• 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

Mark C. Toner
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
September 7, 2016

Index for Today's Briefing

RUSSIA
IRAN
SYRIA
SOUTH SUDAN
MISCELLANEOUS/ CHINA
ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS
PAKISTAN
IRAN
RUSSIA/UKRAINE

 

TRANSCRIPT:

2:04 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey guys. Welcome. Always a pleasure, James.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark.

MR TONER: Is Reuters going to join us? Or maybe they're doing this remotely. Anyway, can't hold up any longer.

Welcome, everyone, to the State Department daily press briefing. Just at the top, I know the question foremost on everyone's mind, so I'll address it right away.

QUESTION: Where is Notre Dame (inaudible)?

MR TONER: (Laughter.) No, not that, although that's certainly foremost in my mind.

I can confirm that Secretary Kerry did speak by phone with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov earlier today. I don't have any travel to announce at this time. I can say that the Secretary remains committed to continuing efforts to try and resolve the remaining or outstanding issues in order to reach an arrangement on Syria that will put in place a durable cessation of hostilities, provide humanitarian access to all areas, and lead to a resumption of talks between parties in Geneva. We hope to get there, but we won't agree to an arrangement, as we've said before, that does not meet our core objectives. But at this point, as I said, nothing to announce or confirm in terms of travel.

Matt.

QUESTION: Oh.

MR TONER: Yeah, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: So your big announcement was no announcement. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Indeed, yes, at this point.

QUESTION: So was the Russian foreign ministry just wrong, premature, misinformed?

MR TONER: I'm not going to speak to what their motivation or what their intentions or what their mindset is. All I can say is, speaking on behalf of Secretary Kerry, at this point we don't have any travel to announce.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: So does that mean that he might not – there might not in fact be a trip?

MR TONER: Yep. I mean, that's what I'm saying right now, is that we don't have anything to confirm.

QUESTION: Or is this going to be one of these things that by the time the briefing is over you might have something else to say?

MR TONER: All I can say is what I just said, Matt. Sorry.

QUESTION: All right. I want to get into Syria, but I want to start --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: -- with a logistical question first.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: And that is the – you will have seen that Treasury yesterday confirmed that – or came out and said that the 1.3 billion in interest on the 400 million --

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: -- was in fact paid to Iran in cash in two tranches. I thought, when we started asking about this in earnest in – last month, that you weren't going to – that you wouldn't talk about how that money was transferred because it would undermine the confidentiality of the arrangement and the confidentiality of your international partners. Is that no longer the case, or what changed?

MR TONER: Well, so as you noted, there was a closed session with Congress yesterday. It was a multiagency briefing to provide a full accounting of the Hague Tribunal settlement. And this was a briefing, frankly, that had been offered several times in the past, but again, it was an effort to answer congressional questions around the settlement. And as you saw, subsequently this information or some of the information from this closed session did make its way out into the press. Treasury did --

QUESTION: Make its – well, it didn't just make its way out into the press. Treasury put out a on-the-record statement.

MR TONER: Well, Treasury – so Treasury did confirm that it was indeed two cash payments to Iran.

QUESTION: What was two cash payments?

MR TONER: The $1.3 billion part of the settlement that was in fact a compromise on the interest of the settlement that we did through the Hague Tribunal with Iran – that was done through cash payments.

QUESTION: So was it – what changed --

MR TONER: And I don't have anything to add to what Treasury's already said.

QUESTION: What changed --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I'm not asking you to add to what they said.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: I want to know what changed about the privacy and confidentiality of the whole process --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- where that you couldn't talk about it in August, but all of a sudden now it's okay to talk about? And the reason --

MR TONER: Well --

QUESTION: -- that I'm asking this --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- is because for an administration that prides itself on being so transparent, the most transparent, this has been anything but. Trying to get – find out what happened here has been anything but.

MR TONER: Well, so you're right in that our --

QUESTION: A-ha.

MR TONER: You're right in that – (laughter) – not globally right – (laughter) --

QUESTION: That's "a-h-a, exclamation mark," for the transcribers. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: -- in that our international partners did ask us not to publicly talk about their roles in this transaction. And what we always have said is that no direct transfer was made from any U.S. account to Iran. And we've talked the aspects of how this transaction took place – that we had, because of sanctions, because Iran was not connected with the financial institutions – the international financial institutions – that we had to make certain exceptions in order to get them the money that they were owed as part of this settlement.

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MR TONER: But again – and so we are continuing to look very closely at what we can release publicly and talk about publicly while, at the same time, respecting the confidentiality of the partners who we work with to carry out this transaction. And I understand that it's frustrating. It's frustrating to me and it's frustrating to many who want to be more forthcoming because we were always forthcoming about how this deal went down in the sense of we were very forthright from the very – from the day this was decided – or that the day this settlement was reached, at the same time as the JCPOA was finalized and Iran reached implementation day, that this was the culmination of several efforts.

But as we said at the time, this was a settlement process that was worked out over decades that was fulfilled here and we were always totally transparent about the fact that this money was what we owed to Iran through this Hague Tribunal.

QUESTION: Well, no one is claiming that you weren't transparent about the fact that a deal was – a settlement was reached. The issue has been – was in January, and was up until August, the beginning of August – how the money was paid. And I don't – just I don't understand how it was dangerous or a potential breach of confidentiality to say how it was transferred – i.e. in cash – and not just the 400 million, but the rest of the payment – how it was somehow a breach of confidentiality to say that in August when you first started getting questions about it and why it isn't now. What's the difference? Why? Just because you --

MR TONER: Well, again, I think that --

QUESTION: It's – basically, it seems as though the Administration got caught and so now it's coming out ex post facto that – but I just don't understand why it's this constant drip, drip, drip, drip, drip and just – if you didn't do anything wrong, if you maintain that everything was above board, why this constant slow-walking?

MR TONER: As opposed to, quote-un-quote, "ripping the Band-Aid off?"

QUESTION: Well, I don't know. As opposed to when you first come out – when you're asked about it say, "Oh, yeah, okay, well, so the rest of the 1.3 billion was paid in cash as well."

MR TONER: Yeah. Look, I think --

QUESTION: And if it's not – if there's not anything wrong, if it didn't violate any rules, if what you did was perfectly legitimate and legal and appropriate, I don't see why this would be --

MR TONER: Sure. Well --

QUESTION: Why keep it a secret?

MR TONER: Look, I mean – understand, again, some of the frustration over the level of detail that we were able to divulge or talk about or discuss openly with regards to this transaction. I think it was done out of an overabundance of caution with regard to the confidentiality of these financial transactions. But point of fact is that we're coming – we're trying to be as transparent as possible now in talking about the fact that we did, in fact, pay this interest settlement in cash.

QUESTION: All right. Well, it would just be nice if it was – if you're not just being transparent now, if it had been transparent from the – anyway --

MR TONER: Point taken.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you now recognize the precedent you have set, whereby there shouldn't any longer be any presumption that for spokesmen at this podium to discuss payments made to the judgment fund and the mechanics thereof, will not, in fact, jeopardize any confidentiality?

MR TONER: Not sure I understand the question. You're saying that now I'm going – when we speak about this, we're going to --

QUESTION: In other words, when we ask you about judgment fund payments --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- in the future and the manner in which they are made, it would seem to be no longer valid for any spokesman at that podium to claim that to answer the question substantively would be to jeopardize confidentiality because you did it in this case. The only way in which that would make sense going forward is if you were to assert – and if you're of a mind to do so, we'd appreciate it if you did so explicitly – that the confidentiality of Iran's interests is to be exalted above those of other countries.

MR TONER: Not at all. And this is --

QUESTION: Or less so?

MR TONER: No, James. And just to respond to your question now that I understand it is, look, I mean, we were very upfront all along with why we reached this settlement, how we reached this settlement, and if we were reluctant to share all of the details of this settlement, it was out of respect to the confidentiality of our partners, not out of any kind of responsibility to protect Iran's interests. To the contrary. But this was, as I've said before and as others have said before, money that we owed Iran. And let me remind anybody listening in America that Iran has similarly paid out tens of millions if not billions of dollars to American citizens and U.S. companies through this same mechanism.

But just to clarify, as I said to Matt, part of this was done out of an overabundance of caution to protect that confidentiality. Going forward with regard to whether we've set precedent or not, I'll leave that for others to judge going forward, but we're always going to make efforts to, with regard to financial interactions, respect the privacy of our interlocutors or our partners.

QUESTION: There were two --

QUESTION: So the partners (inaudible) partners that provided you with pallets of Swiss francs and euros?

MR TONER: The ones with whom we worked with to provide the cash payment.

QUESTION: There were two aspects to the Administration's explanation which seem not to take account of facts that have previously been established --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- in examination of this whole affair, and I want to pursue those with you now with the hope that you will not see fit simply to punt us to Treasury, (a) because Treasury will not respond, as you well know; and (b) because after all, the Department of State is the agency on behalf of which these Judgment Fund payments were made. And so this is very much within the purview of the spokesman to address.

MR TONER: I'll do my best.

QUESTION: First, I want to ask about statutory authority. I read to you now from the Code of Federal Regulations, specifically Title 31, Part 256.52, which states, quote, "Pursuant to 31 CFR Part 208, Judgment Fund payments are to be made by electronic funds transfer, EFT. Fiscal Service will issue an electronic payment to the payee's account as specified on the appropriate Judgment Fund form. If a submitting agency determines that a waiver, in accordance with 31CFR Part 208, to the requirement for payment by EFT is appropriate, Fiscal Service will issue a payment by check," end quote. As you --

MR TONER: So the missing – so the missing noun there is "cash" is what you're saying?

QUESTION: Well, there is no provision in what I just read to you contemplating that any payments to be made by the Judgment Fund shall be converted to cash. Rather, the regulation seems explicit on the point that if the agency on behalf of which the payment is being made desires to avoid using an EFT, it must request a waiver and receive one for the payment to be made by check. Were any such waivers sought in this case?

MR TONER: I'll have to take the question. I don't have an answer. I would assume so because, as we've said before, the team of lawyers who have been working on many of these Hague Tribunal settlements have been working on these issues for decades and I'm sure are well aware of the policies in place and the regulations in place, but I'll check on that.

QUESTION: Lastly, the website on which it was visible that 13 payments were drawn from the Judgment Fund, each roughly in the amount of $100 million, on that same website it was visible that under the same controlling case file number, there was a 14th payment made in the approximate amount of $10.4 million. The obvious inference is that this $10.4 million payment was part and parcel of the other 13 payments because they're all listed under the same controlling case file number.

The evidence is, moreover, that the payment of $10.4 million was made at or around the same time as the other 13 payments. It would be undeniable that the addition of $10.4 million to the total number of – total set off payments would take us over $1.7 billion, which is the amount that you claim to have been so forthright in detailing all along. So what is this other $10.4 million?

MR TONER: I'll have to look into that as well, James, but it's worth reminding everyone in the room that the interest – or the settlement that we reached on the interest that we owed to the Iranian Government in this settlement was favorable, to say the least, to the American taxpayer, and in fact potentially saved us billions of dollars or saved taxpayers billions of dollars that we would have owed without a settlement. But with respect to that specific line item, I don't have an answer for you. I'll see what I can get from Treasury to respond to that, okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Mark, can I just follow up?

MR TONER: Please. Yeah, of course, Arshad.

QUESTION: Have you disclosed the names of the foreign countries that helped you accomplish these payments?

MR TONER: We have not.

QUESTION: How, then, does disclosing that the payments were made in cash compromise the – their confidentiality?

MR TONER: It doesn't, and I acknowledged as much that I think, as I said, that part of this was done out of an overabundance of caution in that regard, but certainly we're acknowledging it now.

QUESTION: Mark, can I ask you --

MR TONER: Are we --

QUESTION: Very quickly.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: You said that the Iranians paid similar amounts or even more millions of billions even --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- to American companies. Do you have a figure on how – over what period of time this was paid and for what?

MR TONER: Well, this has been over – since 1979, and the rough figure that I have is 2.5 billion to U.S. citizens and U.S. companies.

QUESTION: Okay. And what kind of mechanism it was paid through?

MR TONER: I don't have the specifics on how those transactions took place except to say that they were a long time ago and before the current sanctions regime that we had in place because of Iran's nuclear program, which really, in fact, tied our hands with regard – and we talked about that – insofar as how we could deal with them and get them the money that we owed them.

QUESTION: Mark, mine's just a quick one.

MR TONER: Yeah, of course.

QUESTION: How many cash installments were there? I'm unclear on that. We know the first one was 400 million on January 17th. How many --

MR TONER: Yeah, let me – sorry.

QUESTION: -- subsequent installments were there? Just one or a number?

MR TONER: Two.

QUESTION: Two. So three total.

MR TONER: Three with – yeah, three in total.

QUESTION: Three total installments.

MR TONER: Yeah, with the initial – right.

QUESTION: And do you have the dates for those installments?

MR TONER: I do not in front of me, no, but I think I – I mean, I --

QUESTION: Does that include the additional 10 million that James has just --

MR TONER: But I mean, I think they're out there in terms of that document that – they're both referred to up on that – I can't remember it off the top of my head, Justin. I apologize.

QUESTION: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: But does that include the 10.4 million that James has just --

MR TONER: I have to look into that. It's the first time I'm hearing about that.

Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand the – your response to Arshad's question is basically that it does not compromise the confidentiality or the privacy, as it were, of your international partners in this to say or to confirm that the payments were – on the interest were also made in cash. Is that correct?

MR TONER: Well, I think the fact that we've said that and not divulged their names --

QUESTION: Well, then why – why?

MR TONER: I tried to answer the --

QUESTION: Did people get up at this podium last month and say that to reveal or to discuss, to disclose, how the payment was made would – how can you get up and say that it would breach the confidentiality and now say, well, no, sorry, it didn't? I mean, I just – that's not transparent.

MR TONER: Look, Matt, I don't know how to answer any better than I attempted to before, which is that --

QUESTION: I think you should get one of your colleagues from Treasury over here to --

MR TONER: -- which is that --

QUESTION: -- stand up at this podium and --

MR TONER: -- which is that this was a complex deal and we were limited in what we could say about it due to the fact that we had intermediaries acting on our behalf to help this transaction take place. So the fact that we didn't divulge all the details, or we've put some of the details out piecemeal, just speaks to that, I think, effort --

QUESTION: Well, it speaks to something. I'm not sure it speaks to --

MR TONER: -- to safeguard the confidentiality of these intermediaries.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Can you address the question, which has been asked here before, but how do you address the question of – or the suggestion that the reason that you guys really withheld many of the details was that you thought it would look bad?

MR TONER: Well, look, I would not accept that. I have acknowledged before, and I think we've acknowledged before, that the optics – and in fact, we did so at the time that we reached – the optics of having three different lanes – or lines of effort culminate at the same time did, obviously, raise questions in some people's minds. And by three lines of effort, I mean the JCPOA, implementation day; the Hague settlement; and the release of American citizens detained by Iran. We tried, I think, to be very transparent about why that happened, but we also were very adamant and have been adamant that there's no connection between them.

With regard to the, as I said, the piecemeal way in which we've divulged the details of the financial transaction with the 1.3 billion, all I can say is that that was done out of a – as I said, out of a sense of we wanted to preserve the confidentiality of their intermediaries.

Yep.

QUESTION: There are several legislations on the Hill that are being considered. Two of them are as a result of this same payment made to Iran – one by Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the other one was by Senator Rubio. They want to stop any payments to Iran until further transparency on the part of the Administration, and the other one wants payments to Iran contingent upon payment of reparations to American citizens who have been hurt as a result of terrorist acts that Iran may have been behind.

Number one: Are there any outstanding claims on the part of Iran against the United States for this – these legislations to be actually any – of any use in the future? And do you think any reparations that have to be paid to U.S. citizens should be linked to any diplomacy that the U.S. is involved in with Iran?

MR TONER: So I would just say at the outset that we're in the process. I'm aware – we're obviously aware of both pieces of legislation, and we're reviewing them both – both Senator Rubio's as well as Representative Royce's proposed bill. We're in the process of reviewing that. I don't have a specific comment.

Your question, however, was – the second part of your question was – one more time, I'm sorry.

QUESTION: Should any reparations paid to U.S. citizens hurt as a result of any acts – terrorist acts related to Iran or attributed to Iran be linked to any diplomacy between the U.S. and Iran?

MR TONER: Well, what I would say about that is – what I think the linkage is that we – that the Hague settlement and that process should be linked to that, and we've always been clear that there is no linkage between the Hague settlement. The Hague settlement is what it is. It is a separate mechanism that's been in place since 1979, and it exists primarily to – for both countries to find a way to resolve outstanding issues or requests, outstanding commitments to each other for a payment of outstanding bills. So it's not linked in any way to the reparations, which is a separate matter altogether that we obviously take very seriously.

QUESTION: Right. And as you know, the Iran sanctions bill is going to expire at the end of this year, and Senator Corker has his legislation up for its renewal and he wants to include sanctions against Iran for its testing of ballistic missiles after the deal. Is this something that the State Department would – or the Administration would agree with?

MR TONER: Well, we're looking at all that, and we're – obviously, talking with Congress about it. Secretary Kerry said before that we believe we still have the mechanisms in place to take action if Iran does exhibit bad behavior bilaterally through sanctions regime – unrelated, obviously, to the JCPOA, but other bad behavior – that we still obviously have that ability in place. But we'll obviously continue to consult with Congress.

Please.

QUESTION: Well, wouldn't we need this bill to be renewed?

MR TONER: Again, we've said that we believe we currently and still have retained the right and the ability to sanction Iran if we believe its behavior merits sanctioning.

QUESTION: Wait, you're saying that you have the – you – one could make the argument that you have the --

MR TONER: So the Iran sanctions --

QUESTION: One could make the argument that you have the ability now because of the Iran sanctions, but you're saying that – or the Iran Sanctions Act. You're saying that even if you didn't have that, you still think you have the --

MR TONER: Well, he's talking – she's talking about a renewal of the Iran Sanctions Act, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, but you're saying if it – even if it was allowed to lapse or it expired just on its own, you're – what I think the argument you're making is is that --

MR TONER: That we would retain the ability.

QUESTION: -- you would still have the ability to do the sanctions. Is that correct?

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: So just to be clear about this, even though you have maintained that the Administration at all points has been very forthright about this resolution, it was decided to release information about it in piecemeal fashion, chiefly in response to news reports and questions in this setting after you had first exercised an overabundance of caution and then decided to jettison that caution. And so I just wonder if, in light of the fact of how much time this subject has consumed at these briefings, how much bad publicity the Administration has suffered as a result of it, and now the introduction of legislation in both houses of Congress stemming from the manner in which all this dribbled out, is it plainly discernible to the Secretary and his team that that overabundance of caution was a mistake and, in fact, this information should have been released more swiftly and not in piecemeal fashion?

MR TONER: James, in response to that, I'm going to go big picture on you, which is the fact that last February, we were able to achieve an agreement, the JCPOA, that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, something that would – that is clearly in the national security interests of the United States but also in the region.

QUESTION: That was July 2015, correct?

MR TONER: I'm talking about implementation day.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Which was January --

QUESTION: January 16th.

MR TONER: January. I apologize. January 16th. I apologize. Did I say February?

We also, at the same time, were able to reach an agreement on this outstanding claim through the Hague Tribunal that we would have had to go to settlement on, and we believe that we did so in a way that was favorable to the American taxpayer on money that, again, as I've said, we owed Iran. And ultimately, we were also able to return home those American citizens who were detained in Iran, an effort that, while separate and apart from our work on the JCPOA, was something that the Secretary of State pursued at every possible juncture with the Iranians. We believe those three successes were in the national security interest of the United States and were among the core priorities of the Department of State, and we have nothing to be ashamed about about any of those actions. So I want to be very clear on that point.

With regard to how we talked about the details of the financial transactions with regard to the settlement and specifically the payment of interest, it's important to note, I think, that until a story surfaced in mid-August, there were no questions regarding the specifics of those payments.

QUESTION: Because the specifics weren't known until that story appeared.

MR TONER: But no one was asking those questions, and we --

QUESTION: Well, actually, Mark, we asked about the specifics of the payments in January and were told that there was never, ever going – no one would ever tell us.

MR TONER: Well, again, I mean, what you got was our standard answer, which is true, that we protect the confidentiality of these arrangements.

QUESTION: You don't --

QUESTION: I'm just asking you if --

MR TONER: Well, look, Matt --

QUESTION: -- from the communications piece of this alone --

MR TONER: So Matt --

QUESTION: -- if you had it all to do over again, you'd do it exactly the same way? Or was there a mistake made in this overabundance of caution and this dribbling out of details?

MR TONER: I wouldn't call it a mistake. In fact, I would say that it is always our – look, this is important and delicate work that we do in terms of messaging and also in terms of talking about the details of what are complex and sensitive diplomatic transactions. And so if we operate sometimes out of an overabundance of caution, it's for good reason.

QUESTION: Well, but the messaging, as you termed it, I mean, it really – this has been kind – has been a disaster for the Administration, how you've been quiet, quiet, quiet, refusing to say anything, and then only when pressed and then only when hauled up in – up to the Hill are you willing to answer pretty basic questions that even you yourself say don't violate the confidentiality of your partners or any kind of – and if you had nothing to be ashamed about, as you said, then – I mean, it just – I don't know. It just boggles my mind a little bit. Crisis management 101 this is not. Anyway, I'm done.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: Mark, was this the last – are --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Do you know if there are any more claims by Iran against the U.S. at the Hague, or was this the last one?

MR TONER: Good question. I believe there are, but I'll double-check that.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Okay. I know that you mentioned no confirmation on a meeting between Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov, but reports insist or persist that there is a meeting tomorrow or the day after. So could you once more clarify what's going on in terms of --

MR TONER: I can't. I mean, all I can – as I said, and I confirmed he did speak I think some 45 minutes with Foreign Minister Lavrov, talked about – excuse me. They talked about some of the remaining challenges that they need to overcome in order to reach accord on this arrangement that we've talked about. Not there yet, but as the President said in China the other day, that the expectation is that they will meet again in order to continue discussions over how we get to an arrangement or an agreement. But at this point in time, I'm not able to confirm anything and I'm not able to confirm anything tomorrow.

QUESTION: So would you say that these – this --

QUESTION: Yesterday, you said "very soon." Are we still talking "very soon?"

MR TONER: Excuse me.

QUESTION: Or are we still soon or at some point?

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Look, these are – again, these are negotiations, and by definition, negotiations are – you can never predict how they'll turn out or when they'll reach their culmination.

QUESTION: Would you say that --

QUESTION: No, but yesterday, you used the term "very soon." Do you stand by "very soon?"

MR TONER: Well, what I would stand by is the fact that Secretary Kerry is working this issue very, very hard and wants to resolve this, if it's possible, as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Mark, would you say that the 45-minute conversation could possibly be a substitute to this one face-to-face meeting because they could have discussed the same issues?

MR TONER: I won't say that either, no.

QUESTION: Okay. Let me just follow up with, very quickly, also the Friends of Syria meeting --

MR TONER: Of course, yeah.

QUESTION: -- that just – I think just concluded in London. The opposition issued like a whole set of points and so on on what they want and what they would like to see and so on, and among them is a six-month transition that begins once a ceasefire or countrywide ceasefire is implemented. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think that the High Negotiation Committee, as you noted, presented its vision and its roadmap, if you will, for a peaceful political transition in Syria. I will note – I think I talked about this yesterday – the Secretary was able to join the meeting by VTC and stressed to the High Negotiating Committee, the HNC, the importance of its support for unity and its commitment to moving forward with discussions on building a free and democratic Syria.

With regard to the transition plan laid out by the opposition – excuse me – we hope the Syrian delegations are able to resume UN-mediated political process soon, because ultimately that's the key here. They need to reach agreement in Geneva. But we're not going to try and critique that process. That's really for the parties themselves to negotiate that transition. What we're trying to do and what we're engaged in right now with regard to Russia is try to set the conditions so that that political process can take place in Geneva and lead to, we hope, a resolution to the conflict.

And that's our goal right now: durable cessation of hostilities in place nationwide; full, immediate access for humanitarian assistance. And then, again, that we think will set the climate – or create the climate, rather – where talks can resume in Geneva.

QUESTION: In this transition process, do you expect the regime to be part of it?

MR TONER: Do we expect the regime --

QUESTION: During the talks themselves – right.

MR TONER: I think the regime – we've talked about this – representatives of the regime have to be a part of that.

QUESTION: I understand. Okay. But also at the end, after the six-months process ends, do you expect the regime to be a part of whatever future Syria might have?

MR TONER: Well, again, there will be some kind of transitional body, is what we've talked about. That probably does include elements of the regime as well as, obviously, elements of the HNC or the opposition. How that looks is for them, the parties, to negotiate.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Please, yeah. Hi, Nick.

QUESTION: On the negotiations, is there a point at which – I mean, do you have a time limit where you say, "Okay, the Russians are not coming around, we're just going to walk away from this"?

MR TONER: I don't know if we have a date certain or a time limit. I think, though, there will come a time – and we've talked about this – where we'll decide that it's no longer in our interest to pursue a possible arrangement with Russia. We're not there yet.

QUESTION: And there was a story in The Washington Post today saying that as President Obama was meeting with President Putin, the U.S. offered a sort of final offer on Syria, a sort of take-it-or-leave-it proposal. Can you comment on that?

MR TONER: I wouldn't and that's not my understanding. Again, there continue to be a discussion – and certainly in the presidents – in President Putin's meeting and President Obama's meeting, there was a discussion – a detailed discussion about Syria, but also the – what came out of that, as you well know, is the sense that it's still worth pursuing this arrangement and it's for the foreign ministers – Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary Kerry – to do that, and they've committed to doing that. We just don't have anything immediate to announce in terms of their next meeting.

QUESTION: So would you say that you're now further apart – the Russians – than you were in Geneva?

MR TONER: No, I would only say that there's still issues or challenges to be resolved. We're working hard to resolve them. We wouldn't still be doing it if we didn't believe there was some hope for success, but I can't say that there's a big hope for success. We're just continuing to work at it.

QUESTION: Because in Geneva, when Secretary Kerry spoke with Foreign Minister Lavrov, he really was describing these as technical discussions and seemed very confident. And then in China, his tone seemed to shift some. He said these were now tough issues. He hadn't used that word. He said there was sort of a move from technical to tough. So it certainly looks from the outside like you guys are getting further apart.

MR TONER: I think that – I wouldn't necessarily say that, Nick. What I would say is that these technical issues are complex and we have not been able to reach a clear understanding between us and Russia on the way forward. And until we get there, we're not able to say one way or another whether we are going to get there. I think that – we've talked about this, as – I said this yesterday, is we still believe it's in our interest to pursue these discussions. Certainly, if we get there, it does provide a way to bring an end to the conflict and that's worth pursuing at this point, but our patience isn't infinite.

QUESTION: And do you think that the Russians are negotiating in good faith? I mean, every day that passes sort of helps them achieve their ends more. Do you feel like they're stalling for time?

MR TONER: I don't, but again, I can't speak to what their motivations may be or what their strategy may be. All I can say is that they have a particular set of issues or positions that they want to see through this agreement. We have our own. We – as we've said all along, this is not going to be, if we do reach an agreement, based on trust, but verifiable steps going forward, and I think achieving an understanding of a way forward that we've unable to – been unable to reach thus far.

So bottom line, we're still pursuing these talks, hard to put a confidence level on whether they'll be successful or not, but they're worth pursuing given the stakes.

QUESTION: And the last one, sorry the --

QUESTION: Can you confirm that Russia has requested the meeting that it's announced?

MR TONER: Again, I just can't confirm any meeting, and I think what I would say is --

QUESTION: Well, you can't confirm you're going to it. Can you confirm they've requested it?

MR TONER: Right, but what I would say is we expect Secretary Kerry and Secretary Lavrov to meet again on this issue. I can't put a date or time certain on it.

QUESTION: So do you think that – last one from me.

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: Do you think, on the reports from the Russian foreign ministry that said definitively a meeting would take place, is that the result of miscommunication or is that – is there something else going on from the Russian side?

MR TONER: Again, I can – all I can say, Nick, is what I've said thus far, is that we're not able to confirm a meeting tomorrow.

QUESTION: On these Syrian --

MR TONER: Are we still on – are we still on one --

QUESTION: I wanted to go to South Sudan.

QUESTION: This is Syria.

MR TONER: Okay, so let's – okay, yeah. Okay.

QUESTION: On the Syrian opposition, the HNC --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Kurdish representation there is minimal, to put it mildly. Yet the Kurds are doing a big part of the fighting in Syria against ISIS.

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: Do you see some contradiction there? I mean, they're doing all this fighting but they're not – it doesn't seem that there's very much being offered to them.

MR TONER: So as you note, they are one of several groups – Syrian Arabs, Turks, and others – Turkmen, rather – who are engaged very effectively in taking the fight to ISIL, or Daesh, in northern Syria. And they've sacrificed greatly. They have performed very well. They have put enormous pressure on Daesh in northern Syria, driven them out of many of their strongholds and continue to do so. I do know we've talked about this before. While they're not strongly represented within the HNC, we do encourage the HNC to consult closely with the Kurds as we move forward in this process.

QUESTION: Have you gotten a positive response on that from the HNC?

MR TONER: I'm not going to characterize their response, but it's something we raise with them.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: A quick follow-up. The Russians are complaining that the Turkish operation, I think it's called Euphrates Shield, into Jarabulus and so on, compromises Syrian sovereignty. So they were talking about some legal issues and so on, they might take it to the UN and so on. Are you aware of that? Are you in discussion with them over this issue, or do you know how much territory it has acquired in Syria and so on?

MR TONER: I mean, I'm not going to necessarily speak on behalf of the Turkish Government with regards to the legality of its actions except to say that – as we have made the case before, that actions that we carry out against Daesh or ISIL in Syria is, we believe, in the national security interests of the United States and our allies and our partners. I think Turkey would also make the case, if I'm guessing, that it's also in their national security interest to protect and drive ISIL away from their border.

QUESTION: So you still recognize Syrian sovereignty over territory that it has claimed, let's say, while you had an ambassador there back in 2011?

MR TONER: We – and the ISSG --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: -- has always said that we support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Syria.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Yeah, Justin. I'm sorry.

QUESTION: South Sudan.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Do you have a response to reports that seven American diplomats traveling in a convoy in Juba, South Sudan, were fired on by government troops? This was – apparently happened on July 7th --

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: -- just days before that brutal attack on the hotel, the westerners at the hotel there.

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: And that in this shooting on the convoy, one of the cars was disabled and had to be essentially rescued by a Marine reaction force. What happened there?

MR TONER: Sure. So – and John Kirby spoke to this in the immediate days after the – this incident, and I would just reiterate from the top our condemnation of this attack on what was a U.S. embassy convoy by South Sudanese Government troops. I can walk you through the events as we understand them to have happened, but I can say that we do not believe our vehicles and personnel were specifically targeted in the attack. It's our assessment that the attack was connected to the breakdown of command and control among South Sudanese Government forces, and we have demanded that the Government of South Sudan investigate this incident and punish and hold accountable those responsible for it.

But just to walk you through the events, again, as we understand them: So on the evening of July 7th, I think at around 2100 local time, two embassy vehicles were returning to the residential compound and passed, as part of their route, the presidential palace. About an hour earlier, forces that were loyal to the government – or rather, to Machar, rather – had clashed with forces loyal to President Kiir. And government troops stationed near the presidential compound, to put it mildly, were very tense. So the two embassy vehicles approached the soldiers on the road outside the presidential palace. When they moved toward the vehicle – they, the troops, moved toward the vehicles and tried to open their doors – the vehicles, the embassy vehicles appropriately, we believe, began to speed away from the scene. And at that time, the soldiers opened fire. Fortunately, the vehicles were armored and no one was injured. And the next day, July 8th, Ambassador Phee met with President Kiir and demanded that the government carry out a full investigation of the incident and hold those responsible for the incident accountable for their actions. President Kiir, it's worth noting, did make clear that U.S. embassies were – embassy vehicles were not specifically targeted, and he vowed at that point in time to stand up a committee to investigate the incident.

Now, I don't have anything to read out to you in terms of what that committee may have found or may be investigating or what the deadline is for them to reach an end to the investigation.

QUESTION: And you're not saying that the – that the troops didn't know who they were firing on. It was clear they knew they were firing on Americans. You're just saying you don't believe it was ordered by --

MR TONER: No, no, what I would say is just --

QUESTION: -- Kiir to shoot American --

MR TONER: No, no, what I would say is we don't believe that they necessarily knew. I mean, there were some – and I – we know --

QUESTION: Why do you not – why do you think that? I mean, it --

MR TONER: It's just in our assessment. I mean, this is not something that we --

QUESTION: Yeah, but what is that based on? Because it would seem if they got close enough to try to open the doors that they would probably know who they were dealing with at that point.

MR TONER: Well, first of all, the windows were tinted as they often are in these kind of – in these vehicles.

QUESTION: And marked with American flags likely as well?

MR TONER: A very small laminated flag, and it's not clear whether they would have even recognized the plates. I know that's another thing that the story states.

Look, all I can do is offer our assessment of the situation. We're not forgiving it and we're certainly not overlooking it or saying, "Hey, not your bad. It was your" – look, we're talking about here is the fact that they opened fire on an embassy convoy, and that is inexcusable. But what we believe were the factors of the environment around that was that they – there had been an altercation, fighting in the run-up to this convoy passing, and that they were very tense, and if I could say it, a little trigger-happy.

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: So your investigation concluded that these soldiers made a mistake. Did the investigation conclude anything about the advisability of driving through a republican -- presidential palace checkpoint?

MR TONER: So we did – we did and conducted, as you note, an internal investigation, and that – an after-action review is in progress, but we have modified our procedures around the travel of convoys of our personnel.

QUESTION: Because it was a mistake to drive in between two opposing forces within an hour of a clash.

MR TONER: That's – clearly, that's – we have made modifications to our security posture.

QUESTION: What – what have you changed?

MR TONER: Well, we, for one thing, adjusted our curfew and we also adjusted the rules for the movement of embassy vehicles in light of the event, and obviously, in light of subsequent violence in Juba.

QUESTION: So it's an earlier curfew now?

MR TONER: That's my understanding, yeah.

QUESTION: And how are the rules for the movement of embassy been changed?

MR TONER: I can't speak to that. I just can't. I mean, that's talking about our security posture, which we don't do.

QUESTION: Why was it appropriate for them – this was a checkpoint, correct?

MR TONER: Not 100 percent sure. I – my understanding is that they passed in front of the presidential palace. Obviously, there were forces out there. I don't know that it was a formal checkpoint.

QUESTION: Okay. And why was it appropriate for them not to open the doors?

MR TONER: Because they believed that – their assessment was that these forces were, again, trigger-happy, or shall we say – I'll put it more diplomatically and say tense, and they felt threatened, clearly. And one of the standard procedures is if you feel threatened is to get the heck out of dodge.

QUESTION: So you stated that an after-action review is still in progress?

MR TONER: This is within – yeah, this is – so we've – so two points here. One, we've asked the government, obviously, to carry out a full and complete investigation. That, I believe, is still ongoing. I may be wrong there, but I don't have anything here in front of me that says that it's been concluded. But we also, as we would in any case like this, conducted our internal review.

QUESTION: And is that still in progress?

MR TONER: That's in progress, but I was able to say out of that review we have obviously, and frankly immediately, adjusted curfew times and other --

QUESTION: And no other people in the convoy were physically hurt, but obviously it's a very stressful --

MR TONER: Indeed.

QUESTION: -- night for them.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Has anyone been evacuated from station? Has anyone received counseling?

MR TONER: We did – and we've talked about this before. I believe we're on authorized departure from Juba. I believe that's correct.

QUESTION: But do you know if any of the seven people involved in this have left?

MR TONER: I can't speak to whether they've left or not.

QUESTION: Who or what entity is conducting the State Department's after-action review?

MR TONER: That would be Diplomatic Security.

QUESTION: Okay. And from your account provided here at this briefing today, if I understand it correctly, you really cannot determine how much knowledge the presidential guard members had of who exactly was in this car. You really can't make a determination whether they knew that there were Americans in this car or not, correct?

MR TONER: Again, I think I said we do not believe that, and I said we assess that the attack was connected more to a breakdown in command and control and not to a specific targeting. But I can't categorically say one or – that it wasn't.

QUESTION: Do you --

QUESTION: But you – so you can't rule it out?

MR TONER: I can't – yeah, as I was saying, as I – I qualified it. I said it is our assessment that --

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have – is in there about roughly how long this incident – the duration of this incident? How long did it last?

MR TONER: I don't. Sorry, Matt.

QUESTION: But it does --

QUESTION: Can you confirm that three separate presidential guard units opened fire on the two cars?

MR TONER: I cannot. I'll try to get – see if I can get more details about the duration and the number of --

QUESTION: It didn't – this was quite quick. It didn't happen over a course of hours.

MR TONER: Exactly. No, no, that I can --

QUESTION: This was something that – like, less than --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- less than several minutes? I mean --

MR TONER: I'd say, yes, within the realm of several minutes to 10 minutes. I have no idea. I can't put a specific time to it, duration.

QUESTION: So this happened almost exactly two months ago. How long does it take to investigate or to look into a 10-minute – let's just assume it's 10 minutes – incident?

MR TONER: Are you talking the --

QUESTION: Both.

MR TONER: -- government's or the – look, I mean, I --

QUESTION: And are you pushing the South Sudanese Government to --

MR TONER: Yes, we are. Yes, we are. I mean, as I said, Ambassador Phee immediately the next day went to the president and demanded an investigation and we've been following up on that.

QUESTION: But that was July 8th.

MR TONER: I understand.

QUESTION: It is now September 7th.

MR TONER: I understand. And with regard to --

QUESTION: What's the temperature, Matt.

MR TONER: With regard to – (laughter) --

QUESTION: In South Sudan? Hot.

MR TONER: With regard to our own internal investigation, clearly we made adjustments, immediate adjustments, to our security posture in light of that attack. But I think they're still looking at other details.

QUESTION: You stated --

QUESTION: Any personnel involved being disciplined – U.S. personnel?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of, no.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: You stated that at least one of these cars was struck by fire but fortunately was --

MR TONER: Armored.

QUESTION: -- armor-protected. To your knowledge, has Diplomatic Security, as part of its after-action review, or any other U.S. personnel, made a physical inspection of these vehicles?

MR TONER: I would imagine, but I don't – I can't confirm that. I just don't have that level of detail.

QUESTION: And the personnel – the U.S. personnel, presumably they have been interviewed as part of this after-action review, correct?

MR TONER: That would be – that would be expected, yes.

QUESTION: And that interview process took place overseas or here in Washington?

MR TONER: I don't know. It could be either. It could be both. I just don't have that level of detail.

QUESTION: And did anyone decline to cooperate with the after-action review?

MR TONER: Again, I can't speak to that either.

QUESTION: It was James Donegan in the car, correct? And the car was disabled and had to be rescued by a Marine force. Is that all correct?

MR TONER: So there is – yes, so that's an important – and I apologize I didn't – so there was a small embassy security team basically that traveled to the vehicle and was able to recover our personnel. This happened when the vehicle was no longer under fire and there were no longer hostile forces present, when the team arrived.

QUESTION: Did any U.S. personnel discharge their firearms?

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of, no.

QUESTION: And you don't really have any problems with how the – Foreign Policy wrote this timeline of events, right?

MR TONER: I think our concern was that it made the assumption or allegation that there was a specific targeting of our diplomatic vehicles. And again --

QUESTION: Right, which – yeah.

MR TONER: -- it doesn't in any way, either if it was or wasn't, it doesn't in any way excuse the behavior or the incident. But that's just our assessment that we don't believe it was.

QUESTION: So you're making excuses, but it doesn't excuse --

MR TONER: We good? Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have some preferred outcome for the South Sudanese investigation? Do you want to see people disciplined? Is that the --

MR TONER: Yes, unequivocally.

QUESTION: What would you think would be an appropriate discipline?

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, that's something for the South Sudanese Government to speak about, but this was clearly a serious incident that, to put it mildly, put at risk the lives of American diplomats and American citizens. So we take it very seriously and we want to see the appropriate people held accountable.

Please, Nike.

QUESTION: Can I just --

MR TONER: A couple more questions, guys. Yeah, please, of course.

QUESTION: Kyrgyzstan Uighur. Kyrgyzstan authority came out and identified the organization behind the recent bombing against Chinese Embassy is – are – were Uighur members of the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, ETIM. And my question for you is was ETIM came up in a discussion in Hangzhou between United States and China recently?

MR TONER: I'm not sure. I wasn't, obviously, in the President's – you're talking about it in the President's bilateral conversation or --

QUESTION: Or generally any conversation between Secretary Kerry and his Chinese counterparts.

MR TONER: Not that I'm aware of. And Secretary Kerry actually did not have a bilat with his Chinese counterpart while in China for the G20 --

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: -- because he was there, obviously, having bilats on the side with Foreign Minister Lavrov. He did participate in many of the President's bilats or in several of the President's bilats, but I can't say that the specific concerns about this organization came up.

QUESTION: ETIM was designated under Executive Order 13224 --

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: -- as a terrorist group, but then it was not listed under the Foreign Terrorist Organization.

MR TONER: That's right.

QUESTION: What is your position on this organization?

MR TONER: So as you said, we designated the Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist entity. That was in 2002. As – with regard to the difference between designating them under an EO or as an FTO, a Foreign Terrorist Organization, I would refer you to – I can go through it, but I would refer you to the fact sheet that we issued I think on May 19th of this year that talks about an explanation of why – what the two designations mean. It speaks to how we can sanction them, how we can limit their funding other elements, the way we can put pressure on them and go after them, but they're two different designations.

QUESTION: So has the United States changed its position toward this group since 2002?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Okay. And was there any --

MR TONER: I'm sorry, Nike.

QUESTION: Sorry. Was there any discussion between this building or between the United States and China to put ETIM under FTO?

MR TONER: Well, so there's no – any – there's no kind of agreement that we're going to designate them as an FTO. I wouldn't go beyond that to discuss the deliberations of our designations process. What I can say is the United States and China have had and continue to have a very active discussion and dialogue on counterterrorism issues, and we, of course, always welcome any additional information from China on active terrorist organizations.

QUESTION: Just one final question.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Just to clarify I'm understanding completely, so is that correct you said there is no new deal between the United States and China regarding the status of ETIM's status?

MR TONER: No such agreement, no.

QUESTION: Can I have a short time to squeeze in a couple of questions on the Palestinian-Israeli --

MR TONER: Of course. I'll get to you, I promise.

QUESTION: Really, really quick.

MR TONER: Yeah, let's bing, bing, and then hopefully done. Oh, and Arshad. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: The Israeli authorities today forced a Palestinian family in East Jerusalem, the Old City, to basically destroy their own home. Now, I know you've spoken against this kind of practice before – these kind of practices before, but basically there is an intensive drive to sort of push the Palestinians out of the Old City. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Nothing beyond what we've said many times before that we want to see, obviously, an end to escalatory behavior. You know where we stand on settlements. Nothing's changed in that regard.

QUESTION: Do you think that the Israeli occupation authority ought to give the Palestinian sort of the – enough latitude, the leeway to sort of expand their homes so they can accommodate their large family?

MR TONER: Again, that's a question for --

QUESTION: Because this is something that they hold against the Palestinians.

MR TONER: What's that?

QUESTION: Well because, obviously they're --

MR TONER: In terms of building or expanding their --

QUESTION: They are disallowed the benefit of expanding their homes to accommodate their – their sons, their kids, their grandkids, and so on.

MR TONER: Again, I mean, that's really something for the Israeli authorities to speak to. You know where we stand on – with regard to settlement activity. I'll leave it there.

Please, sir, Tejinder.

QUESTION: 2008 Mumbai attacks mastermind, Hafiz Saeed, has said that the U.S. and India have joined hands against the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and also for working against the Muslim world while we are asking Pakistan to hand over or do something about these attacks. And what is your reaction to this statement?

MR TONER: You're saying this is one of the architects of the Mumbai attack --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: -- who made this statement? I mean, I would dismiss it outright. We have a strong bilateral relationship with Pakistan, but one that is premised on counterterrorism cooperation and as – as part of that conversation, or that dialogue and that cooperation that we have on counterterrorism issues, we made it very clear that Pakistan can't pick and choose which terrorist groups it goes after and it has to go after those groups that seek to do harm to its neighbors and may seek refuge on Pakistani soil.

QUESTION: Just real quick --

MR TONER: Yes, sir. I promise, you're last.

QUESTION: I'm sure that you've seen the comments by the – Saudi Arabia's top religious authority saying that Iran's leaders are not Muslims. And this is sort of an escalation of the war of words between the Saudis and the Iranians. Is this kind of rhetoric helpful and does the U.S. Government regard Shiites as Muslims? (Laughter.)

MR TONER: I would say that the rhetoric that we've seen over the past couple days is certainly not helpful. While there may be concerns around safety issues, and very serious concerns given past events around the Hajj, by no means do we want to see this kind of rhetoric that we've seen over the past couple of days that will only escalate tensions in the region.

And – yes?

QUESTION: So --

QUESTION: And then one --

MR TONER: I think was your second question.

QUESTION: Well, on that, why --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: I asked about this exact same thing yesterday. Why couldn't you --

MR TONER: Did I not --

QUESTION: No.

MR TONER: Did I dismiss it? I'm sorry. (Laughter.) Maybe I was just --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) were dissing you.

QUESTION: Probably.

MR TONER: That's not at all.

QUESTION: Probably.

MR TONER: I thought I answered it much as – I thought I said we don't want to see escalatory remarks. I'm sorry if I didn't say that.

QUESTION: Can I ask one other one?

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Just on Syria. Excuse me, not on Syria, on Iran. I should have asked you this before.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: I think you've not answered it in the past, but --

QUESTION: Maybe Matt did. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: -- do you have any – yes, maybe you didn't answer it then.

QUESTION: Do you have any visibility into what happened to the cash of the payments to Iran once it got to the Iranians? Do you know where the money went?

MR TONER: No, not categorically, but we've talked about this. What we have said about that is that we believe – it's our assessment; again, without being able to say 100 percent that it's the case – that the money that was returned to Iran as part of the settlement has gone primarily to bolster the economy, which has been in many senses, debilitated by years of sanctions. Again, that's our assessment, but --

QUESTION: And can you – can you rule out --

QUESTION: Did you mark the bills, or at least in sequential order? I mean, you could trace them, no?

QUESTION: Could – can you rule out that some of the money may have gone to the IRGC or groups that you regard as --

MR TONER: Again, I --

QUESTION: -- foreign terrorist organizations?

MR TONER: I would say that I – by saying that we can't categorically say 100 percent the money's gone to bolster the economy or for economic reasons, that I – that I can't categorically rule out that it's gone to the IRGC or other groups. And more largely on that point or broadly on that point, we continue to have concerns about Iran's behavior, apart from the agreement that we reached on the nuclear deal. Iran continues to exhibit bad behavior in the region.

Please.

QUESTION: Now wait a – wait, wait. Have you in fact said in the past that this money, the 1.7 billion, you believe has gone to --

MR TONER: Yeah, I've said – we've said it --

QUESTION: -- good works? I thought it was the money that they were getting back under the sanctions relief that you believe is going towards infrastructure and building preschools and hospitals and things like that, and bridges and that kind of thing. I wasn't aware, maybe it's my bad memory, that you had that the 1.7 – that the settlement was going to that. You have? Is that what you're saying?

MR TONER: I believe we have.

Please, sir.

QUESTION: Okay. I just want to return to Russia, this possible meeting between Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov and the sanctions. Firstly, the U.S. Department of Commerce informed that they approved the new package of the sanctions against the Russian companies, as I understand – tell me if I'm wrong – that it was 11. Can you comment on that?

MR TONER: I can. So the actions that you mentioned were carried out by Department of Commerce – and we've talked about this before – were a form of maintenance, if you will. What – how the sanctions process works is even for existing sanctions, we're constantly working to close loopholes and ensure that the sanctions are still able to be maintained at their current level. They do not represent an escalation of existing sanctions. They're simply measures that we take on existing sanctions to ensure that they're still able to be implemented in full force.

QUESTION: Secondly, can one speak about any connection between the dates when the sanction was approved and the future negotiations? What I mean – the first package was adopted by the U.S. Treasury just on the day when President Obama have to – had left to China. Right now, we got the new package of sanctions adopted to --

MR TONER: Absolutely no connection, I can assure you.

QUESTION: Thank you, and one more question. So speaking about the Executive Order 13660, the so-called Salvation Committee of Ukraine has designated, and it's on the list of the sanctions approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce. As I understand it, they're not the commercial organization, not the firm, but the organization created by the former prime minister of Ukraine just for propaganda – created by Mr. Azarov. How he or this organizations or the members of the organization will be affected by the sanctions? Can we speak about a possible visa ban? Can we speak that their property or their accounts will be affected?

MR TONER: Apologies, you're talking about – sure. You're talking about sanctions, part of the Commerce package that was --

QUESTION: Yes, sir.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: So this organization is the part of the Commerce package.

MR TONER: Okay. And it – but it's a Ukrainian organization?

QUESTION: Not exactly, sir. It is the organizations – so-called Salvation Committee of Ukraine created by the former prime minister, the part of the Yanukovych team who left to Moscow. They're using this organization not for trade but for propaganda. So I'm just trying to understand how this sanction in the commercial package will affect them personally or just their assets, which are not only in Russia but hopefully in Europe or --

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean – look, I mean, my understanding – are you talking about more broadly the sanctions against Gazprom's media holdings, is what I understand this – the sanctions were directed at, along with other sections or subsidiaries of Gazprom Bank. Is that what we're talking about here? Because I don't have details of the sanctions beyond that. Sorry.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a simple question? The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, today is quoted as saying that the expanded U.S. sanctions on Russia – and I realize you regard these sanctions as maintenance and not as an expansion --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- are not consistent with talks over possible cooperation between Russia and the United States in other areas. He doesn't say exactly what other areas he's talking about, but surely the most prominent one is Syria.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Are the Russians, to your knowledge or – trying to get you to ease up on sanctions over Ukraine or Crimea in the talks on Syria? Is that a tradeoff they're trying to achieve?

MR TONER: Again, not that we've seen. They obviously want sanctions lifted. That's a priority for them, and we've always made it very clear that the best way to get sanctions lifted is to fulfill Minsk, and that's a clear path. And that's what – where our focus is and where it remains.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:14 p.m.)