MR PRICE: Good afternoon. We actually don’t have anything at the top today beyond I hope you all had a good weekend, happy Monday. And with that, Matt.

QUESTION: Thanks. So I’m kind of a little bit surprised you don’t have anything to say, because I don’t think you have said anything – sorry, let me just turn my recorder on here – about the agreement that was reached yesterday in Tehran between the IAEA and Iran. So do you think that this is a good thing, what was agreed to? And if so, why?

MR PRICE: Well, Matt, thanks for the question. First, we do commend the professionalism that the IAEA has shown in its efforts to engage Iran on maintaining the necessary cooperation to verify Iran’s nuclear program in light of Tehran’s announcement that it will cease implementation of the Additional Protocol and JCPOA verification measures on February 23rd.

We are, of course, concerned to hear that Iran intends to cease implementation of the Additional Protocol and other measures this week. We note the announcement that Iran will continue to implement its obligations under its Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements with the IAEA fully and without limitation, and that the IAEA and Iran have reached a temporary bilateral technical understanding regarding verification and monitoring activities. We fully support the IAEA director general’s efforts to this end while also reiterating the call on Iran to fully meet its verification and other nuclear nonproliferation commitments.

QUESTION: Okay. But so, since you took the steps that you did last week, you revoked the snapback provision, you rescinded the restrictions or most of the restrictions on Iranian diplomats at the UN, you said that you —

MR PRICE: Well, they’re still under restrictions. But yes.

QUESTION: Yeah, but the most onerous ones. You have said that you’re ready to go back to the P5+1 table. You also revoked the FTO designation of the Houthis – an Iranian proxy, I think you’ll accept – and you removed the Houthi leaders from their terrorism designation.

Have things gone forward? Have things gone in the direction that the administration wants since those things – since you have done those things? Or have the Iranians not responded to these – and I won’t use the word, but some people have used the word – “concessions”?

MR PRICE: I’m glad you’re not using the word.

QUESTION: Have – some people have. Have the Iranians responded to these things in the way that you would have liked?

MR PRICE: Matt, I think as a general matter, and we have been clear, Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon. President Biden has been unequivocal on that. We are, of course, going back to what I was saying just a moment ago, concerned that Iran has moved further away from compliance with its nuclear commitments. This, of course, has been the case since the last administration pulled out of the JCPOA.

That is precisely why, and you heard us say this last week – I guess it was last Thursday now – that we are prepared to meet with the Iranians in the context of the P5+1 to start to undertake this diplomacy, to start to undertake these talks, to move forward with the proposition that has been on the table for some time now, a proposition that predates this administration when then-candidate Biden made clear the deal of compliance for compliance: If Iran returns to full compliance with the Iran deal, the United States would be prepared to do the same. We would then use the JCPOA as a basis for a longer and stronger agreement and negotiate follow-on agreements to cover other areas of concern, including Iran’s ballistic missile program.

I don’t think we’re measuring this in minutes or hours, Matt. We are measuring this in terms of looking forward. And the Iranians know that we are prepared to undertake these discussions. We made that offer in the context of working in lockstep with our European allies and our closest partners. I made the point last week that there was a lot of attention paid to the very short statement we issued from here in my name regarding our willingness to undertake in these – to undertake these discussions with Iran.

But in some ways, the much more significant, much more momentous element we released that day was the joint statement that emanated from Secretary Blinken’s participation in the meeting with the EU3. For the first time in quite a long time, the United States is not working at cross-purposes with our European allies. We are, in fact, working together. This consultation, the consultation that took place with Secretary Blinken and our European allies, there was a joint statement, and that joint statement made clear that we see this challenge through the same lens, and that we are going to approach it in the same way, and we’re going to approach it together.

And so I think if this does come to fruition – the talks with Iran in the P5+1 context – we will, of course, be there with our European allies, and we will be there to undertake the hard diplomacy, the discussions that can lead us to that point where Iran can resume full compliance and the United States would be prepared to do the same.

QUESTION: Has there been any movement on that?

MR PRICE: I don’t believe there’s been any – any formal response from the Iranians. Yes, Humeyra.

QUESTION: Ned, I’m sure you’ve seen Khamenei’s comments about it won’t be limited to 20 percent enrichment, it might go up to 60 percent. Obviously, they’re not there, and one can say that this is posturing, but what is your view of those comments? Does that kind of rhetoric concern you?

MR PRICE: Well, I think I would reiterate what I said before. We are, of course, concerned that Iran has over time moved away from its commitments under the JCPOA. This, of course, started long before this administration and, in fact started in the last administration when the last administration left the JCPOA.

That said, there is now a proposition on the table. There is a broad proposition at play: If Iran returns to full compliance, we will prepare – be prepared to do the same, with the caveats that I noted before. But there is also a specific proposition on the table: The United States will be willing to engage the Iranians in the context of the P5+1. So rather than posture from this podium, I think we are going to reiterate the proposition that is on the table. We certainly hope the Iranians will be willing to be there, because we believe that together, in the P5+1 context, that is where we can make progress on these difficult issues and questions that remain.

QUESTION: And then on the same thing. So this kind of rhetoric makes everyone think that they’re going to take quite a hard line. Is there any plan, or is there any consideration on the side of U.S. perhaps to provide some goodwill gestures that could be, like, the IMF loan, or the European credit facility? Any consideration towards making any of those?

MR PRICE: I think what we have said still stands. The United States is willing to meet with the Iranians in the context of the P5+1. There is a lot that would still need to be worked out. This is a broad proposition that is on the table, the shorthand being compliance for compliance. It is complicated. It’s complex. The way in which we get there is what we would want to discuss in the context of that P5+1 discussion.

Yes, Michel.

QUESTION: But don’t you have any comment or reaction to Khamenei’s statements when he said that Iran could boost uranium enrichment to 60 percent? And any reaction to the attack on the American embassy today after Erbil attack last week?

MR PRICE: My comment is precisely what I told your colleagues Matt and Humeyra that over time we, of course, are concerned by the steps Iran has taken to move away from its compliance with the JCPOA. In this case, this is what sounds like a threat. We are not going to respond in specific terms to hypotheticals, to posturing. What we are going to do is to reaffirm the proposition that is on the table. The United States is willing to meet with the Iranians to hash out these difficult, complex questions, how we get to this end goal of compliance for compliance, and compliance for compliance plus, meaning how we use the JCPOA as a platform to both lengthen and strengthen the JCPOA itself, but then to use it as a platform to address Iran’s broader malign activities. So we’re not going to respond to hypotheticals when – in that context.

We’ve seen the reports of the rocket fire today. We have – as you heard us say in the aftermath of the tragic attack in Erbil, we are outraged by the recent attacks. And the attack in Erbil, of course, harmed civilians and coalition forces, including an American service member. As you have heard me say many times before, ensuring the safety and the welfare and the health of our personnel and citizens and the security of our facility – we have no higher priority. The Iraqi people have suffered for far too long from this kind of violence and this violation of their sovereignty.

When it comes to the attack in Erbil, I would just add that we are still determining precise attribution. But we have stated before that we will hold Iran responsible for the actions of its proxies that attack Americans. It is – it – I can add that the rockets fired in recent attacks on the coalition and citizens of Iraq, including this attack I referenced, are Iranian-made and Iranian-supplied.

When it comes to our response, we will respond in a way that’s calculated, within our own timetable, and using a mix of tools at a time and place of our choosing, as you’ve heard me say before. What we will not do is lash out and risk an escalation that plays into the hands of Iran and contributes to their attempts to further destabilize Iraq. You have also heard me say that any response will be done in coordination with our Iraqi partners and in coordination with the coalition as well.

QUESTION: And do you have any update on the investigation?

MR PRICE: No specific updates. I think, broadly, what we have said is that we will hold Iran responsible by the attacks, by the provocations of its proxies. We know that many of these attacks have used Iranian-made, Iranian-supplied weapons, but this is something that remains under active investigation by —

QUESTION: I thought you had said that this one did. So have you determined that the rockets were Iranian, and which one are you talking about, today’s or the Erbil?

MR PRICE: No, I’m saying that broadly speaking we have seen that many of these attacks have used Iranian-made, Iranian-supplied weaponry.

QUESTION: But not this one or the previous one?

MR PRICE: I wouldn’t want to get ahead of the investigation.

QUESTION: Can I stay on Iran?

MR PRICE: Staying on Iran for one moment.

QUESTION: Yeah. The – Dr. Namazi was – the Iranian courts dropped his case or commuted his sentence over a year ago and he still hasn’t been allowed to leave the country. I wonder if you have any specific comment on that? And also, the Iranians have denied that they’re in talks with you about hostage swaps, so I wonder if you can just clarify are these direct or indirect discussions?

MR PRICE: Well, I understand that our Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs Ambassador Carstens issued a message this morning. Today I believe is five years since the elder Mr. Namazi has been in Iran. You also heard National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan issue a very strong message to the Iranians yesterday. What he said was, we will not accept a long-term proposition where Iran continues to hold Americans in an unjust and unlawful manner. It will be a significant priority of this administration to get those Americans back home safely. As Jake – National Security Advisor Sullivan – also said yesterday, we have channels to communicate with the Iranians about the unjust, unlawful detention of American citizens in Iran and we are using them. I wouldn’t want to go beyond that, however.

[...]