. . .

QUESTION: Sean, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has said some really pessimistic things about the current state of the draft resolution on Iran. How do you respond to him?

MR. MCCORMACK Well, here's where we stand right now. We have a draft resolution that has been circulated among the P-5 countries. We've worked very closely with the so-called P-3, the UK and France, on this draft. We fully support it. We expect that there are probably going to be changes along the way. That is just the nature of multilateral negotiations and these UN Security Council resolutions. So I think there's another meeting either involving perm reps or experts today. They're going to continue the discussions. I expect these are going to continue for several days.

At a point where you have agreement among the P-5, you're going to have wider circulation of the resolution among all the members of the Security Council. There's going to be another process whereby everybody has comments on it, they get instructions from capitals, and then we're going to have a vote. And when that vote arrives, we believe that we are going to have a good, strong Chapter 7, Article 41 resolution that imposes sanctions on Iran for failure to comply with previous Security Council resolutions.

Now, we know that the Russians have some concerns about the tactics and concerns about applying too much pressure too quickly on the Iranians. We certainly understand their point of view. They have -- there's a certain logic that goes along with that and they have clearly expressed that to us as well as others. But the fact of the matter is they have -- the Russian Government along with the other members of the P-5+1 have agreed to this diplomatic way forward, this process that we see unfolding right now. This was agreed to in meetings going from London to Vienna to Paris, then up in New York several meetings involving the ministers themselves.

So we expect that there is going to be some negotiating. These are tough issues. These are serious issues so I would expect that you're going to see countries taking it seriously. You're going to see ministers comment on it. But at the end of the day, we are going to get a resolution. We're confident we're going to get a resolution that does what the previous resolution said it would do and that is impose sanctions on Iran for its failure to comply. And this resolution will send a strong, clear message to Iran that it has to change its behavior. There is always another pathway that is available to the Iranian regime but, unfortunately, they are taking us down the pathway of sanctions and we believe that that is where we're going to end up once this process unfolds.

QUESTION: Do you want them to stop work on Bushehr?

MR. MCCORMACK We believe that this is an issue for the Russians, Bushehr. This work has been ongoing for some time. In the context of this discussion about the Security Council resolution, we believe that this is not going to be an obstacle to getting a resolution. I can't tell you what that final -- what the final language might look at that deals either specifically or in general with projects like Bushehr, but we believe that this is something that we can work on, something we can work with.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary discuss during the weekend the Russians' opposition to various aspects of the resolution, what the logic of various tactics as you call it?

MR. MCCORMACK Right.

QUESTION: Did this come up?

MR. MCCORMACK Yeah, sure. Absolutely. She had these discussions. She talked about -- she talked mainly about North Korea and a variety of other issues when she stopped off in Moscow. She had meetings not only with President Putin but his entire national security council. She had dinner with them. It was actually the birthday of several of the members of the security council. So they had the ability to have a wide-ranging discussion about a variety of issues.

She met Sergei Lavrov. She met with Defense Secretary Ivanov. So she met with all the national security team. They talked about Iran. We have a pretty good understanding of where the Russian Government is on the issue of Iran and specifically on the issue of a sanctions resolution. And we believe that we're going to -- we are going to get to the point through the process of multilateral negotiations within the Security Council where we have a good, strong resolution that is passed by the Security Council.

QUESTION: A good strong resolution with teeth where you have sort of graduated sanctions or -- I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK The whole idea and logic of this strategy has been that we gradually increase the diplomatic pressure on Iran over a period of time while maintaining the unity of this core group, the P-5+1, which was assembled through the hard work and diplomacy of Secretary Rice beginning a year and a half ago. And the idea has been that we want to get a change in Iran's behavior. We acknowledge their right under the NPT to have a civilian nuclear program, but we, the world, the United States included, wants them to be able to exercise that right in a way that gives objective guarantees to the rest of the world that they're not going to try to use that program to develop a nuclear weapon, which is what we and others believe they're trying to do right now.

So we have gone through this process over the course of the past year and a half. You can really chart it back to the Secretary's first trip to Europe after taking over as Secretary of State. So we have had a lot of discussions about this process and specifically where various countries stand about the strategy as well as the tactics. So I think we have a full appreciation for where Russia is. We respect and take into account their concerns. But the net result I think at the end of this process that we are watching unfold now and I think it's going to unfold over the coming days and weeks, so we're going to get a Chapter 7, Article 41 resolution and that it's a good -- it'll be a good, strong resolution.

QUESTION: With Bushehr as the exception?

MR. MCCORMACK Again, we don't think that that's going to be an obstacle to getting a resolution. I'm not going to try to comment right now on what the final outcome is and how specifically it might be dealt with in the context of a resolution. But we don't think it's going to be an obstacle to getting a resolution.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, Sean, when you say this is an issue for the Russians, does that mean you're basically ceding to the Russians --

MR. MCCORMACK No, no.

QUESTION: -- that they can do whatever they -- you're not going to place restrictions on what they do?

MR. MCCORMACK No -- it's -- when I said this an issue for the Russians, this is an issue that the Russians have raised. It's a concern for them. Of course, if it is a concern for them and it's something -- that is something that they want to raise, of course we're going to listen to what they have to say, as are the other members of the P-5+1. But we don't think it's mutually exclusive in terms of dealing with that particular discrete issue in the context of this resolution and getting a good strong resolution that sends the message that we intend to send to the Iranians.

QUESTION: And do you want the Russians not to provide fuel, even under their current agreement to take it back?

MR. MCCORMACK As it stands right now, they have an agreement to construct the Bushehr reactors and to provide fuel with fuel take-back provisions. We'll see. I don't think the contract is actually -- the contract actually calls for them to deliver any fuel before I think this coming spring. So it's not really -- it's not an immediate issue that needs to be -- that you need to have a answer to -- a final answer to in the next several days or few weeks. But I would expect that this is -- would be a point of discussion among the P-5+1 as well as the Security Council as a whole. And we'll see what the outcome is. But as I said, we don't think it would be an obstacle to getting a good strong resolution.

Sylvie.

QUESTION: Russia and Kazakhstan announced they are going to open --

QUESTION: Can we stay on Iran?

QUESTION: Yes. It's -- well, it's linked.

MR. MCCORMACK She's getting there.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK Give her time. She's getting there.

QUESTION: They are going to open an enrichment facility for countries like Iran or other countries which to buy some uranium for civilian uses. So do you think it's a good thing that they are going to --

MR. MCCORMACK I haven't seen this specific proposal, I have to tell you.

QUESTION: Do you --

MR. MCCORMACK Yeah -- no, and I certainly don't dispute that there is an announcement. I haven't seen this -- the announcement or the specifics of it. But in general, President Bush has actually made some proposals in this regard whereby countries who want to develop civilian nuclear power, and we think it is important given the geopolitics of energy, that it is important that countries look at civilian nuclear power as an alternative to providing energy for growing populations, growing economies. And we have talked about the idea of fuel assurances. So the idea is that you have development of civilian nuclear power and you can assure those countries have an interest in that, that they will be able to get the fuel to power these reactors.

Now to address some of the proliferation concerns, what we have talked about and this -- we've talked about this with Director General ElBaradei, as well as other countries around the world. Bob Joseph is -- Under Secretary Bob Joseph is deeply involved in this program. Taking out of the equation the fuel cycle, because that's where you run into trouble in terms of questions arising whether or not a country's civilian nuclear program is in fact truly just a civilian nuclear program. So the idea is that you would in some form, and there are various ideas about how you do this, assure countries that they will be able to get fuel.

There is, to my knowledge, no shortage of nuclear fuel right now in the world for civilian nuclear power plants. Now, of course, if you expand the number there's going to be greater demand and you might have the need for more fuel. So we are talking to countries about how exactly you do that. You don't necessarily need every country to engage in reprocessing or enriching uranium. But along with that would come an obligation on those countries or groups of countries or consortiums that do provide fuel that they -- other countries that have a civilian program will have access to that fuel at a price where they can have a rationale expectation of what that will be. So that's sort of a long answer to generally how we view the topic. But we'll look into it and see if we have any particular comment on this.

QUESTION: Okay, because they say that they will be able to provide uranium, enriched uranium as soon as 2007. So I wanted to know if the timing is good for --

MR. MCCORMACK We'll look into this specifically. And when you say enriched uranium, it's also important to note that there is a big difference between enriched uranium and the enrichment level that is required for civilian nuclear power plants and what's needed for a nuclear weapon. It's a big difference there.

Yeah. Nicholas.

QUESTION: Sean, just to clarify, perhaps I didn't hear earlier, but are you working off the U.S. draft resolution or the European draft resolution in the Security Council?

MR. MCCORMACK Well, there is a draft I think that the Europeans have put forward.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK We have been working with them from the very beginning on that and we fully support that draft. We look forward to its adoption. I understand that there will probably be changes along the way, but we fully support this draft.

QUESTION: Because there was a draft that you had put forward, right?

MR. MCCORMACK I'm sure that there are lots of drafts. That everybody had their own draft and various elements in it. But this is a draft that the Europeans have put forward and like I said, we have fully supported that effort from the very beginning.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The reported comments of Minister Lavrov suggested that he felt that the draft being circulated somehow represented an abrogation of a prior agreement among the world powers. Has that sentiment been expressed to us by the Russians?

MR. MCCORMACK Not that I'm aware -- not that I'm aware of.

QUESTION: And just to clarify your remarks of a few moments ago where you said that the Russians had in fact clearly expressed to the United States the logic behind their objections that, as you put it, too much pressure might be placed on Iranians --

MR. MCCORMACK Too much pressure too quickly, right.

QUESTION: Yeah. What is the logic of that objection? I don't -- in the case of North Korea, the placing of too much pressure on that regime too soon is buttressed by fears that the regime might collapse. What is the logic behind the fear of placing too much pressure too soon on Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK I'll let them explain their position. But, look, you can all share the same objective. We all have the same objective here and you can -- different countries will have different approaches in terms of the diplomatic tactics that you use to achieve the shared goal, the shared end. They have talked about their -- some of their hesitations or reservations in the past, and we've talked openly with them about it both in public and private. You've heard this before.

But at the end of the day, we all know that we do have an agreement on moving forward on this pathway, going down the pathway of gradually escalating the diplomatic pressure, the stage we're at right now, a Chapter 7, Article 41, resolution. We're going to -- I'm sure there's going to be negotiating over what the specifics are in that resolution and certainly discussion about what might follow next. We would hope the next step would be that the Iranian regime would see clear that there is a united international front, the diplomatic pressure is going to increase on them, it will be inexorable if they continue down this current pathway, and that they'll see their way clear to finding a way to accept the negotiation option.

QUESTION: Is the fear that they'll withdraw from the NPT if too much pressure is put on them too soon? I just don't understand the logic that you have referred to.

MR. MCCORMACK You've -- again, James, I think they're probably in the best position to explain their point of view. I think that they have talked about that as one of their concerns, their concerns about inspectors being allowed to continually be present in Iran. So they can better explain it, but those are some of the concerns that they've talked about.

Let's -- we'll move it around. We'll come back to you guys. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. The Russian already said that the Bushehr facility will be ready for next November, November 2007. My question is what's your position regarding excluding this specific case from the new resolution?

MR. MCCORMACK Well, that was a little bit of what --

QUESTION: Some of --

MR. MCCORMACK -- the folks in the front row here were asking about. And the answer is the same. We believe that we are going to be able to deal with this issue in the context of a resolution. There's going to be a lot of discussion about it, but we don't think it will be an obstacle to getting a good, strong resolution that we can fully support.

. . .