remarks bY Press Secretary robert gibbs on UNSCR 1929
THE WHITE HOUSE
June 9, 2010
Excerpts
. . .
MR. GIBBS: Take us away.
Q Thank you. On the U.N. sanctions vote, what is it about this round of sanctions that the administration thinks will get Iran to obey this time after they’ve defied --
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me say a few things that I think you heard the President speak about in his remarks. First and foremost, this is the most comprehensive and most robust set of international sanctions placed to date on Iran. I think these sanctions broaden the scope of what Iran has had to deal with. It sends a message from the international community about its commitment to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and sends a message to international businesses that the price of doing business with Iran will be exceedingly high.
As the President has said on a number of occasions and reiterated today, that sanctions are not a magic bullet. We will continue to put -- through this and other means, put pressure on Iran. I think you see the degree to which Iran has sought to fight these sanctions as a measure of what they feel like the impact of these will be. We continue to seek a diplomatic solution and we will continue to hold them responsible for the obligations that they’ve made to the international community.
Q Is the administration disappointed in Brazil and Turkey for voting against the sanctions? I mean, does that --
MR. GIBBS: I think it is not altogether surprising -- I don't think their votes are altogether surprising. I think -- obviously we've had a slightly different approach over the past many weeks. I don't want to characterize why they voted the way they did, but I think there was a demonstrated and forceful international commitment to ensuring that not living up to your obligations has severe consequences, and that's what the U.N. Security Council did today.
. . .
Q On Iran, the Iranian President called the resolution valueless and likened it to a used handkerchief that should be thrown away. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR. GIBBS: I would just say this. Again, look, I think anybody that wakes up -- nobody should wake up and be surprised about the outlandish rhetoric that comes from him on a near daily basis. Understand this: They fought what happened in the Security Council -- they fought it today tooth and nail, and they have fought this tooth and nail for weeks. They understand both what this means in demonstrating a greater international commitment and a forceful international commitment. They understand what -- as I said a minute ago, what this means for international businesses doing business in that country.
Iran today has greater sanctions placed upon it, finds itself more isolated than it ever has been before, and it finds the coalition aligned against its pursuits broader than it’s ever been before. And I think that's important.
Q But given that rhetoric, are you getting any indication that the leadership in Tehran is getting ready to change its confrontational stance?
MR. GIBBS: Well, that's -- we will see as a result of some of these sanctions, understanding there are other steps that we could take with additional countries, there are other steps that we could take unilaterally, as we pursue a diplomatic solution.
. . .
Q Okay. In terms of the Iran sanctions, the three previous regimes since 2006 of sanctions were unanimous votes. Without -- I know you don’t want to get into why Turkey and Brazil and Lebanon voted the way they did, but what reason can you think of that this would not be a unanimous vote as opposed to the three previous votes?
MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s hard to answer that question without getting into why -- the individual reasons that they did. But, Jake, I don’t think anybody -- if you have a sanctions regime that you can tighten, I don’t think anybody would say, well, don’t tighten that unless you get everybody to say we should tighten it.
Q No, I'm not --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, that’s -- your question; my answer. Again, I think that regardless of 12 votes or more, we have in place now a stronger sanctions regime that’s resulted in a country that’s more isolated based on a broader international commitment than we’ve ever seen.
Q That’s my precise point -- it’s not more isolated, it’s less isolated.
MR. GIBBS: How so?
Q Well, the three previous votes were unanimous and this one was not.
MR. GIBBS: Well, understand, Jake, the -- I don’t know whether the -- are you saying the 15 members that voted on each of those times were the same? Because obviously there’s --
Q No, they weren’t --
MR. GIBBS: Right,
Q -- they weren’t, but --
MR. GIBBS: -- there’s 10 people that rotate from that --
Q Iran can look at the vote and say, we are less isolated now than we were last time they voted on sanctions.
MR. GIBBS: Sixteen months ago, when the President took office, the resolution that was passed today could not have passed the United Nations Security Council. We would not have gotten Russia. We would not have gotten China. So there is a broader international coalition that is aligned against the pursuit of a nuclear weapon by the Iranian government unlike we have seen since this President has been in office.
Look, people can debate 12 votes, 15 votes, whatever. The bottom line is there is a greater sanctions regime on the government of Iran today than there was yesterday, than there has been at any other point. And that’s what’s seemingly important.
. . .
Q Throughout the entire diplo-speak that we went through when we traveled the world on Iran, the President regularly would say United Nations sanctions were one part of an entire sanction. How soon do you expect something out of the EU? How soon do you expect sort of a coalition --
MR. GIBBS: I'd put you to the EU on that. Look, the Treasury Department announced in February -- January or February, I forget which month -- additional unilateral sanctions. And certainly we evaluate those on --
Q The administration is still pursuing, they would like to get --
MR. GIBBS: As is Congress.
Q -- stronger sanctions -- no, I'm talking about other countries uniting to do even stronger sanctions. Is that --
MR. GIBBS: That is certainly one course that we could take, yes.
Q No, no, you said that’s one course you could take. Is that a course that the administration is pursuing now?
MR. GIBBS: It is -- yes.
Q During that famous debate with Hillary Clinton on the issue of engagement and direct talks related -- does the President have any regret that he never had any direct engagement with anybody on any level in Iran?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we sought to engage directly. I think it is very safe to say, Chuck, that without -- again, we could -- what passed today, at the beginning of this administration, we all know would not have passed -- right? Would not have gotten through the veto process in the Security Council, most likely. And we certainly -- I know, as we met with our Russian and Chinese counterparts, as you said, throughout the diplo-speak, everybody was looking at the diplo-speak to see if the Russians or the Chinese would veto those sanctions, right? Moving that process along through our willingness to engage is what broadened the coalition to the point where the toughest sanctions that have been applied to the country of Iran are in place.
Q Do you believe these are -- you call them the toughest sanctions the U.N. has done, and I go back to this because it would seem to be an acknowledgement by the President, by the administration, a few months ago that what you were going to get through the United Nations was going to be adequate because you were going to get Russia and China onboard, but in order to really get stronger, you were going to have to go to other nations.
MR. GIBBS: You certainly may have to. But understand this, whether it’s the number of votes or -- I don’t think anybody in, to use your phrase, in the diplo-speak world would say, let’s not tighten those sanctions, let’s not put a sanction regime on the country of Iran that is greater than what they face today. That’s what we did. Are they a magic bullet? No. Only as a result of a number of initiatives are we ultimately going to make --
Q I'm trying to buttonhole this a little bit and I apologize if it sounds like you may think I'm asking the same question, but how long --
MR. GIBBS: That never happens.
Q How long is this attempt to get other sanctions basically going to --
MR. GIBBS: Let me get a --
Q How long of a process is --
MR. GIBBS: Let me get a better understanding with NSC so that we --
. . .
Q Do you expect this to be the last word from the United Nations Security Council on Iran, meaning these are the toughest sanctions you can get and they’re the ones that are going to achieve the most --
MR. GIBBS: I can talk to the NSC guys on that. I think this represents, again, a broad coalition that has placed the toughest series of sanctions ever on the country of Iran.
Q To those who might wonder if in the process of obtaining yes votes from China and Russia you had to water them down, you would say what?
MR. GIBBS: Well, if you didn’t have yes votes we wouldn’t have any sanctions. It’s a fairly moot argument. Again, I’d go back to where we were not just the first day of the administration -- I think certainly into the fall -- what’s going to happen, where are these two countries going to come out on this resolution. Vetoing this resolution would mean no additional sanctions. Because of our willingness to engage, because of the President’s personal willingness to get heavily involved in the diplomacy of this, and through the efforts of Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Rice, Deputy Secretary of State Burns, we broadened the coalition that allowed the toughest sanctions to be put in place.
Q As for Congress, now that you’ve achieved this at the Security Council, do you still want Congress to hold off on its approach to sanctions, or are you now more --
MR. GIBBS: Let me talk to -- I don’t know the answer to that from Legislative Affairs.
. . .