. . .

QUESTION: Change of subject? Back on the issue of Iran, in Vienna, they've now passed your resolution, and I would also like to know if you have any reaction to some more new satellite images that show that Iran may be clearing a space for a reactor at the Arak plant and is fortifying around Natanz as it if expects an attack.

MR. ERELI: Let's deal first with the resolution from the IAEA, which was adopted today by the Board of Governors. We welcome this resolution. We commend the excellent work of the International Atomic Energy Agency and we note that this is the fourth resolution that has been adopted unanimously by the Board. It maintains strong pressure on Iran to comply with its Nonproliferation Treaty safeguards obligations and to cooperate fully with the IAEA.

Some other important points in the resolution to note: It makes clear that Iran's cooperation has not been full or timely; it notes that Iran's declarations to the agency have been incomplete and inconsistent; and it also makes the point that Iran has delayed inspections.

We would join in the resolution's -- or we do join in the resolution's call for Iran "to take all the necessary steps on an urgent basis to resolve all of the outstanding questions" that the IAEA has, particularly the highly enriched uranium and low enriched uranium contamination, and the nature and scope of Iran's P-2 centrifuge program.

QUESTION: And what about the photos?

MR. ERELI: Oh, the photos. I haven't seen the photos or the reports about them. I would simply repeat the general -- without commenting on them, since I haven't seen them, I would repeat the point, the general point that Ambassador Boucher made yesterday, which is that the reason much of the activity in Iran is suspect is because of a clear and long pattern of deception. So when you talk about potential sites and when you talk about potential activity, the best way to answer those questions, frankly, is for Iran to be fully open and transparent about a program that it claims to be peaceful, and to meet the calls of the international community and the IAEA to -- and to provide full information. And that way people will be able to answer the question clearly or -- clearly what this is and what this isn't. But until they do, there are always going to be these lingering suspicions.

QUESTION: The IAEA actually has had access to these sites and has gone in and looked at these exact -- at this exact activity, but just it wasn't public until now. Do you, nonetheless, have concerns even if the IAEA has seen them and --

MR. ERELI: I am not familiar with the site so I really couldn't comment.

QUESTION: To put this in a broader perspective, why is it important that Iran not have nuclear weapons?

MR. ERELI: Because we believe that proliferation of nuclear weapons is destabilizing to the region and to the world and that it is in the interest of the international community to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. That's number one. Number two, let's be clear: Iran has treaty obligations that it is violating and that, in and of itself, should be cause for concern and justification for action that the international community is taking.

QUESTION: How about their missile program and their ties to terrorist groups?

MR. ERELI: Likewise. Longstanding concerns that we have that we are working, I think, tenaciously to address.

Sir.

QUESTION: Well, if this is drawn out and longstanding and ongoing for so long, might Iran face serious consequences if it does not comply?

MR. ERELI: I think if you look at the resolution, it notes that time is running short or it notes the passage of time in dealing with this issue. And, obviously, I think that patience is not limitless. This is the fourth resolution. This is the fourth time that Iran has been called upon to share information, the fourth time Iran has pledged to stop activity but has continued activity. And it is the fourth time that the Board has said it views these issues seriously.

Looking ahead to September, I think, you know, here is an important point to make: Iran wanted the file closed at this meeting. That clearly didn't happen. And the reason it didn't happen is because what the Board has asked Iran to do over the last three meetings has gone unanswered. So, looking ahead to the fifth meeting, I think that again we will be looking to Iran for answers, for cooperation, for fulfillment of commitments that it has made.

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up to that?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Well, why wouldn't they get the impression that patience is limitless because, like you said, this is the fourth resolution and you have been -- every resolution -- I mean the resolution in November was very tough and it said that, you know, any kind of further omissions by Iran or -- I don't remember the exact language, but, you know, it threatened further Board action. And it doesn't seem really that there had been any action taken since then, I mean.

MR. ERELI: I think a consensus is -- let's put this in perspective. Let's go back two years. Two years ago, the United States was saying Iran had a program, Iran was a danger. And everybody was saying, "Oh, come on, you guys are crazy. You guys are just beating up on Iran because you got it in for them."

Well, two years later, everybody is on board in the form of four resolutions that, hey, there is a program, there is a clandestine nuclear program; it is a problem and we were seized of the matter and we are united in demanding action. That is a significant accomplishment and that process has a momentum of its own. I am not going to predict where it's going, but I would note that clearly Iran is on the hook to demonstrate to the international community and the IAEA that it is complying with its treaty obligations and that it is fulfilling its commitments to disclose information and stop proscribed activity and to stop activity that it has said it will stop.

Sir.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed that the resolution doesn't include a time element?

MR. ERELI: No, this resolution, I think, we are satisfied with.

QUESTION: Do you think that the time element might have given it more teeth and given Iran --

MR. ERELI: I don't know what you mean by time element. The time element is that -- well, there are two time elements: one is the next meeting of the Board in September; and two is, it does note the passage of time, which introduces, I think, a sense of urgency greater than was there before.

QUESTION: Do you think that this case should be referred at some point, if Iran does not comply, to the UN Security Council?

MR. ERELI: That's been our longstanding position, that, you know, that it is -- that issues such as violation issues that have been mentioned, at the appropriate time should be referred to the Security Council. Let's let this process play itself out and see where we are in September.

QUESTION: When you say "play itself out," it's pretty much just repeating itself. You call in each resolution for them to come clean and then in the next meeting you say, well, they didn't come clean probably.

Is the reason that you're not pushing for it to be reported to the Security Council that you haven't got the support from other IAEA member nations, or is it because you don't want to provoke a provocation while you're deeply involved in Iraq?

MR. ERELI: I think it's -- we are working with the other members of the Board of Governors to craft a broad-based and consensual approach to this issue, which we all agree is a problem. We've made significant progress in forging an international consensus -- in a multilateral form, I would ask that you note -- and that this consensus and this working through this forum is producing results. It's informing us more and more about a clandestine nuclear program, it is providing clear and indisputable benchmarks for Iran, and it is moving in a direction, I think, that we think is productive.

QUESTION: And you say that -- you said it was unanimous. Were there any abstentions?

MR. ERELI: I don't think so. I'll check, but I don't believe so.