[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[Oppenheimer]

Source: http://www.state.gov


Press Statement
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC
January 20, 2006



The 25th Anniversary of the Release of American Hostages in Iran



Twenty-five years ago today, 52 brave American diplomats returned to freedom after 444 days of unjust captivity at the hands of Iranian hostage-takers. Following the violent takeover of the U.S. Embassy by Iranian militants, an outrageous violation of international law, our citizens suffered psychological torment and physical brutality. On behalf of the Secretary and all their State Department colleagues, I extend our sincere gratitude and admiration to these genuine American heroes.

2006/73


Released on January 20, 2006


--------------------

Daily Press Briefing
Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC

Thursday, January 19, 2006

(excerpt)

QUESTION: The United States and Iran signed an agreement on January 19, 1981,
exactly 25 years ago regarding the release of 52 hostages held in Iran at that
time for more than 14 months. One of the general principles of that agreement
was the pledge of non-intervention in Iranian affairs by the U.S. Government.
My question: Is that pledge still valid and is there any contradiction between
this pledge and supporting the aspiration of the Iranian people by the United
States Government, as President and Secretary of State said many times that
they're supporting the Iranian people?

MR. MCCORMACK: We continue to abide by our commitments by outlined by the
Algiers Accord, but I don't see any contradiction between that commitment to
abide by our treaty commitments and supporting the aspirations of the Iranian
people. They have gotten a regime that they don't deserve.

Iran for centuries was at the crossroads of civilization. It is a great
culture, it is a great people and it is a great country. And what they have now
is a regime that has taken steps over the course of the years and accelerated
those steps in recent months that have served to isolate Iran from the rest of
the world. And that isolation is continuing to increase to the point where in
the near future, I expect that Iran will find itself -- the Iranian regime will
find itself before the Security Council for violations of its obligations under
the Nonproliferation Treaty. So this Iranian regime is taking the Iranian
people 180 degrees opposite where the rest of the region is headed. The rest of
the region is headed towards a direction of greater political freedoms. Those
include opening up political systems for greater participation. It's a greater
investment by those populations. Freedom of speech, freedom of press and
economic freedoms. These are all things -- these are all things that we believe
all people desire, including the Iranian people.

So we have made statements in the past you can go back to, beginning with
President Bush's statement on July 12th of 2002, saying that we stand with the
Iranian people in their aspirations for a better way of life, for greater
freedoms, greater economic prosperity. But that is for the Iranian people to
determine what course their political system takes.

QUESTION: Are you going toward change in the political system in Iran, a change
of regime, or just you want some -- I mean, you want radical change or --

MR. MCCORMACK: What we've called for is a change in the behavior of the Iranian
regime. This is a regime that is, as I said, 180 degrees opposite where its
neighbors are headed. It's a state sponsor of terror. It continues to oppress
its own people. One recent example is the regime has forbidden the playing of
classical music, Beethoven, in Iran. And it is also pursuing weapons of mass
destruction, in this case nuclear weapons, in contravention of its treaty
obligations.

So what we're looking for from the Iranian regime is a change in behavior. And
you know, the Iranian regime points to the fact that it had an election. Well,
this is an election where even before anybody was able to put a piece of paper
in a ballot box, more than 1,000 candidates that said that they wanted to run
in the presidential election were taken off or forbidden from running. They
were forbidden from running by a small group of people who actually run Iran,
who actually control the levers of power in Iran. That isn't a democratic --
that is not the democratic way of governing.

QUESTION: Then you're not calling for an overthrow of the regime?

MR. MCCORMACK: What we're calling for is a change in the behavior of the
Iranian regime.

Yes.

QUESTION: Iranian President Ahmedi-Nejad is in Syria today and the two
countries seem to close rounds. They said that they reject the pressure exerted
on Iran about nuclear -- its nuclear program and they support the resistance
against -- the Palestinian resistance against Israel. Do you have any comment
on this?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think the general comment that I made about Iran finding
itself -- the Iranian regime finding itself in complete -- going in completely
the opposite direction from the rest of the region, there's actually one
exception to that, and that's Syria. Syria is going right along with them, 180
degrees opposite from where the rest of the region is headed.

These are both oppressive, authoritarian regimes. They both support -- are
state sponsors of terror. You mentioned the fact that they apparently -- I
haven't seen the statement -- apparently take pride in the fact that they are
continuing to support Palestinian rejectionist groups. Well, this is, again, in
direct contradiction to where world opinion is headed. I would refer you back
to recent statements from the Quartet, which includes the United States, the EU
and the UN. These statements call upon Damascus to close down the offices of
Palestinian rejectionist groups and to shut off support for those groups.

So instead, what we see -- what we see from these two -- the leaders of these
two regimes is actually taking pride in that. You know who is actually
suffering the most from the Syrian actions and the actions of the Iranian
Government? It's the Palestinian people, the people that they supposedly say
that they are fighting on behalf of. What they are doing, in effect, is
thwarting the will of the Palestinian people for a better future, for a more
peaceful future, for a democratic future.

So again, I think that all you can say about the fact that these two -- the
leaders of these two regimes have gotten together is the fact that all it does
is highlight the fact that they themselves are isolated from the rest of the
world. Syria is currently under UN Security Council resolution and I expect in
the not too distant future, Iran will find itself before the Security Council.
So in essence, they do have a lot in common but it's a sad comment on the fact
-- it's a sad comment that these two great peoples now find themselves
increasingly isolated from the rest of the world because of the actions of
their leaders.

QUESTION: But don't you think that Iran and Syria can influence what's going on
in the area? I mean, they have many -- they have influence in Iraq, in Lebanon
and, of course --

MR. MCCORMACK: I think, certainly over time, we have seen that the march of
freedom is stronger than any oppressive authoritarian regime and that
ultimately the fact that you have people around the region calling for greater
freedoms, calling for more investment in their own political processes so they
can elect leaders that reflect their will, will ultimately have much more
influence over Syria and Iran than vice versa.

Yes.

QUESTION: Change of subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Can we stay on Iran, please?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: Secretary Robert Joseph discussed Iranian nuclear problems today with
Russian officials in Moscow. Any details on that?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't. I haven't talked to them, so I don't have any
particular readout for you. Under Secretary Joseph is traveling to the -- he
has been to Vienna. He's currently in Moscow, and I believe he's also going to
Tokyo. There may be additional stops that he is making. Under Secretary Nick
Burns traveled to London where he had discussions about the Iranian issue --
the Iranian nuclear issue. He's currently in India, where he is having -- the
primary focus of his discussions is on US-India civil nuclear agreement and
implementation of that agreement. But I expect he's also going to talk about
Iran as well. That's on the agenda. And then he'll be continuing on to Sri
Lanka.

That's a long way of saying that there's a lot of diplomatic activity
concerning next diplomatic steps, regarding Iran. And what happens after the
IAEA emergency Board of Governors meeting and what next steps would be taken in
the UN Security Council. That's a big part of what he's talking about, but I
don't have any particular readout of his discussions with the Russian
Government.

---------end excerpt----------

Comment:

It would be the President himself who would announce a major shift in US policy such as "regime change" in Iran.



--------------------

Remarks to the Press With Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran


R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary for Political Affairs

New Delhi, India
January 20, 2006


(excerpts)

FOREIGN SECRETARY SARAN: We remain very supportive of the initiative taken by
the European-3 to engage Iran in finding an amicable solution to some of the
issues which have been raised with regard to the Iranian nuclear program. We
have been extremely supportive of that process. And it stands to reason that,
you know, India -- which has with Iran a very long-standing, close, and what we
call a 'civilizational' relationship with its people -- that we would not like
to see a situation of confrontation developing in a region that is very close
to India. Therefore, our advice has always been that confrontation should be
avoided. This is the message that we have given to our friends -- this is a
message which, by the way, we have also given to our Iranian friends -- that an
effort needs to be made in order to avoid a situation of confrontation from
developing. We also believe that in dealing with this issue, it is important to
develop as broad an international consensus as possible. And much of our effort
over the last several weeks has been directed towards developing that
international consensus. And that is the spirit in which we have also discussed
this matter in the last couple of days, both with the United States of America,
as also a representative of the EU-3, who has been on a visit to India
recently, as well as with Iran.

.........

QUESTION: (inaudible) equating India's nuclear program with Iran and accusing
the United States of double standards?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, I saw Dr. Larijani's remarks, which asserted this
kind of double standard, and frankly, I think everyone was surprised by them.
They were outrageous remarks from our perspective, because how is it possible
to compare India with Iran in the nuclear sphere? On the one hand, you have a
country -- India -- that has never been a proliferator, that has been very
responsible in safeguarding its nuclear technology. On the other hand, you have
a government and a regime in Iran, which the IAEA says for 18 years conducted
secret nuclear research without revealing it to the IAEA; a government that
just last week unilaterally lifted the seals placed by the IAEA on the
centrifuge facility at Natanz -- lifted it off unilaterally, said it would
violate its agreement, in essence, with the European Union, by proceeding in
nuclear research; a government that has earned the criticism of Russia, of
China, of the European countries, of my own country, over the past two weeks.

I was in London earlier this week, meeting with the European-3 governments,
with the Russian and Chinese governments, and while we don't have identical
views on this -- and I can't speak for those other governments I can tell you
what united us. Each of the governments that I mentioned that met in London
this past Monday, just a couple of days ago, believes that Iran has crossed a
line it should not have crossed. It should heed the advice of Dr. El Baradei in
the IAEA and return to negotiations. It should suspend its nuclear activities.
It should not engage in centrifuge research, much less enrichment. My own
government would say it should not engage in uranium conversion at the plant at
Isfahan. So, Iran has clearly miscalculated. And the United States believes
that there should be a vote of the IAEA Board of Governors on February 2nd, and
there should be referral to the Security Council. Because, since Iran has
crossed so many international red lines, Iran has to know that there's going to
be a penalty to be paid for such actions. That's the American view on Iran. But
for Dr. Larijani to assert somehow some equality between India and Iran by
asserting a double standard is quite outrageous, and it's quite off the mark.

[cyrus]

Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you for good post.
Thanks,
Cyrus