Statement by Assistant Secretary Philip J. Crowley on potential Iran and P5+1 meeting (Excerpts)

November 9, 2010

Weapon Program: 

  • Nuclear

. . .

Second topic - was in touch with the EU High Representative's Office a short time ago. I believe they have confirmed and have indicated to us that Iran has, in fact, responded to Catherine Ashton, her invitation. Dr. Jalili has sent a formal response. Iran has proposed a couple of tentative dates. I would expect there will be consultations within the P-5+1 in the next day or two. I wouldn't be surprised - there may well be a call between High Representative Ashton and Secretary Clinton this afternoon. I believe there will be a political directors conference call probably tomorrow, and we will work to try to nail down with Iran a specific date and location for this meeting.

. . .

QUESTION: P.J., on the Iranian response to the EU invitation, are we talking about a meeting of the P-5+1 with them or are we talking about the smaller Vienna Group meeting with them, for one thing?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I think potentially, we would like to see activity, both within the context of the P-5+1 and also with the context of the IAEA. We're open to Iran engaging through both channels. Right now, we are - Catherine Ashton did propose a meeting later this month, and Iran has now indicated it is prepared to move ahead, and we will try to lock in a date and location very quickly. But to the extent that Iraq wants - I'm sorry - Iran wishes to pursue the Tehran research reactor proposal, we are open to that, and that could be something that is done within the context of the Vienna Group and through the IAEA, because there are obviously some technical aspects that would have to be fulfilled for that to go forward, including the status of material that is shipped out of Iran, who controls it and so forth.

QUESTION: But the meeting we're talking about, and whether it's November 15th or in December or whenever it is, we're talking about a P-5+1 meeting?

MR. CROWLEY: We are prepared to move forward with a P-5+1 meeting, and we'd hoped that that might occur as early as the end of this month.

QUESTION: And has the group agreed on the updated proposal that you have referred to in the past?

MR. CROWLEY: That is something we still are consulting with our partners on.

QUESTION: There was originally a suggestion, and more than a suggestion, that the first meeting would be between Ashton and Jalili alone, a sort of get to know you meeting. Is that what we're talking about here?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, we will consult and see how to move forward, but we are prepared to have a P-5+1 meeting at a mutually agreeable time and location.

QUESTION: I believe Turkey has come forward and said that it's going to be hosting these talks. Do you know anything about that? And do you know - how do you see the role of Turkey in this engagement, since -

MR. CROWLEY: I don't believe that we've arrived at this point at either a date or a location. But that will be what we will be consulting with our partners and then, in turn, back to Iran.

QUESTION: But the role of Turkey and where you see them fitting in, in the -

MR. CROWLEY: I think our immediate focus is to have a meeting of the P-5+1. That was what occurred just over a year ago. And we would like to see a series of meetings. Those meetings could happen in different locations. So we're open to a variety of ideas here, but I think what we're focused on, on one side, is a P-5+1 meeting. Now, our major concern is, of course, Iran's nuclear intentions. But within the context of the P-5+1, we're open for other issues that might be discussed.

Obviously, in any kind of engagement that would occur with the IAEA in the context of the TRR, there's potential for that kind of a meeting as well. But I think our immediate focus here is to try to get, not just one meeting, but a process through which, through the P-5+1, we can address our concerns about Iran's nuclear programs and any other issues that Iran wants to bring to the table.

QUESTION: Iran's response said specifically they want - they think it should take place in Turkey, which seems to be an effort to bring at least the Turks in, and potentially the Brazilians, given that they were the facilitators of the last offer. What's your view on whether or not, if we are talking about the TRR at this stage, should the Turks and the Brazilians be a part of it?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, let's - I'll come back to what we would like to have is a meeting within the context of the P-5+1. If we get a process going, then we'll see where that process leads. But we want to see a return to the kind of meeting that we had just over a year ago. We thought it was a productive meeting, and we'd like to see it be a series of meetings, not just one. These are difficult, complex issues. And clearly, none of these issues can be resolved in a single meeting.

QUESTION: Did the Iranians make clear in their response that they're talking about the same thing you're talking about, a P-5+1, or are they talking about a broader group?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we're going to have a conversation back through High Representative Ashton, but we - Iran appears in its response to be open to a meeting, and relatively soon, and we're going to try to lock down a date, a location, and then begin to work the details of the meeting.

QUESTION: They're open to a P-5+1 meeting, you say?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, that is - I believe that we are talking about having a P-5+1 meeting as soon as one can be put together.

QUESTION: P.J., if the Iranians say we'll - we're ready to have a meeting, but not to talk about our nuclear intentions, is the U.S. willing to go to the meeting?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, that's a - Charlie, that's a hypothetical. At the top of our list is Iran's nuclear intentions. I mean, notwithstanding - as I recall, there were similar suggestions, publicly, prior to the meeting last year, but when we got together, the nuclear issue was of paramount importance in that meeting.

QUESTION: Change of subject.

MR. CROWLEY: No, not yet. Not so fast.

QUESTION: You just said - what Charlie was saying, you immediately said that that might be a hypothetical issue, but we're hearing from Iranian officials that they only want to talk - they will talk about anything but their nuclear program.

MR. CROWLEY: I -

QUESTION: So are you going to get -

MR. CROWLEY: Wait a second. We are - we want a meeting, and at that meeting we plan to talk about the nuclear issue.

QUESTION: So this doesn't surprise you, what's happening?

MR. CROWLEY: No. And I'm not certain that's actually the Iranian position either.

QUESTION: My question is about the Turkey aspect. Do you have any opposition to Turkey hosting this meeting if that's what Iran wants?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, look, first and foremost, we want a meeting. We want to put it together as soon as possible in a location that is convenient for all of the participants. We'll consult tomorrow and then respond with our own answer to the Iranian response. If we are successful in getting a process going, not just one meeting but a series of meetings and a serious engagement on the nuclear issue and other issues, we can envision that there would be many potential locations for this series of meetings. But we'll consult in the next day with our partners in the P-5+1 process, or for the Europeans the E-3+3 process, and then we'll respond formally to Iran through High Representative Ashton.

QUESTION: Is Turkey convenient for you?

MR. CROWLEY: We'll see. We're going to consult with our partners.

QUESTION: But don't you need to have an agreement, an advance agreement about the agenda. Because the Iranians are imposing their own agenda.

MR. CROWLEY: Again, Samir, these are all good questions. We want to lock in a date and location and then we'll make clear what we're prepared to talk about. Iran will probably have its own issues. As I recall, last year, the meeting was predominately about the nuclear issue, but on the sidelines there was the opportunity to talk about other things. And we'll come to the table prepared to talk about a range of issues. But, obviously, at the top of our list is the Iran nuclear program.

QUESTION: Sorry. Just one more. One more. One more thing on the process here. I just want to make sure. What we're talking about first is a meeting between Ashton and the Iranians and this -

MR. CROWLEY: I don't -

QUESTION: -- potential P-5+1 that you're talking about.

MR. CROWLEY: I don't know. It's -

QUESTION: But isn't Ashton - was initially an offer to have her -

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it's -

QUESTION: -- letter sent to them?

MR. CROWLEY: Put it this way. If you'll go back to prior meetings - were preceded by a meeting between an Iranian representative and the European high representative. I mean, it depends. The - Iran offered a couple of dates. We have a couple of dates in mind. It may well be that there's a preliminary meeting. It may well be that we go right to the first meeting. I'm not prejudging both what we're prepared to do and what Iran is prepared to do. We will consult with High Representative Ashton in the next day, and then we want to get this process going, and we want it to be a process.

QUESTION: And Under Secretary Bill Burns will be the U.S. representative if and when there's a meeting in the next couple weeks?

MR. CROWLEY: I would expect it would be at political director's level. Yes.

QUESTION: And just to go back to the TRR update, can you give us a sense of how far along those talks are? Do you plan to present a new proposal when this meeting does -

MR. CROWLEY: Obviously, in the meeting last year, we put the TRR proposal on the table. That is something that we are prepared to offer, an updated version of that. It's possible that this could be something that is discussed again, if and when a meeting takes place.

. . .