QUESTION: Well, you’re trying – you said the countries that were not wild about —
MR PRICE: Again, U.S. companies have been in a position to win contracts worth billions of dollars. We have been engaging with our Iraqi partners, with our Kurdish partners to make sure that that level – that that playing field is level.
So I couldn’t speak to the thinking that may be ongoing in Tehran, but we have been clear that in our estimation these individuals are being held wrongfully, they’re being held unjustly, they’re being held as political pawns, presumably on the part of the Iranian regime to – in an effort to seek to exact leverage or some other concession. It is a practice that is abhorrent. It is a practice that we condemn anywhere and everywhere it takes place. It is a practice that, together with our allies and partners around the world, we are seeking to establish and ultimately to reinforce a norm against this practice and a norm that would require the international community to speak with one voice, to stand up in a united way against this practice, and to hold accountable those countries who would violate what should be an inviolable rule that human beings are not pawns, that individuals should not be wrongfully held for political gain, financial concessions, or for other unjust reasons. Unfortunately, it’s a practice that we see in far too many places around the world.
QUESTION: So will it not reach to a point that you will say that the deal is dead?
And second, can the advances that Iran has made over these years, be it as a result of previous administration or the current policy – can any of these be reversed if a deal is in fact reached in these next couple days or weeks?
MR PRICE: Well, any disputes between Bagdad and Erbil would be disputes between Bagdad and Erbil. We can play – of course play a role to encourage dialogue, to encourage the central government, to encourage Kurdish government officials to resolve those disputes in a way that is constructive and effective, and that’s what we’ve sought to do. We have a number of interests when it comes to Iraq. We have a number of interests when it comes to specifically within Kurdish territory as well. Any dispute between Bagdad and Erbil has the potential to set back those interests and interests that we often do share with the people of Iraq and the Kurdish people as well. So we hope to see them resolved.
QUESTION: Right. Thank you. Let’s start with Iran. So presumably you’ve had a chance to take a look at the – their response to the EU text. What do you make of it?
MR PRICE: No, I’m not —
MR PRICE: I promise we will get to Afghanistan, yes.
QUESTION: Afghanistan?
QUESTION: Can I follow up Iran one more time, please? Yes.
QUESTION: Ukraine?
MR PRICE: We see efforts. The way we see it, these are efforts to de-escalate tensions in the region, but our Gulf partners know that there would be – nothing would de-escalate tensions the way that an Iran that is permanently and verifiably barred from obtaining a nuclear weapon would.
We made very clear – we’ve made very clear that we value the role that they have played in the region. That cooperation, that coordination role will continue. And we see the value of working by, with, and through partners. That includes partners on the ground where applicable, but also our partners and allies more broadly. And of course, over the years we’ve worked very closely with France on matters pertaining to the Sahel, and I expect that will continue.
But the point we have consistently made across the board is that Russia’s brutal and unjustified war against Ukraine makes it vital, now more than ever in some ways, that all countries avoid transactions with Russia’s defense sector. It puts them at risk of sanctions.
QUESTION: Yeah. On China, after Speaker Pelosi’s visit, China fired five missiles into Japan’s exclusive economic zone and claimed that there was no Japanese EEZ that was recognized by China because Japan had failed to negotiate its boundaries. Does the U.S. have a reaction to China’s statement about that? And does the U.S. believe that China’s actions were a violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea?
The second question is Afghan people are still left behind in Afghanistan after Ayman al-Zawahiri is killed. Do you think that U.S. and Afghanistan relationship with the Taliban is still the same? Is still Afghan people can leave Afghanistan?
MR PRICE: Well, in the first instance, that’s a question that’s much better directed towards Tehran. After all, it’s Tehran – it’s the Iranian regime – that has wrongfully held these Americans, these dual nationals, these other third-country nationals for, in some cases, years on an unjustifiable basis. Were it up to us, these Americans would have been home a long time ago.
Yes, sir.
MR PRICE: It was much of the international community. Since the earliest days of this administration, we have focused on once again restoring that unity among our European allies, with partners in the Middle East, to include Israel and to include our Gulf partners as well.
MR PRICE: I’ll let their statement speak for itself, but —
QUESTION: So —
QUESTION: So —
QUESTION: So —
QUESTION: So —
QUESTION: So —
When it comes to Afghanistan’s culture and the singers that you referenced, there are a number of – well, one, we are doing everything we can to protect and to reinforce the rights of the people of Afghanistan who remain in Afghanistan. And in every engagement we have with the Taliban, human rights is at the very top of that agenda, and that includes, of course, the human rights of women, of girls, of Afghanistan’s minorities. Our humanitarian assistance is part and parcel of this. We have continued to lead the world in the level of humanitarian funding that we’ve provided directly to the Afghan people – more than three-quarters of a billion dollars since September of last year. We’ve provided 150 – announced 0 million some odd alone just last week in additional assistance for the people of Afghanistan. So we’ll continue to stand by them as a humanitarian donor and the world’s largest humanitarian donor.
Yes.
MR PRICE: It means that we have spent the past 16 months or so, since the spring of 2021, going over in exhausting detail through a process that has gone on in our estimation for far too long, far longer than it needs to have gone on. We have gone over the big issues, the issues that are at the core of the two key questions that we sought to find answers to starting in the spring of last year. On the one hand, the steps that Iran would need to take to resume its compliance with the JCPOA – that is to say, the steps that Iran would need to take to once again reimpose the verifiable, the permanent limits on its nuclear program – and on the other hand, the steps that the United States would need to be prepared to take in terms of sanctions relief on Iran’s nuclear program if Iran agreed to that proposition.
MR PRICE: So the big issues have been discussed. They have been tabled. We believe they have been largely settled. That was the point of the EU —
QUESTION: — from any member of the GCC that is more than the tepid acceptance of the JCPOA in 2015 than they offered when they were really opposed and they just kind of went along with it as a favor to president – then President Obama?
MR PRICE: Well, two successive administrations now, to count ours as well, has enforced and levied sanctions against Iran. Unfortunately, during that time Iran’s breakout time has only grown shorter and shorter. So if the option were between the status quo and the status quo namely being a position in which Iran’s breakout time could be measures in weeks or even shorter periods versus what we would be able to accrue on the basis of a deal that would be substantially similar to the proposal that was finalized in March, we would prefer to have those permanent, verifiable limits, and that verification and monitoring regime reimposed on Iran so that that breakout time once again extends so that it’s measured in months.
MR PRICE: 2,500th – thank you – day in detention for Siamak Namazi, someone who, of course, has been wrongfully detained for years. The same is true for his father, for other Americans.
MR PRICE: Again, Said, our focus is on de-escalation. We want to see the conditions that undergird the violence that we’ve seen, including recently the rocket fire from Gaza, and in turn —
Yes.
MR PRICE: Well, I will say a couple things. One, as you know, we have not been in direct discussions with the Iranian regime. That has not been our choice. We have said, across a range of issues, including the nuclear issue, that it would be more effective were we in a position to engage directly with Tehran so that we could table and discuss these complex issues directly without having to go through third parties. The same would be true for the Americans and the dual nationals who Iran holds unjustly. We would like to have these discussions in a – through a means by which that is more direct and more effective.
MR PRICE: We’ll see if there’s any more information to provide, but the last I checked, there is a small number that is still there who are undergoing additional vetting. We’ve been able to clear a number of them already. But again, each vetting process is done on a case-by-case basis, and that’s ongoing for those who remain there.
MR PRICE: I’m not sure those are the precise words that are in their statement, but —
MR PRICE: We are not in a position to verify sanctions that other countries have imposed on Americans. It would be the responsibility of those countries to detail any targets who may be sanctioned under their own authorities.
When it comes to the FTO, the President similarly has been clear on that. The FTO designations and other sanctions on the IRGC are beyond the scope of the JCPOA. We have made that point repeatedly. That is certainly an extraneous issue. But, again, not going to detail what precisely we’ve seen in our studies so far of the Iranian response.
QUESTION: Was it?
QUESTION: That really have killed no one. I mean, I’m not condoning it in any way. They are – they targeted probably civilian areas. But as a result, none were killed.
MR PRICE: — were we not prepared from the earliest days to resume compliance with the JCPOA. It wasn’t even after January 20th where we made that clear on the campaign trail. Then-candidate Biden made clear that he would seek the proposition of a mutual return to compliance with the JCPOA. We made that clear during the transition between administrations. And we made that clear very early on after the inauguration.
QUESTION: Then why not go to the plan B that is already – I guess it should be in the back pocket.
QUESTION: Thank you. Iran and North Korea, they cooperate nuclear programs. Iran also exported their technology to North Korea. How did you assess Iran and North Korea’s cooperations nuclear?
QUESTION: One more in Russia. Russian foreign ministry officials who recently met with the North Korea ambassador to Russia announced that Russia was sending North Korean constructor workers to reconstruction project in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. My question is: The work is still going on. Can Russia decide on its own reconstruction project?
MR PRICE: One more on – a couple more on Iran and then we’ll move on.
QUESTION: Really? The Israeli security establishment and the members of the – in the GCC – sorry, where have they come out in support of this? (Inaudible.)
At that time it was a thought experiment. If you distance yourself from the JCPOA through other diplomatic and various coercive means, you might be able to contain Iran’s nuclear program. There at least was a theory. For a while, it was the predominant theory within the last administration. I think the past several years, since May of 2018, have borne out the results of what is no longer a thought experiment. We’ve seen a world in which there is a JCPOA; we are living in a world in which there is not a JCPOA.
QUESTION: — Lapid in support —
MR PRICE: To your first question on Kenya – the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission chair yesterday, of course, declared that William Ruto as the winner of the Kenyan Presidential Election. Going forward, we urge all parties to work together to peacefully resolve any remaining concerns about the election through the existing dispute resolution mechanisms. And we ask all political parties’ leaders to continue to urge their supporters to remain peaceful and to refrain from violence during the electoral process.
QUESTION: Ned, on the 3.5 billion, your answers to this and other people’s answers to this seem to suggest that there was a point over – in the past year, after the withdrawal, that recapitalization of the bank with this money was a serious consideration. Is that in fact correct?
QUESTION: Well, I mean, as they come – there’s timing.
QUESTION: — Afghan central bank .5 billion?
QUESTION: But what does that mean, that “what could be negotiated has been negotiated”? Does that mean that there is nothing —
QUESTION: On Afghanistan?
QUESTION: And in fact, they haven’t changed their tune. The Israeli Government is still opposed to it, and the Saudis, the Emiratis, and the other countries of the Gulf, while they may have said, “Eh, okay,” the same —
And with that unity restored, we have been more effective in imposing costs and consequences on Iran, but even those costs and consequences have not been able to stall in a meaningful way Iran’s nuclear advancements. So we want to see Iran’s breakout time extended; we want to see permanent, verifiable restrictions reimposed on Iran; and we want to see that verification and monitoring regime once again imposed.
MR PRICE: Yes.
QUESTION: Are you chasing any deadlines at the moment to submit your final answer?
So all throughout we have made very clear that we believe the best alternative to the status quo and certainly to the specter of an Iranian nuclear weapon is the JCPOA. There has always been in some ways an open invitation for anyone who thinks that there is a better approach to offer that approach. But consistently what we hear is the approach that has been tried since May of 2018 and that has demonstrably failed. This goes back to the point I made before: it’s no longer a thought experiment what would happen if we abandoned the JCPOA and tried an approach of so-called maximum pressure or if we mounted sanctions. We’ve tried that and we see the results.
The fact of the matter is though that the JCPOA, to our minds – and this is a point that we have reiterated in our briefings with members of Congress – remains the most effective means by which to contain, on a permanent and verifiable basis, Iran’s nuclear program. This is no longer a thought experiment. A couple years ago, a few years ago, one could, on at least a reasonable basis, make the claim that there is a more effective means by which to contain Iran’s nuclear program.
I have gone on for far too long, so let me just take one more question.
MR PRICE: Anything else on Iran before we move on?
MR PRICE: The deal will be dead as soon as it is no longer in our national security interest to pursue. The point I just made in that admittedly long-winded answer to you is that the deal that has been on the table, at least – referring to the deal that’s been on the table since March – for us is a much more advantageous proposition than the status quo.
QUESTION: Afghanistan?
QUESTION: But my question was just if there would be – if there would be consideration in the future for more lily pad sites to be opened up to help process the Afghans who are still in Afghanistan to leave the country.
QUESTION: (Inaudible), but can you – you talked about the countries that were quote/unquote “not wild about the JCPOA” in 2015 – 2014, 2015 having changed their tune.
MR PRICE: Well, number one, my understanding is that these reports emerged in TASS.
