QUESTION: Just wanted to get your reaction first to efforts on the Hill to draft the new sanctions bill. Are you opposed to it even though they’re talking about some waiver authority or certification process in place that would allow the sanctions not to go into place in (inaudible)?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, let me say first, as I think many of you are aware, the Secretary will be very engaged in meeting with and speaking with his former colleagues about this issue. He spoke with Senator Menendez yesterday, but he’ll be doing a number of calls over the coming days with the respect for the fact that many people are spending time with their family – families for Thanksgiving.

Also, and I just didn’t want to forget to add this, we’re also going to send a video to all members of Congress this afternoon, which is the Secretary’s outlining for them in very basic terms what the Iran agreement does and what it doesn’t do. He certainly understands that this will be a vigorous debate, though he believes that everything doesn’t have to be a showdown. And the video is part of our effort to make sure that the debate is based on facts and not rumor or otherwise.

In terms of specific – and I know there’s a range of pieces of legislation including the one you mentioned – passing any new sanctions legislation during the course of the negotiations in our view would be unhelpful and can put the – could put the success of the outcome at risk. That is certainly a message the Secretary will be conveying, and I think you’ve heard that message coming from our colleagues over in the White House as well.

And as he portrays this, or conveys this, I should say, to his former colleagues, there are a couple of reasons. One is it could divide the P5+1, because other countries would think that the United States is not living up to our end of the bargain in terms of giving the negotiations a chance, and it could have the opposite impact of what is intended by driving the Iranians to take a harder line in these negotiations in response.

Second – and this is a very important one, especially for the supporters of sanctions, which the Secretary is a big proponent of sanctions and how effective they are, we already have the leverage of additional sanctions in place. If the Iranians violate the agreement during the six months, we’d move to – we’d support moving to additional sanctions. We’d be leading the charge. If the Iranians don’t get to a “yes” at the end of six months, we can put in place more sanctions. So the question here is what is in the spirit of the negotiations, and what would be most effective as we work towards a comprehensive agreement.

And third, the Iranians could also seek to exploit divisions in the international community to unravel the international sanctions regime. As you know, because we negotiated with the P5+1, this isn’t just about one country’s impact; it’s about all of the countries’ impact. It isn’t the U.S. trade embargo alone; it’s our – also our ability to get other countries to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, to cut Iran off from the international financial system. So there are a range of very important and substantive issues he’ll be conveying as to why we should not put in new legislation.

QUESTION: Since you mentioned the six-month period --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- is it your understanding that that has already begun, or is that subject to a start time determined by some sort of implementing parameters?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s a good question. It has not – the next step here is a continuation of technical discussions at a working level so that we can essentially tee up the implementation of the agreement. So that would involve the P5+1 – a commission of the P5+1 experts working with the Iranians and the IAEA. Obviously, once that’s – those technical discussions are worked through, I guess the clock would start. Obviously, there’ll also be a reconvening of the political track with the P5+1, which Under Secretary Sherman will continue to be our lead negotiator on.

QUESTION: Just two things with that. How long do you expect that process to take until the clock starts? And secondly, is it your understanding that the Iranians are already implementing the agreement, or are they using this lull for whatever they prefer?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have a specific timeline for you. I’m happy to check and see if there’s something more specific in terms of how quickly the technical pieces could be outlined or agreed to.

In terms of what the Iranians are or aren't doing, obviously our hope would be, given we are respecting the spirit of the agreement in pressing for sanctions not to be put in place and beginning the process of figuring out how to deliver on our end of the bargain, that the same would be coming from their end in the spirit of the agreement.

QUESTION: Jen, can I ask --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I’m sorry. I haven’t got – despite all this paper, I haven’t actually got the agreement in front of me.

MS. PSAKI: There’s a lot of paper. That’s true.

QUESTION: Yeah, there’s a lot of paper. There’s a lot of stories around at the moment.

MS. PSAKI: Yes.

QUESTION: There’s some language in the agreement that talks about that the – there will not be any new sanctions imposed during the six-month period. Is it your understanding that if there were to be new sanctions, would that violate the terms of the agreement?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly that was part of the – part of what the United States – and we’ve been very upfront about this – that we think should be part of the agreement and is part of the agreement. In terms of whether it would violate, I mean, I think I just touched on our concern of putting new sanctions in place and how that would violate the spirit of and what our agreement is with the Iranians, while, at the same time – as you know, but it’s still worth repeating – the core sanctions regime wouldn’t be touched, and those would still be implemented and fully in place. And we’re talking about new ones and a small reversible component of others that were agreed to.

QUESTION: So it’s not entirely clear yet whether there would be a violation of the agreement were there to be any new sanctions, either from yourselves or your partners in the EU, for instance?

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly that’s part of the spirit of the negotiation, so – in the spirit of what we committed to. So certainly that would be something that would be of concern.

QUESTION: And on the flip side --

QUESTION: But the Foreign Minister said that – sorry, Jo.

QUESTION: Go.

QUESTION: The Foreign Minister said in an interview yesterday --

MS. PSAKI: Zarif?

QUESTION: Zarif.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Sorry. Did I say Foreign Minister? Yes, I did. That if new sanctions were imposed the deal was off.

MS. PSAKI: Well, I think we’ve been very clear about – from the United States perspective, as I just outlined – the reasons why we shouldn’t put new sanctions in place now while still continuing to implement those that remain in place. So I don’t think there’s a disagreement about how unhelpful that would be.

QUESTION: Can I ask, then, on the flip side --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- the Europeans are now going to the EU as a whole to talk about how they’re going to try and do some of this --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- sanctions relief that was offered in the deal. When on the American side can we see some of that sanctions relief being implemented? And how will it come? In what form will it take?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm. Well, there’ll obviously be technical discussions, and that discussion will be ongoing. I don’t have an exact timeline in terms of when each piece. But it’s also not a all-at-one-time or a spigot that’s turned all the way on. So it would be a slow process that obviously we control, and some of those details are still being worked out.

QUESTION: But just in terms of logistics, we’re talking about executive orders? I would assume there’s no congressional approval that’s necessary. Would there be notification, things like that?

MS. PSAKI: That’s a really good question. In terms of the technical tick-tock of how it would work, I’d just have to check with our team and see what the specific next steps would be on that front.

QUESTION: And just before we move on --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- I just have a couple elements of the agreement that I wanted to ask you about.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: There’s been some concern – one, about the heavy-water reactor at Arak --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- that there wouldn’t actually be live monitoring; there would only be – the cameras that would be installed would then take footage, and then the next day you would pick up yesterday’s footage. Why was that agreed to? Are you worried about what that might mean?

MS. PSAKI: I’d honestly have to check on that level of specificity for you, Brad. I mean, obviously, what we’re looking at here is these are the first meaningful limits, as you know, Iran has agreed to. And the level of monitoring is unprecedented in this case, so I’m happy to check and see the specifics of how that would actually take place.

QUESTION: And then just one more?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The agreement talked about a joint monitoring commission, the EU3 – P5+1 and Iran.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Does having Iran in that joint monitoring commission create problems in terms of enforcement or really holding them up to the standards if they are, themselves, kind of in charge as well of enforcing their own commitments?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there are many parties in charge. Obviously, you need the cooperation of Iran in order to fully implement. They’ve agreed to this first step, which was announced this weekend. And as I’ve mentioned, if there’s a violation of that, we would reconsider what our commitments are as well. But remember, there are – there is a commission, there are a number of countries involved, and we’re going to be monitoring and watching very closely.

QUESTION: Right. But how realistic is it that this commission would announce violations if Iran is on the commission? Wouldn’t Iran say, “No, we’re not violating it”? Very few countries ever announce that they’re violating their own agreements.

MS. PSAKI: I’m not aware of there being – but I’m happy to check – an individual veto by one country of whether there are violations. But there will be a commission, as you mentioned, that will be closely monitoring whether there are violations that take place. And every country who’s engaged in this – the P5+1 has a high stake in making sure that we’re monitoring closely what’s happening on the ground.

QUESTION: So you – just to close the knot, you have no concerns about the autonomy and the power of this commission to kind of put forth violations, should they occur?

MS. PSAKI: We feel that this is – these are the first meaningful limits Iran has committed to. These – this is a – the strongest monitoring capability we’ve ever had. And we’ll obviously be watching closely if there are violations that are raised.

...

QUESTION: Regarding this inspection and the nuclear program part – and in the same time there is this lifting of the sanctions – are these related to each other, or parallel to each other, or it’s done one after the other?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking.

QUESTION: I’m trying to explain again. When you say – it has two parts in the agreement. One of them is, let’s say, the inspection at the nuclear program, and as a reward or like --

MS. PSAKI: That’s not a one-time thing.

QUESTION: I know.

MS. PSAKI: We’re talking about daily access.

QUESTION: Yeah, I mean – yeah. I mean – but in relation to that, it was mentioned the lifting of the sanctions. Are there – this – time-wise, are they related to each other, when they are going to start?

MS. PSAKI: Well – and Brad asked a sort of similar question in that – what is the next step here. So there are going to be technical discussions at a working level to essentially tee up implementation. There are pieces agreed to by both sides. You referenced some reversible limited sanctions relief. There’s also, on the other side – and a commitment to daily access for inspections. So the timing of those I don’t have a prediction of yet, but obviously, that’s what we’re working towards.

QUESTION: So – but this is one side. At the other side was – I mean, the parallel side is the lifting of the sanctions. I mean, is – when it’s going to happen, lifting of the sanction? At the beginning or the end of this process?

MS. PSAKI: It’s not either one of those. It’s a process where there would be some – it would be a progression, so that’s what we’re working through as well.

QUESTION: And there was a number mentioned which is either between $4 to $7 billion. Is this over the six months or one month, or what is it?

MS. PSAKI: It’s not one month. It’s what – it’s the total, and it applies to all of the relief internationally. So there would be a progressive process over the course of the first set.

QUESTION: So the technical discussions, where are they likely to be held? In Geneva or Vienna?

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check on that specifically for you. That’s just the next step into --

QUESTION: And that would involve Wendy Sherman? That’s at a – just at a technical level?

MS. PSAKI: That’s – right, exactly, exactly.

QUESTION: And then from this progression of the sanctions relief, is it more like an installment phase? Are they going to do it by installments? Is that the idea?

MS. PSAKI: That’s more accurate than saying it’s all at once, but in terms of how it would happen, I mean, obviously, that’s still being worked through. And we have a big controlling factor as it relates to our sanctions in terms of how it would work, and it would be more like a slow progression.

QUESTION: And you don’t know which bit would come first, whether it be the freezing of the capital or the gold and precious metals or the auto industry or the oil?

MS. PSAKI: Some of that is still being worked through, so I don’t have any update on it at this particular moment.

QUESTION: Is there any kind of timeline within – I mean, I understand you have to have your technical discussions first.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But if – I imagine that the Iranians are looking for something fairly swiftly to be coming from you. Otherwise, they’re going to start getting a bit cross and they’ll feel that the – they’re – the bargain’s not being kept up. So have you sort of told them, “We’re looking to do this sometime in December”? I know that’s what’s being projected by the EU side of things.

MS. PSAKI: Well, certainly there’s an awareness of the technical piece of this that needs to happen, so we’re engaged in that closely, as are other countries, and as soon as that’s worked through then we’ll be able to start moving forward.

QUESTION: On Iran?

MS. PSAKI: Iran? Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Just one more quick question.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: On the country, Turkey, who hosted these talks in the past – P5+1 and Iran talks – is there any role that Turkey’s playing right now in terms of these talks or just waiting or are you – do you have any expectations from Turkey on this juncture?

MS. PSAKI: In terms of hosting talks, or --

QUESTION: Hosting talks or in general during these talks and negotiations.

MS. PSAKI: I’m sure that the Secretary and others will be in touch with Foreign Minister Davutoglu about how – about this process and where we landed. I don’t have any other prediction beyond that. Do you not like Geneva?

QUESTION: Let me just do a follow-up.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: Just one quick again. Israel and Saudis are the two allies that been discussed --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- a lot in terms of this deal, your nuclear deal. I know there are discussions going on in Turkey. How do you think your ally Turkey being affected by this Iranian deal?

MS. PSAKI: I’d point you to Turkey on that to outline it. Obviously, this is something the P5+1 has committed to. There are other countries that may decide to follow suit, but I don’t have any prediction for you in terms of the specific impact on Turkey.

QUESTION: Just on Iran still. Can you share us – share with us any phone calls that the Secretary made to the Saudi Foreign Minister, anybody in the Gulf region?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. He spoke yesterday with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayid. He also spoke with UAE Foreign Minister Abdallah bin Zayid, and he spoke with Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal yesterday as well. He’ll be speaking with a range of foreign ministers, of course, over the coming days to brief them on the outcome of the negotiations and the specifics, and of course, discuss where we go from here.

QUESTION: Just on the timing, do you know if they called him before they made an announcement to welcome the deal, or was it after?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have that exact tick-tock of timing for you.

...

QUESTION: It’s about the Arak heavy-water reactor. The agreement didn’t say – doesn’t say that stop constructing. But he just say – that just say stop installing reactor or (inaudible) or something. That means the same things as stop constructing?

MS. PSAKI: Well, there’s – this is a first step. So just – that’s an important reminder here. So obviously, Iran’s ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium using the Arak reactor was what our bar was here, and there were a number of steps included in the agreement, which you can read online, of course, that do address that that were of vital importance to the United States. And beyond that, there obviously will be an ongoing discussion as we pursue the coming months and lead to a comprehensive – as we lead to a comprehensive agreement.

QUESTION: One more.

MS. PSAKI: Any more on Iran?

QUESTION: Yeah, just --

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: -- the Secretary visit to Israel, is it decided or not yet?

MS. PSAKI: I think he said we’re still working through the final details of the schedule but that he’d like to go soon after Thanksgiving, so that remains our plan.

QUESTION: But it was reported from Israel that – I think it’s Prime Minister – National Security Advisor is going to visit the --

MS. PSAKI: Come to the United States in a delegation?

QUESTION: Yes. Yeah.

MS. PSAKI: Yes, that’s correct.

QUESTION: And it’s decided when?

MS. PSAKI: I believe it’s sometime early next month. I don’t know that there’s a date that’s been set yet. Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Any more on Iran?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. PSAKI: One more on Iran. Okay.

QUESTION: The Boston Globe was reporting today that then-Senator Kerry was a part of the talks in Oman, so I wanted to know if you do have any general comment on that. And also, given the time in advance of the P5+1 talks that occurred, does that give any indication of how complicated and challenging this next round of talks is going to be, given that there was so much of a preamble before the P5+1 talks started?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, let me just give you – I know there have been a range of reports over the last couple of days, so let me just give you a quick overview, for those who are interested. So Secretary Kerry, when he was Senator and Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, did travel to Oman in coordination with the White House and with the Administration to meet with the Sultan and explore whether Oman could be a channel for engaging with the Iranians.

There – we have long had many channels to communicate bilaterally with the Iranians, including exchanges of high-level letters, bilateral discussions on the margins of the P5+1, passing messages through the Swiss protecting power in Tehran, passing messages through the UN missions in New York. And the Omanis, as many of you may remember, helped facilitate the release of hikers – of the hikers, as well, several years ago. So that was a trip he took when he was Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

There also have been, through that same line of communication, meetings in Oman – I know they’ve been reported – that – with the Iranians to discuss whether there was a channel for moving forward. These have been closely coordinated or we’ve briefed our P5+1 partners on those. We’ve consistently told P5+1 partners and our Israeli friends that if things developed substantively we’d – of course, it would be fed into the overall process, which is exactly what happened. So that’s just a quick overview, but certainly I can confirm the Secretary’s trip there when he was – to Oman when he was a senator, and the importance of that as a channel leading up.

But one last thing and then I’ll go to you, Chris. Obviously, the election, as we predicted last spring – the election of President Rouhani, the new administration, the exchange of letters with the President, the openness to pursuing a channel moving forward was when things really picked up, and that’s really what led, through the P5+1 process, to the agreement this weekend.

QUESTION: What was the timeline for this when you said that the Secretary was in the Senate?

MS. PSAKI: He went to Oman in December of 2011.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Just to clarify something.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: I’d seen a report that while those talks were happening in Oman that we had not let Israel know. But we did tell and inform Israel we were meeting --

MS. PSAKI: They were briefed. We’ve always told our partners that if – that we would be open to bilateral discussions, and if anything developed or was serious, we would brief them on those. And the President briefed Prime Minister Netanyahu in September.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that the talks in Oman started as far back as March this year?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So before the election of Rouhani.

MS. PSAKI: Yes. And the determination at that point was – the goal at that point was determining if there was a channel to work through. But as I mentioned, really the things picked up with President Rouhani and President Obama exchanging letters.

QUESTION: Yes, change of subject.

QUESTION: No, I mean, before that.

MS. PSAKI: One more on Iran?

QUESTION: Can I check – yeah, yes.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: I am just checking something I read, if you confirm it or not.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: There was in August a meeting by Deputy Secretary Burns and Sullivan with Iranian officials before the UN meetings. Is this true?

MS. PSAKI: Yeah. There were some meetings, they were fed into the P5+1 process, and that resulted in the agreement this weekend.

...