. . .

QUESTION: P.J., on Iran and the meeting on Thursday, what - aside from the question about sanctions, which I - as I understand, is not immediately the subject of discussion at that meeting, what about the incentives that might be offered to Iran to change its behavior?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I don't think it's a matter of incentive. I think it's a matter of obligation. Iran has obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty. It has failed to answer the questions that have been presented in a variety of fora, including at the IAEA. So it's really - the key here is not the incentives that we would provide to Iran; the key is that Iran has to come forward, answer the questions, and address the concerns of the international community.

If it does that, if it satisfies these concerns, as Secretary Clinton said many times, including yesterday on the Sunday shows, we acknowledge that under the NPT, Iran has certain rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. It's time for Iran to meet its responsibilities. Obviously, this is a central concern - not the only one, but a central concern of the United States and the international community.

Should Iran come to the meeting on Thursday and prepared to engage seriously, prepared to address those concerns, you could envision over time that there would be benefits that accrue to Iran from that. But first and foremost, this is about the responsibilities that Iran has.

QUESTION: So there are no incentives, per se? You're saying they could just have their normal rights under that - in the NPT, but under NPT --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, to - I mean, to the extent that the Iranian people want to see a more normal relationship with other countries in the region, the United States, and the international community, that opportunity is available to Iran.

But part of the process of getting to whatever benefits might accrue from a normal relationship, Iran has to meet its responsibilities. And obviously, on Thursday, we'll be looking to see, does Iran come to the meeting prepared to engage seriously? Are they prepared to open up their program to effective inspection? As Secretary Clinton said yesterday, it's not a matter of just having them assert that the program is for peaceful purposes; they now have to prove it.

QUESTION: Is it at all possible that it is for peaceful purposes, and is there any evidence out there that shows it could be?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, if you have a peaceful program, why are you hiding it? If you have a peaceful program, why are you burrowing it underground? As we've outlined last week in front of the IAEA, Iran, as a member of the NPT, had the obligation to report that facility to the IAEA and failed to do so till recently.

QUESTION: What about Israel? If they - they haven't had to go through these IAEA inspections at all.

MR. CROWLEY: I'll leave it to Israel to explain its own obligations.

Kim.

QUESTION: How much - how hopeful are you that Iran will respond positively to the offer of engagement on Thursday, when just yesterday, they tested those missiles? And even though they say that it was a long-planned test, it certainly sends a rather defiant message to the international community.

MR. CROWLEY: It's not for me to give Iran advice. I mean, they perhaps are drawing a page from the North Korea playbook that hasn't worked out terribly well for North Korea. And in fact, if you use that corollary, because of the provocative actions of North Korea earlier this year, you find the international community completely solid in its opposition to what Iran has done, and facing the most significant sanctions ever against North Korea.
So I think it's time for Iran to come clean. It has taken actions that are in violation of its obligations, and it's time for North Korea to come to the table, engage seriously, enter into a process by which our - the concerns of the international community can be addressed. And we'll find out what it's prepared to do on Thursday.

Jill.

QUESTION: P.J., can you give us some detail of how this is going to unfold? Do you know who the Iranian - who will be leading the Iranian delegation? They meet in Geneva. You know, what's the program? How does it --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think - obviously, I think those arrangements were being done by Javier Solana, and I'd probably defer to him to explain how this is going to work.

QUESTION: But give a little bit of detail, because, you know, before, there have been meetings where they didn't show up with the highest-level representation. Are you sure that --

MR. CROWLEY: And you're right. I mean, this is an opportunity. We've set up the meeting based on the response that Iran gave earlier this month, and we'll see what happens on Thursday. We don't go into this with any preconditions, but we also don't go into this with any preconceived notions. Iran has prevaricated in the past. It could do so again. That's why we're having the meeting.

Bob.

QUESTION: And do you see this as a one-shot deal? In other words, if they stick to their position that they'll talk to the IAEA about their program, but not to others, not to you, is that --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, if it is a one-shot deal, then Iran is going to face additional pressure and probably additional sanctions from the international community.

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton yesterday described how the Administration is looking for broadening and deepening sanctions. Can you give us any idea of the outlines of what that might entail?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think Secretary Gates - I mean, let's have the meeting first. I mean, I understand this - it's like the media equivalent of "Are we there yet?"

Let's have the meeting, and then from this meeting we'll learn whether Iran is prepared to engage seriously, whether they're willing to enter into a process, whether they're willing to open up their programs for meaningful international inspections so that we - and provide information affirmatively, which is their obligation under the NPT, so that then, in fact, we can learn things, address the concerns that we have, answer the questions that were raised, and then there will be potentially positive actions that could accrue from that.

By the same token, if they continue to deflect their obligations, if they continue to fail to answer the questions, then, obviously, there will be implications and consequences to that as well. So I think we have to get to this first meeting. We hope that it will be the start of a process by which we could address the concerns that the international community has. This is an opportunity for Iran, but, obviously, it has failed to take advantage of opportunities like this in the past.

QUESTION: Beyond, though, addressing the obligations, as you said, it seems like the key task for the United States and its allies is to somehow convince Iran that its security would be improved without nuclear weapons, without the pursuit of possible nuclear weapons or that capability --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean --

QUESTION: -- rather than the opposite, that they would actually be better off without these weapons?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I'm not sure. I first and foremost would bat the ball back in Iran's court. Iran has affirmative obligations under the NPT. It has affirmative obligations, reporting requirements, as part of the IAEA. And it has steadfastly failed to live up to those obligations for a lengthy period of time. So first and foremost, if Iran wants the respect of the international community, it has to behave as a member in good standing of the international community and meet its obligations.

Now, that said, clearly, in its broader calculus, certainly we believe that Iran's interests lie in a more integrated relationship with the region, a more normal relationship with the international community, including the United States. Should Iran be willing to enter into substantive dialogue on the nuclear issue - which is a core concern of ours, but on broader issues - then I think we can have the opportunity to have that kind of extensive conversation with Iran. But we'll see what happens on Thursday.

QUESTION: Can I follow up with a non-Iran question?

QUESTION: I have an Iran question. Iran - I'll do Iran - Iran. (Laughter.) Shayla Bezdrob with Fox News.

MR. CROWLEY: Iran for $200.

QUESTION: The Secretary of State said yesterday that Iran must present convincing evidence at this Geneva meeting. What is the - what does the U.S. accept as convincing evidence?

MR. CROWLEY: I'm not sure that I have a particular formula in mind. Clearly --

QUESTION: What would convince the United States?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have concerns about specific facilities. We have concerns about specific programs. We have concerns about specific individuals. The real question is what can - Iran has to come forward with compelling information, open up their facilities to meaningful inspection, carry on an extended conversation and affirmatively address the concerns that we have. I can - in a different context, someone said we'll know it when we see it.

I mean, and really at this point, we have major concerns. Iran says certain things, but they have - it has yet to provide the information, the perspective that gives us confidence that what they're saying is actually true. So this is about Iran coming forward once and for all, putting everything on the table, and letting the international community understand what the intentions of its programs are, how to explain activities that we have seen, including those that we have unearthed and announced most recently.
And so this will require an extended process. It's what the President has said, in that here, we're in the middle of the stocktaking phase. At some point towards the end of the year, we'll be able to calculate how much progress have we even made, and we'll draw some conclusions from that. But it is really for Iran to come forward and show us that it's willing to sit down, in an extended conversation, over a period of time, and provide the kind of prospective information and access that we have long demanded.

QUESTION: But that - P.J., on that timeline you just made reference to, does that mean that the U.S. would not be interested in actually moving ahead with additional sanctions until the end of the year?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we have a dual-track approach. We have sanctions now, and based on the progress that we see, as Secretary Clinton said, we'll see this meeting on Thursday, we'll continue to talk to our partners in the P-5+1 process about the implications of these meetings. So - but our dual-track approach has both engagement as a - as one foundational piece, and pressure and sanctions as another.

QUESTION: What do you define by additional sanctions beyond that process?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, again, as we've indicated, we're prepared to take additional steps. We'll see what Iran is willing to do on - for its part.

QUESTION: But not until the end of the year?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, let's get to the end of the week, then we'll see.

Jill.

QUESTION: But specifically on that, President Sarkozy is being very specific that by - if there's no answer by the end of the year or some movement, that they should move toward sanctions. I mean, he's being very specific.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, and the President said the same - something very similar, which is, by the end of the year, we'll be able to judge what is - what Iran is or is not willing to do, and we'll draw some implications from that.

. . .

QUESTION: Can I just return to an earlier point? You mentioned about Iran - the missile launches. There are a series of missile launches, apparently long-range missile launches. Do you think that this is helpful in the --

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: Well, particularly with a couple days coming ahead toward these talks --

MR. CROWLEY: No.

QUESTION: -- how concerned is the U.S. about this?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we did address this earlier in the briefing. It's not helpful at all. It's - to the extent that Iran wants to continue to act more like a police state or a military state than a constructive player in the region, it just will further isolate Iran and it will - you'll continue to see greater - a greater international consensus for additional steps, including sanctions, against Iran. So this kind of provocative behavior did not work for North Korea, and it's unlikely to work for Iran.

. . .