• Military

• WMD Menu                           

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

• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

U.S. Department of State

Daily Press Briefing

..................

QUESTION: Have you seen the Iranian reaction to the Secretary's speech? They're calling it inadequate. They want actions and not words starting with the lifting of sanctions.

MR. RUBIN: I did see a report of one Iranian radio reaction. I suspect that, as we've seen and as the Secretary's speech indicates, there is a vibrant political activity in Iran, including in the media, and we would expect the officials in Iran to take some time to absorb the significance of the Secretary's statements and would, therefore, not regard this particular statement as definitive in any way. But in terms of the need to develop concrete progress, that is what the Secretary's speech was about and that is why we tried to introduce, for the first time, a genuine framework to address issues between the United States and Iran, and we know that Iran will have issues of concern to it, some of which were spelled out in one of the initial reports.

So we are trying to develop with Iran a parallel process which, if followed through, could build mutual confidence and would be based on mutuality and reciprocity. And if that process were to be sustained and the level of trust were to increase, then, as the Secretary said yesterday, we would be in a position to work together on a road map to a better and ultimately more normal relationship.

The statements that initially came out of Iran addressed some issues that the Secretary didn't address. She, as you saw from her text, was focused on the political changes and what their significance might be in several important areas that the Iranian people, in voting overwhelmingly for President Khatemi, have expressed a desire for change in their government's policy. We have responded to President Khatemi's call for a civilizational dialogue, including through streamlining visa policies, supporting academic and athletic exchanges. We believe it is in the interest of both of our sides to take concrete steps. But we also believe that this will take time, and we don't expect this to happen overnight. We expect this to happen over time. The short answer, therefore, to your question is that we don't take this as the final, official word, because I suspect they are going to take some time to absorb it, the way we did.

QUESTION: Jamie, it sounds like they want some incentive - signs that if they make changes, they're going to be - you know, concrete incentives. Is the US pondering any incentives at the moment?

MR. RUBIN: We have decided, as a result of some thinking on this - and the President, as you know, spoke to this earlier - that it was appropriate to make a comprehensive policy statement, the first really comprehensive policy statement by a top Administration official. That is what Secretary Albright did last night. We obviously have more that we are thinking about with respect to how to pursue a government-to-government dialogue, if that takes place, with how to take advantage of both of our countries' desire for increased academic, technical, scientific and sports exchanges. That process will, therefore, continue.

But as far as what we would be prepared to do if certain events took place and what the Iranians might be prepared to do if events took place, we think that is not ripe for public discussion. What's ripe for public discussion is what the Secretary said yesterday, which is to recognize change; to make clear that we intend to exploit opportunities when we see them; and to make clear that it would be irresponsible for the United States, given the importance of Iran in the world, not to try to exploit those opportunities. But when we do exploit opportunities, if we can, it will be based on our judgments of what the policies are.

QUESTION: So there's no incentives in the pipeline if Iran decides to show you with action that it's willing to engage in something beyond just a dialogue, beyond talk?

MR. RUBIN: Well, first of all, the Iranian Government has not yet been willing to have an authorized acknowledged dialogue with us. So that would be a significant step. If we could begin that dialogue, we believe that would be the best way to overcome the concerns that we have and the concerns that they have.

If we were in a position to begin to deal with each other and parallel steps could be taken to deal with our concerns, we have signaled - and the Secretary said clearly - that we would want to develop a road map to normal relations. The word normal relations has a whole panoply of meanings to it; everybody knows what they are. So your conclusion is simply not accurate that we are not prepared to do what goes along with a normal relationship, if we could get there.

What I am saying to you is that as far as public discussion of what would happen if X happened, would we do Y - if A happened, would we do B - that is not ripe for public discussion at this time. If it becomes ripe, we will obviously be willing to talk about it.

QUESTION: Jamie, is the US willing to - we've gone around about this at other times on this issue, but I'm still not 100 percent clear about it. Is the US willing to have a dialogue with Iran, as long as it's government-to-government, authoritative and open and transparent - that is, everybody knows about it - without any other preconditions?

MR. RUBIN: Well, yes and no. That perhaps is why we go around and around on it. The procedural needs for us are that it's authorized and that it's acknowledged so that we're in a position that there's no public doubt about what we're doing and that the officials that would engage in it are in a position of authority to speak for the Iranian Government.

Beyond that, every dialogue includes the issues that each side has. That's why it's called a dialogue; rather than a dialogue of the deaf, it is a dialogue of the listening. And we would expect that they would have issues that we would listen to, and we would expect them to understand we would have issues that they would listen to. So the preconditions for talking are the two that I mentioned.

QUESTION: But they don't have to renounce terrorism? I mean, that would be part of the dialogue.

MR. RUBIN: The goal of such a dialogue - we believe the best way to advance America's national interests in changing policies of concern to us is to engage in a government-to-government dialogue where we could address the issues of concern.

QUESTION: Terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and all those.

MR. RUBIN: Exactly. So we do not see any preconditions other than the fact of it being authorized and the fact that it would be publicly acknowledged. And beyond that, we would expect it to be a real dialogue in which the Iranian Government could raise concerns that they have and we, the United States, would raise concerns that we have.

We think that that is the best way to overcome these concerns and begin a parallel process leading to a position where we could develop a road map to normal relations. That is what the Secretary was laying out for the first time last night and, other than that, we don't have preconditions. We don't see that as the problem. In the meantime, of course there is this civilizational process going on with academics, there's a big soccer game coming up and there are also journalists that are going back and forth and scientists and other specialists. So that is a process by which the American people and the Iranian people can get to know each other better pursuant to the goals the Secretary laid out.

QUESTION: When you say an authorized dialogue, authorized by whom? By Khatemi or by the religious leaders?

MR. RUBIN: We believe, as the Secretary said yesterday, that the mandate for change from the people of Iran created a President named Khatemi and that is a significant event. She talked about that and we will believe it is authorized and will be in a position to judge it based on the situation that pertains at the time. We're not going to get in a position of commenting on the relative views of different power centers in Iran. It is the business of our diplomats and our government officials and our experts to be able to advise the Secretary as to whether the standard of an authorized dialogue has been met, and we should bear in mind that he is the President of the country.

QUESTION: We can assume that you all will announce this dialogue?

MR. RUBIN: I wouldn't assume that we would announce it with any timing that would satisfy you, who wants to be first. But in terms of the phrase "publicly acknowledged," what that means is that we would not want to be in a position where we couldn't acknowledge, if asked, that there was such a discussion. I wouldn't presume that we would necessarily announce it, or we might. I just wouldn't presume a formal announcement.

QUESTION: You mentioned the soccer match that is coming up on Sunday. We have had exchanges of wrestlers between the two countries. How much value do you think that kind of activity actually has in the real world beyond looking nice on television?

MR. RUBIN: I would think you of all people would consider television the real world, but the fact of the matter is that these events are symbols of people's feelings. And since what Secretary Albright talked about last night, and what President Khatemi talked about and has talked about, is the importance of the Iranian people and the American people understanding each other better, and sporting events are one of the ways to do that. I think if you talk to the wrestlers who were in Iran, they were struck by the reception they received from the Iranian people. And the American people, I think, responded similarly to the Iranian wrestlers. Soccer is another sport; it has a different tone often and we'll have to see how that plays out. But the point here is that we believe that sporting exchanges, academic exchanges, journalist exchanges, expert exchanges, technical exchanges are all part of the process of two peoples getting to know each other better after a long period of isolation.

QUESTION: Any prediction on the score?

MR. RUBIN: We, in the State Department, don't have a view as to what would be best for the relationship but, as a personal view, obviously one would have one's personal views.

QUESTION: Is this recognition of change announced by the Secretary last night the final nail in the coffin of dual containment?

MR. RUBIN: I don't believe that dual containment is a word that we use; it's a word that others use. Now, I'm sure you can find a quote - it looks like you've done some research. But the point I'm making here is that labels are not the best way to pursue foreign policy. That doesn't mean you can't find a time when a Secretary of State or a UN Ambassador or someone else hasn't referred to what has become a commonly labeled policy. But when we talk about our policies, we talk about what they are and what their objectives are. We may refer to labels from time to time. As you see, we don't refer to that particular moniker often.

But we do refer to the fact that we are in a process of containment with respect to Iraq, where we believe that Iraq poses a threat to the region and that we need to be able to contain the threat it poses to its neighbors and the threat from weapons of mass destruction that it poses to the world. That is why the President ordered military forces to the region; that is why we maintain a force posture capable of responding in the region.

With respect to Iran, the Secretary made clear that our economic policies remain unchanged. That includes sanctions; that includes opposition to the pipeline and our desire to make sure there are multiple pipelines for Caspian oil and gas. So that is our policy. You all can make an interpretation of what a particular moniker means on a particular day. We will continue to state and pursue the policies that we have.

QUESTION: You're right, I did do some research, and this phrase was invented by a National Security Council official at the time, Dr. Indyk, now Assistant Secretary of State, in which he used the phrase "dual containment of Iraq and Iran." The point is not a semantic one; the point is that this was based on a certain sense of parallelism between Iran and Iraq.

MR. RUBIN: That was always a misinterpretation of that moniker. That's the problem with it.

QUESTION: Well, if it wasn't a certain duality in it, why the name? Why the simultaneous announcement of the policy?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know about simultaneous. I don't recall that. But as you've probably heard me say, perhaps in response to some of your very own questions, no two countries are alike and no two policies are, therefore, precisely the same. Our job as diplomats and policy-makers is to try to apply a goal for American policy to a situation in a given country.

It is certainly a fact that Iran and Iraq are not the same. It is also evident, from what the Secretary said, that while Iraq has gone through no changes, except to become further and further isolated from the international community by its continued failure to live up to the requirements of the international community, Iran has taken major steps forward, including in pursuing internal reforms that involve civic society, that involve freedom of the press, that involve the rule of law; externally, with respect to being a constructive partner or constructive participant, rather, in the effort to make peace in Afghanistan, including with respect to improvements in its effort to combat drugs internally, including with respect to its condemnations of terrorism, including with respect to giving the Palestinian Authority - Chairman Arafat - greater political space in which to operate.

So there is no snapshot in foreign policy. You all have to make snapshots because that's your job. What we try to do is have consistent goals and apply different situations and different tactics to pursuing those goals.

QUESTION: You mentioned --

MR. RUBIN: I'm sorry - did I not come to you as promised? I will get right back.

QUESTION: Iran, in its reaction, mentioned the American sanctions against Iran, which leads me to ask you what do you intend to do about ILSA - the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act?

MR. RUBIN: I think I made very clear that our policy remains the same with respect to economic measures including sanctions and including the pipeline. If you take a look at the tone of the Secretary's speech, it was not a tone about sanctions. It was not a tone about the economic realities in Iran or the economic policies we're pursuing or the economic future Iran could have if we did have a normal relationship; rather, it was an assessment of the political change that's gone on there and the philosophical discussion of the desire we have to improve our relations with the Iranian people and, in turn, its government.

So the ILSA law remains in effect. We believe it has been applied very carefully in the case of the most recent decision where we believe there was significant progress made by the European countries in the fight against terror and in the fight against weapons of mass destruction, and in our national interests, the Secretary made a particular national interest waiver. And we will continue to pursue the policies envisaged by that law and envisaged by the President's views.

QUESTION: Can I just ask about the pipeline route specifically, because the foreign minister and the UN ambassador talked about it? How do you address Iran's contention that you are penalizing the entire region when you're cutting them out of the pipeline deals - it's also the Central Asian republics that are suffering - that it makes sense for the entire region to have pipeline routes through Iran?

MR. RUBIN: We oppose construction of pipelines across Iran because we don't think it's in any country's best interest to have Iran as the only transit corridor for Caspian oil and gas. We continue to believe that it is not in the long-term interest of the countries of the region to rely on exports through Iran. Development of pipelines from the Caspian basin south through Iran will seriously undercut the development of east-west infrastructure and give Iran leverage over the economies of the Caucasus and Central Asian states. Further, shipping Caspian oil through the Persian Gulf will not enhance world energy security or increase diversity of world energy supplies. We will examine carefully any proposal for a trans-Iranian pipeline, including any line to take Turkman gas to Turkey in light of the provisions of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act. If such a project is found to involve sanctionable activity, we will take appropriate action.

We believe it is in the best interests of all the peoples of the region to have multiple pipelines and multiple access. That is the best way to insure that over the long term, the important energy resources in the region are available to all and not subject to pressure from one or another country. That is our view and, therefore, the claim that we're penalizing people in the region is, I think, unfounded because we believe we are proposing a course that will, over the long term, benefit all the people of the region.

QUESTION: But multiple pipelines would involve presumably pipelines through Iran - through Russia, through Turkey? I mean the east-west corridor actually presumes that it would get to the west from Turkey.

MR. RUBIN: I fail to understand the question.

QUESTION: I'm saying that if you're talking about multiple pipelines, then obviously a route through Iran would add to that multiplicity.

MR. RUBIN: Right. But what we are seeing is a focus on reliance on that route and we are opposing that because we want multiple efforts, and the idea that that is being seen as the most convenient route is what troubles us and why we oppose it. And so we are trying to encourage the countries involved to pursue multiple routes so that they don't rely on one country.

QUESTION: You - in answer to Jim's question - said that one of the changes in Iran is the condemnation of terrorism. But I would assume the State Department has not concluded that Iran no longer is a state sponsor of terrorism?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: What has happened here?

MR. RUBIN: Well, the first step is a recognition of what one ought to do, and we have pointed to the fact that the condemnation of terror that we saw in statements by the president is significant. And we are hopeful and we are determined to see that those statements lead to changes in policies, and that is going to be the measure.

We are also aware of and made very clear that, in concluding that Iran should not oppose actively the efforts Chairman Arafat is making to pursue peace with the Middle East, one of the motivators for many of the terrorist groups has a philosophical adjustment. Similarly, statements made about Hezbollah and Lebanon, there have been philosophical adjustments. But what is needed is practical adjustments. And we will watch that. Since it took us quite a bit of time to draw the rather dramatic conclusion that Iran was a sponsor of state terrorism, before we change that view, we want to give a significant amount of time to analyze the situation and, as of now, we have not changed that view.

QUESTION: What changes, philosophic changes, have you seen in Hezbollah?

MR. RUBIN: I'll get you the statement and you'll make the judgment for yourself.

QUESTION: (Inaudible)?

MR. RUBIN: By the Iranian government about the situation in Hezbollah if Israel left.

QUESTION: You are referring to the foreign minister's statement when he was in Lebanon several weeks ago?

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

QUESTION: Did you know Mobil Oil applied to Treasury Department for licensing to swap oil between north and south Iran, so no pipelines involved there. Does that come under the jurisdiction of ILSA in State Department's view?

MR. RUBIN: There is an understanding of the oil swap issue, and I would want to get a precise answer for the record for you, lest I do something to the oil markets.

QUESTION: The Secretary's speech on Iran came on the same day as a significant statement in Washington by the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations on relations with the United States. Is this anything more than just a strange coincidence?

MR. RUBIN: Well, I don't know whether to call it strange or not. It certainly was a coincidence. Secretary Albright's speech was designed to make what we thought was a rather dramatic discussion of the changing nature of Asia. If you look at the topics she selected to focus on - that is, South Korea, Indonesia, and Iran - what you see is a pattern that we want to promote, enhance, and advance. And that pattern is the development of true democratic values and true democratic practices.

In the case of South Korea, we believe, as the Secretary said, the election of Kim Dae Jung is as clear evidence as any that there is no such thing as Asian values but there are universal values. We believe the steps toward democratic rule that have taken place in universal values, that have taken place towards democratic rule in Indonesia, are a step that is dramatic and significant and again points to the fact that the people of Asia see the need for democracy as much as the people in any other part of the world.

And, similarly, in Iran we talked about the democratic development, so this speech was scheduled based on the Asia Society's dinner and the Secretary's decision to use the speech as an opportunity to discuss three issues in a way that had not ever been done before. The fact that the Iranian ambassador was here that morning was a coincidence, therefore.

QUESTION: I mean, it wasn't - what he said was a coincidence, not the fact that you had issued him permission to come here?

MR. RUBIN: No, no, the fact - I think what Patrick's question was was did we choose to speak to the Asia Society on Iran on the same day as the Iranian ambassador being here. And since I occasionally get involved in a little bit of the planning of public events and the topics thereto, I can tell you that when we decided to do the Asia Society speech and chose the topics for the speech, we didn't know that he was going to be here that morning saying whatever it was that he said.

Is that as clear as I can be?

QUESTION: Yeah.

[end of document]