• 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
Acting Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
April 20, 2015

Index for Today's Briefing

IRAN
YEMEN
GREECE/COUNTERTERRORISM
EU/REGION
BANGLADESH
SOUTH AFRICA
PAKISTAN
DEPARTMENT
YEMEN
IRAQ
POLAND

 

TRANSCRIPT:

11:58 p.m. EDT

MS HARF: Hello. Welcome to the Daily Press Briefing. Matt.

QUESTION: Big day.

MS HARF: I'm wearing scarlet. Thank you for indulging the early briefing today. My Buckeyes are at the White House.

QUESTION: Yeah. Didn't they win something this year?

MS HARF: The undisputed national champions in the first-ever football playoff series.

QUESTION: That's right.

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Many happy returns.

MS HARF: My dad is here, too, so he's very excited to see the Buckeyes.

QUESTION: He's in the briefing room? (Laughter.)

MS HARF: No, he's in Washington. He's been to a briefing before. Didn't come back for a second time. (Laughter.) Smarter than I am. With that, Matt, get us started.

QUESTION: Oh really? You have nothing?

MS HARF: I have nothing at the top. I was not kidding.

QUESTION: Well, let's start with something that's just coming across now. I'm wondering if you have any thoughts/reaction to the charging of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian by Iran. And then I'd like to stay on Iran for a little bit.

MS HARF: So we are still not aware of any official announcement yet from Iranian judicial authorities. I understand these reports are coming from his lawyer. We have seen the reports, of course, from his lawyer and others that he has been charged with espionage and other security-related charges. If the reports are true, these charges are, as we've said in the past, patently absurd. He should immediately be freed so he can return to his family. The charges should immediately be dismissed. But again, no confirmation officially from Iranian judicial authorities yet.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you know, has he had – I know that the Iranians when people are dual nationals they choose to ignore the dual part of it, and so they consider him to be an Iranian citizen. Has he had any visits, any – have you had any access through the Swiss?

MS HARF: I don't know the answer. I'm happy to check.

QUESTION: Is it possible to find out? Okay.

MS HARF: I'm happy to check.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: Quick one on this one. Is it possible for him to renounce his Iranian citizenship? Do you know anything about that?

MS HARF: Legally under Iranian law?

QUESTION: You don't know if --

MS HARF: I don't know, Said. But regardless of that specific fact, and I just don't know the answers there, these charges that he's allegedly been charged with are just absurd as I said and he should be freed immediately.

QUESTION: The other thing having to do with Iran – I realize that these are separate, the issue of the Americans detained --

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: -- are separate from the nuclear --

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: -- talks. Although, as you and others have said as does come up – this issue does come up on the --

MS HARF: We always raise it in every round. That's correct.

QUESTION: So I'm wondering: Does this give you any pause about going full-throttle ahead with the negotiations?

MS HARF: They really are separate issues.

QUESTION: Well, but they had been brought up on the --

MS HARF: On the sidelines.

QUESTION: -- on the margins.

MS HARF: But not related to the nuclear issue, just because we were all in the same place.

QUESTION: Right. I know, but I mean --

MS HARF: So they're not related.

QUESTION: -- is this something that --

MS HARF: It doesn't make us not want to get this resolved diplomatically any less than we already do. We clearly believe this is important.

QUESTION: Understood, but is this something that now will be – that you will make the – you, meaning the Administration – will make a point of raising, since you say that these charges are --

MS HARF: Not as part of the nuclear talks. These are separate issues. We will continue raising his case and the other two Americans who were detained – and Robert Levinson who's missing – we'll continue raising them but they are not – their fate and the outcome of these cases should in no way be tied to the nuclear issue.

QUESTION: I – right. I'm not --

MS HARF: I'm not sure what you're asking. I'm sorry, Matt.

QUESTION: Well, there's a meeting this coming week at the – the political directors meeting --

MS HARF: Correct. I expect we will raise it --

QUESTION: Would you expect that – again --

MS HARF: -- this week. Yes. We raise it in every round of meetings we have.

QUESTION: All right. And then tangentially to this, did you read Foreign Minister Zarif's op-ed in The New York Times this morning?

MS HARF: I did. I did.

QUESTION: And what do you make of it?

MS HARF: Do you have any specific questions about things in it?

QUESTION: Well, one, he talks about how Iran would like to cooperate on some kind of regional security infrastructure, and I'm wondering if you think that that's an appropriate suggestion for him to make, or – and if it is or if it isn't what you think of it?

MS HARF: Well, there weren't a lot of details in it, right? And so I'm not exactly sure what's behind some of his policy ideas he put forward in the op-ed. As we've said, when it comes to issues like ISIL, we are not coordinating with Iran, we will not be coordinating with Iran, we will not be sharing intelligence with Iran. Obviously, the region is an incredibly complicated place right now, there are a lot of players in different countries, including Iran. We have spoken out very publicly about their destabilizing actions in places like Yemen, in places like Syria, in places like Lebanon, and we will keep speaking out on that.

So do we – are we looking for ways to work with our partners – with the Gulf countries, with other countries – to make the region more stable? Of course. Does that include Iran? We've always said we won't be coordinating with them on these issues.

QUESTION: Right. But I mean, do you think that Iran is even qualified to make an offer to talk about regional stability when you accuse them --

MS HARF: Well, I think any country --

QUESTION: -- of being behind all this --

MS HARF: Well, look, I think any country who says they want to help make the region more stable is better than the alternative, saying they want to do the opposite. But the proof is in what's actually happening on the ground.

QUESTION: And right now --

MS HARF: And in places like Yemen, in places like Syrian, Lebanon – I could name others --

QUESTION: How about Iraq?

MS HARF: They are incredibly destabilizing in some of these places. We've talked about Iraq, the fact that it's a little more complicated, that Iran, if they want to play a less destabilizing role in Iraq, could support the Iraqis as they fight ISIL in a non-sectarian way. I've said that repeatedly from this podium.

QUESTION: How is that? In a non-sectarian – what does that mean?

MS HARF: Well, I think you're aware of the past support Iran has given inside Iraq to sectarian forces. So I would say it's probably the opposite of that.

QUESTION: Can I ask --

QUESTION: But I recall a statement by General Dempsey and even the Secretary of State basically saying that Iran's role in Iraq is a positive one, or suggesting that it was a positive one.

MS HARF: Well, I think what they've said and what we've said is countries in the region, including Iran, have spoken out very publicly about how dangerous ISIL is. Right? So they've said that publicly. That doesn't mean we're going to coordinate with them, but they can take action when it comes to Iraq that's either helpful, not helpful, sectarian, not sectarian. So we're watching very closely what's happening on the ground. I don't have much more overarching analysis to do for you about Iran's role in Iraq today. We've talked about it a lot.

QUESTION: Marie, can I ask –

MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) Australians today have signed – have said they're going to share intelligence with Iran on foreign fighters –

MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- working with ISIS in Iraq. You just said you're not cooperating –

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: -- with them, coordinating with them. What is your reaction to the news from Sydney today?

MS HARF: So we've seen the reports and are trying to get a little more information about what that actually might look like. We just don't have a lot more details at this point.

QUESTION: On Iran.

QUESTION: You don't think it's a good idea –

MS HARF: Let's all just do one at a time.

QUESTION: You don't think it would – do you think it would be a good idea?

MS HARF: We just don't have more details, so I'm not going to make a pronouncement until we know more what this might look like.

QUESTION: Can we go back to Zarif's op-ed?

MS HARF: We can.

QUESTION: You said that it's better than the alternative that an Iranian official is expressing a desire for greater stability in the region and a desire to play such a role. Are – is the U.S. Government in any way open to talking to Iran, not perforce necessarily in the context of the nuclear negotiations, about exploring this willingness that they've expressed and notwithstanding the fact that you see them as being the authors of a lot of the instability in the region through their proxies. I mean do you have any willingness to engage with them on this?

MS HARF: Well, I think there are a couple different questions here. The first is you can't look at this issue notwithstanding their destabilizing action in the region. I mean, you have to take that into account. Second, we've also said that on the sidelines of the nuclear talks, we have at times discussed other events happening in the region, that we spend enough time together. It would be sort of odd if we didn't, we pretended like the rest of the world wasn't out there. That does not mean we're coordinating or working with them. And we've been very clear that that's sort of the line here that delineates what we're willing to talk to them about and what we're – we're not willing to work with them.

I think – this hearkens back a little bit to the discussion we had about the Geneva II conference and whether Iran should ultimately have been invited to that. We said, look, if they were willing – and this is just an example, but I think it speaks to some of the larger questions you were asking – if they were willing to accept the principles of the Geneva communique, we said at the time there may be a role for them to play in a Geneva II conference given they have such influence in Syria, that you'd need the parties at the table with influence to get you to political resolutions. Now that was many, many months ago. We're in a very different place today. I just think it's illustrative of the way we look at the issue that there are certain things we need for countries to participants in political dialogues, and we'll look at that on a case-by-case basis.

QUESTION: So it's conceivable to you – sorry – that they will – that you could engage with them on these matters if they were willing to change some of their previous policy positions?

MS HARF: I don't think I would say it that way. I think would say in the past we have shown an openness to discussions of these issues with Iran.

QUESTION: I'm not interested really in the past; I'm interested in going forward.

MS HARF: I understand that, Arshad, but you're making assumptions about what I'm saying and drawing them out a little further than I am taking them. That's why I'm trying to be very clear with you that we have on other issues or on other regional issues indicated at times a willingness to discuss them with Iran in the right context. Am I predicting what will happen tomorrow or next week? No. I'm not in any way sort of guessing about what will happen, but I want to be very clear we've always said we won't be coordinating or working with the Iranians, and there's a difference between discussing and working with.

QUESTION: Okay. So but does that mean the fact that you have at times in the past under certain circumstances shown a willingness to discuss some issues with them imply that in the future under certain circumstances –

MS HARF: We might be open to having a discussion?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS HARF: Maybe.

QUESTION: So your answer is maybe, not yes?

MS HARF: Right, maybe.

QUESTION: But I mean just to go back to what the foreign minister wrote about, I mean are you suggesting that it's a little bit disingenuous for the Iranians to say that they want this type of dialogue when at the same time you're also – whether it's you or the – your allies in the Gulf are suggesting that they're the ones that in large part, not only, but in some part responsible for some of this destabilization?

MS HARF: I'm not saying it's disingenuous. I'm saying that words on a piece of paper matter, but what matters much more is the actions happening on the ground.

QUESTION: How could you get them to change the behaviors that you dislike without engaging them?

MS HARF: We have a number of ways we can counter their destabilizing actions in the region, including sanctions, including reassurance to our other partners with military assets and others. So there are ways of prompting them to change behavior that aren't about talking to them.

QUESTION: Has that worked so far, do you think?

MS HARF: In – I mean, that's a hugely broad question, Arshad. Do you have a specific case or country or example in mind?

QUESTION: Has it worked in Yemen? Has it worked in Syria? Has it worked in Lebanon?

MS HARF: Well, I think --

QUESTION: Those are three specifics.

MS HARF: Okay. Well, we can go through all of them, although I think I might move on in a second, because these are big analytic questions. I think when we look at, for example, putting sanctions on Iran over its sponsorship of Hizballah as a state sponsor of terror, that does certain things that limits their ability to get certain funds to use to support terrorists. Now, I can have our expert team do an analysis of how all the sanctions on other issues have prevented them from doing even more, and I'm happy to get that for you. But there's a reason we have all these other ways of countering their influence in the region.

It is a challenge, though, because a lot of this doesn't take very much money. I agree with you that it's a challenge.

QUESTION: I didn't say it was a challenge. The – what I'm trying to get at --

MS HARF: You don't think it's a challenge?

QUESTION: It's – I'm not here to answer your questions; I'm here to try to get answers to mine, okay.

MS HARF: Okay. Well, what are you asking specifically, Arshad?

QUESTION: So the question is: Can you say that your efforts thus far to stop what you regard as destabilizing behavior in the specific countries of Lebanon, Yemen, and Syria have worked? And if they haven't, or you think they haven't been wholly successful, what is the harm in potentially engaging on this with the Iranians?

MS HARF: Well, they're all very different situations, but just to – first of all, it's not about working or not working. It's about having tools to increasingly counter Iranian destabilizing actions. Yes, they still obviously are able to do quite a bit, but there are other ways we can push back on that and prevent them from doing even more. If you look at a country like Lebanon, our support for the Lebanese armed forces is certainly something that's been very important to this role – getting their capabilities up. Syria's very different, Yemen – they're all very different, so --

QUESTION: But dialogue is not one of those tools from your point of view?

MS HARF: I just said five questions ago when you asked me that in a country like Syria, we had a lengthy discussion around the Geneva II conference about a way they might be able to participate. So we have said in the past that we were able to discussing this with them, and I just said maybe we would be in the future, but that doesn't mean we'll work with them.

QUESTION: Can I --

MS HARF: And we will still maintain all those other ways of countering them.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) since the 2nd of April, since the framework agreement was signed, are you aware of any statements made by senior Iranian officials that actually, let's say, are critical of the agreement or critical of arriving at an agreement?

MS HARF: I mean, a lot of Iranian officials say a lot of things, Said.

QUESTION: But are you aware of any --

MS HARF: I'm aware of a lot of statements.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS HARF: Do you have a more specific question that's relevant to this discussion?

QUESTION: On the issue of their interference in the region, do you have – does anyone have any solid evidence that they are in fact aiding the Houthis in Yemen?

MS HARF: I think there is a well-documented history of support for the Houthi, including in various State Department reports – money, weapons, support for a very long time, Said.

QUESTION: I know there are statements in support of the Houthis, because the --

MS HARF: There's a lot of evidence. Do you doubt this evidence, Said?

QUESTION: I haven't seen it yet. It's – what is the evidence? Are there arms and things --

MS HARF: I'm happy to send it all to you and point you where you can get more information. Thank you.

QUESTION: Staying on Iran --

QUESTION: Marie --

MS HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- last Thursday, the top Iranian defense ministry guy in – speaking in Moscow invited Russia, China, and India for its readiness to cooperate on the issue of NATO's missile shield. So do you have any reaction?

MS HARF: I hadn't seen those comments. I'm happy to take a look at them.

Yes, Jo.

QUESTION: Can I ask a couple of questions? On the comments by Foreign Minister Zarif, do you not fear that it plays into some of the criticism of any nuclear deal, that it could actually embolden Iran in the region? This would seem to be that he's linking the two things; he's saying if there's nuclear negotiations --

MS HARF: And we don't link them.

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MS HARF: Right.

QUESTION: But he clearly is. I think many of his Gulf neighbors have been concerned – many of Iran's Gulf neighbors have been concerned about increasing – as we just talked about, increasing Iranian influence in the region. Does this kind of suggestion that if there's a nuclear deal, we're willing to sit down and extend the hand of dialogue to other countries not just play into that whole scenario?

MS HARF: Well, I think that's a little too simplistic. I would say a few things. First, that's why I wanted to be very clear that just because we might talk to the Iranians about issues does not in any way mean we are working with them. We want to be very clear about that to our Gulf partners particularly, also to the Israelis and others, because I know that's something they're very concerned about.

They all also – the Gulf neighbors particularly – talk to Iran about all these issues. Even though they vehemently – they disagree, they have dialogue as well with them, because they know that that's one way to try and resolve some of these issues. Even the Saudis do. So I think this is something that you see in the region, that they understand there's a need at some level to talk about these issues. And that's why the GCC leaders are coming to Washington; that's why we are in a continual dialogue with them about this.

But we don't equate the two issues, and we think that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be much more destabilizing in the region. That's why we think, again, that we need to get this done diplomatically.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I just ask you about a report that was in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend --

MS HARF: You can, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- in which it was reported that congressional sources who have been briefed in some of these presumably, I don't know, behind-closed-door briefings, came out and said that the day that the deal is signed, Iran would get $50 billion in --

QUESTION: Not --

QUESTION: -- sanctions relief.

MS HARF: Not true --

QUESTION: There's a --

MS HARF: -- as there is absolutely no change in our position regarding phased sanctions relief as part of a comprehensive deal. We have always said they will only receive sanctions relief after it verifiably completes all of its nuclear-related steps. That hasn't --

QUESTION: But that doesn't actually contradict what The Wall Street Journal says --

MS HARF: But you think – well --

QUESTION: -- because there'd still be another 50 billion-odd stuck away in --

MS HARF: But this won't happen on day one.

QUESTION: So you could still say it's phased. Yes, that's --

MS HARF: No, no. No, no, no. But if --

QUESTION: You could have first 50 billion day one and --

MS HARF: No, but --

QUESTION: -- the rest of the 50 billion later on down the line.

MS HARF: No, no, no, no, no. No. But they won't get relief until they take nuclear-related steps, and those cannot technically probably happen on day one.

QUESTION: But Marie --

QUESTION: Well, but day one of the implementation --

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Like, there's a – there also is, as there was, I think, with the JPOA --

MS HARF: Well, but it's different with the JPOA because these three months are designed to do the annexes, which is what the implementation time was designed to do with the JPOA.

QUESTION: But my question --

MS HARF: So there probably won't be two months of implementation time, like there was with the JPOA. That's what this time is designed to do.

QUESTION: So it could on June the 30th – you could say that that's the start of the agreement --

MS HARF: We could.

QUESTION: -- so therefore, they are liable to X number of billions of dollars of relief?

MS HARF: No. They will not get sanctions relief until they take the key nuclear-related steps.

QUESTION: But now, with – I mean, actually, if you look at it that way, like, the congressional kind of review period that was just voted upon last week actually could work to your benefit, because Iran could be taking implementation steps so that on day one of the deal, they could've already taken steps so that some of these sanctions could be lifted on day one.

MS HARF: Some of these are – as far as I understand, technically, they're very complicated technical nuclear steps that we expect will probably take several months, as we've said.

QUESTION: But Marie, what exactly is wrong about the story?

MS HARF: Well, the way at least Jo just described it was that --

QUESTION: No, no. Forget about the way she described it.

MS HARF: But I was answering her question, Matt.

QUESTION: Right, okay. But what – okay, fine. But what's wrong --

MS HARF: I was just answering – I'm not going to go into line-by-line of a story. I was answering her question which said that we are briefing members of Congress in closed session that on day one they will receive all this money. And I said --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS HARF: -- they will only get sanctions relief after they take the nuclear-related steps they have to.

QUESTION: Does that include – hold on --

QUESTION: So you're saying no, not one dollar – they will not get one dollar on day one?

MS HARF: We have always said that they will only get sanctions relief after they take the nuclear-related steps.

QUESTION: No, but you've also talked about a phased --

MS HARF: I mean, Elise --

QUESTION: -- you've talked about a phased-out --

MS HARF: Well, they're getting access to money throughout this period, though. So we just need to be very clear what we're talking about. Throughout the extension, they are now getting some sanctions relief.

QUESTION: Right. So I – but --

MS HARF: Which will continue through June 30th.

QUESTION: So – but I mean, I know you've been kind of talking --

QUESTION: So what happens on July 1st?

MS HARF: We don't know yet.

QUESTION: -- we've been talking --

MS HARF: That's the billion-dollar question. We don't know yet.

QUESTION: Fifty billion.

QUESTION: You've been talking about this – let me just say --

MS HARF: A hundred billion. Right.

QUESTION: You've been talking about this phased – I understand that you've been talking about a phased --

MS HARF: Right.

QUESTION: -- approach. But in the first – like, what you're saying is there's no way for the first phase to start on day first of the agreement.

MS HARF: Correct. The political understanding does not immediately relieve, suspend, or terminate any sanctions on Iran --

QUESTION: But it is conceivable to you --

MS HARF: -- until they take nuclear-related steps.

QUESTION: Right. So it is conceivable to you, though, that you could set a date in the future – say, 90 days after an agreement is reached; not signed, because it isn't necessarily going to be signed – and on that 90th day, if they have taken nuclear steps that you deem necessary, you could then provide them with sanctions relief on that 90th day. Correct?

MS HARF: I mean, that's a huge hypothetical, Arshad. I don't even know how to answer that question. What we're working towards is a comprehensive agreement; June 30 is the deadline. What we've said there are – is sanctions will be only suspended in a phased way, that in no way does this automatically relieve anything. They have to take steps first.

QUESTION: But if they've taken the steps, you can then give them sanctions relief.

MS HARF: That's what we've always said. But your hypothetical scenario is --

QUESTION: It's a really simple thing – 90 days later.

MS HARF: I understand, but I'm talking about --

QUESTION: It's not some very complex hypothetical.

MS HARF: Well, you could give me a lot of hypotheticals about "Well, you could put this amount of days" – I don't want to --

QUESTION: But there has been a lot of discussion --

MS HARF: Wait, Elise. I don't want to give any credence to your hypothetical that it's in any way realistic, is all I'm saying. Go ahead.

QUESTION: But there has been some discussion about whether Iran could take some steps, and even I think they've even said that, like, they could take some steps – and obviously, a lot of this is technical and takes – some of it could take months or even a year --

MS HARF: We expect it would take several months.

QUESTION: -- but there is – there are some things that they could do in the short term while the – before the deal implements that --

MS HARF: I mean --

QUESTION: The things they've already done.

MS HARF: Well, no. But this doesn't include they've already done. These would be the nuclear-related steps as part of a comprehensive agreement. If you're suggesting they could – would start implementing a comprehensive agreement before we have it agreed to --

QUESTION: No, before it's implemented. Because you do have this congressional --

MS HARF: No, I just said we won't, Elise. I think you guys are getting all spun up here. The JPOA – we finished the political understanding and then we had two months where we did the implementation – essentially annexes, right, for lack of a better term. That's what we're doing right now.

QUESTION: Okay. But Congress does also have this new --

MS HARF: Okay. I'm not sure there's much more to talk about on this. Let's move on.

QUESTION: Here's what I don't understand. I don't understand what you're saying about the story is wrong.

MS HARF: I was just answering Jo's --

QUESTION: You're saying that Jo's question was wrong.

MS HARF: Correct, and I'm not going to go line by line of a story.

QUESTION: Well, let's put it this way. Is there --

MS HARF: Do you have any other questions about the story? I'm happy to answer them, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, the way it was presented, or at least the way I understand it's presented is essentially, this is some kind of – like, a – I don't know, for lack of a better word, a signing bonus. Does – whether or not it is – comes under sanctions relief or not, does Iran get any money at all on --

MS HARF: Get access to any money.

QUESTION: -- day one after signing, before implementation?

MS HARF: I'm happy to check again with our team and take another look at the story.

QUESTION: Okay. Because that is a different thing than --

MS HARF: I'm happy to – I just said I'm happy to look into it.

QUESTION: There's all sorts of frozen assets out there that --

MS HARF: I understand very well, Matt, the frozen assets that are out there.

QUESTION: Right.

MS HARF: I think we're going to move on.

QUESTION: Okay. But --

MS HARF: I just said I would look into it.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thanks.

MS HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: One request on that. When you look into it, can you look into it not just with the phrasing "once it is signed," but "once it is agreed," since it's --

MS HARF: Fine.

QUESTION: -- not probably going to be signed, right?

MS HARF: Fine.

QUESTION: I – can I move to Bangladesh that --

MS HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS HARF: Wait, is there anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: -- the former --

QUESTION: Yeah, on Iran.

MS HARF: Okay. We're going to do just a couple more on Iran, guys. Go ahead, Samir.

QUESTION: Did you get confirmation from the GCC leaders who is going to attend this summit?

MS HARF: Ask the White House. It's a White House summit.

QUESTION: Because you confirmed earlier that they are --

MS HARF: Yes, I would ask the White House. Yes.

Iran?

QUESTION: I have questions on Greece.

MS HARF: Okay. Anything else on Iran, guys?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: The Iranian commander General Ahmad Reza, he – the commander, I think, of the Iranian ground forces, on Alam TV, Iranian TV, he was threatening Saudi Arabia to stop the interventions in Yemen. Are you going to take his speech seriously?

MS HARF: Well, I hadn't seen that. Obviously, we are aware of the situation in Yemen and how the Iranians have spoken out very publicly about how they see it. So have the Saudis, and I think we've been very clear about our position.

QUESTION: The foreign minister has also written to Ban Ki-moon asking that he do everything possible to try to stop the air war against the Houthis in Yemen. Are you aware of that letter?

MS HARF: Ask the UN. It wasn't a letter to us.

Yes.

QUESTION: Also on Yemen --

QUESTION: Iran's foreign minister met with his Venezuelan counterpart today in Tehran and condemned UN sanctions against Venezuela and the characterization of a national security threat. Your reaction to that?

MS HARF: I hadn't seen it, but I'm happy to check.

Yes.

QUESTION: A Yemen-related question, (inaudible).

MS HARF: Yep.

QUESTION: Oxfam issued a statement condemning the coalition bombing of a warehouse containing vital humanitarian aid in Saada, Yemen. You have any comment on that?

MS HARF: I hadn't seen it, Said. I'm happy to look into it.

Let's go Greece and then we'll go to Bangladesh.

QUESTION: Let's go to Greece.

QUESTION: No, on this – on Yemen too. Egyptian foreign minister has said that there will be a trilateral meeting on Monday at the UN that includes Secretary Kerry --

MS HARF: We don't have the schedule yet finalized.

QUESTION: -- Jordan foreign minister and Egyptian --

MS HARF: We'll let you know when we have schedule updates for you.

QUESTION: And just one follow-up. The Saudis are saying that the UN resolution last week is basically an endorsement of their military operations over Yemen. Is that how --

MS HARF: Well, I think the Security Council resolution made clear that people should not be sending arms to the Houthi. We've made that clear as well. We have said we are supportive of the Saudi and GCC efforts, and I don't have much more to add than that.

Yes, let's go to Greece.

QUESTION: Marie.

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: The Secretary of State is going to meet in a little while with foreign minister of Greece.

MS HARF: He is.

QUESTION: I'm wondering if they are going to discuss the issue with domestic terrorists and the issue of Mr. Xiros. Since your ambassador in Athens said, and I quote, "If Savvas Xiros or anyone else with the blood of American diplomats and U.S. mission members on their hands leaves prison, it will be seen as a profoundly unfriendly act." He used very tough words.

MS HARF: Well, we certainly are concerned with the proposed Greek legislation that could lead to the early release of convicted terrorists responsible for inflicting terrible damage to Greece through multiple attacks over 27 years that killed their own countrymen, Americans, and other victims. I don't have much of a preview for today's meeting, but I do expect the Secretary will raise it.

QUESTION: Okay. After that, can you tell me what is the status of the Greek-American relations right now?

MS HARF: Well, look, I think it's evidence enough that the Secretary is meeting today here at the State Department with the Greeks, and obviously, it's an incredibly important relationship to us, an important counterterrorism relationship. So when issues come up like this, we discuss them, as friends do, and we'll have probably more of a readout after the meeting.

QUESTION: Another question.

MS HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: And I do – I just do the devil's advocate, please. The Greek Government says that they did it for humanitarian reasons; and second, they say that the U.S. Government let free from Guantanamo terrorists of al-Qaida that they killed off a lot of Americans for the same reason, for humanitarian reasons.

MS HARF: Well --

QUESTION: What is your --

MS HARF: -- I think they're conflating a couple things. Our concern about this proposal is that released terrorists, even if under nominal restrictions like house arrest, they would be in a position to resume terrorist plotting and planning. This Administration on Guantanamo has put in place a very strict set of regulations that govern when we can release people from Guantanamo to third countries, and it has to go through a whole checklist of things, it has to be signed off on by the entire national security team. And there are people who will not be released from Guantanamo; they will be tried. So we have very stringent regulations for how we do this here, and I think we'll have a continuing conversation with the Greeks.

QUESTION: Can we stay near – well, related to Greece but the entire ocean that surrounds --

MS HARF: Sure.

QUESTION: -- or sea, sorry, that surrounds it. Is this – the situation going on with the migrants and these ships that keep capsizing, people keep dying, is this – does the U.S. regard this as essentially a European problem that – or are you taking some kind of steps?

MS HARF: Well, we certainly understand that European leaders are focused on it. I think they're discussing it today. And this is an area of ongoing cooperation between the U.S., the EU and its member-states and other states in the region. I think the tragic events of the last few days just underscore how important that cooperation is.

We provide a range of assistance closer to points of origin. So ultimately, the goal is refugees and migrants don't have to undertake these steps or don't feel like they have to undertake these steps. We have provided over $6 billion last year, which included substantial efforts in the Horn of Africa, I think also a number of programs with – when it comes to Syrian refugees and migrants who are also a huge issue as well. So we are providing assistance and we'll keep talking to the Europeans about it.

QUESTION: Okay. You don't --

QUESTION: Is there any thought about perhaps having the U.S. Navy help in these efforts to rescue people?

MS HARF: I'm happy for you to check with DOD on that.

QUESTION: Could I have a quick follow-up?

MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Are you aware – do you agree with the policy, let's say, of Italy, that has very strict immigration or accepting these immigrants and so on, in rescue --

MS HARF: It's something we discuss with the Europeans --

QUESTION: -- in rescue efforts that --

MS HARF: -- and I don't have any more specifics for you than that.

Let's go to Bangladesh. Yes.

QUESTION: Today, around Monday 6:00 p.m. in Bangladesh time, former three-time prime minister and BNP chief Begum Khaleda Zia has been attacked. Do you have any update on that?

MS HARF: I haven't seen those reports. Let me check for you.

QUESTION: She was doing --

MS HARF: Yep, let me check for you with our team.

QUESTION: She was doing the campaign for the city election.

MS HARF: Okay. I'm happy to check.

QUESTION: And Thursday I asked you about this former state minister Salahuddin Ahmed has been --

MS HARF: Yep, and I haven't heard anything back on that, so I will check for you again.

Yes, on – let's keep staying here. On Bangladesh?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS HARF: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: The U.S. and the United Nations, they are calling for de-escalation and we have seen --

MS HARF: Mm-hmm. We have for some time.

QUESTION: We have seen after that the scenario a little bit change. But now scenario is in a little bit of danger because as the opposition motorcade and attacked by the – so what is your observation the recent de-escalation of Bangladesh?

MS HARF: It's something we've spoken out about quite a bit. I don't have any new analysis to do for you. But again, I'm happy to see if there's anything from our team to add to that.

QUESTION: Can I go --

QUESTION: On South Africa and – I'll offer this question on South Africa.

MS HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: The ex non-resident South African, they are attacked by the South African people and around hundred shops looted, and mostly they are from Bangladesh, China, and India.

MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And the attack is very extreme level. So what is your observation about this entire --

MS HARF: Well, we have joined the South African Government and civil society leaders in strongly condemning the violence against foreigners that's been taking place. Remain deeply concerned about the loss of innocent lives, the destruction of property, as you mentioned, and the impact on families and communities. President Zuma has made statements that we have welcomed on this, and other South African leaders have as well condemning the violence and urging continued calls for calm. They're working on this. We have appealed to all South African leaders to take a stand and make very clear how they condemn these kinds of sentiments and violence, and certainly, that's something we feel strongly about.

QUESTION: I have one more thing to add on Bangladesh. Police --

MS HARF: Yep.

QUESTION: Police security has been withdrawn from Begum Khaleda Zia, the ex-prime minister's home. The government just did yesterday. So they were attacked and police force been withdrawn from her office. Please if you have --

MS HARF: Okay, I will add that to your question.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS HARF: Yes, Elise.

QUESTION: Can we go back to the migrant issue?

MS HARF: Yep.

QUESTION: I mean, a heavy part of the discussion is about human trafficking --

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: -- and the role of human traffickers. And so I'm just wondering if your envoy for – to combat global human trafficking has been involved --

MS HARF: I'm happy to check.

QUESTION: -- in the discussion.

MS HARF: Yeah, I'm happy to check.

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: It's more than 10 days when we had asked about the – Lakhvi being released from --

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- Pakistan prison. And Jeff was briefing and he said that the U.S. Government is looking at – to add piece to that statement. Have you --

MS HARF: I said the Secretary – I also said the Secretary raised it as well --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS HARF: -- I think the day – maybe after the day after Jeff had briefed on this – when he raised it with Prime Minister Sharif. So I had said that. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But the arms deal still is on?

MS HARF: In terms of what – which arms deal? Sorry.

QUESTION: The billion dollar --

MS HARF: The helicopters?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS HARF: Yes. So --

QUESTION: There are so many.

MS HARF: -- in early April – (laughter). Well, I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. At early – in early April, the State Department approved a possible foreign military sale to Pakistan for helicopters and other associated equipment; it's about $952 million. We, of course, have an ongoing counterterrorism relationship with Pakistan and no new change to that.

Let's just do a few more, guys. Just a couple more. In the back, yes.

QUESTION: Hi. I have a follow-up question from Friday. What can you tell us about the interpreter at the State Department? There's an investigation. And has the State Department taken any action against her or has investigated the matter?

MS HARF: And I think we already got back to you all with this, but I'm happy to repeat it – that she was employed as a contract interpreter until February of 2014, is not employed here anymore. And so for any additional questions on this, I'd refer you to the FBI.

QUESTION: The FBI is referring us back to State, however.

MS HARF: Well, I'm referring you back to them.

Yes, in the back.

QUESTION: I saw Justin Fishel on ABC News. He had emailed you an exchange --

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- between a Yemen – or a U.S. citizen stuck in Yemen.

MS HARF: Yep.

QUESTION: I know you can't comment on the specific case --

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: -- but just the language of that email that she had the exchange with, is that the kind of language that Americans still stuck in Yemen can expect?

MS HARF: Yes, I saw that email exchange. I think a couple points on that. The first is if you look at a majority of that email, it's really the same messages I've been giving from the podium about the fact that we have been warning for some time, that we are trying to do things to assist. And we have a number of people – we've actually increased our consular staff in Djibouti to help consular services to Americans who have been able to leave Yemen. But we have consular officers who are working around the clock in Djibouti and elsewhere doing so.

I think, look, that language is probably not typical of the services we're providing to Americans, candidly. I probably wouldn't have used it. But I think looking at our broader efforts in terms of the consular support we're giving to Americans, even in a very difficult operating environment where we don't have an embassy, where we have been warning, we – our consular officers really are working very hard to get them what they need even, again, under very difficult circumstances.

QUESTION: Haiti?

MS HARF: Haiti?

QUESTION: Haiti.

MS HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the release of Mr. Woodley Etheart – he's also known as Sonson La Familia – who was indicted on a series of crimes, including murder, drug trafficking, money laundering, running a kidnapping ring.

MS HARF: I hadn't seen that. I'll check.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

QUESTION: Poland?

MS HARF: Just two more. Yes, Iraq, and then Poland.

QUESTION: Poland.

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: On Iraq, the security forces – Kurdish security forces announced that they arrested somebody who's --

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: -- for the blast in Erbil.

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: Have – has United States Government helped in any way in the investigation process the Kurdish forces?

MS HARF: Well, they're running the investigation. I'm happy to check with our team on the ground. I assume we're providing any information we might have, but this is their investigation.

QUESTION: One more on Iraq.

MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: When the Iraqi prime minister was here – and in the past I asked also this question. The investigation of the looting and human rights violations by the militias – have you seen any or does he provide any evidence that he conducted investigation or arrested some people for that?

MS HARF: Well, he's certainly spoken up very publicly about how this is not – any of those reports are unacceptable. They need to be fully investigated. I'm happy to check with our folks and see if there's more of an update on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS HARF: Let's go to Poland.

QUESTION: Yeah. I wanted to ask if you had any comment from this podium about some events over the weekend in which there was an opinion piece by FBI Director James Comey which sparked some anger in Warsaw and got the ambassador summoned.

MS HARF: Yes, yes. And the ambassador was called in to meet with a Polish government official. And I think as we've said before, the U.S. recognizes and admires the brave efforts of countless Poles, Hungarians, and others in occupied Europe in protecting their Jewish countrymen and women from Nazi genocide. There are brave patriots, certainly, and humanitarians who helped when their country was occupied, who helped to protect some of their countrymen. And of course Poles were certainly – bore a huge brunt of the barbarism of Nazi Germany. So we have been very clear about that. Director Comey certainly did not intend to suggest otherwise, did not intend to suggest that Poland was in some way responsible for the Holocaust. I think his folks have been very clear about that, and this is something, obviously, we wanted to make clear today.

QUESTION: Has there been any communication between the Secretary and his counterpart?

MS HARF: Not to my knowledge, no.

QUESTION: How about between the Secretary and Director Comey?

MS HARF: I don't know.

QUESTION: Would this building like to see him apologize? That's what the Poles seem to want.

MS HARF: I'm not going to speak to that, Matt. I think I just made very clear what he was not intending to say. I made clear what our position is, and I don't have much more for you than that.

QUESTION: The ambassador did apologize, though, on his behalf.

MS HARF: The ambassador did go in and see one of his Polish counterparts, and I don't have much more to read out than that.

QUESTION: The question is whether the --

QUESTION: Apologized, yeah.

QUESTION: No, the question is --

QUESTION: Did the ambassador apologize?

MS HARF: I'm not going to read out the specifics of the conversation.

QUESTION: The question is whether the State Department would like to see the director of the FBI apologize.

MS HARF: And I just said I have nothing further for you on this.

Thanks, everyone. Have a great rest of your day.

(The briefing was concluded at 12:34 p.m.)