. . .
QUESTION: It's said about Iranian delegation headed by Deputy National Security Council Deputy Ali Larijani is in Washington for talking, negotiating. Do you confirm that? And if that's --
MR. MCCORMACK: This is Mr. Nahavandian?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah, he's not here for meetings with U.S. Government officials, to my knowledge, certainly not with members of the State Department. I do know that he was not -- he was not issued a visa, as we've talked about previously. As for -- there are a variety of other ways for an individual to arrive in the country. At this point, I don't think I could get into the details of that. But he is not here for any meetings with U.S. Government officials, to my knowledge.
QUESTION: Could you say whether he's here on a legal basis or not?
MR. MCCORMACK: I believe that he is, yes.
QUESTION: How is that --
QUESTION: How would that work?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, as I said, there are a variety of other -- there are a variety of means for an individual here to travel on a legal basis without a visa.
. . .
QUESTION: Sean, can we go back to the Iranians for a second? Sorry, it's a bit confusing because on what basis is it possible he can be here and (inaudible) the very fact that some basis would be organized for him would indicate that there's some type of (inaudible).
MR. MCCORMACK: I wouldn't say organized, Peter. I wouldn't say organized by the U.S. Government. No.
QUESTION: Well, the fact that there's some basis that permitted him to come into the country, would indicate that somebody had an interest in bringing him into the country.
MR. MCCORMACK: Not necessarily, Peter. No.
QUESTION: Not necessarily?
MR. MCCORMACK: No.
QUESTION: Could you flesh that out a little bit?
MR. MCCORMACK: At this point I don't have any further details for you.
QUESTION: But all of us who cover this building and cover visa policy aren't aware of the variety of ways you can get into the country without one, so why can't you help us out a little bit?
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have any more details for you. I don't have any more details for you at this point.
QUESTION: But you do know that he's in the country, so how do you know that he's in the country?
MR. MCCORMACK: I have heard from various journalists who have actually --
QUESTION: But you were (inaudible).
MR. MCCORMACK: I don't know of anybody in the U.S. Government with whom he has met.
QUESTION: Has Homeland Security informed you that he's in the country?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I don't have any more details for you.
QUESTION: Sean, can you take the question though and find out?
MR. MCCORMACK: If I am able to provide more details to you, then I would be happy to provide them to you.
QUESTION: Is he here with another unknown agency?
MR. MCCORMACK: Same answer.
QUESTION: Senator Lugar has recommended yesterday direct talks between the U.S. and Iran. Are you considering this issue?
MR. MCCORMACK: We have a lot of respect for Senator Lugar and his views. Let me just tell you what we are doing. We are supporting -- and we have in the past supported the EU-3 in their efforts to engage Iran. We have supported the Russians in their efforts to seek a solution to this. We have supported and continue to support Director General ElBaradei and his good offices in trying to seek a solution to this. So this is not solely a U.S.-Iranian issue concerning their nuclear program.
At this point, it is, despite all of these offers of seeking a solution, the solution that would meet Iran's publicly stated desire for peaceful nuclear energy, while providing objective guarantees to the international community that they are not going to try to build a nuclear weapon under guise of a peaceful nuclear program.
To date, they have sought confrontation inside of seeking out dialogue. When they were in dialogue with the EU-3, with the Russians, they were engaged in diplomatic tactics that sought only to obscure the issues they sought to delay. Secretary Rice has talked about the salami-slicing tactic. They have engaged in a diplomatic process without, it would appear at this time, having any serious intention of meeting the desired end state of the international community; that is a peaceful nuclear program that would, according to objective guarantees, reassure the international community that it was in fact a peaceful nuclear program.
So where we are now is that the Iranian Government needs -- is confronted with choices. It is confronted with a basic crossroad's decision. Do they continue the path of confrontation which they are currently on, or do they choose the pathway of diplomacy? Do they choose the pathway of resolving through diplomatic means this issue, the issue of their pursuit of nuclear weapons?
We in the international community have sought to build a consensus that sends a strong message to the Iranian Government that they will either be further isolated from the international community or we can work on a solution. So thus far, the response has been negative from the Iranian regime and we are going to see -- if that response continues to be negative, you are going to continue to see more and more pressure on the Iranian regime in the form of possibly sanctions, in the form of possibly asset freezes, in the form of possibly restrictions on travel and UN resolutions. So if that is the pathway at this point that they choose to continue down, certainly the international community is more than ready to meet their desire for diplomatic confrontation with increased diplomatic pressure and that's a big part of the reason behind Under Secretary Burns' trip to Moscow.
This meeting is intended to try to start to tee up decisions about strong diplomatic actions for the coming weeks. We would expect when the Security Council next meets to take up the issue of Iran in the wake of the IAEA's upcoming report on Iran, that they be ready to take strong diplomatic action.
QUESTION: When you say "diplomatic action," is that a generic phrase? In other words, it could -- I know you're not ready to say what you want to do, but it could include economic action? It isn't just diplomacy in a pure sense that you're thinking about?
MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. What we've said here, Barry, is that's it's not going to be another presidential statement. And in part of what we're looking, and part of what will be on the table for discussion when Under Secretary Burns travels to Moscow, will be things like UN resolutions, Chapter 7 resolutions, things like asset freezes, things like sanctions, things like travel restrictions. So I'm not going to try to prejudge an outcome at this point, but that's certainly what's on the table right now as far as we're concerned, as well as, I would say others as well.
QUESTION: Let me try to jump ahead an inch and anything that's hypothetical, of course, can be turned aside. But is the U.S. prepared to take measures on its own or at least jointly with the Europeans if it cannot command the kind of response it would like to get from the Security Council?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we will certainly take a look at what the possibilities are for U.S. Government. You've heard from the President on this. We're kind of sanctioned out at this point. We're down to pistachios and rugs. So that doesn't give you a lot of latitude, but there are -- but there are -- certainly there are other states that have much more latitude. And I would only note that the EU has on their own decided to take up and examine this question of what might be done in terms of diplomatic actions. We will see. We'll see what the discussions in Moscow yield, Barry. I don't -- this is not going to be a decision-making set of meetings. It's going to be a set of meetings designed to tee things up. I would note if you look at the membership of these various groups with the P-5+1, everybody's familiar with them and their membership, you're looking at the G-7, G-8, it includes a different set of countries certainly that have been involved in thinking about and talking about Iran in the past, but not around the same table. You're looking at Canada. You're looking at Italy which is Iran's largest trading partner. So again, I'm not going to speak on behalf of any other country. But certainly, I would say that there are groups in the form of the EU as well as other countries that are taking a look at what might be done.
Elise.
QUESTION: The group IIS, David Albright's group, the International Institute of Science --
MR. MCCORMACK: Right.
QUESTION: -- released these photos over the weekend that indicate that Iran is expanding its nuclear plant at Natanz. Does this -- do you know about these photos?
MR. MCCORMACK: I've seen the photos, yes.
QUESTION: Does it concur with what you know? Does it present any kind of new, alarming development in what you believe Iran's nuclear program to be?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Elise, in terms of public comment about what we know regarding the Iranian nuclear program, certainly one source, one important source of information right now, is the IAEA. And they are now -- they now have people on the ground and I think they're doing some technical assessments of exactly what the Iranians are doing right now, whether that be enlargement of their centrifuge operations which they have stated they intend to do or a technical assessment of their enrichment activities, again which they said that they have performed. I can't confirm either of those for you at this point. We'll look for the IAEA to provide a report back to the Board of Governors. We would hope that that is in the near future. And then whatever I can from that report share with you, I certainly will.
QUESTION: But have you -- have these -- have you seen these photos? Do they -- you know, is it anything more than what you believe -- I mean, you've already made arguments and have been working with the IAEA on what you believe Iran already has, so regardless of what you are going to learn from this new investigation from the IAEA, I mean, do these photos in themselves present any special new challenges for you?
MR. MCCORMACK: I think we've all seen them. They came out over the weekend and I'm sure the people that deal with questions of Iran's nuclear program on a daily basis will take a look at them. I can't tell you whether or not those people find anything new in these photographs and that is probably an area in which I couldn't go. We can't get into what intelligence assessments are regarding Iran's nuclear activity, but we are of course watching very closely and gathering information from as many different data points as we possibly can on the issue.
QUESTION: Just one more. There is a lot of talk now about Iran's P-2 centrifuge program and I believe that you've come to the conclusion that Iran does have a design for a P-2 centrifuge program, so does the fact that they've started to declare this publicly that their researching this particular type of centrifuge cause any new alarms for you?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it --
QUESTION: What does that say --
MR. MCCORMACK: Can't confirm it. I've cited President -- I believe President Ahmadi-Nejad said that they were conducting research on the P-2 centrifuges. Certainly if that is, in fact, true, that would be a source of real concern not only for us but for the international community. And for those who aren't familiar with it, a P-2 is just a more advanced kind of centrifuge. It is a more efficient kind of centrifuge and, as such, represents a higher level of design, engineering and technology than a P-1 centrifuge.
It is very interesting. Up until this point, the Iranians have actually sought to conceal what they are doing with the P-2 centrifuges. We know, just to review a couple of notes here, that the Iranians admitted to Director General ElBaradei that in the 1994 to 1995 period they received P-2 centrifuge designs from the A.Q. Khan network. At that time, it said it had received no actual P-2 centrifuges or centrifuge components from the network. Iran told the IAEA that it undertook no work on P-2 components until 2002, when Iranian engineers produced sophisticated, modified P-2 rotors within a matter of months. Iran also told the IAEA that although it had conducted R&D on a modified P-2 design between 2002 and 2003, this R&D had been terminated in July of 2003.
According to Dr. ElBaradei's reports, the IAEA finds implausible Iran's claim that it did no P-2 work between 1995 and 2002 and received nothing beyond P-2 designs from A.Q. Khan's clandestine procurement network.
So there are a lot of questions surrounding their P-2 program. They admit that they, at the very least, received the designs and did some limited R&D work so we know that there is some form of a program around the P-2 centrifuges. Up until just very recently, the past day or so, they have really sought to downplay the fact that they are working on this program. Now we hear from President Ahmadi-Nejad that they are presently conducting research on them, so it's a source of concern. Certainly we are going to be looking into it as best we can and I would expect the IAEA would also be looking into it very closely.
QUESTION: What does it say -- just one last -- sorry. What does it say to you that they're being so unabashed about a centrifuge program of this nature which is for the kind of highly enriched uranium that you need for a nuclear weapon?
MR. MCCORMACK: Look, as for the decision-making processes and the values that go into those decision-making processes among the people who really run Iran, the senior clerical leadership, you know, President Ahmadi-Nejad, who I would argue represents more closely the actually policies and values of the groups that really rule Iran, I couldn't tell you, I can't tell you what motivates and what factors into it.
A couple of things do spring to mind. Clearly they are continuing to seek confrontation with the international community in the hopes that the international community will back down. That certainly will not be the case. And I would suspect as well that they are trying to derive some form of domestic political benefit by saying that this is a case of the Iranian people against the rest of the world. Well, that's just not the case. You know, our problems and the problems of the world are with the Iranian regime, its behavior, and not with the Iranian people. And I think it's an interesting question whether or not the Iranian people really know the real story, whether or not they know the story of the Russian proposal or the EU-3 proposals. I think that's an interesting question that bears some looking at.
Teri.
QUESTION: On this. What do you make of the reports that broke over the weekend that Iran is preparing suicide bombers now and that they also have stepped up their efforts to illegally obtain weapons technology from the United States.
MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of Iran's terrorist activities, I think we all know that Iran is probably the most significant state sponsor of terror in the world today. We have attempted to work with members of the international community to raise awareness about Iran's activities as well as to deal with ways to prevent any potential terrorist attacks, whether they emanate from Iran or any other address.
I can only say that the United States has robust programs to seek to prevent terrorist activities, to break up terrorist networks, to break up terror cells, as well as to harden our borders while remaining a welcoming place. So we have a lot of people dedicated to that effort. It's certainly an effort on which the President as well as other members of his cabinet are focused on.
In terms of attempts to buy U.S. origin technology or U.S. technology, I don't have any particular information for you. There are stringent guidelines that regulate the sale of this kind of technology, sensitive technology around the world, whether those sales start in Europe or South America or any place else. But as for any particular reports, I don't have anything to share with you, Teri.
Sue.
QUESTION: Yes, change of topic. On Chad.
MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, we have one still on Iran.
QUESTION: Thank you. You referred to Chapter 7 and you've referred before many times and you know that one of the article of Chapter 7 mention using the force, military force. Then in the end, that would be the option, you think?
MR. MCCORMACK: Again, President Bush, Secretary Rice as well as others have spoken to that topic. I don't have anything to add.
. . .
QUESTION: But just as a general rule, I mean, do you have a problem with China kind of deepening its relations with countries that you have problems with or that -- befriending countries like Iran, North Korea and --
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we want a stable, prosperous, democratic China that seeks to play a positive role in the world. In as much as China tries to reinforce negative behaviors among other countries around the world, whether that be Iran or elsewhere, then of course we will raise those issues with China. I can't believe that China wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon anymore than the United States or the European countries or Russia. So we're going to be working with them in as constructive a manner as possible. They have come into the consensus regarding Iran. They in fact were in the chair of the UN Security Council presidency that issued the most recent presidential statement. So we will keep working with them. Where there are issues of concern, we'll talk about them.
. . .