strong>. . .

QUESTION: I want to ask you about a couple stories that appeared over the last couple of days, one in the Wall Street Journal yesterday and another one in the LA Times today, about sanctions on Iran, the push for sanctions, specifically saying that the U.S. is in their words, watered down, but in other ways dropped some of the proposals that it's put on the table. Can you --

MR. CROWLEY: Let me ask something, watered down what?

QUESTION: They said they've - according in their words - of the article - that the U.S. has at least dropped some provisions that had been put on the table for possible sanctions on Iran.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would suppose - I think it's fair to say that both of those stories have significant inaccuracies. Clearly, we are consulting broadly as we envision how to put the appropriate level of pressure on the Iranian Government as part of our dual-track strategy. But in order to take something off the table, you have to actually put something on the table. We have not circulated a draft resolution. We are still in the consulting stage. We are, of course, trading ideas on not only how can we have an appropriate resolution, one that shows the unanimity of the international community, shows our shared concern about what Iran is doing. We think once we get to that point, and assuming we do get a strong resolution with appropriate measures, is going to send a very powerful signal to Iran that it cannot ignore.

But since we have not circulated a draft resolution, it's hard to say at this point that we're watering anything down. There's nothing to water down. There's nothing to take off the table. So this is an ongoing process. And we expect, as the Secretary alluded to in her comments at the White House this morning, that you'll see increased activity here in the next few weeks.

QUESTION: Let me ask it a different way. If - understanding that there is no physical text and that nothing has been put on paper, in this idea of trading ideas back and forth on what could be included in an eventual document, would it be fair to say that some ideas have, in fact, been shot down during that process, which it would appear the article (inaudible)?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it's an ongoing process. So again, I think this whole aspect is fairly premature. I mean, we have our views on what the appropriate measures might be. Other countries have a variety of views of their own, and so this is an ongoing process. At the end of this, we want - we do think that having a strong, united voice through the UN will increase the impact of a resolution, if and when it is passed by the Security Council. We also understand that whatever multilateral steps are taken, they can be augmented by significant steps at the national level. And of course, this involves some careful calibration on everybody's side. Nobody - everybody wants to send the right signal to the Iranian Government, put pressure on institutions that continue to support that government and contribute to the increasing oppression that the government is exerting on its own people.

So we want to focus on institutions like the IRGC. We want to make sure that our calibration sends the right signal and puts the right pressure on the government, but spares undue hardship on the Iranian people. So there's as much art to science in this, and this is an ongoing process. The foundation of this is the close collaboration and consultation that we have still underway under the P-5+1 and more broadly.

You're aware that there was a call this week at the political director level. I would anticipate we'll have further conversations with key countries in the coming days and weeks.

QUESTION: Just one more on it, you did say that there were significant inaccuracies in the stories. Can you be more specific about what you find inaccurate?

MR. CROWLEY: I just think it's premature.

QUESTION: Was it (inaudible) substantives that they were talking about it or was it the fact that things aren't on what you call the table?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, I would say that in the course of this dialogue, certainly we will say what about this, and another country might say, "Nah, I don't know about that. What about this?" And there's a lot of --

QUESTION: There's no contention with those elements in the story?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, no. But I would just say that the thrust of these pieces was - were that we were watering down the effort; we're not watering down the effort. We are exploring ways, trading ideas, seeking the right formula that puts the appropriate pressure on Iran, sends a very strong signal internationally. But find - continues to find ways to support the Iranian people. And we will continue this effort.

Certainly, there are - will all of the ideas that we've discussed end up in a final resolution? No. But I think we are seeking a strong resolution with sanctions that have the appropriate bite, have the impact on the Iranian Government that we seek, and hopefully, with no guarantee, that it will cause Iran to reevaluate the course that it's on.

QUESTION: And my last - sir, my last question on this topic. Just the call that happened two days ago, or I don't if it was - two days ago, I think, what changed that you saw that the Chinese decided they wanted to participate in the call? Was there anything that was perhaps offered or was there - have you seen a shift in their mentality? I mean, a few months ago, they wouldn't even hold a call.

MR. CROWLEY: Well, we are satisfied with the level of engagement across the board, and we will continue our close consultations in the coming days.

Samir.

QUESTION: Yes, in the Secretary's call to Hariri in Lebanon, what did she ask him about Iran?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it was a call. We were updating each other on various regional issues. Obviously, during the course of the call, the Secretary also renewed our commitment to Lebanon and its independence and its sovereignty. Much of the call was focused on the Middle East peace process. And of course, Lebanon has a significant role to play in that. But during the course of the conversation, we also reflected on our ongoing concerns about the role that Iran is playing in the region. Lebanon is part of the Security Council and - at the present time, and obviously will play a role as the sanctions effort continues.

David.

QUESTION: P.J., back on Iran. One can expect that the Secretary will take up this issue with her colleagues in Greater Ottawa next week. Will there be specific bilaterals on it, maybe even a sort of a caucus of P-5 countries?

MR. CROWLEY: I would expect that having the G-8 ministers together, obviously, they're focused on specific issues regarding the G-8. I think there's a separate meeting regarding development in the Arctic. But when you get these caliber of leaders together, I would fully expect that on the margins we'll talk about a variety of things, Iran being one of them.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow up. How many countries are with you as far as sanctions against Iran is concerned at the United Nations? And also, you think going back on many different countries - you think sanctions are going to work at this time especially on Iran, because many countries need their oil?

MR. CROWLEY: Goyal, you're right. And that's one of the reasons why we are - we want what ultimately advances to be effective. We want it to have the appropriate impact. We want it to be smart, intelligent, send the right signal, put the right pressure in the right spot. We - and we want it to have the right impact both in terms of how Iran sees its own self interest - we want to try to convince Iran that its long-term interest does not lie with nuclear weapons. Obviously, that is a broader conversation we'll also have as we go through our nonproliferation and arms control agenda here in the next couple of months, culminating in May with taking steps to strengthen the nonproliferation treaty.

So - but we also want to find ways to support the Iranian people. And ultimately, if done right, we think it will convey to Iran, from the standpoint of the national community, where its own long-term self interest appropriately lies.

QUESTION: One, how are you going to enforce? And second, you think Iranian mood have changed in any way, comparing in the past to today?

MR. CROWLEY: We are obviously disappointed with Iran's response to the gestures that we've made and the dialogue that we've had thus far. I mean, you raise a good point. In - back to how we're going to do this, I think we do draw from the implementation of North Korea sanctions. And what you have seen is that with this painstaking effort to put together an effective sanctions resolution - and then it translates into an increasingly effective enforcement of that resolution, and you're seeing that week in, week out with steps that the international community has taken because of its concern about North Korea's behavior. And we have no reason to think that this same kind of strong international effort - we think it can be done in the context of Iran just as it's been done effectively in the context of North Korea.

QUESTION: And finally, quickly, thank you, where do you stand as for an Israeli threat of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities if nothing is going to work out in the international community or at the United Nations? Are the UN --

MR. CROWLEY: Well, Goyal, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I think we - you've had Admiral Mullen, others have shared concerns about the unpredictability of choosing a military path to resolve this. We're focused right now on trying to resolve it, both through the diplomatic track and through the pressure talk. But as everyone has said, we have a range of options available to us, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

. . .