure.
QUESTION: What, if anything, was accomplished on this call?
MR. CROWLEY: I don’t think it was – it was intended just as we described it, touching base here at the end of the year. We’re in this period where we’re taking stock of Iran’s inability, unwillingness to respond to the – our offer of dialogue and the specific offer regarding the research reactor that was put on the table in Geneva and now sits on the table at the IAEA.
So we’re coming up on the end of the year. This kind of period of assessment will continue. But we would expect coming into the new year that we’ll be prepared to take steps on both tracks. As we’ve said many times, the offer of engagement is still there. We have offered Iran an open hand out of mutual interest and respect. And as the Secretary said, they have really failed to respond meaningfully to that gesture.
We continue to see and have concerns about the ongoing efforts by the Government of Iran to suppress freedom of expression and assembly in Iran. But at the same time, there are consequences and implications for Iran’s failure to meaningfully respond to our offer of dialogue and the specific arrangements that we’ve put on the table.
The international community is united in its resolve that Iran must either answer the questions that we have about its nuclear aspirations or face additional pressure that we will be consulting broadly across the international community in the coming days and weeks.
QUESTION: Well, I guess I’m just confused as why you even had this call. I mean, it was no secret that you wanted to have a meeting – the U.S. and all but one of the other members of the P-5+1 wanted to have an in-person meeting last week. The Chinese didn’t want that, and it didn’t happen. So I guess I just don’t understand what the point is. If they all get on the phone and just say, well, here’s where we are, Iran still isn’t responding, they’re still working on their nuclear program, what’s the point of that other than just talking?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, we have – I mean, this is an issue that is not about the United States alone. It’s about the international community. We are not the only ones who have concerns about the current trajectory. And so this is part --
QUESTION: I understand that --
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, this is what you do --
QUESTION: How did this improve anything? What’s different after the call than before?
MR. CROWLEY: I wasn’t signaling that this is the end of a process. We are in the middle of a process, and we are continuing to assess where we are. And we are continuing and have had a number of consultations in recent days and weeks about steps that are prospectively available to us as we move into 2010, as we pledged, that, as the President said, we will take stock at the end of the year, see what has been accomplished on the track of engagement. But we have always indicated that available to us would be additional steps and – that would increase the pressure on Iran.
And we are at that point where we are consulting broadly within the P-5+1, but beyond that, so that come 2010, should Iran continue in its current posture, that there will be implications and consequences for their failure to take advantage of this opportunity.
QUESTION: How far into 2010 --
QUESTION: Do you want to tell us about any of the next steps --
MR. CROWLEY: Hold on.
QUESTION: -- that are being contemplated? Do you want to tell us about any of the next steps specifically --
MR. CROWLEY: No.
QUESTION: -- that are being contemplated?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, we have a range of – I mean, we’ve – there are sanctions that are available that are on Iran right now. We will continue to look at ways both bilaterally and multilaterally that we can add to that mix and increase the cost to Iran of its inability or unwillingness to resolve the concerns the international community has about its nuclear program.
QUESTION: But, I mean, how far into 2010? I mean, you said that you would take stock at the end of the year, but you’re already talking about if Iran continues with its current course into the next year. So I mean, is the end of the year kind of – you know, keeping in mind that you’ll still have this dual track, is the end of the year a kind of deadline and then you’re definitely going ahead with, you know, one of the tracks, which is not engagement because you don’t have any? But, you know, is this – are you going ahead with the sanctions track come the beginning of the year, or are you giving them more time?
MR. CROWLEY: I mean, these are not mutually exclusive. The offer of engagement remains available to Iran, but at the same time, we have said that we are prepared to take additional steps. And to Matt’s question, this call today was part of our ongoing consultation to both express what we’re thinking, hear from other countries that play a critical role, particularly within the UN Security Council, about the path forward.
QUESTION: No, I understand that, that you’ll always have this kind of dual track available. But come the beginning of the year, keeping in mind that you always have the option of engagement if that becomes available – come the beginning of the year, are you going to move towards imposing new sanctions against Iran?
MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn’t put a particular date or deadline on this. This is an ongoing process. In terms of steps that we might take from a national standpoint, there are things that are available to us. Obviously, there are things that are happening on the Hill that will have implications on this. At the same time, we are well on the way to building and strengthening the consensus within the international community that since Iran has failed to follow up on our offer of dialogue in a meaningful way – we had a constructive discussion in Geneva, but since then, Iran has largely prevaricated.
And obviously, going forward, will something dramatically happen on January 4th? No. But there is a point at which we will intensify our discussions around the country, and I would think at some point, we would be in a position to take some action with our partners through the various fora that are available to us.
QUESTION: I’m sorry, could you just – can you just kind of specify or put a finer point on “at some point?” I mean, what is the – are you moving in that direction? And I understand that on January 1st you’re not going to have sanctions to impose, but you keep saying at some point down the road, at some point down the road. You know, is this where it’s moving, I guess, is --
MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, this is where it’s always been, which is we have a two-track strategy. One track is engagement, one track is pressure. And these have never been mutually exclusive. Even today, we continue to look for ways to strengthen and fully implement the sanctions that are already on Iran. At the same time, we’re looking at additional steps that we could take nationally and internationally should the President make that determination.
QUESTION: Given that this deadline seems to be a little bit soft, do you think in the future you’ll --
MR. CROWLEY: Let me just – Andy, sorry to interrupt you, but what we have always said throughout the year was that at the end of the year we would assess where we are. But that’s not a deadline; it’s a point in a calendar at which the President said, okay, where are we and what are the steps that are available to us. Now going forward, we already are, but we will intensify our dialogue within the --
QUESTION: But don’t we have to reconcile what’s coming from you and then what’s coming out of the White House? Robert Gibbs this morning again used the word “deadline.”
MR. CROWLEY: Okay.
QUESTION: I mean, these are two different messages that need to come together. But going forward --
MR. CROWLEY: I defer to Robert Gibbs.
QUESTION: And in these talks, perhaps maybe in the talks this morning – you talked about a broad unanimity about where we need to go and that – with the second track, should we not get movement on the first track. In the call this morning, was there any movement toward getting specific unanimity on certain steps? Were those discussed? Is that consensus getting stronger, or did it become stronger as a result of this call?
MR. CROWLEY: I think the consensus is there that the current trajectory is of great concern to the United States and great concern to the international community. Clearly, to Matt’s point, we have in the past, I think – currently have perhaps some differences over specific tactics and specific timing. We are going to continue to work with those who will play a role in this and we’ll build towards a point at which we can put some additional steps on the table for consideration. And at that point, whenever that happens, then I think we’ll send a very clear and compelling signal to Iran that there are consequences for their inability to respond to the international community and to answer the questions that were posed to them in Geneva.
QUESTION: P.J., in response to one of Elise’s questions, you said Iran has prevaricated. What exactly have the Iranians lied about?
MR. CROWLEY: They --
QUESTION: Do you have proof that they’re lying about something?
MR. CROWLEY: Well, they – for example, they are not --
QUESTION: The whole point of this was that they – that there isn’t any proof; you don’t know; you’re asking them.
MR. CROWLEY: Well, we do know. I mean, no, no – I mean --
QUESTION: You just said – you just accused them --
MR. CROWLEY: They have --
QUESTION: You accused them of lying, and I’m just --
MR. CROWLEY: All right. They have said for a long time that they were in compliance with their international obligations when, in fact, as we’ve seen in – with the revelation of the facility in Qom, that they were not. So that is a perfect example of where intensive effort on our part has opened up a slight window to reveal the fact that they are not in compliance with their international obligations. So – but this is expressly why we think it’s important now for – and the opportunity is still available to Iran to come to the table to work constructively with the international community. And – but because they have been unable or unwilling to do that, we’re also signaling that we’re at that point where there will be clear consequences for their inability to respond and to answer the questions that we’ve raised.
As to a specific timeline as to how this will unfold, that is expressly why we continue our close consultation with our international partners, so that at the point at which we are ready to put proposals on the table, there is consensus not only on what we think is necessary and that the timing is correct to do that.
. . .