Obama defines dispute with Netanyahu on Iran

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Press Release)–During a joint press conference  Monday, Feb. 9, with Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, U.S. President Barack Obama defined his differences with Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu concerning the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.  Here is a text of his comments on that subject, as provided by the White House.

 
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?  Also, sir, some have suggested that you are outraged by the Israeli Prime Minister’s decision to address Congress.  Is that so?  And how would you advise Democrats who are considering a boycott?

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.