US Department of State website: Special Briefing on President Trump's decision to pull out
Background Briefing on President Trump's Decision To Withdraw From the
JCPOA
Share
Special Briefing
Senior State Department Officials
Washington, DC
MODERATOR: All
right, thanks everybody. So we are glad to have with us today two folks to talk
about the President’s decision today to withdraw from the JCPOA. This will be
on background, embargoed until the end. Our two speakers with us today are
[Senior State Department Official One], and next to him is [Senior State
Department Official Two]. And so they’ll start with a few comments and then
we’ll take some questions.
I think – you’d like to start?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Great, yeah. Hi.
MODERATOR: Senior State
Department Official Number One.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Hi. So I thought we would just start with a little bit more
substance, going one level deeper. You all heard the President’s remarks; you
saw the Secretary’s statement. So we wanted to put a little bit more meat on
the bones and then open it up for questions and use the time the way that you
think is most useful for you all.
So the sanctions reimposition that the President talked about is going
to come in two phases. There’s going to be one period for wind down that lasts
about – that lasts 90 days, and one period of wind down that lasts six months.
The six-month wind down – wind downs are, by the way, pretty standard across sanctions
programs. So this is not Iran-specific, but oftentimes when we either impose
sanctions or reimpose sanctions, we provide a wind down to allow both U.S.
companies but foreign companies as well to end contracts, terminate business,
get their money out of wherever the sanctions target is – in this case, Iran.
Because what we want – we don’t want to do is we don’t want to impact or have
unintended consequences on our allies and partners. We want to focus the costs
and the pain on the target. And in this case, that’s the Iranian regime.
So wind downs are pretty natural. In this case, we’re providing a
six-month wind down for energy-related sanctions. So that’s oil, petroleum,
petrochemicals, and then all of the ancillary sanctions that are associated with
that. So, for example, banking; sanctions on the CBI in particular, because the
Central Bank of Iran is involved in Iran’s export of oil and the receipt of
revenues. Shipping, shipbuilding, ports – all of those sanctions that are
related to both the energy sector and then the banking and the shipping or
transportation of that energy will all have a six-month wind down. Everything
else is going to have a 90-day wind down. So that’s – the architecture of the
Iranian sanctions program was quite complex, but everything else includes
things like dealing in the rial, providing metal – precious metals and gold to
the Iranian regime, providing U.S. banknotes.
So there’s a whole kind of swath of other sanctions that are all going
to have a 90-day wind down. In addition, within the first 90 days, the Treasury
Department is going to work to end – to terminate the specific licenses that
were issued pursuant to the statement of licensing policy on civil aviation. So
Treasury’s going to be reaching out to those private sector companies that have
licenses and work to end – terminate those licenses in an orderly way that
doesn’t lead to undue impact on the companies.
The other big action that has to be done is the re-designation of all
of the individuals that were delisted pursuant to the JCPOA. There are over – I
think 400 and some odd were specifically designated for conduct, and another
200 or so were identified as part of the Government of Iran. Treasury – that’s
obviously a big – it’s a lot of work for Treasury. Their aim is to relist all
of those individuals and entities by the end of the six-month wind down.
They’re not going to relist entities and individuals overnight, and – both for
practical reasons, but also for policy reasons. If some of those individuals
and entities were relisted right away, it would impact the wind down, right? So
if we’re allowing a six-month wind down for energy-related or petroleum-related
business, and then you designate – you re-designate tomorrow an Iranian-related
petroleum entity, it makes null and void the six-month wind down that you just
provided. So that’s all going to be done in a coherent way to provide a real
wind down period.
So that’s kind of the – putting a little bit of meat on the bones of
what it means to reimpose the Iran architecture, sanctions architecture.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: That’s great.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Do you want to open it up for questions?
QUESTION: I have a
question. Lesley Wroughton from Reuters. You said it’s not meant to have
unintended consequences, but it does. Nobody’s going to touch Iran or – and
immediately I think the U.S. ambassador to Germany just said to – told all
German companies to move out immediately, so it does have unintended
consequences.
QUESTION: Do you
have guarantees from the Europeans that they’re going to go along with this? Or
like they have with the Cuba sanctions, are they going to fight it? Do you
know?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: So what we’re going to do and what we’ve already
– since last December, when we started working with our European allies on both
the nuclear file but then also the broader array of Iranian threats, we’re
going to continue to work closely with them. We’re going to broaden that
engagement. And like both the President said and I think the Secretary said in
his statement, he’s going to lead an effort to build a global effort to
constrain and to prevent, both on the nuclear front but then also on the
ballistic missile front, support to terrorism and the – kind of the six or
seven areas that the President has outlined as kind of the broad array of
Iranian threats. We’re going to build a global coalition to put pressure on
Iran to stop that behavior. That’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: And let me just --
QUESTION: What was
the --
QUESTION: We’ve
heard from the Brits –
QUESTION: Sorry,
could you just respond to her?
QUESTION: I was
going to say, I mean – go on, Matt.
QUESTION: We’ve
heard from others that they not only are not going to --
QUESTION: Would
you mind? I had the first question.
QUESTION: Oh,
sorry. Okay. Yep, I apologize.
QUESTION: And they
haven’t even answered it.
QUESTION: Yep.
QUESTION: If you
don’t mind.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: So I just wanted to say that those are actually
intended consequences. We do think that, given the IRGC’s penetration of the
Iranian economy and Iran’s behavior in the region, as well as its other
nefarious activities, that companies should not do business in Iran. That’s an
intended consequence. And we thank our ambassador out there for reaffirming
that message.
QUESTION: So all
those companies that have gone in are moving out?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: We’re certainly going to encourage them to.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: Why --
QUESTION: And what
if they don’t?
QUESTION: If they
don’t, are you prepared to sanction German companies, French companies?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Those are discussions we’re going to have with
the Europeans.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: I mean,
you’ve been having discussions --
QUESTION: Sorry,
just a point of clarification on that. That would begin after the 180-day
period is over, correct?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: If it’s energy-related or banking-related. If
it’s related to the provision of precious metals or gold or any of the
sanctions that are being re-imposed after 90 days, then that would be --
QUESTION: So you
are planning to sanction European companies, or you will have those
discussions? Like --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: We’ve already started the discussions this
afternoon, right. The discussions are ongoing and the effort is ongoing.
Hopefully we will build – and this is the Secretary and the President’s desire
and focus, is to build this global effort to put renewed and strengthened
pressure on Iran. And that will include trying to isolate Iran economically.
QUESTION: Well,
why not keep the structure of the deal and address these concerns on the side,
as has been discussed for the last few months?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I think as the President laid out, that the
problem with the deal was that it reduced our ability to pressure Iran, right.
It essentially cordoned off this huge area of the Iranian economy and said,
“Hey, we know about the IRGC’s penetration of the economy. We know Iran’s doing
all this nefarious, malign activities in the region. But because of this
nuclear angle, which is only one aspect of Iran’s behavior – a critical one,
but just one – you essentially can’t sanction these entities that are involved
in all this other stuff.”
QUESTION: So wait,
just – so the United States has basically no economic relationships right now
with the Iranians, right? So there is no power of U.S. sanctions to prevent –
in preventing U.S. economic activity. The only power that U.S. sanctions have
is in preventing European and other economic activity, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Secondary sanctions.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: The secondary sanctions, correct.
QUESTION: Why get
out of the deal until you know for sure that Europe is going to go along with
that secondary sanction activity or whether you’re – they’ll fight you? Because
if they fight you, you’re going to be in a worse situation vis-a-vis Iran than
you are now and than you are previously, right? So you don’t actually know –
you’re saying that the President’s going to start this global coalition, but
you don’t actually know whether even your closest allies are going to be part
of that coalition, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: The President made clear on January 12th that he was giving a
certain number of months to try to – for – try to get a supplemental agreement
with the E3. We didn’t get there. We got close. We made a – we had movement, a
ton of good progress, which will not be wasted, but we didn’t get there. So he
was clear January 12th that if we don’t get this supplemental, he’s withdrawing
the United States from the JCPOA, and that’s what he did. That being said, you
could even see that President Macron tweeted only a few minutes after the
President finished his statement that France is eager to be part of an effort –
I forget the exact words, but part of an effort on a broader deal that
addresses the nuclear file but also --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Syria, Yemen.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: -- Syria, Yemen, and others. So you already see – you already
see from President Macron a willingness to work on a broader deal; you see from
the Saudis have also issued a statement supporting our withdrawal; the Israelis
did as well. No one is saying this is going to be easy, right, but the
President made clear his intention on January 12th. He made good on that – on
that promise.
QUESTION: You don’t know
right now whether you’re going to be in a better place or in a worse place; is
that what you’re saying?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: No, we think we’re going to be in a better place.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: No, we know we’re --
QUESTION: But you don’t
know.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: We know we’re going to be in a better place
because we don’t think that the current JCP – the JCPOA, as it is now,
adequately protects U.S. national security. So --
QUESTION: Because?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Because it allowed Iran to enrich after sunsets, after those
restrictions melted away --
QUESTION: In seven
years.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: And even then,
not enriching to a level where they could build a nuclear weapon.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Listen, after – after the Israelis revealed what
they were able to find --
QUESTION: All old stuff,
all old – before.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Listen, it was – we have acknowledged for quite
some time that the Iranians had a nuclear weapons program, but nobody knew
until the Israelis found it, this well curated archive, the level of detail,
right. And the – I think it reinforced in a very meaningful way that all of the
Iranian statements throughout the negotiations and after were lies.
QUESTION: So the
President said that we would impose sanctions on countries who helped with
Iran’s nuclear program, but actually, you will reimpose sanctions on companies
and countries that do any – roughly any economic activity, no matter if it has
anything to do with nuclear or anything, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: In the buildup – in the buildup to the
negotiations that led first to the JPOA and the JCPOA, we had an extensive
architecture of secondary sanctions that started more or less with CISADA in
2010. We had to use those secondary sanctions very, very rarely. In fact, we
only ever sanctioned two banks with secondary sanctions, Kunlun and Elaf in
Iraq. The leverage that we gained from the secondary sanctions is what we used
throughout the world with engagement to get countries to partner with us to
build the economic isolation of Iran. That’s what we want to do again. It’s not
about sanctioning foreign companies; it’s about using the leverage and engaging
the way we did before.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: That’s right.
QUESTION: When you say
that the – when you --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: This is a long-established practice, I mean,
since ILSA in the late ‘90s, this is something the U.S. has been doing. Sorry.
QUESTION: When you say
that the effort that you had in the negotiations with the E3 will not be
wasted, will you be implementing any of that? Because I mean, it was the
supposition that the U.S. would stay in the deal if these areas were addressed
by the E3. The U.S. isn’t staying in the deal, so --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: So we made a ton of progress on ICBMs, on access,
on missiles writ large, on regional issues, and then we got stuck on sunsets,
right? We didn’t quite make it. That work – we’re not sure. We have to – we’re
starting those conversations with the E3 today, tomorrow, so I can’t – we can’t
tell you exactly how it’s going to be used, but I can tell you it will be used.
That work is not going to be wasted.
QUESTION: So you think
they’ll go forward.
QUESTION: But if a ton
of progress was made, then why not give it more time? Why take such a dramatic
action that’s going to have you basically starting over from square one?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: The President made very clear on January 12th his
intention. If we got a supplemental agreement before May 12th, he would
consider it. We didn’t get there. He said this – on January 12th, he said that
was his last time waiving sanctions. He followed through on that promise.
QUESTION: And what was
the sticking point? Can you just sort of tell us what didn’t work?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: It was the one-year breakout.
QUESTION: The sunset
program.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah.
QUESTION: [Senior State
Department Official One], I wonder, just on Boeing quickly because I’m a little
confused. So Boeing had the original export licenses were valid until September
2020. Are those going to be cancelled?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: So Treasury – that is part – the civil aviation
specific licenses are part of the 90-day wind down. Treasury will be reaching
out to – I’m not going to name specific companies because I don’t think I’m
allowed to, but they’re going to reach out to private companies that hold
licenses and work on wind downs.
QUESTION: So are you
considering any carveouts for individual companies or countries as you establish
this wind-down period?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Well so, the wind down is a carveout for
everybody, right. The wind down carves --
QUESTION: No, but in
that time you could say, okay, maybe Boeing is going to be a company that is
not subject to these sanctions because of X, Y, or Z U.S. interests, or maybe a
France railroad company is not subject to these sanctions because of X, Y, Z.
Are those conversations possible or not?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: I don’t want to speculate on the hypothetical,
right, and Treasury’s going to be --
QUESTION: No, I mean are
you open to the conversations or not? It’s not hypothetical.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: I wouldn’t want to – I wouldn’t want to
specifically name companies.
QUESTION: Fine. Are you
open to carveouts for specific companies and countries?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I mean companies – U.S. companies are always –
always have the option of coming into OFAC and asking for a specific license to
do work that’s otherwise prohibited by sanctions. So there’s nothing that would
stop any U.S. company from doing that regardless.
QUESTION: Okay. Foreign
countries, can they ask for carveouts for companies in their country?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: They can ask for whatever they want.
QUESTION: So you’re open
to having those conversations.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I didn’t say that. I said that we’re going engage
– we’re going to engage our European allies and others, and I just don’t know. I
can’t speculate as to what they are going to ask for. This 90-day wind down and
180-day or six-month wind down provides everyone with quite a bit of breathing
room to wind down their activities. If there – and I just can’t – I don’t – I
can’t speculate beyond that.
QUESTION: So you’re
scuttling the – you reached agreement or near agreement on everything except a
sunset clause, so what is the point of scuttling the entire deal just because
of the one- year breakout?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Well, it’s a cost-benefit analysis, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: The one-year breakout was the key – that was the key to the
whole thing.
QUESTION: So you
can’t just keep --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: And plus it’s a cost-benefit analysis, right? I mean, if you get
X value from the – where we got to with the Europeans and then you add the kind
of negative value that Iran gets from using the protections alluded –
endogenous to the deal to project power in the region, it comes out to less
than the benefit you get from getting out. I think that’s – that’s the way we
look at it.
QUESTION: But
again, I just want to understand: You do not know at this point what the
Europeans are going to do in terms of the entire ancillary agreement you’ve
negotiated? You do not know at this point what the Europeans are going to do,
whether they’re going to fight you and – and, like they do with Cuba, protect
their companies against your secondary sanctions or what – you do not know what
the Europeans, your closest allies, are going to do vis-a-vis any of the
ancillary effects of getting out of this deal. Is that right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: We’re in constant conversations with the Europeans on this.
QUESTION: But you
don’t know at this point? You don’t know? You didn’t get to that in your
discussions, what’s going to happen?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: We did not talk about a Plan B in our discussions because we
were focused on negotiating a supplemental agreement, so we did not – we did
not talk about Plan B.
QUESTION: And what
makes you think that Iran is going to go along with a whole new renegotiation?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: We don’t know if they will. We don’t know if they will, and the
President said that in his statement. He doesn’t know if the Iranians are
willing to talk, but he said at the end of the statement that he’s willing,
able, and ready to talk.
QUESTION: Are
there missile – Iran missile sanctions on the books in the meantime, can those
come in, even the – the ballistic --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Ballistic – ballistic missile sanctions were never lifted under
the JCPOA, so under Executive Order 13382, we’ve always had the authority and
we’ve continued to designate under that authority throughout the JCPOA period,
so that – those have not been affected.
QUESTION: Right.
QUESTION: Can I –
on these wind downs --
QUESTION: Have you
had conversations with Asian companies that are the primary purchasers of
Iranian oil?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Excuse me?
QUESTION: Have you
talked to the Asian companies like China, South Korea --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: We haven’t talked to any private sector companies before the
President’s announcement, so we are going to – ENR is the point, is the lead
bureau for engaging in the energy sector, and they’re going to – they’re going
to move out immediately and starting conversations on significant reduction on
--
QUESTION: On the –
sorry --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: -- the
wind down periods – so obviously, there was the NDAA sanctions that were set to
– the waiver was set to expire this weekend, but then there was the other
subset of sanctions that were set to expire --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Right, in July.
QUESTION: -- in
July.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: So are
you immediately triggering that and it’s 90 days from this day forward --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
QUESTION: -- or is
it 90 days from July 11th?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: No, the Secretary’s revoking all waivers today, and then he’s
going to reissue wind down waivers today. So everything is going to be set as
of today.
QUESTION: And can
we just talk – is it possible, [Moderator], that we can talk just briefly about
the Secretary’s trip to Pyongyang? Is that – can we --
MODERATOR: This is
– these guys don’t have – that’s not their bailiwick.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: It’s not ours – I don’t know --
QUESTION: Okay.
Can you – can you --
QUESTION: You guys
going to respond to emails and texts about it now?
STAFF: Can we
stay focused while we have our experts here on the JCPOA?
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Well,
you guys have been hard to find the last couple of days, the last several days.
QUESTION: Okay. So
anyway, we’ll do that later.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: I’ve been in the building.
QUESTION: Well,
yeah. Can we reach you?
QUESTION: Not
everybody has.
QUESTION: Give us
your number or --
QUESTION: Can I
ask a clarification? Just on the – your discussions with the Europeans about a
one-year breakout, was it specifically that they believed your goal of
preventing a one-year breakout would violate the terms of the JPC – JCPOA
itself?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: It was a third rail for them to get in a position of modifying a
deal that was extant – their participation in which was extant at the time.
QUESTION: And you
guys were open – you were trying to essentially change the terms of the deal
with them?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Well, that’s not the way we viewed it. We were putting down a
supplemental, a sort of parallel-track deal.
QUESTION: But how
do you do that without violating the deal itself?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Well, now we’re reenacting – now we’re reenacting some of those
talks at the moment.
QUESTION: Right,
which is what I’m trying to get at.
QUESTION: But, I
mean, they tell us that they want to stay in the deal as is. And so again, it’s
all – this is all sort of fairly surprising that you guys are doing something
so dramatic that affects your closest allies in a dramatic way. They see this
deal as essential to their national security and you have no Plan B, you have
no idea whether they will stay in the deal, whether they will defend the deal,
whether they will fight you on the deal, whether they are going to go off with
Iran against you.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I mean, I think we have some idea because the President and
President Macron, when he was here for the state visit, talked in their press
availability about – President Macron called it a four-pillar new deal. What he
tweeted today seemed to me – I think there were four pillars in what he tweeted
today – seemed to me, again, to echo his desire for a broad new four-pillar
deal.
QUESTION: But one
of the pillars was keeping the JCPOA, which he made certain to emphasize
repeatedly.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Right, but he tweeted today something that seemed to indicate to
me a French willingness to work with us.
QUESTION: So you
guys have a positive tweet out of it. That’s amazing.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Well, as a heuristic of the French Government’s attitude, yeah, I
think that’s fair.
QUESTION: A senior
European diplomat who has been dealing with these talks described dealing with
State today as the deafening sound of U.S. diplomats running for cover, unable
to explain to allies and partners why this is happening, still less what
happens next. So it doesn’t seem like you guys are nearly on the same page.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: That’s not true. That’s not true. I have already had, since the
President finished his remarks, two calls with foreign counterparts. I have one
today at 6:00. It’s just not true.
QUESTION: But for
Pompeo to be in the air while all of this is happening, they can’t even call up
the Secretary of State, why that planning?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Look, that’s a separate negotiation, right? That’s --
QUESTION: It’s
still U.S. foreign policy.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Well, and the Secretary was involved in it. I mean, the
Secretary has comms on the plane. He was involved. I mean, he certainly was
involved in the decision. He was involved in the rollout. He drafted his
statement that he issued from the plane and was communicating. I mean, he’s not
out of pocket. He’s – we have to be --
QUESTION: He’s out
of – he’s absolutely out of pocket, isn’t he? What, like, out of --
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Well --
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
can you call him?
QUESTION: Can you
give us any better sense of the calls he’s had and how he’s been framing this
to counterparts both before and after this was announced?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I can’t.
QUESTION: [Moderator],
could we get more on that?
MODERATOR: (Nodding.)
QUESTION: Was
there any discussion – and I’m sorry I missed part of this – about Iranian
actions in Syria, Iranian actions in other places? I mean, how risky – the
risks of this, of provoking Iran in places where you don’t want them to be
provoked?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: So I think this cuts to really the quick of the whole issue is
that we’ve seen – and I’m not just going to regurgitate talking points at you –
but the one is that we’ve seen since 2015 worsening Iranian behavior in the
region and behavior that doesn’t quite internalize the risk of what they’re
doing as much as we would have wanted to. So yes, I think exactly what you
pointed out is one of the main driving elements behind this decision. We are
alarmed by that behavior. The French are alarmed. I mean, you keep raising what
--
QUESTION: Yeah,
but it wasn’t the Iran deal that made them do those things.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: But again --
QUESTION: It was
the Saudis bombing Yemen. It was – they have other interests in Syria.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not sure --
QUESTION: They
have interests in Iraq --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: I’m not sure they’re in Syria --
QUESTION: -- that
go back to when --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: -- because the Saudis are bombing Yemen.
QUESTION: -- the
U.S. toppled Saddam.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Right? I’m not sure they support Hizballah because the Saudis
are bombing Yemen and I --
QUESTION: They’ve
always supported Hizballah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: -- I don’t suppose they – I don’t think they support Badr or AAH
or any of the – any of the Iraqi groups because – because the Saudis are
bombing Yemen.
I think the problem with the Iran deal, as I talked about in the
beginning, was that not only did it sort of decouple the consequences from
Iran’s behavior – right? – by cordoning off a large part of Iran’s economy that
simply the prejudice against which would be – the prejudice would be to not
sanction that part. But indeed, it seemed to mandate a kind of top line of
investment in the Iranian economy, which my gosh, totally decouples the
consequences from Iranian behavior. That’s --
QUESTION: So the
Israelis have now gone on high alert. They’ve – opening bomb shelters. There is
this worry that the Iranians are going to attack from bases in Syria. Now that
you’ve gotten out of the Iran deal, now that you may have provoked Iran, are
you going to commit more troops to Syria? The President just said he wants to
get the troops out of Syria. How – that seems a contradiction that you may be
provoking more malign behavior on the part of the Iranians while the President
is saying that he wants to get actually U.S. commitment to be less in the
Middle East.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: I think it’s a little – I think it’s a little tough to – I think
it’s a little, well, tough to blame Iranian behavior in Syria and risk-taking
in Syria – which has, if anything, worsened since the outbreak of the civil war
and the introduction of Iranian forces, not just Iranian proxies – on the
President’s Iran deal decision coming today. That doesn’t seem to follow to me
at all.
QUESTION: Okay. So
are you thinking about committing more troops to Syria that – because of what
sounds like certainly Israeli concerns and other people’s concerns about Iran’s
more aggressive behavior that they say is a result of this decision – whether
it is or not, are you going to reverse the President’s decision recently that
he’s going to pull troops out, or are you committing more troops? What is your
Syria strategy in the wake of this?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Well, the President’s focus in Syria is on ISIS. That’s kind of
– and I know Brett McGurk has talked to you probably endlessly about this, but
that’s kind of a parallel discussion.
QUESTION: Okay. So
it’s not on Iran then?
QUESTION: Sorry.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Can I just make one point though --
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: -- that relates to your question and your question? It is clear
to us and it’s clear to our European allies too that since the JCPOA Iranian
malign behavior in the region has increased dramatically.
QUESTION: Yeah.
But they disagree on what caused --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I’m just saying it has gone up.
QUESTION: But they
don’t agree that that’s because of the Iran nuclear deal. It’s – I mean, we’ve
talked to European diplomats too, so.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Right. It is our strong view that the JCPOA gave Iran room both
for domestic internal political reasons in Tehran and regional reasons to
increase their malign activity that helped to destabilize the region
substantially.
So in responding to questions about how pulling out of the JCPOA will
affect that, it just – I think it’s important for me to just say that we have
seen a dramatic increase to a point where in Syria Iranian behavior – unrelated
to the JCPOA but Iranian behavior – is so dangerous and reckless. That’s why
Israelis – that’s why the Israeli – the IDF is opening shelters in northern
Israel. It’s not because of the JCPOA. It is because of some really dangerous
and reckless behavior, including capabilities and all kinds of other things
that are going into Syria.
QUESTION: So if
you think the JCPOA has given them the room to do this sort of reckless
behavior, do you now believe that, as a result of getting rid of the JCPOA,
Iran will get out of Syria and stop its reckless behavior?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: We believe that by getting rid of the JCPOA, we can come up with
a more comprehensive deal, a more comprehensive approach that doesn’t just
focus on the nuclear file. The focus is on all of the threats together so that
we don’t – the JCPOA tried to deal only with the nuclear file and left
everything else off the table in the hopes that it would just kind of get
better on its own or we wouldn’t have to worry about it as much. That strategy
didn’t work. So what we hope to do is a much more comprehensive deal.
QUESTION: And can
we judge the success of that --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, and just to be clear – sorry, can I just offer one thing?
QUESTION: Yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: And just to be clear, it’s not only the JCPOA that contributed
to the current situation in the Middle East.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: No, I’m not saying only.
QUESTION: Okay, so
just – so for our purposes, let’s say in a year, if you guys – or six months –
if you guys do not have a supplemental agreement with all of your allies about
addressing this global problem, it will – can we then say that this strategy
has not been successful, if in a year you don’t have it? When can we say, okay,
you guys promised us a more comprehensive, more global strategy to deal with
Iranian malign behavior after you got rid of the last one? When do we get to
judge whether you succeeded or failed?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Well, I think you would have to make a cost/benefit decision,
right, at six months, at 12 months.
QUESTION: So if
you have – if you don’t have an arrangement --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Continually.
QUESTION: -- with
your allies in six months, will this strategy have failed?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t want to put a timeframe on it, because the wind down is
six months for energy sanctions. So part of the strategy is showing Iran that
there is economic isolation as a result of its destabilizing activity, so I
think we have to be able to build this coalition, build up some economic
pressure. So that is the strategy, though, and at the end of the day, if that
strategy is – you will judge us based on that strategy.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: But I wouldn’t be – I would not put a six-month or one-year
timeline on it. I mean, CISADA was put in place in 2010 and took several years
– between CISADA and TRA and IFCA and other economic pressure took quite a few
years to get Iran to the negotiating table. So I don’t want to put a timeframe
on it.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MODERATOR: Unfortunately,
we have to wrap up here I think, you guys.
QUESTION: I really
have a sanctions question.
MODERATOR: One last
question, then.
QUESTION: Six –
okay, after the six months, then you can impose new sanctions on Iran, right?
Is that what you’re looking at?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: After the – after six months, we can re-impose the
energy-related and banking-related sanctions. It’s not new. They’re re-imposed
--
QUESTION: But you
can impose --
QUESTION: You can
impose --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Exactly.
QUESTION: You can
impose other sanctions --
QUESTION: Others.
QUESTION: -- at
will any time, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Exactly. Precisely. Precisely.
QUESTION: That’s
what I’m asking, yeah.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Yes.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Precisely.
QUESTION: Any
other things. And are you expecting that to come – I mean --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Non-nuclear sanctions.
QUESTION: Non-nuclear.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Defer to Treasury.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: On ballistic missile, counterterrorism, et cetera.
QUESTION: That –
so that we can expect over the next few --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I’m not going to say. I mean, that’s --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Up to Treasury.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: Okay. Do
you have an economic assessment as to what this impact is going to be on the
Iranian economy, pulling out and --
QUESTION: And
preventing (inaudible).
QUESTION: And
preventing --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t have it with me, and maybe we can something back to you
on that.
QUESTION: That would be
useful.
QUESTION: How
about on U.S. – on oil prices? I mean gas prices in the U.S.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: We can also get that to you. I don’t have that stuff with me,
but we can get that.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Team can (inaudible) it out for them.
QUESTION: Just to
do one North Korea question. He explicitly --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: But I don’t know the answer.
QUESTION: But he
--
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: You can ask me.
QUESTION: The
President explicitly linked getting out of the JCPOA with negotiations in North
Korea. He did that in his speech.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: Right.
QUESTION: So
presumably you guys can explain somewhat to us how getting out of the JCPOA
will help these negotiations that Pompeo is engaged in right now in Pyongyang.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: So at the end of the President’s remarks, he said I don’t know –
I mean, I’m paraphrasing – I don’t know if the Iranians are ready to sit down,
but I am ready, willing, and able. I think his – the point is that he has
initiated an effort with Kim Jong-un to sit down and negotiate the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. He is – we are ready to sit down – he
said he’s ready, willing, and able to sit down with Iran to negotiate a
comprehensive deal that addresses all of the threats together. So I think that
was the comparison he was making.
QUESTION: And
American detainees in Iran – what do you do about them? How many are there,
first of all, and what do you do about it?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: There are five, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Let me offer that the security and safety of Americans is our
top priority. Well, I know, you can make that face, but it’s true.
QUESTION: No,
we’ve heard it before, we get it, we get it. So --
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: I literally just came from here from – I came – went to the
White House from a call with one of the families, right. This is – and they
were asking exactly the same things. I don’t want to – this is going to be
unsatisfying to you – I don’t want to get into it. That’s conversations we’re
having with a number of parties to try and resolve those cases, but – so I’m leery.
The – I’m leery about getting too much into that, and I know that’s
unsatisfying, so I’m sorry.
MODERATOR: Thank
you, guys. I’m sorry, we’re going to have to wrap it up now. We’ve got – these
guys have to get somewhere else.
QUESTION: Wait, so
is there no July deadline anymore? That’s out the door, right?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: They were on a July deadline.
QUESTION: Just
making sure. Okay.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL TWO: Did you have one other?
QUESTION: I did,
but I think it’s just going to --
QUESTION: Well,
and – just to clarify his question. So it would – a deal with Iran would
require Iran to totally denuclearize as well, to have no nuclear program
whatsoever?
QUESTION: -- bring us
back to the same kind of (inaudible)
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT
OFFICIAL ONE: I don’t want to answer that.
MODERATOR: Thank
you.
QUESTION: Thank
you.
MODERATOR: Thank
you, guys.
مطالب مارا در وبلاک خط سرخ مقاومت ودر توئیتربنام @bahareazady دنبال کنید
ما بر اندازیم# تهران # قیام دیماه# اعتصاب # تظاهرات# قیام سراسری# اتحاد
