...
QUESTION: The Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen sent a letter to Catherine Ashton saying that she’s “deeply troubled by recent reports that” – I’m just going to read it -- “of EU member states sending or preparing to send extensive government and trade delegations to Iran.” Is this something that’s of concern to you, that they’re sort of jumping the gun, considering you’ve said, obviously, that Iran is not open for business?
MS. HARF: Not open for business, yeah. Well, just – and thank you for the Iran question. Just to update folks if they didn’t see, and then I’ll get to your specific question, the next round of – the first round, I would say, of the comprehensive talks with the EU, the P5+1 in Iran, will take place on February 18th in Vienna, so we’re mixing it up a little bit. A European city made more sense because of travel schedules. I know there have been lots of questions about where we’ll actually be holding the talks. And, of course, the UN facilities in Vienna give us an international organizational structure, similar to what there is in Geneva or New York or other places, that we need for these talks. So that’s the update on that. I know we’ve all been asking about that.
We’ve been very clear that Iran is not open for business. We’ve had Under Secretary of Treasury David Cohen traveling around to different countries, talking to them about what exactly is in the Joint Plan of Action and what isn’t – we’ve had State Department folks involved in that as well – because we’ve been very clear that as the Joint Plan of Action is implemented, we need to keep communicating with our partners around the world who helped us put in place the sanctions architecture, what exactly it does and what it doesn’t do. We’ll continue those conversations and, of course, appreciate members of Congress being involved in the discussion as well.
QUESTION: -- I asked Jen this question about two weeks ago – just following up because I was hoping to get more clarity. We were discussing whether – Iran says that new sanctions in Congress, their passage, would amount to a violation, a technical violation, of the JPOA. And I’m wondering what the U.S. position is on that, if it’s a technical violation or if it’s just politically inconvenient and diplomatically hazardous --
MS. HARF: Well, I think – I wouldn’t actually use either of those terms, right? I think what we’ve said is under the Joint Plan of Action, no new nuclear-related sanctions are allowed. And whatever word you want to use, passing any new nuclear-related sanctions and implementing them into law would amount – would go against the terms of the Joint Plan of Action, which is why we’ve been very clear that we should not, and the President was very clear in the State of the Union recently that he will veto any new sanctions that come to his desk.
QUESTION: So – but the word that was chosen in the JPOA was “impose.” And -- I may be the only one who’s fixated on this, but I’m wondering what’s wrong with Congress passing a bill that specifically says it won’t impose new sanctions until negotiations are passed.
MS. HARF: Well, I’d make two points. Then why pass the law now? I would turn it back on Congress and say if – okay, if – on the one hand, if you’re not “imposing new sanctions,” why are you doing it when it could threaten to derail the negotiation process? And on the flip side, if you do say at date X these sanctions will go into effect through legislation, that is imposing. The JPOA doesn’t say “imposing now;” it says “imposing.” So I would make that point, I think, back to our friends in Congress who are working on this issue. And I think we’ve seen over the past week or so some folks come out and say we all support sanctions, but now is not the right time to vote on them because we need to let the diplomacy play itself out.
QUESTION: So those who would vote in favor of this now, you think, are intending to harm the negotiating process?
MS. HARF: Well, I don’t want to venture to guess their – what their motivations are. What we’ve said is it would – certainly has the strong potential to do exactly that. And it goes against the stated negotiating posture of the United States Government and our P5+1 partners and the EU.
QUESTION: At one point, both you – this building and the White House were saying that people who want this want war. Is that still the case?
MS. HARF: Well, I think we’ve been very clear that the alternative to diplomacy – because the President has said he’s committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon – is doing that in another manner which could, of course, involve military action. So we have said this is the best chance we have probably ever had to resolve this diplomatically and we don’t know when we’ll get it again, so no one – including Congress – should do anything to possibly derail that when we’ve also said in six months, if this doesn’t work, if we can’t get this done, we will be the first ones back up on the Hill asking for more sanctions.
QUESTION: Right. But – so that’s different, though, because what the President has said is should negotiations fail, the alternative is not war, it’s more sanctions, right? So like – should six months or a year pass --
MS. HARF: Well, I’m not saying in six months we’re going to go to war if we don’t get a deal done. Broadly speaking, the alternative to resolving this diplomatically is resolving it through other means. What those other means are is pretty clear, right? There’s only a few scenarios that come out of this: either we resolve it diplomatically or we resolve it a different way. And it’s just common sense that that different way could involve – is likely to involve military action. The President’s been clear that’s on the table. But when you’re talking about a more immediate – if in six months this doesn’t work, yes, we will ask for more sanctions, I’m not predicting that we would take military action right away. It’s more of a broad statement that, look, if we can’t get this done diplomatically in six months or a year or at any time, we will – we are committed to resolving it. And that involves less durable and, quite frankly, riskier actions.
...