MR. ERELI: Let's wait for our wire friends to get here. Wire friends.

QUESTION: Here's a wire friend.

MR. ERELI: We'll start with our wire friends today. Do you have a question?

QUESTION: Yes I do, oddly enough. (Laughter.) Can you comment on the report in The Washington Post about the new initiative that the United States might be preparing with Iran to offer them incentives, joining the Europeans to offer them incentives to give up their nukes?

MR. ERELI: What we're doing is in the wake of President's trip to Europe, the excellent discussions he had there, as well as the Secretary's earlier trip to Europe and our engagement with the EU-3 and our discussion with them of how things are going in their efforts to bring about a cessation of Iran's uranium enrichment program, is we are looking at ways that we can support those efforts.

The important issue that I'd like -- that I think that we should underscore, however, is less a question of tactics than one of broad strategy, and the broad strategy is important. There is a convergence of views between the EU-3 and the United States that Iran's nuclear activities are threatening and that they need to -- that together we can work to ensure that whatever Iran does, it is in compliance with international obligations, it is transparent and it is -- it does not pose a threat to any of us.

They have -- as you know, the E-3 is in the process of working with Iran to suspend and eventually cease uranium enrichment programs. They, as I said earlier, talked about some ideas with the President. We are back here looking at those ideas, looking at what steps we might take that is supportive of their efforts. They can help us together meet our common goal of containing and rolling back a program that is in frankly nobody's interest.

As far as what the details of those discussions are, I'm not in a position to say. As I said, they are ongoing. I think we've been clear that no decisions have been made yet and I expect that Secretary Rice will be discussing further some of the ideas, some of the points that we've been talking about internally, with her European counterparts during her current visit to Europe.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Without going into the details, would it then be safe to say, based upon what the Post was saying, that the United States is looking at getting more actively engaged in this process?

MR. ERELI: Well. I don't know if that's -- if I would agree with that characterization of the article. I would say we have been very actively engaged in the process all along. From the very beginning of the EU-3's approach to Iran, which goes back many years, we have been consulting closely with them, we have been sharing our points of view. We have -- they have been keeping us informed on how they've been -- how their discussions have been going.

In the past we've seen Iran make promises to suspend enrichment activity that have -- that they have then broken. We're at another stage now where they've engaged in another suspension. I think we all want to see an end to enrichment activity, which doesn't serve any useful peaceful purpose. I think the Europeans are at a stage now in their discussions where they have floated us certain ideas. Those are the ideas that the President discussed. Based on those discussions we're looking at ways we can help meet our common goal.

QUESTION: Can you say for sure, can the government say for sure, that Iran has regressed to the point where they are now in the nuclear weapons business? Some of us heard a former desk officer who's written a book, who's a very prominent retired diplomat, Henry Precht, last week say that Iran is doing what India did. I mean, that development, nuclear development, is a sovereign act that countries all want to progress and develop things. You're convinced -- you said there's no peaceful application -- Iran is over the line now, what they're doing is harmful and is geared to developing nuclear weapons, you're saying?

MR. ERELI: It has long been the position of the United States that there's no logical need for a peaceful nuclear energy program in Iran, given its huge gas reserves and oil reserves. We've also been very clear that based on what we've seen from Iran and based on the scope and the nature of its program, that it is our considered judgment that it is a cover for a nuclear weapons program. And I think we have -- that there are -- that that concern has gained currency in the international community and certainly is something that informs the policies and actions of a number of countries, which is what has helped us get to the point where we are today where you have a growing and strengthening international consensus that what Iran is doing is troublesome, that Iran has been deceptive of about its activities for a number of years, that questions that the international community has remain unanswered, that efforts to find information continue to be blocked, they continue to be evasive; and that as a result, one needs to maintain a united front and continue -- and not let go of the issue.

QUESTION: And you think you have a united front with the Europeans, who are progressing along in a negotiating track, and you are progressing along a track of someday hoping to go to the UN and finding enough support to apply economic sanctions on Iran? You think you can have the world -- this international community can have a productive outcome of their joint strategy if their tactics are so disparate?

MR. ERELI: I would say that we have -- we are proceeding along a common front of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which is something we all share a common interest in and recognize that shared interest.

Tammy.

QUESTION: Can I switch to --

QUESTION: Can we stay in Iran?

MR. ERELI: Iran.

QUESTION: After listening to European leaders on this trip, would the Administration consider giving incentives to Iran like, for example, the joining the WTO, as we heard?

MR. ERELI: This isn't a question of incentives or inducements or carrots or sticks. This is a question of coordinating our position with our allies to achieve a common goal, which is an Iran that cannot develop nuclear weapons and cannot threaten its neighbors and cannot destabilize the region. We are -- where we are at the present time is that the European Union is working with Iran and with our support to arrive at a cessation of uranium enrichment activities. That's where the focus has to be. It's not a question about offering incentives or other tactical issues. The issue is what can we do together to achieve this goal.

And more importantly, it's about Iran being responsive to the concerns of the international community. It's not just the United States, it's not just the EU-3; the IAEA Board of Governors has had a number of reports and a number of resolutions expressing concern about Iran's program, asking for answers to questions, asking for information which Iran continues to withhold or obfuscate on.

So I wouldn't look at it, I wouldn't look at the story, in terms of the United States looking to offer incentives for Iran to do what it should do, but rather I would look at it as the United States and its European partners as part of a more -- as part of a broader effort to bring Iran -- to bring Iranian behavior in line with what the international community expects of it.

QUESTION: Adam, the President said that he was getting good advice from his European counterparts and so on on this issue. And on the issue of enticement to Iran, wouldn't it be prudent for the United States to really reach out to Iran, not only on the nuclear issue but also to drive or poke a hole or drive a wedge in sort of Syrian-Iranian relations at a time when the Administration is trying to isolate Syria?

MR. ERELI: That's not our policy.

QUESTION: But how do you explain it?

MR. ERELI: How do I explain what?

QUESTION: That North Korea, which by all accounts is far more advanced in a nuclear program than Iran is, you talk to as part of a setting with other concerned nations. Here in Iran you have a different set of concerned nations and you don't join those talks. I mean, I guess --

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't think you can --

QUESTION: -- that you should say there isn't a cookie-cutter foreign policy.

MR. ERELI: I don't think you can compare the six-party process with the EU-3 engagement. You can't compare it for a whole number of reasons. One, because of where North Korea is in its program. Two, because of the scope and the nature of the discussions. Three, because of the way it's structured compared to where Iran is. I mean, we've talked about this before several weeks ago. In fact, I remember we went into at some length. And the point I made then is the point I made now. We're dealing with -- it's a lot more complex than just a cookie-cutter approach. But we're dealing with two very different situations. We're dealing with two very different countries. We're dealing with two very different programs. We're dealing with two very different threats. And we're dealing with two very different, I would say, diplomatic realities.

And as a result, the approach we take to each is different because the problem we have to deal with is different. You can't just say oh, well, you've got a nuclear problem here and you have a nuclear problem there and you should take the same approach. Well, they're different nuclear problems, they're different countries and they're different threats.

QUESTION: I just mean the notion that there's something about Iran as a government that is -- that you're so -- I don't know what the heck's the word, I can't think of the word -- meaning you can't sit in the same room with them. You're allergic to Iran but you're not allergic to North Korea. You can talk to North Korea, but when Iran comes up you run away.

MR. ERELI: Well, at this point there's no -- at this point there's no, in our view -- the question of us sitting with Iran is not necessarily something that's going to contribute to moving this process forward. We've always said that on given issues and given circumstances we leave open the possibility of talking to Iran if it advances our -- if it addresses those issues and if it serves our interests and if the President thinks it's the right thing to do. So we've never said never. We've just said that as a panacea that's thrown out there that somehow is going to cause the scales to fall from their eyes and reverse what has been a consistent and persistent trend of irresponsible international behavior, that's a little bit farfetched.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. satisfied that the Russian agreement signed with Iran over the weekend will prevent any sort of nuclear materials from being used in a weapons program? And also, do you have any sort of readout on the IAEA meeting today and what the U.S. position is on what's going on there today on Iran?

MR. ERELI: On the subject of the Russian-Iranian agreement on providing fuel for Bushehr, we have not seen the agreement so I really can't speak to it with regard to what its terms are and what its implications are.

I would make a couple of observations, broad observations, however. One is that this is a deal that's been in the works for some time; number two, that, again, the United States has had longstanding concerns about Iran's nuclear program and that the ultimate purposes of that program, that we have shared -- we have spoken to Russia about those concerns and that in our discussions with the Russians we believe we have a convergence of views that Russia understands and accepts the dangers that -- posed by an Iranian nuclear program and that is proceeding on that basis.

Specifically, I would note that we have discussed the issue of providing nuclear fuel to the Iranian plant and the importance of taking back spent fuel. We have discussed this with the Russians. The Russians agree with us that Iran must not gain a nuclear weapons capability.

So with all that in mind, I think that moving forward there is a convergence and a compatibility of views between the United States and Russia about the problem posed by Iran's nuclear program and about the importance of ensuring that all spent fuel must be returned to Russia and the importance of Iran complying with all its known proliferation treaty safeguards and resolving outstanding concerns of the international community.

QUESTION: And on the IAEA meeting today?

MR. ERELI: And the IAEA meeting. I would note that the IAEA Board of Governors is meeting this week. It's going to -- Iran is not a formal agenda item. It will be addressing a broad range of issues and also deal with safeguards issues, including Iran.

In his opening statement on Iran, IAEA Director General ElBaradei told the Board that the IAEA is continuing to investigate unresolved concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program and it's continuing to verify whether Iran is implementing a full suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. He went on to reiterate the IAEA's call on Iran to provide full transparency and he noted that in some cases Iran has still not provided information or cooperation with the IAEA.

We would expect in the coming days that other IAEA officials will be providing a more detailed briefing to the Board on Iran's nuclear activities and we certainly welcome those briefings.

QUESTION: And a quick follow-up?

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: You mentioned that the impetus for talks is also dependent on how far along Iran is compared to North Korea.

MR. ERELI: No, I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, that --

MR. ERELI: I didn't -- if I did, I didn't mean to suggest it. I said they're two completely different things and that one -- the approach you take with one does not necessarily mean that's the approach you should take with the other. I also said on the subject of talking with Iran we've never ruled it out but -- in the right circumstances, but I urged sort of caution and realism to those who see it as a step that would bring some kind of breakthrough and some kind of reversal of what has historically been a very negative trend.

QUESTION: Adam?

MR. ERELI: Yes.

QUESTION: Can I phrase this another way? There's a headline today that the Russians rebuffed the United States on Iran and we've seen this whole tract with North Korea over several years, this tract with Iran on the nuclear power plant. Was Russia, since they lost the Ukraine within the last two months, trying to put together weapons and military bases both in Iran and Syria, and that's why you have this uncertainty and today the Government of Lebanon just fell and what --

MR. ERELI: Yeah, you're reading in a lot of stuff. I would --

QUESTION: In other words, are the Russians behind all this?

MR. ERELI: No, the Russians are not behind all this. I wouldn't try to make connections that aren't necessarily there and your question is very speculative. What I would simply say is to reiterate my earlier comments that this deal with Iran has been in the works for some time, that we and the Russians have had a number of discussions both bilaterally and within the context of the IAEA about our shared concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program and that we have also discussed in great detail what kind of safeguards and assurances and guarantees would be needed to make such a deal palatable.

QUESTION: So does that mean the U.S. does not disapprove of the deal --

MR. ERELI: Again --

QUESTION: In fact, it's all right if the safeguards are implemented?

MR. ERELI: Again, it's not -- I'm not here to approve or disapprove of deals. What we're here to do is to underscore to the international community how we view the Iranian program, to try to generate a consensus and a common approach to that problem, and it's a problem that concerns not just us but a variety of countries, especially those neighboring Iran like Russia. And we believe we've made significant progress on that. We believe that there is a commonality of views and a common approach to this and one that -- and all countries that feel a stake in this are acting -- or should act responsibly, should act in ways that not only help the international community but serve their own interests.

QUESTION: Adam?

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: You've got a commonality of views with the Europeans. Does that mean that you're not going to press at this IAEA meeting the issue of the Iranian nuclear program to move to the Security Council?

MR. ERELI: As I said, at this meeting, in this quarterly meeting, Iran is not an agenda item. There is another quarterly meeting in June, and based on developments between now and June I think that we would, you know, we would have to see, you know, what those developments are and what position we're going to take.

QUESTION: So you're postponing now until June the possibility of going to the UN? I mean, you kept having these markers. I'm not criticizing. Things are complicated in this world. But you've had the IAEA meetings as markers, let's see what happens when the IAEA meets and then we'll decide what to do.

MR. ERELI: Right, right.

QUESTION: Now the IAEA is meeting and you say since Iran is not an agenda item it's not the kind of meeting that is a marker, let's see what happens in June.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. I don't want this to sound overly bureaucratic, but what triggers a discussion of Iran at the IAEA is a report from the Director General.

QUESTION: True.

MR. ERELI: A comprehensive report on Iran's activities. The Director General is not presenting such a report at this meeting so therefore the subject of what response, what actions to take in response to the report, is not something we're looking at in February. Now, the Director General may report -- and I don't want to get ahead of myself, I don't want to say will, but may report -- on Iran's nuclear activities at the next quarterly meeting, which I guess is in June. And that would be the occasion to discuss the report and take whatever actions the Board feels is appropriate based on what the Director General tells the Board. That's not happening in this meeting.

QUESTION: So you're boxed in. You can't go to the UN in the foreseeable future because, first of all, you're not sure the Director General agrees with you and you're trying to, you know, get him out of there anyhow, so you're waiting on somebody who isn't about to make it an agenda item and you can't move until there's consideration of Iran's program by the IA -- it sounds like you're boxed -- you've been stalemated.

MR. ERELI: No, I wouldn't say that at all. I would simply say that at this point in time, given where things are, there is not a basis to debate what actions to take with Iran. We talked about it in previous meetings. We'll probably talk about it in future meetings. But at this meeting at this time there's, I think, a consensus view that we don't have the kind of information and we're not at the stage in dealing with Iran that we want to have that kind of a discussion.

. . .