. . .
QUESTION: On Iran. Obviously, we've had the report and we had a response from the President. I don't know if there's anything that you want to add that, but what I was wondering if you could do for us is take us through, as precise as you can, what are the next steps, diplomatic meetings, and the next steps in this. And also, specifically, whether or not the Secretary is/has plans in the next couple of hours/days to be making contacts on this.
MR. ERELI: Well, the Secretary has been and will continue to be actively involved in leading the international diplomacy on this issue. Again, it's important to point out that we are where we are in the Iran -- in dealing with Iran because of the -- frankly, I think the Secretary and the President's leadership. We have been working assiduously for the last several years to develop an international -- to build and maintain and sustain an international consensus on Iran's nuclear program and every step along the process, that consensus is broader and stronger and more determined.
And today's report by the Director General of the IAEA, I think, is yet another demonstration of that. He says, quite clearly, that Iran has failed to implement any of the steps required of it by the Security Council and by the Board of Governors. This is yet another example of Iran's defiance of the international community and of it further isolating itself from that international community.
And what Secretary Rice and President Bush and their team has done is to fashion an effective international response to Iran's continued defiance by putting together an EU-3 negotiating process, bringing on Russia and India and the Board of Governors and China in support of that process, by getting us to all agree that Iran's program is outside the bounds of its commitments and its treaty obligations. And that absent its taking corrective action, we need to take successively more serious action in international fora.
Now, where we were before today was a presidential statement from the Security Council. That's pretty serious. Iran had, for many years, done everything they could to avoid being reported to the Security Council. Well, in February that happened, in March the Security Council met, they issued a presidential statement. Today, we have a report of the Director General saying that Iran has failed to respond to what was required of it in the presidential statement and so now, we've got to take it to the next step.
The Secretary has made it clear that the next step will be stronger than a presidential statement. She's made it clear that the Security Council, having pronounced on this issue, needs to demonstrate its credibility as an institution. And it is, I think, that task that Under Secretary Nick Burns will put his shoulder to when he goes to Paris on May 2nd to consult with the political directors of the P-5 and Germany, looking ahead to actions we would take at the Security Council.
And as we move into the Security Council and take the next steps on the diplomatic process there, you can be sure that the Secretary and all of us will be continuing the efforts that we've been waging over the last couple of years to continue to bring international pressure and isolation to bear on Iran.
QUESTION: Will there be a ministerial meeting June 9th or thereabouts in New York --
QUESTION: May 9th.
QUESTION: May 9th, I'm sorry -- the P-5+1.
MR. ERELI: Yeah. Like I said, Ambassador Burns will -- really, the next steps on this are Ambassador Burns going to Paris on May 2nd, talk about, with our colleagues on the Security Council in Germany, about next steps. Obviously, there will be action at the Security Council. I'm not prepared now to say when and at what level.
Yeah.
QUESTION: You said that this has been an effective response because everyone has come into the circle to agree, but isn't effectiveness judged by the end result and whether or not everybody agrees, Iran has accelerated its program during this time, not decelerated it.
MR. ERELI: Yeah, and Iran is paying and will continue to pay a heavy price for this. The fact is that today, Iran is more isolated than it has ever been and that -- you know, frankly, with every step it takes in furthering its nuclear program, it increases its isolation, it increases the costs to the Iranian people and it, I think, increases the difficulties for itself on a whole host of other issues that it has to deal with the international community on.
QUESTION: (Inaudible) the nuclear program.
MR. ERELI: The nuclear program, as a result of the international -- I think, as a result of international cooperation, has been constrained more than it would be if Iran hadn't been so defiant, in the sense that Russia has made it clear that because of its concerns, it's not going to provide fuel to Bushehr unless it's under a take-back provision. You've got people looking at their dealings with Iran much more closely, scrutinizing them much more carefully now than they would if Iran hadn't acted -- had not been acting in such a provocative and confrontational way.
And finally, you know, our view is that Iran and the leadership in Iran has to make a fundamental calculation and that calculation is, what are we gaining versus what are we losing? And as the cost becomes increasingly high to Iran, it is our expectation and is the goal of our diplomacy that that calculation will cause them to accept the demands of the IAEA, to come into compliance with its NPT obligations, and to rejoin these organizations and the international community as a responsible member.
Yes.
QUESTION: Two questions, Adam. One is that -- my question from before was, has the Secretary had or is planning any specific consultations by phone with anybody on --
MR. ERELI: I just can't speak to that. As I said, I would expect her to be actively and personally engaged in the diplomacy as she has been all along, but I just can't give you specific calls or steps that are going to be taken.
QUESTION: Okay. The second question that I had was, you mentioned the word, credibility, of the UN. I think the Secretary also was mentioning the credibility of the UN.
MR. ERELI: No coincidence.
QUESTION: I did not expect there was going to be. It does also have some echoes of the pre-Iraq war when you're talking about whether or not the UN would become irrelevant. My question is that, if the UN cannot act on the Iranian issue there, is this going to affect the U.S. view of the UN as an institution and get us into the same situation?
MR. ERELI: The reason we're saying this is because, frankly, Iran is openly challenging the United Nations and it's important to us that that challenge be met with a firm response, because frankly, we believe in the United Nations. We think it is -- it can and should be an effective tool for international diplomacy and that's why it's so important for us to work within the United Nations and to bring to bear on this problem the power and force and influence of that body.
So I think that's why we so regularly speak to the issue of credibility. And we think it can be done and that's why, frankly, again, as I said, Under Secretary Burns is going to Paris, why we've been working within the framework of the P-5 and the Security Council and the IAEA, which is part of the UN system as well.
QUESTION: But without wanting to break up you two as a couple, the United States and the UN, you have two major issues in front of it right now, which is Iran and Sudan and in both of them, the UN has not moved forward as expeditiously as you would want to.
MR. ERELI: I think I might dispute that, but anyway --
QUESTION: Well, the thing is that you're using the word credibility; I didn't raise it. The Secretary did it. So is that a challenge for the UN, that if they do not act on this issue in a way that you want it to do, that that will have consequences for the way you view them in the future?
MR. ERELI: I would put it the way I put it, which is that we believe in the UN. We believe that the UN has a power and an influence to address challenges to the international system that programs like Iran's represent and actions like Iran's represent. And that it is our goal to use the UN to deal with this problem. Iran, by responding to a presidential statement through the announcement of 164-centrifuge cascade, has basically openly defied a presidential statement adopted by consensus.
In our view, that defiance, that challenge should have consequences in order to sustain and fully reinforce the credibility of the UN as an institution. So it is up to us as a group to act together, collectively, decisively in the face of this challenge.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Adam, over the weeks of this whole controversy with the Iranians, many people are, in a way, describing the President of Iran with utter disdain, another Hitler; but isn't he, in effect, merely the puppet head for a clerical group that is totally out of touch with the Iranian people, that actually do want to bring the Iranians, as well as other sections in the world, back to the stone age and they have total disdain for any civil and world order. How do you combat all this?
MR. ERELI: Let's stick to the facts. The facts are that the President of Iran has spewed forth hateful and vile rhetoric: denying the Holocaust, calling for the elimination of other states. And that really is repugnant to, I think, people of all faiths and all political views.
Fact number two is you have a regime in Iran that is not representative of the Iranian people. The Iranian people were not given a free and fair choice in the most recent elections. The clerical authorities removed hundreds of candidates who wanted to run for office, so that the choice given to the Iranian people was contrived and unrepresentative.
And finally, you have a regime that is making presumed policies that are to the detriment of the Iranian people, because they're leading to Iran's further isolation from the rest of the international community and from the kind of relationships and contacts and links that are essential to economic growth and to the development of Iranian society and the Iranian people, for whom the United States and I think all of us have a great deal of sympathy, a great deal of respect and a great deal of admiration. So, it frustrates us that the government not only is taking, obviously, actions that are threatening to us, but are also harmful to the people of Iran.
Yes.
QUESTION: How confident are you and for what is the timeframe you expect something from the Security Council? And the view of the -- views coming from China and Russia that they are opposed to any sanctions to be imposed on Iran in one instance and also, on the -- in view of the (inaudible) again, the U.S. and the (inaudible) here that you might pursue like-minded nations for action instead of the United Nations.
MR. ERELI: Well, obviously this is a discussion that we're going to be fully engaged in, we've already been fully engaged in, but we're going to continue to pursue in the coming days and weeks.
It is our objective to have a strong, meaningful response from the United Nations Security Council to Iran's failure to act on what the Security Council and the Board of Governors has called on them to do. And it is our objective that -- it is our goal to get a broad consensus on the way forward in terms of actions to be taken; and that's point one and that's what I would say in response to what other states in the Security Council have said.
We've also made it clear that should it not be possible to act in the Security Council, there are other ways to work with states and organizations to take measures that isolate Iran and that bring to it a cost for its unacceptable behavior.
. . .