. . .
QUESTION: Tom, I assume you saw the Iranian president's remarks challenging the UN Security Council, critical of the U.S. and Britain. There's been no response that I know of from the White House. Do you want to take it on and say something?
MR. CASEY: Well, look, I think the main thing here is to keep the focus where it should be. And the focus should be on the fact that Iran has until August 31st to meet a deadline set by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1696 for it to come into compliance with the demands of the international community, the longstanding demands of the international community for Iran to cease all uranium enrichment activity, to take the opportunity, the positive opportunity given to it by the P-5+1 and the international community to move forward in a way that would allow them to peacefully develop nuclear power, but that would end the possible threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.
There's still time for them to do it and it's unfortunate, I think, that what we're seeing instead is continued statements of defiance and continued rejection of what is not only the will of the international community, but is in the interests of the Iranian people as well.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Oh, I can ask --
MR. CASEY: Do a follow-up, sure.
QUESTION: Again, this -- clearly, would be something in a statement at the White House, but I don't think they've said anything. The Iranian president is also challenging President Bush to a debate. Is that a good idea?
MR. CASEY: Well, Barry, again, I'll let the White House respond on behalf of the President. Again, I think this is a distraction and I also think it's somewhat odd for the president of a country that represses all debate within its own society to be talking about free and open exchange of ideas. What I think we'd very much like to see and what I think the people of Iran deserve would be a chance for they themselves to have free and open discussions of ideas, views, and opinions within their own society. And that would be something, I think, that the Iranian Government might want to look to.
Yeah, James.
QUESTION: Earlier this month, Under Secretary Burns said flat out that if the Iranians fail to meet the Security Council condition of suspending their uranium enrichment program, that we will have a resolution passed in the month of September that imposes some kind of sanctions on the Iranians. He said that flat out in a discussion with NPR, August 21st.
MR. CASEY: Not that you checked.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: Yeah. I don't want you to tell me you're unfamiliar with the statement. You've -- the State Department since then has put out its own statement saying that the Iranian response falls far short of meeting that condition. Therefore, I wonder if the State Department stands behind Under Secretary Burns's prediction that we will see sanctions in a resolution passed by the end of the month of September by the Security Council.
MR. CASEY: Well, James, certainly, the resolution specifies that if Iran fails to meet the deadline of August 31st, that the next steps are sanctions under Article 41 of Chapter 7. And that's fully what we expect to happen. I'm not going to stand here and tell you I'm going to give you the precise date at which that'll occur. I tend to agree with my friend John Bolton that anyone making predictions on the specific timing of resolutions usually is doomed to failure. But I do think it will be quick. I do think it will be something that we will see action on in the near term and in that sense, I'd certainly stand by what Under Secretary Burns has said.
QUESTION: Can you address whispers to the effect that there are -- that the Administration -- there are two camps in the Administration: those who are pushing for an aggressive first round of sanctions that would target dual-use technologies and financial networks and some who are favoring a somewhat gentler approach that would start out the first round of sanctions with something like travel restrictions and so forth.
MR. CASEY: Well, James, look, I certainly am not going to talk about internal discussions within the Administration. I think the one thing that is clear is that we are united internally within this Administration and certainly in our cooperative efforts with the P-5+1 to move forward under the terms of 1696. And again, I think what's important for people to remember is that the Iranians have an opportunity here not just to avoid sanctions, but to receive some benefit to do what's in the interest of their people and their continued defiance of the will of the international community puts them in the position where frankly they will be subject to sanctions. And this certainly will have an impact on the country. How fast and which ones and what timing and all that, I'm going to leave that to the Security Council when and if we get to the 31st deadline and don't see, as we don't expect at this point, a positive response.
QUESTION: Last one, if you will.
MR. CASEY: Sure.
QUESTION: Under Secretary Burns in that same interview said that the sanctions will get progressively tougher on the Iranians if there isn't any compliance. Is that what you expect a gradual game plan in the Security Council?
MR. CASEY: Well, I suspect that we're first of all going to have a serious discussion in the Council after the deadline is passed and we'll move forward. Obviously, you know, we'll take this step by step. We may take another shot at a resolution that puts sanctions forward. The exact nature of that and whether it will require additional steps or not, you know, we'll just have to wait and see. Again, the most important thing here, the game plan here and the goal here is not to impose sanctions. The goal here is to change Iranian behavior, and to change Iranian behavior in a way that not only satisfies the concerns of the international community about Iran's potential developments of a nuclear weapon, but also ultimately advances the interest of the Iranian people themselves. There is a definite possibility here that the P-5+1 put forward that would be a win for the Iranian people and would be a win for the international community. Unfortunately, the Iranian leadership at this point appears to be more interested in continuing defiance and continuing rejection of what should be in their country's own best interest.
. . .