remarks bY Press Secretary robert gibbs on iran
THE WHITE HOUSE
February 11, 2010
Excerpts
. . .
Q Robert, a follow on Iran? The head of Iran's atomic energy agency, Ali Salehi, has just in the last few minutes cautioned the President against taking what he calls "wrong steps." He said, "The consequences are beyond the imagination of anybody. Don't test Iran." Any reaction to that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think Iran has made a series of statements that are far more political than they are -- they're based on politics, not on physics. Okay? The Iranian nuclear program has undertaken -- has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. Quite frankly, what Ahmadinejad says -- he says many things and many of them turn out to be untrue. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.
I would also say this. If they are serious about the peaceful use of their nuclear program, then what they should have done was taken more seriously the offer on the Tehran research reactor, understanding that the increase in -- the increase from 3.5 to nearly 20 percent was what the United States and the IAEA and its partners offered as part of the Tehran research reactor so that medical patients could have access to these medical isotopes. Iran cannot replace and continue to operate the TRR at its current pace.
So then not taking the IAEA up and its partners up on a very commonsense offer leads, quite frankly, the world to believe that Iran has other ideas. That's why -- and I would say this -- the reactions -- the actions of Iran have led the world to be more unified than at virtually any other point in the past many years. They have brought forward, through their actions, through their statements, our partners in the P5-plus-1 now moving in accord forward to taking those next steps.
Q Is there another deadline, new deadline for them?
MR. GIBBS: Well, you saw yesterday the Treasury institute some sanctions on the IRGC, and obviously the next phase in this -- as the President talked a few days ago, this is multifaceted and there will be more phases to this, including the United Nations.
Q Following up on that, the deadline was the end of 2009. Why should the leaders of Iran think that there are any consequences for disobeying what the United States and the IAEA and the P5 want, given that, with the exception of the move by Treasury yesterday, there have yet to be consequences?
MR. GIBBS: No, no -- and look, Jake, as you said, the President is working through and with our partners on making that happen. This was not going to happen in Time Square when the ball hit zero. This was always going to take some important time. But understand this, Jake, our allies in this are more united than they've ever been to take actions and consequences based on the statements and the actions of the Iranians.
Q Do you have China on board yet for U.N. sanctions, through Security Council?
MR. GIBBS: We believe that the Chinese have and will continue to play a constructive role. They worked with us, again, very constructively on the U.N. resolutions dealing with North Korea, and we believe, and I think they believe it's not in their interest to have a worldwide arms race; it's certainly not in their interest economically to have an arms race in the Middle East.
Q So that's a no?
Q Yes, I mean, that's not really an answer to whether or not they're on board.
MR. GIBBS: We are working through with them, with our other partners in the P5-plus-1. This will go through a process at the United Nations --
Q When does that process start?
MR. GIBBS: It already has.
Q Well, when is the public process start of bringing sanctions forward --
MR. GIBBS: Well, again, the process of writing this and devising these, as you know, has already started, Jake.
Q Is the question not whether or not China will support sanctions but what kind? Or are you still working on whether they will support --
MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into the back-and-forth of diplomatic negotiations, understanding, again, that it's in everybody's interest not to have an international arms race.
. . .
Q Given the sort of rhetoric that's been coming out of the Iranian leadership in the past week in particular, has the President had any sort of rethink about the whole concept of engagement with Iran? I know you said that, you know, you think this outreach --
MR. GIBBS: No, because, Helene, we wouldn't be here -- we would not be here unified in the P5-plus-1 were it not for engagement.
Q I understand that, and I see that argument, but what about --
MR. GIBBS: So putting aside that we're at a point in which those countries have never been more united and more forward in dealing with the threat from Iran.
Q Well, we don’t know yet from China and what they're going to do.
MR. GIBBS: Right, but you wanted me to leave aside the united --
Q I want to put aside the united front in the P5-plus-one and ask you to look specifically about the relationship with the Iranian regime as a whole, between the United States and Iran. Do you see any difference there that perhaps has come from an engagement and do you see, is there any rethink about whether or not there was any -- has gone anywhere at all?
MR. GIBBS: No, no, again, I think it demonstrated to the world that these were decisions that weren’t going to be made by the United States or by Russia or by China, these were decisions that were going to be made by the Iranians. Now, sometimes it's been confusing; sometimes they've accepted ideas and agreements only to come back a week or so later and not accept them. And whether or not there is one or two voices in Iran speaking for the Iranian regime, or whether there are many conflicting voices, I'll let others decide.
But because we engaged, it demonstrated to the world that the choices that Iran made were choices that it alone had to vouch for. The Tehran Research Reactor is, again, a good example. They're going to run out of the type of medical isotopes that they need to treat those in their country that could be helped by this. Right? If your program is one for peaceful needs, why not accept the help of the IAEA in ensuring the health and safety of your people? I think, again, their walking away from that agreement demonstrates for the whole world to see what their intentions really are.
Q Just quick -- U.S. wants Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program, but Iranian President is firm on their nuclear program. And they said that sanctions have not worked in the past, so how now sanctions will work? And what do the future --
MR. GIBBS: Well, this is a much longer discussion, Goyal. I think that this is a process that has begun at the United Nations and I don't want to get too far on that.
. . .Q Robert, if you are the average Iranian and you're hearing about the possibility of more sanctions, what can you do to reassure him or her that the sanctions will be targeted against organizations associated with the government and not them specifically? And are you worried that these sanctions, if you do pursue them and they're carried out, will only serve to solidify the hold of the Iranian government over the people?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the government's hold over those people I think -- in the streets over the past many months is in many ways called into question. I don't want to get into the specifics of what is being worked through, except to say that obviously we do not want to see a backsliding in progress and to do things that risk putting the political changes that are clearly happening in that country -- to see them fall back.
All of that is being taken into account even as the world demands not just that the Republic acknowledge the universal rights of its citizens but also that it live up to their agreements around their nuclear program.
. . .