. . .

QUESTION: Is the U.S. interested in reviving or renegotiating this uranium swap deal with the Iranians through the P-5+1 group?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, go back just over a year. We did table the Tehran research reactor proposal. We thought it was a confidence-building measure that could provide some momentum to enhance the discussions of our core concerns, which remains the nature of Iran's nuclear program.

We still think the concept has a potential value, so we would be interested in continuing to pursue that with Iran if Iran is interested. At the same time, regarding the TRR, it's important to note that the proposal would have to be updated reflecting ongoing enrichment activity by Iran over the ensuing year. But this is something that we potentially look ahead to engaging Iran in through the so-called Vienna Group.

But it is important to just note that the TRR does - is not a substitute for the ongoing concerns that we have about the nature of Iran's nuclear program. For that, we need a sustained, serious conversation and where Iran has to convince the international community that it's abiding by its international commitments. And as we say, through our discovery of Iranian activities, including the existence of the secret Qom facility, we have our doubts as to whether Iran is living up to its obligations.

QUESTION: Would you - on that one, would you see those two sets of talks - TRR and the broader talks - do they have to run in parallel? Or given that you're saying the TRR proposal could be a confidence-building move, would it make more sense to start that one off first? And is that perhaps what Lady Ashton may be talking to them about?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, the first - I mean, obviously, the first thing we're waiting for is a response from Iran for the proposal put forward by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton. She has proposed talks next month, and Iran has yet to respond to that. But if Iran is prepared to sit down and seriously engage, we are prepared to continue to discuss the TRR proposal. But at the same time, we need to have Iran come forward and demonstrate affirmatively that it's living up to its obligations and its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

David.

QUESTION: One of the newspapers today seemed to be pretty sure that these talks are going to be held on the 16th and 17th of November. Is that --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, that is what we have proposed. Iran has made some public indications that it's interested in discussions, but has yet to formally respond.

. . .

QUESTION: P.J., Treasury is blacklisting a few dozen Iranian firms in Europe as being Iranian fronts for illicit trade and that sort of thing, which I think that militates against the State Department trying to get the Iranians to -

MR. CROWLEY: Start it - I missed the first -

QUESTION: The Treasury Department has blacklisted about three dozen so-called Iranian front companies operating in Europe. Wouldn't that make them less amenable to talk about nuclear issues?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I mean, the choice that Iran makes is up to Iran. We believe that Iran should come forward, engage the international community seriously, and answer the questions that we have and the concerns that we have about Iran's nuclear program. We have said all along that we are open to engagement, but at the same time, we're going to take steps to put pressure on Iran. And we believe that the sanctions and - both the international sanctions and the national steps that we have taken and other countries have taken are, in fact, getting Iran's attention. Whether it convinces Iran to take the - what we think are the steps that are in Iran's long-term interests, we'll wait and see.

. . .