. . .

QUESTION: P.J., is it correct that United States has prepared the draft of the sanctions towards Iran and is ready to distribute it to the United Nations?

MR. CROWLEY: I don't think that's correct. Obviously, this week, we had a number of very productive conversations in Europe with various countries that share our concerns about the situation in Iran. We are working to develop our ideas on how to proceed on this pressure track and - but this is a process I think that will take some time to develop.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on the North Koreans?

QUESTION: Can we just stick with Iran a second?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Any reaction to the Senate vote on Iran sanctions, please?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, Congress understands our objectives and we look forward to continuing to work with them. As this legislation goes through conference, I think we note that the unanimous consent on Senate Bill 2799 reflects a shared frustration with Iran's lack of engagement. Our goals remain to change Iran's decision making on its nuclear program, to keep our international coalition together so that Iran sees clearly the unity it faces, and to maintain the President's flexibility going forward. So we hope to work with Congress to ensure that measures eventually adopted do not penalize countries that are working with us to advance these shared goals.

QUESTION: And earlier, the State Department - am I not correct - had urged the Senate to hold back? Are you now urging them to pause before they move forward with the conference?

MR. CROWLEY: No. I mean, I think obviously, in both the House and Senate, you've had very strong statements of concern about Iran. We share those concerns. And we expect to work constructively with conferees as they work on the final version of this legislation.

. . .

QUESTION: Iran's foreign minister told Reuters in an interview in Davos that the Geneva proposal on sending its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing and then use in the Tehran research reactor was still possible, that it - quote - "still can be on the table." From the Administration's point of view, is that deal now dead?

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Is it - or is it - so it's still on the table?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it's still on the table. I mean, go back to the fall when we first advanced this as a confidence-building measure to work cooperatively with Iran, with the international community, to provide Iran with the fuel that it needed for the research reactor. The first response from Iran was a positive one. The second response from Iran, regrettably, was negative. But we still think that is a fair opportunity for Iran. We think it's good for Iran and it would help begin to address some of our concerns about certain elements of its nuclear program. And as far as I know, the offer is still on the table if Iran - and the offer is there for Iran to say yes.

QUESTION: And just to be clear, so that nobody's expectations get raised about this, to your knowledge, is there any active discussion with the Iranians by the United States or any of its P-5+1 partners about that offer?

MR. CROWLEY: I mean, there have been some discussions on mechanism through which that deal could be implemented. But as far as I know, it is Tehran that has said no, or Tehran that has tried to renegotiate the offer. And as Secretary Clinton and others have said, we have no plans to amend it.

QUESTION: And - but to your knowledge, there haven't been any discussions about this lately, correct?

MR. CROWLEY: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: And then, last thing, have you seen any indications from the Iranians that they have any interest in actually returning to the deal as it was originally agreed?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, to the extent that the Iranian foreign minister leaves open the possibility for further discussions on this, he knows the address of the IAEA, and it is the appropriate forum under - through which further discussions could be - could move forward.

. . .