...

QUESTION: Can I go to Iran --

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: -- the talks in Geneva?

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: So the talks began today, but we’re hearing from our team on the ground that there hasn’t been any meeting between Wendy Sherman and her Iranian counterpart. Would you be able to fill us in on exactly what happened?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Well, that’s incorrect. As agreed, the U.S. delegation led by Under Secretary Sherman provided Deputy General Schmid and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Araghchi views and information that was useful to discussions to address any remaining issues to the agreement to the Joint Plan of Action. This was, of course, done fully in coordination with the EU.

On the margins, Under Secretary Sherman also had a bilateral meeting with Iran to help inform this process. As you know because we announced her travel yesterday, she is soon moving forward to the next stage of her trip. But those are the events that have happened on the ground.

QUESTION: She’s – is she still in Geneva?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have her exact location at this moment, but she, as you know, has many other stops planned. So my understanding is she’s moving on to those soon if she hasn’t already.

QUESTION: And you didn’t mention whether there was any agreement on when the implementation of the November 24th deal might go ahead.

MS. PSAKI: There’s no update on that. Obviously, there are still remaining issues, as there were. They’re working through those, and so I don’t have any update to tell you about on that front.

QUESTION: What’s the most difficult issue that you’re working through at the moment?

MS. PSAKI: We’re not going to outline that publicly, because what the – our focus is on is resolving these issues privately through these channels, and we’re working toward that. As we’ve said a few times, we – there are only a few issues we’re working through, and we’ll leave that to our teams on the ground to continue to do.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, are there fewer now than there were before this meeting? Are you aware?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not going to – I don’t have any other update to provide for all of you.

QUESTION: So I mean, is there some concern? Because the deal was agreed like almost six weeks ago now --

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- roughly. And within that time, because there’s no actual implementation date, it’s not binding on either side yet. So you could have a situation where Iran could still be using its centrifuges, could still be enriching uranium. What is your understanding of what’s happening on the ground in Iran at the moment?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I think, obviously, we’re watching what’s happening closely. But until the implementation starts, technically, both sides are not tied to what was agreed to. Obviously, what happened six weeks ago was a significant step forward, a historic step forward. We knew because these issues were so complicated and complex that it would take some time to work through on the technical experts level some of the implementation pieces. We’re in the midst of that, and of course, we would like to see that timeline of the six months timeline start as soon as we can.

QUESTION: But do you know whether anything still is happening on the ground in Iran?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any updates to provide for all of you on that or anything to indicate concern. Obviously, if those come up, we’ll address them.

QUESTION: If – Jen, I mean, if it is correct that you allow, but because there is no implementation deal, neither side is bound to what was agreed to on November 24th --

MS. PSAKI: Well, that’s --

QUESTION: -- why is there this big stink over at the White House about the President going to veto this Iran sanctions bill?

MS. PSAKI: Well, it’s important, Matt, that that’s technically. And so yes, technically. However, this is also --

QUESTION: Well, technically, you --

MS. PSAKI: Let me finish. This is also a question of the spirit of the negotiations, of how to maintain things moving forward on the path toward implementation, and beyond implementation toward a comprehensive agreement. So it’s not just about the understandings surrounding the text; it’s also about what the parties thought during the negotiations, what they discussed, how to maintain and seize this opportunity that’s the best one we’ve had in a decade to move towards a diplomatic solution. And that’s the argument we’re making to Congress and why we’ve been so firm in our resolution on this.

QUESTION: So it’s not a – it’s not because you’re bound or you believe that you’re bound at this current moment in time by the agreement not to have the sanctions bill become law? It is because you believe that that is in keeping with the spirit of the negotiations and not basically a traitor. Is that correct?

MS. PSAKI: And obviously, putting new legislation in place, Matt, would not just be a one-day thing. It would be something that would be law moving forward. So technically – let me just mention this because somebody asked this yesterday – the understandings surrounding the text is the implementation of existing measures is permitted within the scope of the text, but creating new sanctions authorities or – as legislation or a new executive order would be not. But again, our larger point here is still that that is immaterial because this is also about our negotiating in good faith and delivering on the promise we made with the P5+1 as well as the Iranians.

QUESTION: Fair enough. But you’re not actually bound by that agreement until there is an implementation deal done, no?

MS. PSAKI: Technically, no. But also we want to move --

QUESTION: Is it the --

MS. PSAKI: -- continue to move forward, keep going.

QUESTION: I understand that. I understand it. So is it then the Administration’s position that Iran in its actions since November 24th has also been keeping in the spirit of the negotiation and in the spirit of going forward and making progress?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything to report you that that hasn’t been the case. Obviously, if that were, we could speak to that at the time.

...