. . .

QUESTION: Three years ago, we were excluding Iran and Syria from border security meetings on Iraq. They were absolutely shunned and they were not a part of any of -- you know, they were being actively pushed out of conversations on Iraq. Now, I mean, this is an obvious shift, and I guess I'm just trying to understand the extent to which U.S. policy is moving in that -- in a direction of a shift. And I'm wondering -- I mean, do you describe -- do you describe what's happening now as "engagement", as Gates, before he became Secretary of Defense, argued in a long paper about U.S. policy towards Iran? I mean, do you describe -- do you use the word "engagement" to describe it?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, I'll leave it to all of you scribes out there to write stories about shifts and the very dramatic shifts in American policy.

QUESTION: But do you use the word "engagement"?

MR. MCCORMACK: In what sense? Are we having meetings with the Iranians? Yes. We are -- yes, we are trying to engage them through the channel of Ambassador Crocker on the issue of security in Iraq, yes. We're trying -- we -- through that channel, we are seeking to understand whether or not Iran is going to play a positive role in Iraq's future.

They have in other cases; they have in the case of Afghanistan. So we know they're capable of it. And this channel with Ambassador Crocker is intended to determine what are the Iranian's intentions. And how do you measure that? You measure that by changes on the ground. You measure that by whether or not you see a decrease in the level of Iranian support for these EFP networks. You measure it by seeing whether there's a decrease in the level of support for these Shia militia death squads. So -- thus far, we haven't see any of that. Ambassador Crocker talked about the fact -- in fact, you have seen a rise in those kinds of activities. So that's the metric.

Our diplomatic engagement is only one aspect of trying to address these issues in Iraq. There's also a military aspect to it, which our military has made it very clear they are going to try to break up these networks. They're going to do what they can to prevent people who may be engaged in these activities from not engaging in them. And we've detained people, we have -- had some success in breaking up these networks, but there's still a lot more to do.

So we're going to engage on a variety of different fronts here. This is the State Department's part of that effort: to see if there are any possibilities and determine whether Iran sees it in their interest to promote greater strategic stability in Iraq. We'll see.

QUESTION: Sean, you said that --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, Matt.

QUESTION: -- you've seen Iran play a helpful role in Afghanistan. I thought that -- it was my understanding that you were seeing a trend the other way; that they were becoming unhelpful.

MR. MCCORMACK: They have, but previously. In the immediate aftermath of the overthrow of the Taliban, they did play a more positive role. And, in fact, we had a similar channel open between Ambassador Khalilzad, our then-ambassador in Kabul, and his Iranian counterpart. And, of course, there was the whole Bonn process where we had direct interaction with the -- with Iranian representatives about the formation of the Afghan Government. The result of that was President Karzai and the jirga and the election of this government. So that's what I was referring to.

They have, in the past, played that role. We know they're capable of it. You rightly point out that we have current concerns about what the IRGC and the Quds Force are doing, in terms of allowing -- at the very least, allowing arms to be shipped into the Taliban in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: But doesn't your past experience with -- on that issue color what's going on now in Iraq? Doesn't the experience now -- I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK: In what sense?

QUESTION: Is it really worth it? I mean, the Iranians have shown that they're not willing to play, even after maybe being helpfully -- helpful in the initial stages, but they're going to end up, you know, working against you.

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll see, Matt. I think we go in this -- go into these meetings that we have had with a very clear sense that Iran needs to prove through its action that it is going to play a positive role. But anyhow, words are great, we have plenty of words, we have lots of words from the Iranians about the fact that they want to see a more stable, secure Iraq. Well, let's see them do something about it.

QUESTION: Sean, but also on this call, there was a big focus on countering their hegemonic threat and -- I mean, so there are two messages going on: that you're seeking greater Arab support to counter the hegemonic threat of Iran --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I --

QUESTION: -- but also you're engaging them. I mean --

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah -- yes, the answer is: Iran is a primary sponsor of terror and a great source of instability in the Middle East. That's a problem for us. That's most immediately a problem for the states in the region, and they have an interest in seeing that Iran is not able to expand its activities that destabilize the region. So yes, we are going to talk about this wider context. I invited the -- I -- this is my invitation to talk about the wider context. I'd be happy to --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) setting up this, sort of, fight between the Arab states and Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: I will let the -- Iranian's neighbors talk about their own views of Iran. But I can tell you, just in a general way, that there is a healthy appreciation for the threat posed by Iran to the stability of the region, and also a healthy appreciation for the threat posed by Iran to those states who want to see a different kind of Middle East, who are engaged albeit at various stages in political and economic reforms that will result in a better future for their people.

Iran -- as we know it now, the regime -- is 180 degrees opposite; has a view 180 degrees opposite from where the rest of the world is going, in terms of the Middle East. None of that means that you cannot explore, as we're doing through the channel with Ambassador Crocker, whether or not there's some small area in which there is perhaps a mutual interest in a -- in preventing greater security instability in Iraq. That is what we are exploring through the channel that Ambassador Crocker has to his Iranian counterparts. And we'll see. We'll see in terms of Iran what sort of actions it takes. That also doesn't mean, just because you explore whether or not there is some small ground of overlap of mutual interests concerning security in Iraq, that you don't continue vigorous diplomacy to ensure that Iran isn't able to further destabilize other states throughout the Middle East.

QUESTION: It just seems like there's a lot of mixed messages going on. It doesn't leave a whole lot of -- a lot of -- it doesn't make it so attractive to our -- for our -- I mean, on the one hand, you're trying to argue that Iranian officials should sit down and work with U.S. officials on the U.S.'s biggest problem, which is Iraq; but on the other hand, the whole Gulf security dialogue has been talked about in terms of counter Iran, arms sales to -- you know, to counter Iran's influence. So how -- how would Iran agree then that we're going to be an honest partner --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think we as well as others believe that the leaders in Tehran are fully capable of cold-eyed calculation of what is in their interest and what is not in their interest. They'll make their own decisions in that regard, as will we.

The only -- the only thing about the Ryan Crocker channel is we're saying -- and they'll understand this -- is that perhaps there is some mutual interest in having a stable Iraq. the calculation is that the Iranians don't want an unstable, unsecure Iraq any more -- any more than any of other -- any of Iraq's other neighbors.

QUESTION: So ideally -- and I just want to summarize real quickly -- we want to move forward on both tracks: one, the track of getting Iran to sit down and work with us as partners in Iraq on security; and two, to get the rest of the Gulf states to sit down and work as partners in countering Iran. Both tracks will move forward. That's what our goal -- the U.S. goal is?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are going to -- there is -- we have -- we have an interest in allying ourselves and associating ourselves with those in the Middle East who want to see a different kind of Middle East, a better, more prosperous, secure, stable Middle East. That includes our friends, and I can go down the list.

Part of that -- part of that effort is ensuring that states like Iran and Syria, and their terror proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, aren't able to further expand their activities and further destabilize the region and take it in an entirely different direction. Believe me, the Iranian regime is fully capable of holding these two thoughts --

QUESTION: And so are you?

MR. MCCORMACK: And as are we -- as are our friends and neighbors.

QUESTION: Did you say the calculation is they do want a stable Iraq or that they do want an unstable Iraq?

MR. MCCORMACK: We assume that they would want a stable Iraq, that it's in their --

QUESTION: Why do you assume that? Everything that they've done has shown you that they want an unstable Iraq, they want a -- no?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm not going to get into their motivations, Matt. But long term, the fact of the matter is that Iran and Iraq are going to live next to one another. That isn't going to change.

QUESTION: So are Afghanistan and Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, exactly. So like I said, they have -- they are capable of this calculation. We've seen it previously in Afghanistan. So we know they can do it and we would assume that that same calculation would apply equally to Iraq.

QUESTION: But one could argue that they do want an unstable Iraq because that would allow them to go in and take control of parts of the south, as many have warned.

MR. MCCORMACK: Mm-hmm. And one can assume as well that our forces as well as other forces are going to do everything they can to see that the Iranians and others aren't able to undermine the progress -- progress on political as well as other fronts that's being made in Iraq.

QUESTION: Or you might also entertain the argument that they might stop this once there aren't several hundred thousand U.S. troops on countries on each side of their borders, right?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, you know, Matt, again, I will let you talk to them about what their possible motivations might be.

QUESTION: And -- I wasn't on the -- I missed the conference call, but --

MR. MCCORMACK: Missed the conference call, missed the gaggle --

QUESTION: There was no gaggle.

MR. MCCORMACK: Yesterday.

QUESTION: But it's been a long time since I've heard the word "hegemony" or variations of it used in the State Department briefing room. Is there real U.S. concern that Iran is, you know --

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't use the word "hegemony."

QUESTION: No, I know. But it obviously came from someone who was speaking for the Department. Is there a hegemonic --

MR. MCCORMACK: We -- well, Matt, you know, I think you know by now in terms of folks that work at the State Department, these are people with high SAT scores, so they are fully capable of using properly words like "hegemony" and "hegemonic."

. . .