Statements by U.S. Officials

Senior State Department Official Briefing on Iran’s Nuclear Program 

Ankara, February 16, 2006

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  Thank you for coming here this afternoon.  I am really delighted to be back in Turkey.  My first trip to Ankara was in the early 1990s.  I came here as a NATO official.  It was right after the end of the Cold War, and everyone at the NATO Headquarters in Brussels was celebrating and drinking champagne and counting the peace dividend.  And I came down here leading the NATO delegation and your colleagues here all explained to me in very clear terms that maybe peace has broken out in Central Europe, but back then it was a rather difficult and dangerous part of the world here.  And here I am again, and I know it is still a difficult and dangerous part of the world. I am here to consult with your government officials as a NATO ally and as a country that plays an important role in this region. 

My mission here is really threefold.  First it is to exchange information and assessments with your government on the Iranian nuclear program; second it’s to discuss the diplomatic strategy to achieve a peaceful settlement now that we have reported Iran to UN Security Council.  And third, and perhaps most importantly, it is to hear the views of your government as a NATO ally and as a country that would be directly affected by a nuclear-armed Iran. 

The conclusion that we have come to is that Iran is working towards a nuclear weapons capability, that the Iranian leadership is determined to acquire this capability, and that their enrichment activities are part of their program to acquire this capability.  And what I’d like to do is to offer you a briefing that we will also hand out to you that talks to you about these concerns, and after that briefing then I’d like to talk more about the diplomatic strategy and the way ahead, and hear your thoughts, and hear your questions. 

The Iranian leadership says that their nuclear program is a peaceful program, and the US Government has absolutely no quarrel with countries seeking to make peaceful use of nuclear energy.  In fact, we are strong supporters of nuclear energy.  But Iran has talked a lot about its rights, but it has ignored its obligations.  And it has lost the international community’s trust.  And I think we found that countries are increasingly asking a set of questions.

They are asking if this is a peaceful program, why has Iran tried to hide major components of it for eighteen years.  If this is a peaceful program, why has Iran not cooperated fully with the IAEA?  If this is a peaceful program, why are there unexplained connections to the Iranian military?  Why did they procure equipment from the AQ Khan network which is not a supplier of civil nuclear technology?  It is a supplier of nuclear weapons technology for countries like North Korea and Libya when it had a nuclear program.  And you also have to ask why are there connections to weaponization, these administrative connections that the IAEA has talked about.  And also this document that the IAEA inspectors uncovered which was a document that was reported to us in Vienna before the November meeting that talked about how you  take uranium, machine it into hemispheres -- and the experts say there is only one reason to do it and it is for a nuclear weapon.  And then you have to ask yourself too if this is a peaceful program, why are they moving ahead when there is no economically justifiable peaceful purpose?

Iran has no nuclear power plants.  It has one that is under construction, and they have a contract with Russia to provide fuel for it for the next ten years.  And as you saw, even if they go ahead with the modest nuclear program, a nuclear program of say seven reactors, they will quickly exhaust what uranium they have in their country.  So again, does this sound like a peaceful program?  To us, it doesn’t. 

And I think what we found in Vienna at the IAEA and more broadly internationally more and more countries are asking these questions, and more and more countries are coming to the conclusion that this is not a peaceful program.  And that underlied the decision of the board of governors in September of last year to find Iran noncompliant with its international obligations, and also find there is a lack of international confidence in the peaceful nature of the program.

Now those two findings require a report to the Security Council.  But in Vienna we decided to give Iran more time to see if it would be willing to negotiate, and cooperate, and resolve these issues.  So in September instead of reporting them, we gave them more time.  We met again in November.  Instead of reporting them, we gave them more time.  And we got the response from the Iranian leadership, and unfortunately it was to break IAEA seals on enrichment-related equipment and components and material at Nartanz and elsewhere, and to start uranium enrichment.  And even though they are describing this as small scale, and as research and development, this is the next logical step to master the technology that will allow them to enrich uranium, and produce fuel for a nuclear weapon. 

So when we came to our meeting earlier this month, the board made the decision to report Iran to the Security Council.  And that was important really for three reasons.  First we had to do it.  Our statute required it.  The credibility of the organization required it.  We were very proud in Vienna to work with an organization, and a Director General who just won the Nobel Peace Prize, and we know that gives us a high obligation to protect the credibility of that institution.  So we had to make this report.  Secondly, we had to make a report to send a clear signal that the international community cannot live with Iran continuing to be given chances and instead breaking seals, and breaking international confidence.  We had to send a clear signal.  And then third, it was important, because we think it opens a new phase of diplomacy.  The report to the Security Council is not the end of diplomacy, it is part of diplomacy.  And I want to come back to that in a moment. 

Before I talk about the next phase of diplomacy, let me talk about another significant part of the vote earlier this month in Vienna.  Twenty-seven countries voted yes to report Iran to the Security Council. Three voted no.  The three who voted no were Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria.  And I’ll let you draw your own editorial conclusions about that.  But the ones who voted yes included all the countries of Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia.  It also included Russia and China who had abstained in September, but this time voted yes.  And that is significant.  They are both permanent members of the Security Council.  They both have their own influence with Iran.  We also brought on board Brazil which is an important country in the developing world.  Its voice carries weight in the nonproliferation community.  And we added in the countries like India and Argentina that had already voted yes. 

We also brought on board Egypt and Yemen.  And that was important, because there are two Arab states who are willing to vote yes to report Iran to the Security Council.  There are a lot of Arab countries who are very worried about Iran’s program and Iran’s intentions.  And here were two Arab countries willing to go on record and say we are concerned, this needs to be reported to the Security Council.  In fact, if you look at the so-called Non-Aligned Movement, of the 16 members the Non-Aligned movement who are on the board of governors at the IAEA, 8 -- half of them -- voted yes, and only three voted no. 

So this was a very powerful signal that was sent of international concern, and the international community setting some expectations of Iran, and saying this needs to be reported to the Security Council.  As I said earlier, reporting this to the Security Council is not the end of diplomacy, it is part of diplomacy.  Our goal is to achieve a diplomatic settlement.  It is a goal that we share with the government of Turkey, it is a goal that we share with just about every other country represented on the UN Security Council and at the IAEA.  But to achieve the diplomatic settlement, the leadership in Tehran needs to understand that the actions they are taking are increasingly isolating Iran and harming Iranian people.  And by putting this on the Security Council agenda, we hope to reinforce that message. 

We see a very graduated approach in the Security Council.  The Security Council has agreed it is not even going to take action now until after we have the report in March, the next report from the Director General El-Baradei of the IAEA.  And after that we see a very graduated, calibrated approach to bring additional diplomatic pressure to bear, make it clear to the Iranian leadership that they are isolating themselves, reinforcing the demands of the IAEA, reinforcing the authority of the IAEA. 

Now, to be successful, we need strong international consensus.  And we are encouraged at the international consensus that was shown in the board of governors with 27 countries voting for this report.  And we think it is important that all countries send a signal to Iran that they have lost international trust, they need to regain the confidence of the international community, and they need to negotiate.  And there have been some good proposals put on the table by the EU-3 with important incentives -- economic, political, and access to civil nuclear technology.  Russia has put an important proposal on the table.  We hope the Iranian leadership will take these seriously rather than moving ahead in a calculated fashion to acquire nuclear weapons technology. 

Now as I said, I am here in Ankara today to consult with your government today and tomorrow on these important issues.  As a NATO ally, the views of Turkey are very important to the United States.  As a country that sits in this region, your views are important to us as well.  And we think that Turkey can play an important role along with other countries in this diplomatic process in helping to send a consistent signal to the leadership in Tehran they need to cooperate with the IAEA, suspend the activities that concern the international community, and return to serious negotiations.  And we are encouraged, for example, at the important statement that was made out of your Foreign Ministry yesterday by the spokesman where he sent a very clear signal to Tehran that they have lost the confidence of the international community and they need to re-earn that confidence.  And the more that the leadership in Tehran hears that, the higher the likelihood of success. 

I would like to make a critical point that this is not a quarrel with the people of Iran.  This is a concern that we share with many other countries about the intentions of the leadership.  And in fact our concern is that the direction the leadership has taken is harmful, is dangerous not just for the region and for the global nonproliferation regime, but it is also harmful for the Iranian people.  And our desire which we share with many other countries is to convince the leadership to choose the course of confrontation and negotiation over the course of confrontation and threats that they have taken today.  I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION:  As the evidence leads us to Iran’s real intentions to produce nuclear weapons, what makes you believe that diplomatic efforts will lead to a solution if the evidence show that it is that obvious (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  The leadership does appear to be very determined to acquire these capabilities.  And they don’t seem to be particularly susceptible to everyday diplomatic demarches.  That’s why it is important for us to succeed diplomatically, that we are able as an international community to send a very strong signal, and to let the leadership understand that the direction it is going in is going to increasingly isolate themselves in Iran.  We don’t think that the leaders in Tehran want to make their country into a North Korea.  That’s not the future of Iran.  Iran has a greater future it should lead.  So we are hoping through international support raising diplomacy to a new level that we can convince them to get off this path.  But as you suggest, it is going to be tough.  We are going to have to hang together and send clear and consistent messages, and we may have to do this for sometime.  But it is important that we do this, because a nuclear-armed Iran would have consequences for us and for the region that we just don’t want to think about it. 

QUESTION:  What are you expecting from Turkey in respect to Iran?  In which way can Turkey give support to the international society to keep this tension level lower (inaudible)?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  I think the tension that exists has been caused by Iran.  Unfortunately the leadership in Tehran has chosen this approach, this confrontational approach, and when the international community has asked them to maintain suspension of the enrichment activities; they said “forget it.”  They cut the seals, and they moved ahead.  So it is the leadership in Tehran that has created this confrontation.  They also have the ability to back down and to find a diplomatic solution.  And where Turkey can help is in adding its voice to all the other countries in telling Iran, giving Iran this consistent signal that they should not confront the international community, but rather they should try to regain confidence by cooperating, negotiating, and suspending those activities that give us such concern. 

QUESTION:  Do you think Turkey is totally in line with the international community?  Because you said you want Turkey to send some signals to Iran, but on the other hand, Turkish government officials talk to the Iranians (inaudible).  So don’t you think it is enough?  There is one thing, because it seems like a contraction, because we know that the international community wants Iran to be isolated, but Turkey talks with Iran.  Do you think there is a conflict?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  I think the Turkish authorities share our concerns about Tehran.  They, like us, don’t want to see an Iran with nuclear weapons.  I should not speak for your authorities here, you should ask them, but they made it clear to us that they’ve sent clear signals to the authorities in Tehran that they need to cooperate and negotiate, and not create a confrontation.  Those are important signals.  And it is important that those signals are sent publicly and privately.  Turkey and the United States have a common interest in avoiding a crisis here and in achieving a diplomatic settlement.  And my message is merely that Turkey and the US can help achieve a diplomatic settlement if we stand together with the rest of the international community in making it clear to the leadership in Tehran that we don’t agree with the corridor that they are going down.

QUESTION:  (inaudible)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  I am here to talk about how we achieve a diplomatic solution, and that is our goal – achieving a diplomatic solution. 

QUESTION:  You said you are here to discuss a diplomatic strategy.  Could you please elaborate on what are the components of this strategy (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  There are various elements to the diplomatic strategy.  There is a continuing role for the IAEA in continuing to investigate these outstanding issues, in continuing to press the Iranians to answer the questions that Mohammad El-Baradei has posed, and to try to verify Iranian activities.  Then there is a role for the Security Council in New York that now has Iran on its agenda.  It is watching to see what Iran is doing, what the Director General will report.  And then to not replace the IAEA, but reinforce the IAEA in terms of the requirements that are established, and in terms of potentially giving more authority to the IAEA. 

Then there is a role for individual countries.  The EU-3 have played an important role, three countries together, in offering important incentives.  And Russia has played an important role in coming in and saying, in addition to the EU-3 offer, we are prepared to participate in a joint venture for enrichment on Russian soil.  And then there is a role for the rest of us and I include the US and Turkey in the category of the rest of us and that is to send a consistent signal to the Iranian leadership that they are isolating themselves, that what they are doing is not in the interest of the Iranian people, and that they need to regain the confidence of the international community.   But I can tell you, sometimes hearing that message from a variety of countries across the world including neighbors is just as important, if not more important, than hearing it from the United States or the EU-3. 

QUESTION:  You mentioned that it will be a tough task and it will take some time.  On the other hand, we have this one-month caution which is (inaudible) recent decision and for the first time our Turkish Foreign Ministry also put the emphasis on that one month time issue.  Ok, as long we understood, Turkey is expected to continue giving public messages during this time, and there must be some other issues as well like you referred to that sometime.  What about after this one month time?  I mean, repeating public messages would not be enough I guess.  There must be another further step.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  This one month that Director General Mohammad El-Baradei has also talked of is a window of opportunity for the leadership in Tehran.  This is an opportunity. While this is on the Security Council agenda before the Security Council takes any decisions, this is an opportunity for Iran to look at the clear expectations that have been set out, and to meet them.  So far we have not seen very good indications from Iran.  You know they have said they are not going to abide by the additional protocol, they have continued forward with enrichment, and they have said they are prepared to negotiate with the Russians, but they clearly want to do it on their own terms, not on the terms that the Russians find acceptable.  So what we have said is they have a window of opportunity, they have a period of time where hopefully they can listen to the international community, they can change the course they are taking.  If not, the Security Council will start on a graduated path of taking action, to try to increase the pressure on them, at the same time giving them a way out but making it increasingly clear to them that they are isolating themselves. 

The Security Council does offer a range of tools.  At this point we are looking at diplomatic tools.  There has been discussion about sanctions.  We know that sanctions are not on the table right now.  We haven’t excluded them.  They are not on the table right now.  We know concerns in Turkey about sanctions, we understand that.  We would want to look specifically at how you put sanctions that are focused on the leadership.  And that do the least amount of harm to the people.  Again, we don’t have a problem with the people.  We are worried about the decisions that the unelected leadership is taking on their behalf. 

QUESTION:  After the Iraqi war, the Turkish public – maybe I should ask the Ambassador – became anti-American.   After sanctions are applied or any decisions are taken in the Security Council with respect to Iran, what do you expect the Turkish public opinion reaction will be?  What do you see for the future of Turkish-US relations?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  I’ll give my perspective and I’m sure the Ambassador will want to address it in more detail.  I believe that the United States and Turkey share important common values -- support for freedom, support for religious tolerance, support for peace and democracy.  And I believe we share important common interests which include a stable Middle East, a Middle East with peace and security for the people who live there, a Middle East where you have two states – Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace and security.  We also face common challenges.  And Iran is one of those challenges.  And so I think that our two countries have an enormous stake in working together as allies and as friends.  And we value the friendship of Turkey and we welcome the friendship of the Turkish people.  Now whatever the Ambassador says takes precedence of what I have just said.

AMBASSADOR WILSON:  I’d endorse everything Ambassador Schulte has said.  I would add one additional thought.  This issue is not about the United States and Turkey.  This issue is about Iran, on the one hand, and a broad segment of international public opinion and of the international community on the other.  As Ambassador Schulte indicated, 27 countries represented on the board of the IAEA voted to refer this case to the UN Security Council.  The United States has one of those votes.  But 26 other countries joined us, because they are deeply, deeply concerned about this problem.  Turkey, the Turkish Government, is deeply concerned about this problem.  It wants to work with us.  We believe that it wants to work with the others in the IAEA, in the international community, to try to find a peaceful solution, a negotiated solution that results in a suspension of these programs that cause so much concern and help to preserve and ensure peace and security in the region. 

QUESTION:  Did you also share your concern, the challenge to Iran and with nuclear arms with the Turkish Government in detail?  What kind of effect of Iran who had a nuclear (inaudible) on the region and also on the peace of the whole world?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  We shared our assessments of their program; we shared our assessments of the implications of that program. I think everyone agrees that the program has dangerous implications globally for the non-proliferation regime, which is important to both of our countries. It is a critical part of the international security regime. Iran’s efforts and intentions also have important implications regionally – serious implications regionally. We can’t forget the Iran is in our judgment the largest state sponsor of terrorism. And I hate to think of an Iran, particularly with the leadership today, sponsoring terrorism, if it also had access to nuclear weapons. And so we have to worry about the regional implications of Iran with nuclear weapons. The Middle East is already a dangerous enough place. One of the things that we have been trying to do with the support of your government and the support of other governments is to work towards a Middle East peace agreement. And President Bush has laid out a vision that’s supported pretty much across the world of two states, Israel and Palestine, two democracies living side by side, in peace and security. The one country that rejects that vision is Iran. Rather then seeing two states living side by side in peace and security, the current president of Iran has suggested that one of those states should be wiped off the face of the earth. That shows in a way why it is so crucial that we work to achieve the diplomatic settlement whereby the Iranian leadership gives up its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

QUESTION:  Do you think there is some special danger for Turkey, as a neighbor of Iran

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL:  I think they are worried about the implications for the region as a whole and you know Turkey is in the region. Turkey as a NATO ally gives it a special status. That Turkey is in the region and you’ve always been a difficult region here and a nuclear armed Iran will only make it more dangerous.

OUESTION: You are talking about peacefully negotiated solutions and isolation. I would like to ask you, if any high ranked Turkish official visits Tehran and talks about (inaudible) concerns or any Iranian officials come to Turkey and hears from the Turkish officials about international concerns, will you see it as a part of peaceful negotiated solution or will you see it as a sort of breaking the isolation of Iran?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: It is bit of a hypothetical question, so I don’t want to address that. The key thing is that there is a consistent international message that Turkey and others share in to Tehran that they need to regain the confidence of the international community and the only way they can do that is by negotiating seriously, cooperating fully with the IAEA, and suspending the activities that worry us so much and it is important that Iran gets that signal. I can tell you, I’ve seen it in Vienna. The authorities in Iran are going to work very hard to divide us. I’ve seen it in Vienna, I don’t know if you have seen it here, but they are very good at issuing public and private threats. So they are going to try to divide us. And I think they were actually somewhat surprised with the vote that took place earlier this month in Vienna. When they found that they only had Venezuela, Syria and Cuba standing with them. And the bulk of the international community had come together and said no, this needs to stop.

OUESTION: Ambassador, Turkey has also had intentions to have peaceful nuclear energy. Have you discussed this with Turkish officials or are you planning to discuss it? There are some views that if Iran is going to have a nuclear weapon, Turkey’s peaceful intentions could also lead to Turkey (inaudible).

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m here to talk about the Iranian program not to talk about the Turkish program, but I know that your energy minister has talked to our Secretary Bodman about your interest. The United States is a strong proponent of peaceful use of nuclear power. We don’t have objection to the Iranian people having access to nuclear power. What worries us is their long record of deceit and concealment, the unanswered questions and their pursuit of these sensitive enrichment capabilities that they don’t really need. South Korea is an interesting example. South Korea has 20 nuclear power plants. They don’t have (inaudible), they don’t have this enrichment capability. They buy it on the open market which is competitive; there are multiple countries that do this. They’ve probably saved a ton of money by not building this capability. So we have no quarrel, in fact, we think nuclear power is something that is very important, not only within our own country but internationally too as countries look to diversify their energy mix and look for sources of power that don’t create environmental problems.

OUESTION: (inaudible)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m the wrong person. You should have Ambassador John Bolton here to talk to you about what exactly is going to happen in the Security Council. But we are not talking sanctions at this point. They are not ruled out, but we are not talking about them at this point. And at that point if we find ourselves in a position where we need to start thinking about them we are going to think very hard about how you have sanctions that focus on the leadership as opposed to the people. Our goal is not to penalize the Iranian people. Our goal is to convince the leadership to change course.

OUESTION: (inaudible)

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I have meetings today at the Prime Minister’s office. I have meetings tomorrow at the Foreign Ministry with a range of experts from a variety of your government’s agencies. I’ve also had the opportunity with you. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with a number of academics and professors and it has been a good opportunity because I’ve been able to explain what we are trying to achieve, but at the same time hear from you and hear from others the viewpoint of Turkey, which is very important to us, because I think you bring a unique vantage point to this problem.

Thank You.