Statements by U.S. Officials

Ambassador Greg Schulte,  US Permanent Representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency Speaks to the Press Via Video Conference

 

May 8, 2006, Ankara

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:   Iran’s nuclear program is still very much on our agenda, and still very much on the agenda of the Security Council.  In March the Security Council called on Iran’s leaders to suspend their enrichment of uranium and their reprocessing of plutonium, and to cooperate fully with the IAEA.  Ten days ago, we received the report by Director General Mohammad El-Baradei which reported on Iran’s response to the Security Council.  That response was a refusal to comply with a single Security Council request.  According to the Director General’s report, rather than suspending enrichment Iran has successfully enriched used uranium, using one 164-centrifuge cascade, and is preparing two additional cascades.  Rather than stopping its heavy water reactor project, which will allow for plutonium reprocessing, Iran continues construction of the reactor. Rather than implementing the additional protocol, which would give the IAEA additional authority, Iran has limited the access of IAEA inspectors; and rather than meeting IAEA requests for transparency, Iran has provided no cooperation, I repeat, no cooperation, since March. 

When I read the Director General’s report -- and I can tell you I read it very carefully, I read it three or four times -- one of the things that became very clear and very disturbing was in fact the agency had no additional cooperation from Iran to report during the reporting period since March.  The report demonstrated once again why the world has lost confidence in the peaceful nature of Iran’s program.  Over the past year, more and more countries have been asking very basic questions.  If Iran’s program is peaceful, why 18 years of deceit?  If the program is peaceful, why not cooperate with the IAEA?  If the program is peaceful, why the unexplained ties to the AQ Khan network, an illicit black marketing network in nuclear weapons technology?  If the program is peaceful, why does Iran possess a document on fabricating nuclear weapons components?  If the program is peaceful, why the unexplained ties to Iran’s military and Iran’s missile programs?  And finally, if the program is peaceful, why is Iran threatening to pull out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?  More and more countries are coming to the judgment that this is not a peaceful program.  Indeed it is our judgment that this a deliberate step-by-step program directed by Iran’s most senior leadership to acquire the material technology and know-how to build a nuclear weapon. 

Now we believe and other countries believe that this determined pursuit of the nuclear weapons capability threatens Iran’s neighbors and threatens the wider international community.  A nuclear armed Iran could embolden its leaders to advance their ambitions across the region whether with the military forces they are building or the terrorists they support.  A nuclear armed Iran could pose an even greater threat to Middle Ease peace including the very existence of Israel.  And a nuclear armed Iran could provide the fuse for further proliferation causing other countries to reevaluate their non-proliferation commitments. 

As you know, Iran is already deploying the Shahab-3, which is a missile system and a weapon of choice for nuclear delivery.  The Shahab-3 range is most of the Middle East including Turkey.  There are also reports that Iran is collaborating with North Korea on a longer range missile, the BM-25.  This missile will range significant parts of Europe, Africa, India, Russia, and China.  There is no doubt in our mind that this program and the actions of the Iranian leadership constitute a threat to international peace and security. 

The actions of the leadership also disregard the interests of the Iranian people.  Iran is a great country.  It is full of human potential, and it’s positioned for an important role on the world scene.  But instead of making Iran an international player, its leaders are making Iran an international pariah.  And their outrageous statements and defiant behavior have sparked concern and opposition from countries across the world.  This is not just a diplomatic embarrassment.  This growing isolation also hurts the Iranian people.  We have already seen de facto sanctions going in to place caused by the markets.  London’s Fitch Ratings recently downgraded the outlook for Iran from stable to negative for poor economic policy and the nuclear dispute.  Banks such as Credit Suisse and the Union Bank of Switzerland are refusing to do business in Iran.  Multinational corporations like British Petroleum are looking to invest their capital elsewhere.  The President of Iran has failed to deliver on his promise to improve the lives of the Iranian people.  Instead he tries to distract and to strengthen his radical rule by celebrating technology that has little relevance to the daily lives of ordinary Iranians. 

Our goal, as you heard me say last time, is to secure a diplomatic solution.  This means that we have to convince this leadership to make a fundamental choice.  They need to choose negotiation and cooperation over confrontation and defiance.  The path that Iran’s leaders are taking today is taking that great country toward further isolation and sanction.  But there is another path that is open.  It was a path opened by the EU3, widened by the Russian Federation, and supported by the United States and other countries like Turkey.  And that’s the path of diplomacy.  But Iran’s leaders seem very determined.  And that means that the rest of us, including the United States, Europe, and Turkey, must be equally determined in our diplomacy.  Convincing the leadership in Iran to make the right choice, the choice that is best for international security, and the choice that is best for the Iranian people will clearly require tough and sustained diplomacy including action by the Security Council. 

Last week, as you know, the UK and France introduced the Security Council resolution that we make mandatory the Security Council’s requests under Chapter 7 of the UN charter.  Should Iran not abide by those mandatory requirements, the US, the European Union, and other countries are already starting to discuss a range of targeted sanctions.  For diplomacy to succeed, we must be ready to use the full range of diplomatic tools available to the Security Council and the international community.  For diplomacy to succeed, individual countries including Iran’s neighbors must apply leverage.  And for diplomacy to succeed, Europe, the United States, Turkey, other likeminded countries must work together with unity and resolve in dealing with this common challenge.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts and answering your questions. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Schulte. Of course you are aware of the fact that Mr. Larijani, the Iranian negotiator is visiting Turkey now.  First of all, how do you perceive this visit being paid to Ankara, and what kind of messages are you expecting the Turkish authorities to give to the Iranian officials?  And do you see some hope from this tour of Larijani's that a way out might be found?

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  Thank you.  It is not my business to comment on your government’s discussions with Mr. Larijani.  But clearly what the leadership in Iran is trying to do is -- they are looking to break apart this growing group of countries who have expressed their concern, and who have called upon Iran to take action.  I know that both publicly and privately your government has joined with other governments across the world calling upon Iran to meet its international commitments, calling upon Iran to take steps to restore international confidence, and that message is very important.

QUESTION:  Mr. Ambassador, when Prime Minister Erdogan was in Sudan some time ago he made specific statements concerning nuclear weapons in the region.  What he focused on was when countries tell other countries not to have nuclear weapons, they should not have any themselves.  He elaborated on the fact that those countries don’t have any credibility if they just tell other countries not to have those weapons.  What is your approach to this argument? 

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  I think we have to go back to an agreement that it is fundamental to today’s international security, and that’s the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  And under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, some countries were recognized as nuclear powers and they took on certain obligations, which I will talk about in a moment, but other countries who signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty agreed not to acquire or to pursue nuclear weapons.  And the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I think, has helped to prevent large scale proliferation throughout the world, and therefore has benefited all of our security.  Our concern is the actions by Iran threaten to undermine -- in fact they already are undermining -- the Non-Proliferation Treaty and could actually cause the Non-Proliferation Treaty to start breaking down.  You live right next to this volatile region of the Middle East.  You know how violent and volatile that region is.  You can imagine an Iran with nuclear weapons causing other countries in the region to rethink their obligations.  And you can imagine that a nuclear armed Middle East is going to be even more dangerous than the Middle East today. 

Now in terms of obligation other countries undertook under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, those countries that were recognized as nuclear weapon states undertook first to help provide the benefits of the peaceful use of nuclear technology to others.  And the United States for its part is the largest supporter at the IAEA, of the peaceful use of nuclear technology.  In fact over the last five years, we have contributed $100 million dollars to peaceful projects using nuclear technology from everything to helping to eradicate the Tsetse fly in Africa to trying to address cancer in the developing world.  The second obligation that we undertook was to reduce our own nuclear weapons.  And since the end of the Cold War the US and other nuclear weapon states have made drastic reductions in our nuclear arsenals.  So other members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty including Turkey are carrying out their commitments.  We all need to insist that Iran carry out its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Schulte, when do you expect the Security Council to make the decision with respect to Iran?  What do you expect from the Russian and Chinese block?

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  My colleague in New York, Ambassador Bolton, very wisely refuses to predict the timing of anything in the Security Council, because he says whenever he does, he is invariably wrong.  I would probably even be more wrong if I try to predict that from here in Vienna.  Tonight in New York there is a dinner that Secretary Rice will be having with other Foreign Ministers, the Foreign Ministers of the EU3, and of Russia and China.  They will be discussing next steps in the Security Council.  Russia and China agree with us, and with other members of the Security Council that Iran’s behavior and their statements are not acceptable, that we need to work to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, that the Security Council together with the IAEA Board, has a role and that the Security Council needs to send a strong signal.  Their discussions in New York are over exact wording, over the tactics, and over the timing, that’s why I am reluctant to predict anything, but I think what is important is there is a very strong strategic consensus that includes Russia and China about the need for Iran to suspend these activities, to come back into compliance with the international commitments, and to cooperate with the IAEA. 

QUESTION:  Mr. Ambassador, I would like to ask you a very simple question actually – a question that is often asked in the Turkish society:  Why can Israel have nuclear weapons and not Iran?  This is a simple question to which a lot of Turkish people would want to hear an answer from you. 

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  There is a very simple answer, and then there is a more complicated answer.  I will give you both.  The simplest answer is that Israel never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  So it never agreed to not have a nuclear weapons capability.  Iran signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Iran has been failing to carry out its obligations.  That is the simple, legalistic answer. 

Let me give you a slightly more complicated answer.  The United States has called upon all countries that have not signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty including Israel to sign on to the agreement as non-nuclear weapons states.  So said in a more simple fashion, we called on all countries that are not NPT members to give up nuclear weapons.

We have also supported the vision of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.  But the greatest impediment to that vision today is the atomic ambitions of Iran’s leaders.  Because in fact as Iran moves forward in this determined fashion to acquire nuclear weapons, we can probably expect more and more countries to think about acquiring nuclear weapons.  And the vision of a Middle East free of WMD becomes even more difficult.  So the bottom line is we have Israel that has threatened no country.  We have Iran that has threatened others, and in particular has threatened to wipe Israel off the map.  We need to work on the immediate problem of Iran.  And that may open hopes over the longer term for other reductions and for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.

QUESTION:  Mr. Ambassador, don’t you think that there is a deadlock regarding these diplomatic efforts, because regarding sanctions only in oil embargo can hurt Iran economically, and it would most probably be a disaster for the world economy.  Russia and China are opposing any kinds of sanctions being applied to Iran, and Iran is insisting on its own attitude towards its nuclear program. What is the way out?

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  We have taken a gradual step-by-step process in our diplomacy and in the Security Council.  The first step in the Security Council you recall was a Presidential statement that called upon Iran to do what the IAEA had called upon Iran to do.  The step that we are looking at right now would, under Chapter 7, make these calls mandatory.  But that that’s all it would do.  We are not looking at sanctions at this stage.  What we want to do is very clearly give the Iranian leadership a choice of stopping the efforts that worry us so much, restarting the negotiations, and violating mandatory requirements by the Security Council.  If they choose to violate those mandatory requirements then the Security Council has a whole range of non-military – and I stress non-military – tools that it could bring to bear including sanctions. 

When we talk about sanctions, when we have discussions with governments, and the EU we are talking about a graduated approach with targeted sanctions.  Our goal is not to punish the Iranian people.  We think the Iranian leadership is doing a good enough job at that anyway.  Our goal is to send a clear signal to the leadership and that’s why we would be looking at very targeted sanctions that would focus on the leadership and that would focus on the nuclear program.  We are in discussions with Russia and China on this. We think that sanctions might only come to play in the next several months, again depending upon what Iran chooses to do.  And we are looking at our best to target those sanctions. 

You mentioned oil.  I think we are all very conscious that Iran does supply about 5 % of global oil production.  But every time Iran threatens something related to oil, they quickly pull back.  And I think the reason why is that they are heavily dependent upon oil exports.  In fact I have seen statistics that suggest that anywhere between 40-50 % of the Government of Iran’s revenue comes from oil exports.  Iran is heavily dependent upon the outside world for the investment that would be necessary to sustain an increased oil production.  Iran itself it is heavily dependent on the import of gasoline.  It produces all this oil, but it does not refine it.  So they are heavily dependent on the import of gasoline and domestic consumption is going way up.  So every time we hear some leaders in Tehran threatening the world with their oil, we also hear the calmer words of the Iranian Oil Minister who makes it clear that they don’t want to disrupt this market.

QUESTION:  Mr. Ambassador, I have two specific questions.  First, you said you don’t want to punish the Iranian people.  As far as we know, Minister Gul’s meeting with Secretary Rice also elaborated on the fact that Turkey and countries like Turkey should not be punished because of this process.  And as far as we know Minister Gul talked about an article in the Security Council’s decision about compensation.  Do you see that as probable?  And my second question is, some European capitals including Ankara think that the US in the end will have to sit down with the Iranians, because Iranians want some security guarantees.  Do you see that as possible?

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  I am not privy to the discussions that Secretary Rice had, so I am really not in the position to comment on that.  I apologize.  In terms of the United States sitting down with Iran, Secretary Rice has said that we don’t plan to sit down with Iran to talk about the nuclear issue.  And there are a number of reasons for that.  First off, we have been strongly backing the negotiating process that has been led by the EU3.  And we strongly back the involvement of Russia in looking to augment the EU3 proposals.  We think that the offers the European Union made with our support are offers that would benefit Iran dramatically.  Let me just briefly review what the Europeans offered last August.  Amongst other things, they offered to reaffirm Iran’s rights to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.  They offered to give Iran assurances of nuclear fuel supply for its reactors.  They offered to meet Iran’s desire to expand international cooperation in the civil nuclear field.  They offered a new framework for expanded economic and technological cooperation.  And to get at your point, they also offered a new political and security relationship based upon cooperation, and based upon security assurances.  So there is a very important offer that is already on the table that should be negotiated.  Now quite frankly, it is not clear to me how US involvement in those negotiations would help address Iran’s concerns.  After all remember the leadership in Iran calls us "The Great Satan."  It is not clear how coming to an agreement with "The Great Satan" would be easier than coming to an agreement with the European Union or with Russia.  In the one area where we did offer to have talks you'll recall that our Ambassador in Baghdad, Ambassador Khalilzad, was authorized to talk to Iran about Iraq.  And the door was left open for months.  And then at the end the Iranians said no, we don’t want to talk to him.  So we think communications is not a problem.  We don’t need the United States to become directly involved to communicate what the international community has asked for.  We think that the issue here is the will of the Iranian leadership to change course and to negotiate seriously. 

QUESTION:  We would be interested to know how you see Turkey’s position on Iran lately.

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  I think that Turkey has been playing an important role with the signals that your government has been sending both publicly and privately. I remarked on that when I was there. It seems to me here in Vienna – you would know better in Ankara – but it seems to me that Turkey is firmly supporting the international consensus that Iran is working to acquire nuclear weapons capability and that Iran has to stop working to acquire this capability.  It seems to me that Turkey is joining the rest of the international community and other neighbors of Iran in sending a strong consistent message to the leadership that this approach is not acceptable and that they need to stop. I think that's very important.

QUESTION: Are there any talks between the US and Turkey with respect to the implications of these sanctions?  What are the priorities of the Turkish side?

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE:  We remain in close consultations with your government through our embassy and through various visitors who have come there. It's not for me to speak on what the view of your government is. You should ask them.  We are very aware of your government's concerns about the implications of sanctions.  That's part of the reason why we're thinking in particular about targeted sanctions.  Targeted sanctions are less likely to hurt the people of Iran.  They are less likely also to have implications for the neighbors. I would think that the greater concern for Turkey is not the implications of sanctions but the implications if we are not successful in our effort to convince Iran to give up its nuclear weapons.  Neither Turkey nor any other neighbor has an interest in Iran, particularly with this leadership, possessing the most deadly of weapons.

QUESTION: My question is a follow-up to your comment.  Do you think the existing leadership of Iran makes this nuclear program a bigger threat?

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE: We think the decision to move forward with a nuclear weapons capability was made well before the current President came on the scene. But the current President has obviously raised the level of rhetoric dramatically with his comments about the Holocaust, with his comments about wiping individual states off the map.  I suspect that the current leader in part has made such a big deal about Iran's nuclear program in part as a way to consolidate his own grip on power.  I mentioned before that he came to power promising to help the economy and promising to make life better for ordinary Iranians and according to the International Monetary Fund, a report that just came out, inflation is still double digit in Iran, unemployment is still double digit.  There are reports that unemployment among Iran's youth is 40% and so one wonders is he just trying to distract the Iranian people by celebrating this technology that really is not going to get them more jobs and is not going to help their future. In fact, it is just driving them into deeper isolation.  The good news is there seems to be somewhat of a debate starting in Iran. It's hard to understand it. It's a closed society. The media is under threat and tightly controlled, but over the last month or so we've seen statements by former leaders. We've seen statements by clerics; we've seen statements by student groups expressing concerns about the approach of the current leadership.  We had Mr. Rohani, who is the former nuclear negotiator who came out and said that the administration needs to take a more rational approach – that the approach they were taking was inflicting great pain.  There was a group of moderate clerics who met with the Supreme Leader recently to express concern and said that perhaps he had to take charge of this.  There is a moderate student group that came out recently saying that Iran should suspend its uranium enrichment capabilities. So there seems to be a bit of a debate going on and it's very much in our interests to encourage this debate within the public but also amongst the ruling circles to see -- if we can't convince this President -- if we can convince others that they need to change course. When you think about this President you have to worry about him with access to nuclear weapons. This is an individual after all who believes apparently in apocalypse.  This is an individual who has threatened to wipe a whole country off the world map.  This is not an individual we want to have access to nuclear weapons.

QUESTION: So it's more like a psychological war which may be rather difficult to prevent.

AMBASSADOR SCHULTE: What we are trying to do in the end is we're trying to convince the Iranian leadership that it's better for them and it's better for Iran to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions and to take a diplomatic approach. So it is a matter of convincing them to change approach and the psychology of the current leadership is awfully hard to figure out and makes this task awfully difficult for us.

Thank you very much.