remarks bY PRESs secretary robert gibbs on
iran missile launch and talks
THE WHITE HOUSE
September 28, 2009
Excerpts
. . .
Q Robert, what's the White House's reaction to Iran's test-firing of missiles and how will that affect the atmosphere for the October 1st talks?
MR. GIBBS: Well, a couple things. I mean, obviously, these were pre-planned military exercises. I think -- I would lump any of these into the provocative nature with which Iran has acted on the world stage for a number of years. I would point out that the reason that missile defense decisions have been made in the past couple weeks to change from something that dealt virtually only with an ICBM threat and dealt more with medium- to intermediate-range missiles I think was proven out in many of the pictures that you saw over the past few hours.
The decision that Secretary Gates and General Cartwright, the Joint Chiefs approved unanimously and forwarded to the President, which the President then approved, is something that deals with the exact threat of medium- and intermediate-range missiles that you saw Iran testing just today.
Q So the second part of that question was how does it affect the atmosphere for the October 1st talks, and furthering on that, what specifically does Iran need to do on October 1st to fulfill the President's call that they come clean?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think first and foremost the P5-plus-1 strongly supports the IAEA's call for immediate and unfettered access to Qom, to the facility, to personnel, and to documents that are related to the construction of that facility. I think that's certainly what we would hope that Iran is willing to do to engage in full transparency and to demonstrate for the world that it will give up its nuclear weapons program and ensure that whatever it does is in the peaceful pursuit of nuclear energy.
Q But is there anything specific that they can do on October 1st to demonstrate that?
MR. GIBBS: Sure. They can, as I just said, agree to immediate, unfettered access. I think that would be the least that they can do.
But, Jeff, keep in mind, this is an important day and an important week for the Iranians. They have decisions to make. They have one of two paths that they can take. They can continue the path that they've been on, even while the world has shown conclusive intelligence about a facility in Qom. Or it can make a decision to step away from its nuclear weapons program and build confidence in the world and enter into a meaningful relationship with the world based on their own security, but not based on nuclear weapons.
. . .MR. GIBBS: Well, Chip, we're focused on Thursday. We're focused on -- and understand this -- there has never been a stronger international consensus to address Iran and its nuclear weapons program than there is right now. You saw the comments last week; you heard directly from the Russian President about this. We are focused on the meeting on Thursday, and we hope Iran is focused on its obligations internationally. We're not going to get far ahead of ourselves as to what happens beyond that. We're focused right now on this meeting this week.
Q But you do need Russia and China to support it. No matter how strong it is now, if you don't get them on board, it's not going to --
MR. GIBBS: And, Chip, two weeks ago no one ever thought we'd be where we were right now with an international consensus that something has to be done and that Iran has to live up to its international obligations.
Q How concerned is the President that any sanctions with bite are going to end up biting the Iranian people harder than anybody?
MR. GIBBS: You're a couple of --
Q But he's got to be thinking about this. I mean, if you're thinking about particular sanctions, they're going to hurt the Iranian people who have been through so much already.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I'm just not going to get into a lot of conjecture about what happens in --
. . .
Q I'm sorry, one more question on Iran. You said a minute ago that the international consensus is stronger than ever. I wonder if you could tell us why you think that. I mean, the Security Council has voted several times for sanctions, they were not perceived to be effective, but they were unanimous. What's stronger today than in the past?
MR. GIBBS: I think what the President has been able to do through the policy of engagement is bring the P5-plus-1 to a point that it's not previously been. I think you saw what President Medvedev said on Wednesday. I think you saw the statements the past few days even from the Chinese about addressing -- that we needed to address the concerns of the Iranian nuclear program.
I don't believe that there's ever been as broad and as deep a consensus about addressing the concerns that we have right now. And I don't think the least of which -- look, I think what happened on Friday, the revelation of a facility that Iran had clearly long ago begun constructing, failed to live up to either its U.N. Security Council or its IAEA obligations that it had signed to let the world know that it had intended to construct a facility. I think we've made strong progress.
Q You cite President Medvedev's comment, but his comment was sometimes sanctions are necessary -- the Russians have voted for sanctions three times, so how is that a different change of policy?
MR. GIBBS: I think again -- I think we are in a position to address the Iranian nuclear program if the Iranians are unwilling to live up to their obligations, unlike we've ever been before.
Q Robert, I wanted to ask about Iran also, but specifically about the missile firings, the news of the day. You spoke of that as being part of a provocative pattern. What about the particular test that was done today was provocative? Elaborate on that if you would.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I mean, again, I think it continues a -- again, a pre-planned exercise but obviously provocative in nature. I don't think it was intended to be anything otherwise. Again, I think it reinforces the decision that was made not too long ago to change the focus of our missile defense to ensure the security of our forces, the security of our military bases and the security of our allies more directly by exactly the type of machinery that the Iranians were testing.
Q They say this is a deterrent -- you just don't buy that argument?
MR. GIBBS: I don't buy a lot of arguments.
. . .