... QUESTION: And - but you don't mention any of the major - any of the sort of most salient issues on foreign ministers' agendas these days. Don't mention Syria, you don't mention Iran. What's the purpose in getting all these folks together if they're not going to address some of the most immediately pressing issues like those? Or do you expect them to discuss those issues, too; it's just not part of the formal agenda?

 

MS. NULAND: Well, we certainly expect that in the Secretary's bilateral meetings with individual ministers, and perhaps even in the larger sessions, all of the hot topics that foreign ministers from these countries are dealing with will come up. It is not, as you said, part of the formal agenda. This is an economically focused agenda. But even all the economic issues are ones that are at the top of the Secretary's agenda as well.

QUESTION: And just - last one from me. Are you in a position yet to say what are some of the bilats that she'll be having?

MS. NULAND: I am not. We're still working it through.

QUESTION: Can I just - I don't want to get bogged down in this meeting, but what is the difference between an informal meeting of the G-20 foreign ministers and a formal meeting, which has - an informal meeting, which you just said has a formal agenda? What - I don't understand. What's the difference between them?

MS. NULAND: Generally when we do multilateral groupings in formal session - for example, when G-20 finance ministers meet, which they do regularly in a formal session - not only is there an agenda for each session, but there are usually statements, agreements that come out the back. So an informal meeting, whether it's a NATO meeting, whether it's a G-20 meeting, whether it's something else, allows ministers to talk without necessarily committing to a work product.

QUESTION: Right. So basically, there won't be any - this meeting will not accomplish anything?

MS. NULAND: I think --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) wear jeans. (Inaudible.)

MS. NULAND: Is that what Matt's really got - (laughter) -- that way, he can wear his shorts in Cabo, right? (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Unfortunately, I won't be there. But it basically means there aren't going to be - they're not going to accomplish anything?

MS. NULAND: There are likely to be outcomes from this meeting which will be codified in some manner, but we're not looking at formal communiqués which every country signs up to. There are - there is value in diplomacy to both informal session and formal session.

QUESTION: Okay. Can we go to the hot - or one of the hot topics of the day, which is Iran and what you make of their announcements this morning? Are these game changers or is it just bluster and wasted time that you don't really pay much attention to?

MS. NULAND: Well, we've seen the Iranian announcement today. These appear to be related to Iran's production of nuclear fuel in order to operate the Tehran research reactor, the TRR. The activities at the TRR do remain under IAEA safeguard, and we expect to learn more from the IAEA inspectors who are currently on the ground in Iran.

But I would say that one thing is absolutely clear: that Iran is clearly feeling the pressure of its international and diplomatic isolation of the increasing economic pressure on it, unprecedented sanctions which are growing that the international community is continuing to strengthen.

So with regard to this news today about activity at that reactor, we frankly don't see a lot new here. This is not big news. In fact, it seems to have been hyped. The Iranians have, for many months, been putting out calendars of accomplishments, and based on their own calendars, they are many, many months behind. This strikes us as calibrated mostly for a domestic audience.

QUESTION: So when you say that they're clearly feeling the pressure, is this a sign that they're clearly feeling the pressure that they're wanting to trumpet some minor accomplishment?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think the way they're reacting is part of a piece of that pressure. I would also note - that you've probably seen - there was a very sizeable and forcible crackdown on peaceful protest inside Tehran yesterday, large-scale cutoffs of the internet over the last couple of days, and they continue to keep major opposition figures under house arrest. So again, they are clearly being challenged - the regime is - not only from outside Iran but from inside Iran in a way that is causing them to take steps.

QUESTION: Do you think that it is - understand that the - Cathy Ashton received a letter from Iran finally responding to the invitation for talks. Do you think it's tied to that in some way to say - to kind of show - offer itself leverage at the bargaining table?

MS. NULAND: Well, first we can confirm, as the EU spokesperson already has, that Lady Ashton did receive a response from Saeed Jalili, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, to the letter that she put forward in October. We are studying the letter. We've seen a copy. We are working with our P-5+1 partners to evaluate the contents.

But you're not wrong, Elise; it may be that they felt the need to bluster on their nuclear side even as they make clear that they do want to come back to the table for talks.

QUESTION: What does the letter say?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think we will continue our evaluation of the letter and then we will come back to you with our views on it.

QUESTION: Did - does --

MS. NULAND: But I'm not prepared to share it at the moment. It was addressed to Lady Ashton.

QUESTION: Does it express any interest in a resumption of talks?

MS. NULAND: Again, I think we're not going to comment on it until we have a chance to evaluate it and work with our P-5 partners.

QUESTION: Is it bluster on their side, or are they trying to sort of show or scare the countries around the region with their nuclear progress in response to reports that your Arab allies are putting pressures on the Administration to strike, actually to have a military strike against Iran?

MS. NULAND: Well, I can't speculate any further as to Iran's motives behind its various actions, but our view on this is it's not terribly new and it's not terribly impressive.

QUESTION: Are your Arab allies putting some pressure on the Administration to opt for a military option?

MS. NULAND: I think that is not the central focus of the conversation that we are having with anybody around the world. The focus of the conversation is on how we tighten and intensify the sanctions so that Iran comes back to the table. And as I said, we now have this letter, so we can see whether it takes us where we need to go.

QUESTION: Can I ask you - you said it's not terribly new and not terribly impressive, which is all very nice. What would be new and impressive from your point of view?

MS. NULAND: Well, I'm not going to get into advocating for the Iranians what would make for an impressive program. You know our view on their program, which is that they --

QUESTION: Do you --

MS. NULAND: -- still need to demonstrate to all of us, including taking advantage of the IAEA inspection team now, that this is a purely peaceful program, as they claim.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, do you - would you counsel other countries around the world - not naming anyone in particular - to also view this as not terribly new and not terribly impressive and not terribly worthy of any kind of escalated action or any kind of action at all? Is that something you're telling your friends and allies?

MS. NULAND: I would simply say that countries that follow the Iranian nuclear program carefully know precisely what this was and what it wasn't today.

QUESTION: So you have - you don't have any concerns that one country in particular might use this specific thing or see this as some kind of a provocation that needs to be responded to?

MS. NULAND: Well, again, we are focused with all of our allies and partners, including those in the neighborhood, on making the sanctions work.

QUESTION: But you don't see that - this announcement as something that needs to be responded to --

MS. NULAND: As I said --

QUESTION: -- as a provocation that needs to be responded to?

MS. NULAND: As I've said, we don't see this as big news.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, just to put a fine point on it, Defense Secretary Panetta laid out some redlines about a month ago that - redlines on Iran's proliferation activities. You don't think that this necessarily crosses any redlines that signal Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapon?

MS. NULAND: Again, as I've said, we don't see this as big news.

Anything else on this subject, or shall we move on?

QUESTION: On Iran but not this, and it just - I don't think you'll have much to say about it. But I just wanted to get an update on the Hekmati case if there was one.

MS. NULAND: There is not. We have still not --

QUESTION: Are you concerned at all that given the increasing tensions, particularly between Israel and Iran but also any action on the nuclear front, that his situation is - are your concerns - do you have increased concerns about his safety, his welfare, given the heightened tension between Iran and the West?

MS. NULAND: Well, we have concerns for any American in Iranian prisons. And obviously, the longer they're in Iran's prisons without us being able to contact them directly, ascertain welfare, be of assistance, it's of concern. So this case remains of concern.

QUESTION: Okay. And still no response to the Swiss? They're actually being denied.

MS. NULAND: Correct. The Swiss have been in at least three times asking on our behalf for access to him and have been denied.

QUESTION: On Pakistan - on Iran.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you share with us the status of the virtual embassy? Anything new on what is happening with the virtual embassy with Iran?

MS. NULAND: No. I mean, the virtual embassy is essentially an internet platform that we --

QUESTION: I understand.

MS. NULAND: -- use to talk directly to Iranians. It's actually quite heavily used. That as well as our Farsi Twitter feed is growing in popularity. The virtual embassy allows us to have interactive back and forth with Iranians and to answer questions. We also run a Facebook page there, and it's very popular. Routinely, the Iranians try to take it down, and we support various circumvention strategies in order to ensure that the site remains live and available to Iranians.

QUESTION: Are most of the people who look at it inside Iran or outside Iran?

MS. NULAND: Well, I have to say to you that that is relatively difficult to ascertain unless they self-identify in their posts. We do have quite a lot of traffic from Iranians self-identifying as being inside Iran.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MS. NULAND: Yeah. Still on Iran in the back? Yeah.

QUESTION: I think Press TV reported that Iran has cut oil exports to six European countries: Netherlands, Spain, Italy, France, Greece, Portugal. But then the Iranian Government came out and said this is not accurate. What is the State Department's assessment?

MS. NULAND: Well, we are consulting with our European partners. We saw the same thing that you saw this morning, this big announcement and then subsequent assertions by other Iranians that this wasn't going to be the case.

With regard to the EU's policies vis-a-vis Iran and oil, just to remind that the EU did, on January 23rd, ban any new contracts for Iranian oil imports in line with our global push to encourage countries, particularly allies and partners, to wean themselves from Iranian crude. And they are also in the process of implementing their effort to reduce and cut past ties by July 1st.

QUESTION: One more, back to - related to Iran, and that is are you prepared to beyond where you were yesterday and - on any link between these attacks - attempted attacks on Israeli diplomats and Iran? Do you see a definitive link, as the Israelis do, or are you still playing it by ear?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think my colleague, Jay Carney, in his gaggle on the plane not too long ago, said that we obviously wouldn't be surprised if there are links to Iran, given Iran's behavior in the past, but we are not going to --

QUESTION: So no?

MS. NULAND: -- declare one way or the other before the investigations are complete.

QUESTION: So the answer is no, you're not prepared to go beyond where you were yesterday?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

QUESTION: And on the cutting of oil exports, you don't know yet if this is true?

MS. NULAND: Correct. We've seen the conflicting reports that you've seen.

Yeah. Kim, was that - no? Please, Tejinder.