Question from Christi Parsons (Chicago Tribune) at the joint Obama/Merkel Press Conference
Q Thank you, Mr. President. The Iran nuclear negotiators have now
missed two deadlines. Should the upcoming March deadline for talks be
the final one? And what are the circumstances in which you think it
would be wise to extend those talks? . . . .[remainder excised]
PRESIDENT OBAMA: First of all, we understood I think from the start,
when we set up the interim agreement with Iran, that it would take some
time to work through incredibly complex issues and a huge trust deficit
between the United States and Iran, and the world and Iran, when it
comes to their nuclear program. So I think there was always the
assumption that, although the interim agreement lasted a certain period
of time, that we would probably need more time to move forward.
The good news is, is that there have been very serious discussions.
That time has been well spent. During this period of time, issues have
been clarified; gaps have been narrowed; the Iranians have abided by
the agreement. So this is not a circumstance in which, by talking,
they’ve been stalling and meanwhile advancing their program. To the
contrary. What we know is the program has not only been frozen, but
with respect to, for example, 20 percent enriched uranium, they’ve
reversed it. And so we’re in a better position than we were before the
interim program was set up.
Having said all that, the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and
sufficiently clarified where we’re at point where they need to make a
decision. We are presenting to them, in a unified fashion -- the
P5-plus-1, supported by a coalition of countries around the world, are
presenting to them a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear
power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they
are not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
And if, in fact, what they claim in true -- which is they have no
aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that, in fact, according to their
Supreme Leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear
weapon -- if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a
deal. They should be able to get to yes. But we don’t know if that’s
going to happen. They have their hardliners; they have their politics.
And the point, I guess is, Christi, at this juncture, I don’t see a
further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic
formulation and the bottom line that the world requires to have
confidence that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Now, if a framework for a deal is done, if people have a clear sense of
what is required and there’s some drafting and t’s to cross and i’s to
dot, that’s a different issue. But my view -- and I’ve presented this
to members of Congress -- is that we now know enough that the issues are
no longer technical. The issues now are, does Iran have the political
will and the desire to get a deal done?
And we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion
and unity that’s been shown by Germany, by the other members of the
P5-plus-1 -- which, I should acknowledge, includes Russia. I mean, this
is an area where they’ve actually served a constructive role. And
China has served a constructive role. And there has been no cracks in
this on the P5-plus-1 side of the table. And I think that’s a testament
to the degree to which we are acting reasonably in trying to actually
solve a problem.
Now, I don’t want to be coy. The Prime Minister and I have a very real
difference around Iran, Iran sanctions. I have been very clear -- and
Angela agrees with me, and David Cameron agrees with me, and the others
who are a member of the negotiations agree -- that it does not make
sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they’re about to be
completed. And we should play that out. If, in fact, we can get a
deal, then we should embrace that. If we can’t get a deal, then we’ll
have to make a set of decisions, and, as I’ve said to Congress, I’ll be
the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against
Iran.
But what’s the rush -- unless your view is that it’s not possible to
get a deal with Iran and it shouldn’t even be tested? And that I cannot
agree with because, as the President of the United States, I’m looking
at what the options are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution. And
those options are narrow and they're not attractive. And from the
perspective of U.S. interests -- and I believe from the perspective of
Israel’s interests, although I can't speak for, obviously, the Israeli
government -- it is far better if we can get a diplomatic solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment