• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

Daily Press Briefing

Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 3, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY'S TRAVEL
AUSTRALIA/ISIL
IRAN/ISRAEL
DEPARTMENT/EMAIL POLICY
VENEZUELA
ISRAEL
SNOWDEN/DISCLOSURES
CHINA/CYBER SECURITY
DPRK/IRAN
IRAN

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:44 p.m. EST

MS. HARF: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the daily press briefing, and I apologize for the delay. It's obviously a little bit of a crazy day here, but thank you for your patience. I just have two items at the top and then I am happy to open it up for questions.

First a travel update: Secretary Kerry continued his meetings today in Montreux, Switzerland with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS. HARF: I'm sorry? Sorry, there was some noise back there. Okay, let's start over. There's a little bit of an echo too. Anyone else can hear that?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: Can we try and fix that, please? Thank you.

Secretary Kerry continued his meetings today with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif. Under Secretary Wendy Sherman and the team and Energy Secretary Moniz joined for parts of these as well. As you know, the Secretary continues on to Riyadh tomorrow for a meeting with the king and a meeting with some of the other GCC partners as well.

As the EU announced earlier, there will be a full P5+1 meeting later in the week at the political director level that Under Secretary Sherman will stay for. I know that was a question yesterday, and I believe that is Thursday. I don't have anything to read out from the meetings quite yet, but I'm sure there'll be many questions today.

And then finally, we welcome Australia's decision to contribute Australian Defense Force personnel to a building partner capacity training mission in Iraq as part of the anti-counter ISIL coalition. The training of Iraqi forces is a vital part of the campaign that seeks to help the Iraqis build a durable security that they can sustain. Australia has contributed significantly to the coalition efforts by providing personnel and aircraft to air combat and support missions, and advising and assisting Iraqi Security Forces. Australia has been a strong partner in the counter ISIL coalition. We certainly value the contributions and efforts of all of our partners as we work on this long-term strategy.

With that --

QUESTION: Just logistically, so you said --

MS. HARF: There is a bit of an echo in here still. I can hear it, but that's okay.

QUESTION: Echo, anyone?

MS. HARF: Go ahead.

QUESTION: So you said Wendy Sherman – Under Secretary Sherman will stay --

MS. HARF: For a full --

QUESTION: -- for talks on Thursday?

MS. HARF: Just I think – I believe a one-day P5+1+Iran political director meeting.

QUESTION: Okay. And where is that taking place?

MS. HARF: Either Montreux or Geneva. Let me check.

QUESTION: Okay. And there's no chance of the Secretary returning for more negotiations on this trip?

MS. HARF: You know there's always a chance, Brad, but nothing is certainly planned.

QUESTION: Is the GCC conference for London still planned?

MS. HARF: I believe that's actually happening in Riyadh now, but let me double-check.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: And it's not a full GCC conference. It's a meeting with some of the GCC partners. But let's see if we can get some more information.

QUESTION: So that would open up space on this trip that had been previously allocated, correct?

MS. HARF: I don't have a readout from all of the meetings yet that have happened in Montreux. There will, I am confident, be more negotiating sessions at some point given the end of March that we're pushing up against.

QUESTION: And then I just had a couple questions before we get into the speech – the speech.

MS. HARF: Which speech are you referring to, Brad?

QUESTION: Yes. (Laughter.) Did you get any answer on whether negotiations would take place during the Iranian holiday of Nowruz?

MS. HARF: I did not get an answer on that, but I promise you I asked, and don't have an answer back for you on that.

QUESTION: So from March 21st onward, we're in a gray zone?

MS. HARF: I think Nowruz starts on the 20th in the U.S., if my calendar is correct.

QUESTION: Well, negotiations won't be taking place in the U.S., if I understand correctly.

MS. HARF: That is true.

QUESTION: That would be highly unprecedented, I think.

MS. HARF: Well, they happened at UNGA last year in New York. The answer is I don't know.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: We're very focused, as are the Iranians, on the end of March as the date we're working towards here.

QUESTION: So to clarify, is London, Friday GCC still happening, or is that now being moved?

MS. HARF: It's my understanding that may be happening Riyadh now.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: Let me check with the traveling folks. I know there are some moving pieces here. Let me check with them.

QUESTION: Friday or Thursday?

MS. HARF: Well, for which meeting?

QUESTION: The GCC.

MS. HARF: Tomorrow the Secretary goes to Riyadh, where I believe that is now happening, but let me triple-check with the team on the ground.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: So we can move on to the Israeli prime minister's speech?

MS. HARF: We can move on to the speech. Yes, we can.

QUESTION: So I just wanted to ask you: Did you feel he accurately presented the Iranian nuclear negotiations as they're happening right now --

MS. HARF: Well --

QUESTION: -- on centrifuges, on timespan, on some of the various things he said he pulled up on Google?

MS. HARF: I think a couple points, and I know my colleagues, including the President, has said some of this. But we didn't hear any – certainly any new ideas today, but more importantly, didn't hear one single concrete alternative in today's speech from the Prime Minister about how we could get to a double-digit duration, push breakout time to a year, and cut off the four pathways Iran could have – use to get to missile – excuse me, fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

So the Prime Minister, I think, kept referring to what a "better deal" could look like in some generic terms but did not lay out at all what that "better deal" might be. It was sort of a hypothetical that he put out there, really all rhetoric and nothing more.

I would say in response to your question, Brad, that there were some sort of perplexing things that the Prime Minister said today, including that all sanctions will eventually be lifted on Iran. That is not the case. As we've always said, if we get to a nuclear agreement, sanctions for terrorism, sanctions for human rights, of which there are many sanctions and quite tough sanctions, and other issues, would remain in place.

He also said that at the end of the duration, Iran would have "full international legitimacy," which is also a little overstated and just not accurate. Iran will be subject to restrictions that outlive any agreement, as we've talked about before; and again, sanctions on other issues will remain in place.

And finally, I would say that he didn't get into specifics about what his ideas were or about how we were attempting to cut off their four pathways. This is very complicated, very technical, very nuanced. There is not just one equation; there are many that can get you to a combination of factors that lead to a year breakout time, which I would remind people he said that setting Iran's nuclear program back for at least a decade is, quote, "the blink of an eye."

But to be very clear, this is far longer than any other option that's been proposed. Military action would set it back by a fraction of that amount of time, at which point Iran would likely begin to rebuild its program, would drive it further underground given that, and there would be none of the transparency that we are looking for in this agreement.

And I think the bottom line here when it comes to the duration – then I will let you ask many more questions – is that no deal means much shorter breakout than under an agreement. Right now, outside experts have said publicly we're at about two to three months breakout. Our goal is a year – exponentially longer in the lifetime.

QUESTION: It's six times longer but – or four times longer.

MS. HARF: Yes, which would be accurate what I said then.

QUESTION: Which is not an exponential function, but your point is taken.

MS. HARF: So look, the bottom line is under a comprehensive agreement they will be farther away by a factor that you just mentioned --

QUESTION: A factor of four, yes.

MS. HARF: -- under a double-digit agreement than they are today.

QUESTION: So I think on the full international legitimacy, whether he was referring to Iran as a whole or its nuclear program, you wouldn't --

MS. HARF: He said it as a whole. He presented it that at the end of it they would have full international legitimacy.

QUESTION: You wouldn't dispute the fact that the nuclear program, if Iran adheres to the full ledger of obligations under a final deal, if it adheres to those, its program would then have legitimacy and it can be an NPT member with a domestic enrichment program?

MS. HARF: I don't disagree that it would – that we have always said they would be able to have a domestic enrichment that is peaceful in nature. But to be clear, there will be restrictions that outlive any agreement; and if Iran were to take any provocative steps in terms of not living up to their obligations under a comprehensive agreement, then we have still every tool on the table to act, to act quickly, and we would have the backing of the international community to do so. So I think that's important to remember as well.

QUESTION: When you've talked about restrictions or when you've been asked about restrictions, most of the focus in response from the Administration has been about transparency measures.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm. That is true.

QUESTION: Will there be restrictions – separate from transparency measures, from the Additional Protocol that – on numbers, on capacity, on fuel levels, et cetera, that would also limit how greatly it expands?

MS. HARF: Well, things like the Additional Protocol, which is an IAEA mechanism, are obviously very important. They do tend to deal with transparency; you are correct. But we will, again, have, for example, sanctions in place on things that still violate certain international regulations and responsibilities.

So people ask a lot about missiles. This is not a missile agreement; this is a nuclear agreement. We obviously have a variety of ways of dealing with and countering their ballistic missile program, but we would continue to sanction – put sanctions on Iran based just on the ballistic missile piece of this if they continued to procure things in that space. So I think if you look at it as a whole, there will be a lot of transparency. And it's not just eyes on things, but it's really seeing each part of the cycle here, whether it's uranium mines and mills, it's not just looking at a facility where there's a centrifuge.

QUESTION: Just one more and I'll yield.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: I just ask because of the comment by the Israeli prime minister about post-deal, however long it is, the possibility of 190,000 centrifuges spinning, producing enough nuclear material for an entire arsenal within weeks.

MS. HARF: Well, I think that is --

QUESTION: You're not disputing that as a possibility --

MS. HARF: I am absolutely disputing that they could go up to 190,000 centrifuges in a matter of weeks, yes.

QUESTION: No, no, no. Not that they could go up --

MS. HARF: I think that is a technical impossibility.

QUESTION: That's not what he said.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: That's not what he said and that's not what I said.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: He said that after the deal expires, they can go up to 190,000, which is what the supreme leader has mentioned publicly --

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- and that that program with that many centrifuges would have the capacity to produce enough nuclear material for an entire arsenal within several weeks.

MS. HARF: When you are a member, a non-nuclear-weapons member of the NPT – and I'm not an NPT expert – but at the conclusion of the duration of this, in addition to the lasting transparency measures we have, Iran will not be able to do things to get to a nuclear weapon. Now the technical experts – I understand you can throw --

QUESTION: I didn't talk about weaponization, right.

MS. HARF: No. Well – right, to get to fissile material for a nuclear weapon. You're right; you did not talk about weaponization. But I think we need to be very clear that after the – after a double-digit duration, they will be much further away from a nuclear weapon than they are today. And you can throw out a lot of very scary hypotheticals, but if we look at the technology and we look at where they are today and where they could be in a double-digit duration, that is further away from a nuclear weapon. And there will be things in place, like the NPT, like other transparency measures, that guard against them moving to break out to get a nuclear weapon. In no way, at the end of the duration of this agreement, will anyone believe that it is okay or acceptable for them to try to get a nuclear weapon.

QUESTION: Marie --

MS. HARF: That is in no way what the duration is intended to indicate or to mean.

QUESTION: But the part --

QUESTION: Marie, I was – just – do you have a follow-up on that?

QUESTION: A follow-up on Brad's point. When the Prime Minister raised the 190,000-centrifuge figure, he essentially said that your boss, the Secretary of State, confirmed that this ambition on the part of the supreme leader, in fact, would come true.

MS. HARF: Absolutely not true. The Secretary did not say that.

QUESTION: How much then do you believe that the Prime Minister's speech – and you meaning the Administration – believe that the Prime Minister's speech was a mistake?

MS. HARF: Well, I don't think that's a judgment for me to make. I think what I know is this, is that my boss right now did not have a chance to watch the speech because he is trying to negotiate a double-digit duration agreement that will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, that will make Israel safer, that will make the region safer, and that the alternatives do not get you the same duration, they do not get you the same transparency, they are not options that are anywhere nearly as durable or as good, and that anyone who tells you there's a magic formula that they have in their head that we don't have is just not looking at the situation realistically. So the Prime Minister obviously feels strongly about this issue, as do we.

We have – I don't think anyone in the world more acutely feels what might happen in terms of the decisions that have to be made than folks here. Obviously, as we've said, if negotiations fall apart or discontinue, Iran's program will likely move forward again. Every time negotiations have broken down, Iran's program has steamed forward; they've moved closer to a weapon. And then when we get back to negotiations, the facts on the ground have changed, and we start at higher numbers, given that. Or we would have to take – this President of the United States would have to make a decision about a military option. Those are very – I don't think – that's a very serious – the most serious decision you make.

So I think we need to be very clear about what we're trying to achieve and what the alternatives look like, not in a fantasy world, not in a world without specifics, but in the real world. And that's what we're doing. I know that's what the Secretary is doing.

QUESTION: Do you believe – and by you, I mean the Administration – do you believe that the Prime Minister took the Secretary's comments about Iran's number of centrifuges, which he made during a Congressional hearing last week, out of context?

MS. HARF: Well, look, I know Secretary Kerry and Prime Minister Netanyahu have a very close working relationship. They speak quite frequently, including this week. Who knows? I don't want to ascribe motive to it, but I can assure you that the Secretary was not indicating that.

QUESTION: Marie, did the Secretary speak to the Prime Minister before his speech at all?

MS. HARF: He spoke – on Saturday was the last call he had with him, the one that we put a brief readout on.

QUESTION: And also – so he didn't give any concrete alternatives, but are you concerned that his speech might make it much more difficult for the Administration to get the deal through Congress?

MS. HARF: The deal through Congress in what way?

QUESTION: Well, surely, it's got to have some kind of authority from Congress --

MS. HARF: Well, we --

QUESTION: -- or a backing from both sides.

MS. HARF: Well, when it comes to specific legislation that prescribes some of that, we've said we don't support that legislation, certainly while we're negotiating. But more broadly speaking, we've had a number of conversations with members of Congress who have been – I don't think there's an issue we've talked to them more about than this one, where we are very clearly making the case for why this is the best option, why we will not accept a bad deal – we could have, and we did not – and really having a dialogue with them to hear out their concerns, whether it's about the so-called sunset, whether it's about missile, whether it's about other issues, and to have a dialogue and address their concerns. Because this incredibly important to get right, and we know they have questions as much as anyone else does. But we've also heard from some members of Congress, and I think some have said publicly, that they didn't hear a lot of alternatives from the Prime Minister either. So that conversation's continuing.

QUESTION: Marie, now you said that there were no new ideas, and your colleague said the same thing. Were there any --

MS. HARF: We're on message today, Said.

QUESTION: Yeah. Were there any ideas? I mean, did you hear from the Prime Minister basically saying this is what we want, other than saying that we want a complete disruption, basically, of the – of Iran nuclear program?

MS. HARF: What are you asking? I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Well, I'm asking you: Did you hear any ideas? I mean, we heard him say we want the centrifuges destroyed, we want this. Well, basically, he's saying we want this program to cease to exist. Under these conditions, what kind of proposal is there in it for Iran to be – to have as an incentive to go forward?

MS. HARF: Well, I didn't hear a proposal of Prime Minister Netanyahu put forward. And I think I would put the question back on him. He criticizes one-year breakout time as not being long enough. Well, then what is? What is long enough? Because any country that has the technological knowhow to build and operate centrifuges at some point can get there, right? So how much is enough? I mean, we hear – we heard, quite frankly, Said, from him some of the same things about the Joint Plan of Action, giving speeches saying this was a historic deal for Iran. And even since then, some of Israeli intelligence officials, other Israeli officials have been quite clear that the JPOA has been a success.

So I guess I would put the onus back on him. We believe that the agreement we are working to negotiate – and there is no agreement yet, but the one we're working towards – would cut off Iran's four pathways, would give us unprecedented transparency into their program, would push them to a year breakout, and at the same time, would preserve all of the options we have today to take action if they attempt to break the agreement.

QUESTION: So let me just follow up with what the --

MS. HARF: That's what we're working towards.

QUESTION: -- if I may just – on this point, because the Prime Minister made very clear that he was saying, look, myself and my neighbors, basically the Arab countries, are in this thing together. Do you see that, let's say, Saudi Arabia, the GCC countries, and Israel basically are one camp against you in this case?

MS. HARF: Well, we all have the same bottom-line goal here, which is that Iran cannot get a nuclear weapon. And the reason – and he also mentioned some of the destabilizing activity that Iran is undertaking in the region and around the world – their support for terrorism, their influence in Syria. We agree that this is a huge and massive problem. That is why it's even more important that Iran not be able to get a nuclear weapon. So we share the concerns of the Gulf countries. Certainly, that's why we are working so hard to see if we can prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon through the most durable and longest-lasting way possible.

QUESTION: And lastly, he said that Iran was occupying four countries. Is that your assessment?

MS. HARF: Well, I think he said that they'd taken over four countries or some --

QUESTION: Gobbled up.

QUESTION: Not taken over four countries (inaudible).

MS. HARF: "Gobbled up." That's not a technical term I would probably use. Look, we know they have an incredibly destabilizing presence in Lebanon, in Syria. Those are certainly places we've spoken out about that. We know there's a relationship with the Houthis, certainly, although, not to our knowledge, an operational sort of control relationship. And I can't remember the fourth one he was talking about.

QUESTION: Iraq.

QUESTION: Iraq.

MS. HARF: Iraq. Thank you. Look, I think Prime Minister Abadi has gone to great lengths to bring his country together. Of course there's a relationship with Iran, but I think that was probably a bit overblown.

QUESTION: Does he --

QUESTION: The presence --

QUESTION: Did the Prime Minister mis-state the relationship between Iran and ISIL?

MS. HARF: I'm trying to remember how he stated it.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: He said that --

QUESTION: He basically suggested that they were working together.

MS. HARF: Well, I mean, I think that's a gross oversimplification. Clearly, ISIL is a serious threat that we are taking on with direct military action. It is a terrorist organization. It is not a state. It is not a country. It has taken over a territory, and we're working to push it back. Certainly, it poses a threat, but Iran's destabilizing activities in places are a little bit different and require different tools. Even their support for terrorism with a group like Hizballah, Hizballah is different than ISIL. They're just different groups, and you deal with them in different ways.

Yes.

QUESTION: On emails – can we talk about emails?

MS. HARF: Are we done with Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Oh. Will there be any calls planned after the speech to either smooth things over or discuss, now that everything's out in public, where your two positions are?

MS. HARF: Well, I'm not sure anything needs to be smoothed over.

QUESTION: No?

MS. HARF: The President made clear what our position is, also made clear our longstanding, deep, unprecedented security relationship with Israel, that that will continue. I know the Secretary speaks frequently with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I don't have anything to preview for you, but I think he gave his speech and we're hard at work and that will continue.

QUESTION: And then just you mentioned briefly the legislation. I think, since the speech, Senate Majority Leader McConnell has said he's going to put forward a bipartisan bill to a vote that would have an up or down on any final agreement. Is this something you still oppose? Or maybe since you're so convinced of the merits of your negotiation, maybe it's not such a bad idea at all.

MS. HARF: Congress always votes on the merits of things, I'm sure. If it's the same bill that Senator Corker – is that the same bill you're referring to or is it a different bill?

QUESTION: I believe it's the same or a version thereof, yes.

MS. HARF: Well, the one – the Senator Corker bill that I believe was introduced on Friday we spoke to over the weekend, said if that comes to the President's desk, he will veto it. It's – we can't negotiate an agreement while Congress is attempting to legislate either what might be in it or that it can't be implemented, how it could be implemented, which is part of this as well.

So critically, we don't support a new – any new legislation like this while we are in this very critical moment of negotiating with the Iranians that could influence those negotiations and in fact hurt our negotiating position, which I think is not what Congress would want to do.

QUESTION: Marie, very quickly --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Former Speaker Pelosi said that the Prime Minister's speech was an insult to the intelligence of the United States. Do you agree with that assessment?

MS. HARF: I don't think I'm going to weigh in on that in any way shape or form, Said.

QUESTION: Marie, just given the way the talks are now, are – is this – is the Secretary and is this Department of State confident you can still make the end of March deadline?

MS. HARF: That's --

QUESTION: Where does that stand?

MS. HARF: That is certainly what we're working towards and we believe we can meet that. We are not there. There is much more work to do.

QUESTION: That means that the speech will not affect the negotiations and will not affect the process of reaching a deal with Iran?

MS. HARF: Well, again, inside the room it's the parties who are actually at the negotiating table working towards this, and that's what we're focused on. That focus has certainly not changed because of the speech. Our focus has always been the same. Our bottom lines have always been the same: one year breakout and cutting off the four pathways. That has not changed.

Yes.

QUESTION: But what you just said, actually, was, "We believe we can meet that." So that's just in, what, three weeks' time?

MS. HARF: It's very soon.

QUESTION: You still believe that you can --

MS. HARF: Yes, absolutely. Do you all remember the end of the Joint Plan of Action negotiations – intense and not that long and we got there and – look, I am hopeful, I am realistic, I understand this might be very difficult, but we certainly still believe we can. Absolutely.

Yes. Yes, Justin.

QUESTION: All right. So do you have any insight, then, on why Secretary Clinton used exclusively a personal email account rather than a State.gov or State account?

MS. HARF: Yep. So I just have a few points on that and then I'm sure you have many follow-ups.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: So you want me to start?

QUESTION: Sure.

MS. HARF: Great. Unless you had something else.

QUESTION: No, that was – that's a question. Yeah. That was my question.

MS. HARF: (Laughter.) Okay.

QUESTION: Why is she using a personal account?

MS. HARF: Uh-huh. Well, let's – I just have a couple points, sort of top lines, and then follow up with many questions, okay?

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: First, the notion that the Department didn't have the content of these emails until she turned them over isn't accurate. A vast majority of them were to or from State.gov addresses or to addressees. So they were obviously retained and captured in that moment. So that notion is just not accurate and I wanted to put that out there first.

A couple other points: There was no prohibition on using a non-State.gov account for official business as long as it's preserved. So obviously, that's an important piece of this. When in the process of updating our records management – this is something that's sort of ongoing given technology and the changes – we reached out to all of the former secretaries of state to ask them to provide any records they had. Secretary Clinton sent back 55,000 pages of documents to the State Department very shortly after we sent the letter to her. She was the only former Secretary of State who sent documents back in to this request. These 55,000 pages covered her time, the breadth of her time at the State Department.

Secretary Kerry is the first Secretary of State to rely primarily on his State.gov account. So what Secretary Clinton did was by no means unusual. In fact, it had been the practice before Secretary Kerry. So certainly, I know there's a lot of interest in this. I would also point out that the notion that she had this email account is certainly not news; it's been reported on for more than two years at this point. So I was a little surprised – although maybe I shouldn't have been – by some of the breathless reporting coming out last night, but I guess that's the nature of where we are today.

QUESTION: Okay. So just to address one of the things you said. You said there was no prohibition on using --

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: Yeah, but on – in June 2011, Jay Carney said from the podium, quote: "We are definitely instructed that we need to conduct all of our work on government accounts as part of the Presidential Records Act." So how do you square those --

MS. HARF: Well, those are different things. That's the instruction, but there is no prohibition on using a non-state.gov account for official business as long as it's preserved. That's in – yes. Let me finish, Justin, and then you can, I'm sure, disagree with what I'm saying and ask more questions. So there was – I mean, the fact is there was no prohibition on this happening as long as it was preserved. I would point out that she has sent in those 55,000 pages. Those are now all part of the permanent record, a vast majority of which already was, given most of it was to and from state.gov addresses.

QUESTION: I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I'm saying Jay Carney --

MS. HARF: I don't think Jay Carney is disagreeing.

QUESTION: It – well --

MS. HARF: He didn't say there is prohibition; he said we are instructed to.

QUESTION: He said we're instructed to conduct all of work --

MS. HARF: Right. He didn't say there was a prohibition.

QUESTION: -- as it applies to the Presidential Records Act.

MS. HARF: Right. He did – first of all – well, first, the White House is different than the State Department. So that's different; so let's be clear about that. Secondly, he didn't say there was a prohibition. No, there are different regulations --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: -- governing the White House and agencies, Justin.

QUESTION: Okay. So there was no prohibition.

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: And --

MS. HARF: There wasn't.

QUESTION: And did she seek any legal counsel on her decision to use a personal email account rather than --

MS. HARF: I mean, you --

QUESTION: -- a government account? Because I guess the question would be: Are there security implications for using a private account? How do you manage security on accounts that you don't control?

MS. HARF: Well, I don't know. You'd have to ask her. I think, without trying to get into her head on this, she was following what had been the practice of previous secretaries. Again, Secretary Kerry is the first to rely primarily on a state.gov account. This was also an unclassified email; no classified business was done on it. So not going to get into specifics about security, but certainly, this was --

QUESTION: Well, just for the record, we reached out to Condi Rice. She – her – she says that she only used a State account and did not use a personal.

MS. HARF: Okay. Well, I think --

QUESTION: And so I'm not sure that that's accurate, unless --

MS. HARF: Secretary Rice has repeatedly said that she did not regularly use email.

QUESTION: Okay. But she didn't – certainly didn't use a personal email account. And she says when she did conduct --

MS. HARF: I didn't say she did. I said Secretary Kerry is the first to rely primarily on a state.gov account. Secretary Rice said she didn't use email primarily.

QUESTION: You said Clinton's use was consistent with past secretaries of State.

MS. HARF: That's true.

QUESTION: It wasn't with Rice's --

MS. HARF: Well, she didn't use email. Past secretaries who had used email.

QUESTION: Well, I think she did use email.

MS. HARF: She has repeatedly said publicly, Justin, that she did not regularly use email. Secretary Powell wrote about this in his book that he had a personal computer – I'm going to pick up my notecard here – he had a personal laptop installed in his office so he could use personal email. He wrote about that in his book. So again, there is some past practice for this.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up? So you said one of the claims in this report was wrong because the vast majority went to and from --

MS. HARF: That is correct.

QUESTION: But that still implies that some wouldn't have.

MS. HARF: That is correct.

QUESTION: And are you confident that all of those are in the records now? Or are there still some that could be floating in the world of dark and unread emails? (Laughter.)

MS. HARF: Well, again, as soon as we reached out to the former secretary, Secretary Clinton provided the emails covering the breadth of her time at the State Department on a wide variety of issues. It's my understanding that those were provided in that way.

QUESTION: So that's everything? That's – we're talking about the retention act. It doesn't say "vast majority." It basically is about all of them. Are you saying --

MS. HARF: Right. We reached out and asked her to provide them. She provided a large amount, those 55,000.

QUESTION: But just say it's everything if you think --

MS. HARF: Well, how can I – I mean, Brad, I'm not in her email.

QUESTION: Did she say it was everything when she sent it back?

MS. HARF: When she responded, she said this was what she had – is my understanding – that was pertinent here.

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

MS. HARF: Those aren't exact words, but that's my understanding.

QUESTION: Is there a prohibition now on using a personal address for government --

MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge, no. The rules as they stand now – and let me just pull this up so I have this – and NARA has continually updated their guidance. The September 2013 NARA guidance is that if an employee uses a personal email account to conduct official business, he or she is instructed to take steps to ensure that any records sent or received are preserved – for example, by forwarding it to an official government account. Those rules have been sent to all State Department employees to make sure they knew that. And again, this is an ongoing process to update records management. As you can all imagine, this is a huge undertaking for an organization as large as ours that actually hasn't had email for – in the grand scheme of things – all that long.

QUESTION: Marie, can I follow up on that?

QUESTION: You said that – just a couple questions.

MS. HARF: Let's do – let's go one at a time.

QUESTION: You said there's --

MS. HARF: Yep.

QUESTION: -- no classified material was sent over this email address? Either received or sent? So she --

MS. HARF: Correct. We have no indication that Secretary Clinton used her personal email account for anything but unclassified purposes.

QUESTION: So the Secretary never received a classified email in her entire span of --

MS. HARF: Well, Secretary Clinton did not have a classified email system. She had multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants or staff members printing classified documents for her, secure phone calls, or secure video conferences.

QUESTION: And then --

MS. HARF: So she certainly had a way of communicating in a classified setting.

QUESTION: Okay, okay.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: And can you say – whether or not things are classified, they can also be very sensitive.

MS. HARF: That's true.

QUESTION: What can you say about encryption or non-encryption regarding her email correspondence?

MS. HARF: Well, I don't think we're going to get into specifics of security on a former Secretary's email, but I can say we have no indication that the email was compromised, the account was compromised or hacked in any way. But again, we're not going to get into specifics.

QUESTION: Can you say what kind of email address she was using?

MS. HARF: I don't think I'm going to get into that.

QUESTION: Because if, for example, it was a Gmail account or something like that, technically Google would have ownership over all those communications.

MS. HARF: I don't think I'm going to get into those specifics.

Yes, Nicole.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up on that specific about preservation.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: So then as now, it's okay for a U.S. official to use a non-USG email account, as long as the emails --

MS. HARF: As it's preserved.

QUESTION: -- are preserved. Are there specific instructions on how that should be done?

MS. HARF: Let me see if I have that. And again, a vast majority of State Department business is done on an official system, obviously, so I don't want to give the idea that State Department employees are regularly not using State Department emails. Let me see if I --

QUESTION: I'm just wondering --

MS. HARF: Go ahead. Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Just wondering if she would've had to forward every single email to some State account, or whether it was enough that it was going through State servers. I'm just wondering about --

MS. HARF: So I can check on – of how something needs to be preserved today vice when she was here?

QUESTION: No, I'm asking about her.

MS. HARF: When she was here.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I can check. There – I do know, though, relatedly, that there was no real-time preservation requirement. The requirement is just to preserve any records that are part of the official record, which she has done by providing them.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: And they are all part of the official record. Many of them – a vast majority of them already were, given that they were to or from a State.gov addressee.

QUESTION: Marie, can you --

MS. HARF: And everything is – I mean, if things go back and forth from State.gov addressees, they're part of the official record.

QUESTION: So they're preserved --

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: -- and there is no rule against using a personal account?

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: So that's why it's not – I mean, do you believe she's breached any rule or law or practice known to you or to historians?

MS. HARF: As I said, there's no prohibition on using this kind of email account as long as it's preserved. She has taken steps to preserve those records by providing the State Department with the 55,000 pages, so – I'm not a NARA expert, but certainly, it sounds to me like that has been completed.

QUESTION: Except that you wouldn't really have any way of knowing if she had provided everything, unless you're just taking her at her word for it, correct?

MS. HARF: I think 55,000 is a pretty big number, and --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I mean, I don't --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: I don't know how many – I accept that it's a lot of documents --

MS. HARF: And it covers the time – date – from a date perspective covers the time that she was at the State Department.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Change --

QUESTION: Well, let me follow up.

QUESTION: How do you --

MS. HARF: Who wants to follow up on this?

QUESTION: No, how do you legally verify – I mean, granted, she was the Secretary of State. But as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." Is there any way of corroborating that everything that was provided by her office is in fact everything that she engaged in while she was Secretary of State?

MS. HARF: Look, all I can say is that we reached out to the former secretaries and asked them to provide any records that needed to be preserved. She was the only former Secretary that responded to our request and sent back those tens of thousands of pages of documents. That's what I can speak to. They cover her time at the State Department. I don't think I have many more details for you than that.

QUESTION: Are you going to be redoubling efforts with the other secretaries of State, who seem to be remiss in their responsibilities?

MS. HARF: I mean, who knows if some of these secretaries even have records of these things. It's – this is a – this really is – when it comes to records preservation, this is not something flip to say: The processes have evolved and the regulations have evolved and the guidance has evolved as email has evolved and how technology has evolved, and that's something we're constantly trying to do in order to keep up with that.

QUESTION: So – and can you just clarify for – so the Secretary never received a state.gov email, or never used one? I mean --

MS. HARF: I can check. I'm not sure.

QUESTION: I mean, usually when your first day of work, you show up and you --

MS. HARF: I'm not sure the Secretary's first day of work is the same as --

QUESTION: The payroll tax, and then the email address, and --

MS. HARF: I'm not sure she had a badge. I don't know. I just don't know.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: I really just don't know.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Did Clinton's aides and personal staff also use personal emails to correspond with her?

MS. HARF: About official business?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: I know – I can check on that. Let me see. Well, certainly, State Department employees generally use State email addresses. As would be the case for her aides or anyone else if they did use a personal email, they would still be under the same requirements in terms of preserving that for the record. So I can't speak to specifics.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

MS. HARF: Anything else on this? Are you still on this?

QUESTION: Yes. I have a few follow-ups.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: So one is: You say there was no – at the time in question, 2009-2013, there was no prohibition.

MS. HARF: There's still not.

QUESTION: Okay. Was there a policy on this point, beyond the NARA guidance? Did the State Department have a policy that addressed use of personal emails for official purposes?

MS. HARF: I can check on that. I know that in August 2013, which is after you're talking about, NARA issued guidance which included – I'm not sure they had issued it prior to this, but I can check – that email records of designated senior officials are permanent federal records. I'm guessing if they had to clarify that, they hadn't been clear about it before. I think that's my understanding. And then in September 2013, they issued guidance on personal email use. So it's my understanding that's when NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration that governs this, put the guidelines forward. And then at that point, we sent to all of our employees the guidelines following on that, that they needed to preserve anything that was a record.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: So it's my understanding that those guidelines came later and were not in place at the time.

QUESTION: Okay. So you don't know of any State Department specific policy that was in place prior to September 2013 addressing this issue?

MS. HARF: Not to my knowledge. I'm happy to check. I don't want to speak --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: -- authoritatively on this, but I'm happy to check. But it is my understanding that because NARA didn't issue those guidelines until late 2013, that's when we put guidance forward to our employees.

QUESTION: And you mentioned that most of the 55,000 pages were emails to state.gov accounts belonging to other persons.

MS. HARF: A vast majority, yes – to or from.

QUESTION: So in addition to some possibly not going to those accounts – so perhaps not being captured at the time – wouldn't there be an issue, depending on what kind of record searches were being done, if somebody asked for a search of the secretary or office of secretary emails, and say, she sent it to some other office, office of administration or something – if that wasn't covered by the search, wouldn't it be the case that those other emails wouldn't have been produced? And is the Department doing anything retrospectively to look at either FOIA requests or litigation or congressional inquiries other than the Benghazi one about whether it actually provided a complete production of documents?

MS. HARF: It's a good question. First, the Department has long had access to a wide array of Secretary Clinton's records. Emails are only a part of that, whether it's cables, whether it's call readouts, other documents. So clearly – and that also included emails between her and Department officials with state.gov accounts. And now we have possession of Secretary Clinton's emails spanning her time at the State Department. Those are now part of records. So to the extent that FOIA requests come in going forward, if it is determined that Secretary Clinton's emails may be responsive, if that's the case, her emails will be searched in connection with those requests. So again, most – we had a large amount of her records to begin with, but yes, all of them will now be searched going forward.

QUESTION: And what about retrospectively?

MS. HARF: That's my understanding that that will not be happening.

QUESTION: Okay. And has any other – it's correct that there were 300 pages produced to the Benghazi select panel. Were there productions --

MS. HARF: About – fewer than 300, a little fewer than 300 emails. That's more than 300 pages.

QUESTION: Okay. Have there been productions from these records to any other panels? And can you say just a little bit about the sequence – was there any connection between those congressional document requests and the decision to send this missive to the former secretaries?

MS. HARF: So the letter actually went before we got the request from the select committee. It went in October of 2014 – that was before we had gotten a request from the committee – as part of our records maintenance upgrading and the process we go through. So that was what drove that. I don't know the first question answer – I don't think so – that these have been provided in response to any other request, but I'm not 100 percent sure.

QUESTION: And one final question. You said there's no indication that there was any classified material. Has the Department done a classification review of the 55,000 pages, and is that the result of it? Or is it just something more cursory than that?

MS. HARF: I don't believe we have. But we have no indication she used it for anything other than unclassified work, as all of us do on our unclassified State accounts.

QUESTION: Follow-up --

MS. HARF: Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Follow-up this. So does former Secretary Clinton broke the law or not?

MS. HARF: I think I've addressed that at length. You can check the transcript for my answer on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on Venezuela?

MS. HARF: I do. And thank you for your patience in waiting for this. I'm apologizing that we did not get this to you yesterday, but I have a little bit of an update.

QUESTION: In the meantime, the Venezuelans have updated significantly as well.

MS. HARF: I know. That's the challenge, which is the challenge for not getting things out more quickly here. But there was the short meeting yesterday between the charge and the foreign minister. The meeting was just about the size of our mission in Venezuela. The Venezuelan Government asked that in 15 days we discuss with them a plan for reducing the size of our mission in Caracas. We noted in that meeting, and I'm noting now, that the numbers the Venezuelan Government has offered regarding the size of its mission in the United States dramatically understate the number of Venezuelan diplomats in the United States in a bilateral capacity. In addition to their embassy, they have eight consulates in a bilateral capacity, obviously not at the UN or at the OAS.

The Venezuelan Government – we will – the reports, I should say, that the Venezuelan Government said they had to leave immediately are not true. They've given us 15 days to give them a plan. We will respond to the Venezuelan Government via diplomatic channels after due consideration of their request.

QUESTION: So does that – you're going to respond to them, but you won't say at this point whether you plan to actually --

MS. HARF: Reduce.

QUESTION: -- reduce.

MS. HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: And do they explain in full why this is an absolute necessity at this point in Venezuelan history?

MS. HARF: Well, in part, what they have argued publicly and privately is that the U.S. is trying to undermine Venezuela, a charge we have repeatedly said is completely baseless. So we had the conversation yesterday. It was a short meeting, and again, it was just about the size of the mission.

QUESTION: And if they indeed – do they have the capacity to force you to reduce numbers? Is that within their purview?

MS. HARF: I don't know the answer to that.

QUESTION: I mean, they could technically PNG --

MS. HARF: PNG people or --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS. HARF: Yeah. I don't know.

QUESTION: Will – is the U.S. considering any countermeasures, considering they are trying to dictate to you your diplomatic --

MS. HARF: We're looking at the request, and we'll respond. As I pointed out, though, they've given numbers publicly for their staffing in the U.S., and again, those are drastically understated, given they have an embassy and eight consulates.

QUESTION: When you say, "drastically understated," what are the numbers?

QUESTION: What are those actual numbers?

MS. HARF: I don't think I need to speak for them with their numbers, except to say that what they've said publicly is dramatically lower.

QUESTION: Dramatically, so not – but not --

QUESTION: Is it comparable to the U.S. staffing?

MS. HARF: I'm sorry?

QUESTION: Is it comparable to the U.S. staffing?

MS. HARF: I'm just not going to get into numbers.

Sorry, Brad. What?

QUESTION: No, no. It's fine.

MS. HARF: Okay.

Yes, Lesley.

QUESTION: You say eight consulates.

MS. HARF: Eight consulates in a bilateral capacity --

QUESTION: So --

MS. HARF: -- in addition to the embassy in Washington.

QUESTION: -- is it possible that the U.S. could ask them to draw down their numbers as well?

MS. HARF: I don't want to predict what might happen here. We're looking at the request. I was just pointing out that they have a much more robust diplomatic presence than they had said publicly.

QUESTION: And is their number for the U.S., is that correct, 100?

MS. HARF: I'm just not going to get into numbers.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

QUESTION: No. Did anyone make the argument, either in the meeting or in any other conversation, the level of importance that Venezuela has for U.S. foreign policy and the economy of the United States, as opposed to the level of the United States in Venezuela?

MS. HARF: I don't have more specifics on the conversations. I don't disagree with the premise, but I don't know if that's been part of the conversation.

QUESTION: I mean, the notion that Venezuela could push the United States around on this – is this something that you're going to forcefully push back on? Because it seems kind of strange, at least, for the State Department to be calmly listening to this request without registering complaints --

MS. HARF: I wouldn't say that we're calm.

QUESTION: -- or at least registering strong objections to trying to dictate it.

MS. HARF: We're certainly registering complaints. And we're looking at the ask from them for a plan, and I don't want to project that we don't think this is a very serious thing. Clearly, we do.

I got a few follow-ups to some of the Venezuela questions yesterday.

QUESTION: Yeah. I was going to ask about the Vienna Conventions, particularly.

QUESTION: And the pilot.

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: And the pilot.

MS. HARF: So I'm just going run through the follow-ups I got from yesterday --

QUESTION: All right.

MS. HARF: -- and then – someone asked about other long-term U.S. citizen prisoners in Venezuela?

QUESTION: Long-term or short-term, I think.

MS. HARF: So we are aware of several long-term U.S. citizen prisoners in Venezuela. I can see if there are more details on that. We are not aware of any other reports of U.S. citizens who have been detained within the past week, apart from the four missionaries who have since been deported.

And then this alleged report of this U.S. citizen pilot. We have received no formal notification of this alleged arrest from the Government of Venezuela and see no information of any kind about those rumors, beyond the press report. So don't have anything to confirm those reports.

There is a Travel Warning for Venezuela that was last updated on December 11th, 2014. It's mostly focused on violent crime in Venezuela, that – the places where it's prevalent and being aware of your surroundings. Obviously, that's what the warning has been most focused on.

I think that's it. What am I missing?

QUESTION: And then the Vienna Conventions --

QUESTION: Vienna Conventions.

QUESTION: -- whether countries can actually tell you how many, where --

MS. HARF: I don't have an answer to that. Let me check. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: That's okay.

MS. HARF: I will work on that afterwards.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can I very quickly move to another topic?

MS. HARF: You can.

QUESTION: Okay. Yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry was very critical of the United Nations Human Rights Commission --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- saying that it is ganging up on Israel. Is it your judgment that basically, Israel gets a disproportionate amount of criticism --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- than other countries?

MS. HARF: Yes, and I certainly agree with what the Secretary said.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. And conversely, do you believe that Israel, as a result of that criticism, has been responsive to its human rights abuses such as releasing children that are still in prison, detainees that go on endlessly in administrative detention and so on?

MS. HARF: If you're asking about a specific question, I'm happy to check with our team, but --

QUESTION: Yes, I am. You're saying that they get more than fair – their fair share of criticism, yet on the other hand, we know that Israel conducts these abuses that never really are – are never held accountable. For instance, what have you done for the children that are in prison?

MS. HARF: I think you're trying to link a couple of things here, Said. If we have issues or the international community has issues with something that's happening in Israel, we raise it with them. We were very open last summer talking about civilian casualties, for example, during the Gaza conflict.

QUESTION: Right.

MS. HARF: The point is that the best way to address those is in a non-biased way, and that when organizations like the Human Rights Council undertake their efforts in a biased away, that that is counterproductive and that we're not going to stand for that.

QUESTION: With everyone focused on Iran and the nuclear issue and so on, with the Palestinian issue being way back – on the backburner, are we likely to see any kind of kick-start anytime soon in any kind of process?

MS. HARF: I have nothing to predict for you, Said.

Yes, Elliot.

QUESTION: Change topic?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: It's been a while since we've talked about Mr. Snowden here, but --

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- his lawyer made some comments to the effect that he would like to come back again under the right circumstances. I was wondering if there's been any evolution in the Administration's thinking about how to get him to come back, what conditions might be amenable.

MS. HARF: Well, we're certainly happy for him to return to the United States to face a court in the very serious charges he has been charged with. So he absolutely can and should return to the United States to face the justice system that will be fair in its judgment of him, but he is accused of very serious crimes and should return home to face them.

QUESTION: His lawyers have said that a trial under the Espionage Act of 1917 would not be fair. Is there any room for compromise, in your view, on this?

MS. HARF: He's been charged with very serious crimes, and I think we've been very clear that he will get a fair trial if he returns here, but if he didn't want to be subject to these kinds of charges, then he shouldn't have done what he did.

QUESTION: Marie, do you know about the report out of Moscow today that he – there is talk from lawyers saying that he's in discussions about coming back?

MS. HARF: I saw that report. I'm not – "I don't know" is the answer, but I'm happy to say here very publicly that he is welcome to come back. We will help get him here, and he will face justice when he does.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. Government involved at all in conversations with these groups of lawyers that seem to be (inaudible)?

MS. HARF: The answer – I really don't know. I'm happy to check and see if there's more to share on that.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS. HARF: Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: I have a question regarding the information security and encryption piece, but nothing to do with the Secretary's emails. Yesterday, President Obama expressed concern over Chinese new rules under a counterterrorism law which would impact U.S. technology companies to do business in China. On the other hand, the Chinese Government has responded, saying that it domestic issue and it's essential for them to take such measure to counter terrorism. And they also mentioned the International Code of Conduct on Information Security which was renewed this January to United Nations.

I would like to know, what is the U.S. Government's position on such code of conduct?

MS. HARF: Well, on the code of conduct, we are aware of the new draft of the International Code of Conduct for Information Security and we're currently reviewing it. We have expressed our concerns with the initial draft of the code of conduct tabled at the UN in 2011, particularly with regard to its attempt to establish international justification for government control over internet resources, and restrictions to fundamental freedoms online. So clearly, this is something we've – we are looking at right now, but had expressed concerns about in the past.

In terms of your first question, we are very concerned that many aspects of China's recent regulatory actions which have been touted as means to bolster cyber security, actually, are neither effective cyber security measures nor consistent with the principles of free and open trade. We've urged the Chinese Government to reconsider the restrictive banking regulations and to consult with U.S. Government and industry as they draft their counterterrorism law. And we remain committed to expanding our cooperation with the Chinese Government on cyber matters in areas where our interests align, and to candidly and constructively address issues and areas where they do not.

QUESTION: Would you please give us an update on the bilateral U.S.-China cyber dialogue?

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that going to be run this year?

MS. HARF: Well, we regret China's decision to suspend the activities of the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group. We have continued to engage Chinese cyber experts on area of concern in other places, in other fora, and remain committed to that, certainly discuss relevant cyber issues in all venues, and are looking to continue doing so.

QUESTION: Would you support a multinational mechanism instead of a bilateral dialogue to surface cyber security issues?

MS. HARF: Well, when it comes to issues of internet governance, I think – which I think is a key part of this – we stand strongly behind the existing multi-stakeholder approach that includes a role for civil society, the private sector, and governments, and oppose multilateral efforts at establishing government control over the internet. So that's something we feel very strongly about.

QUESTION: I have a separate question --

MS. HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: -- regarding DPRK.

MS. HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Netanyahu said today at Congress that up to five years DPRK could produce up to 100 nuclear weapons. The same assessment was also quoted by New York Times editorial, which also criticized this Administration's policies not matched by experts' analysis. What's your response?

MS. HARF: Well, I think they're just vastly different situations when it comes to the DPRK's nuclear program and Iran's. Clearly, there are some very, I think, common sense differences. But again, any comprehensive agreement with Iran would require, at a minimum, implementation of things like the additional protocol, which constitutes a much greater level of monitoring and a wider scope of access than was ever attempted in a place like North Korea. So I think that drawing too many comparisons between the two is pretty misleading, and we're well aware of the state of North Korea's nuclear program and certainly are committed to working to denuclearization.

QUESTION: Would you agree with such assessment that in five years, DPRK could produce up to 100 nuclear weapons?

MS. HARF: I'm happy to check with our technical experts, but last time I checked, Prime Minister Netanyahu was not one of them.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: I think there's one more in the back.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

QUESTION: One more in back. Actually, one, do you have a readout of the meeting between Danny Russel and the Japanese Director General of North America Tomita?

MS. HARF: I don't, but I will get you one.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the other one, since you didn't notice me raising my hand, the – you keep talking about the – focusing on the end of March for the agreement with Iran.

MS. HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that the 31st, because --

MS. HARF: It is.

QUESTION: It is the 31st?

MS. HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: It's not the 23rd or the 24th?

MS. HARF: It is not.

QUESTION: It is the 31st?

MS. HARF: It is the 31st.

QUESTION: Okay. And then if we don't reach this agreement by that time, what is going to happen? Are you guys going to continue the negotiation until June or --

MS. HARF: Well, I think it's hard to predict.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS. HARF: But as the President and the Secretary have said, we won't go on negotiating forever. And now is really the time for Iran to make these choices and for us to work very hard on the technical side and the political side to see if we can get to an agreement that meets our bottom lines here. So I think it's too soon to say, certainly, but I'm sure we'll be having many more conversations about it in the coming days.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS. HARF: Thank you, everyone. And thank you for your patience today.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:40 p.m.)

DPB # 37