Press Availability

MS HARF: As Under Secretary Sherman is preparing to enter her last week at the State Department, we thought it made sense to sit down and talk about some of the issues she’s worked on. And I’m sure you got questions for her as she departs, and she has many thoughts, so I think you’ll do a couple remarks at the top and then go to questions.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: So my first week as Under Secretary for Political Affairs was at the UN General Assembly. I got confirmed on a Thursday, packed up my office on Friday, and over the weekend went to New York. That’s where I got sworn in, and this will be my fifth UN General Assembly, quite a way to end my four years here at the State Department, and very personally important to me. My folks were at the founding of the UN General Assembly and I have an extraordinary scrapbook. My dad was an active-duty Marine and – but he was back in the country on disability at the time because he had been wounded at Guadalcanal, and he and my mother believed that there should never be war again. And so he got active organizing what became the American Veterans Committee and getting engaged in the UN General Assembly. So it’s personally pretty meaningful.

But thanks for coming today. We’ve done a lot of these throughout the year, many of them on Iran, of course, in cities all around the world. And I actually will miss talking to you all. You all have been --

MS HARF: Even you, Matt.

QUESTION: Said with a straight face. (Laughter.)

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Yeah. And no drink in my hand, Matt. (Laughter.)

MS HARF: Which also happened at UNGA.

QUESTION: We still have another UNGA.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: We do have another UNGA. You all really have been part of this journey and you’ve done your job shedding light on what we’re doing. Sometimes we like the light, sometimes we don’t much like the light, but you’ve done your jobs. And whether we’re cooped up in a hotel or hopscotching around the world following Secretary Kerry, I know you all are never very far away. And these days – computers, cell phones – it’s instantaneous.

So I just wanted to talk about a few of the high points and then answer your questions. When I began this job, I was the first Under Secretary for Political Affairs who was a woman, ever, which is a sad commentary, but at least that particular glass ceiling is now broken and changed. And the world was very different four years ago. The nuclear talks with Iran four years ago were at a total standstill under President Ahmadinejad. Our Cuba policy was stuck in a Cold War mindset that many people never thought could be broken, especially politically in this country. ISIL did not, for all intents and purposes, exist four years ago. Russia was not in Ukraine but was in the G8 at the time. We had no idea how to get chemical weapons out of Syria. Chris Stevens was moving things ahead in Libya. Egypt was led by Hosni Mubarak. The thought of a change or a coup or a real upheaval in Mali was not even contemplated. And we had massive numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now four years later, that and so much more has changed.

If I’ve learned anything as Under Secretary, it’s that we have to keep finding the right balance between pushing our proactive agenda – much of which you’ll see focused in UNGA next week, whether that’s peacekeeping, CVE, the post – the 2030 goals, Sustainable Development Goals, the follow-on to the MDGs, Syria, of course, and many, many other issues. We also have to balance that with putting out the fires that come our way. And what I learned – I’ve been at the State Department on and off in total for 11 years of my professional life so far, and the incoming is relentless, as you all know, and so one has to deal with the incoming as you try to move a proactive agenda, climate also being very much at the top of the list for UNGA.

The hotspots have the potential to drown everything else out, particularly in the viral internet world in which we live. But I’ve tried to work very hard to ensure they don’t suck out all of the oxygen from what we do here at the State Department, and even during the Iran negotiations, try to find my way to the G7 in Germany, to Ethiopia for 48 hours in between negotiating rounds, and to try to find my way around to over 54 countries and 97 different trips, and lots and lots of time in Geneva and Vienna, as you all well know.

On Iran, we’re entering the implementation phase of this very long journey. I truthfully don’t know exactly how it will all play out. I’m hopeful. I know there will be bumps along the way; I have no doubt. The agreement is very complicated, very – many moving parts. There will be challenges with implementation; but with Ambassador Steve Mull taking the helm of the implementation, with Tom Shannon having been nominated as my replacement as the next Under Secretary for political affairs – and I hope he gets confirmed quickly – I think that we will have tremendous leadership for moving this forward.

We’re going to be exceedingly vigilant to ensure Iran is doing what it has committed to do. This is the time when the agreement becomes real. Adoption Day, as you know, is October 18th, and Implementation Day will come as quickly as Iran and all of us can implement the steps that we have committed to doing.

People have asked me if I think we have a chance now to fundamentally alter our relationship with Iran after three decades of distrust, to change how we do business by being able to talk about things beyond the nuclear file. I’ve obviously thought a lot about that and had lots of discussion with my Iranian counterparts on the margins of the nuclear talks. I firmly believe that dialogue is better than the alternative. Finding a way to talk to countries, as President Obama and Secretary Kerry are very committed to doing, is, in general, better than not talking with others.

So while I don’t think this moment represents a major breakthrough in our relationship beyond the nuclear deal, I do think it exemplifies why refusing to talk to people with whom we have huge disagreements may well not serve our interests. And I think it’s a good thing that those lines of communication are now quite open all the way up to the Secretary of State level, and I am in regular touch both by email and phone with my Iranian counterparts.

One of those issues that – where we disagree very strongly with Iran, but where it may make sense to have some kind of discussion, is Syria. You’ll hear a lot at UNGA next week about Syria, about trying to find a diplomatic path forward, about confronting what is called a migrant crisis but at a personal level, I believe is a refugee crisis, and about the progress we’ve made against ISIL in the campaign this year that’s been underway. I’ve worked on all of these issues as Under Secretary and many, many more, and none of the issues on which I work are as challenging as Syria – is as challenging as Syria, none as heartbreaking, none as confounding from a policy perspective. There are no easy answers in Syria, and people who say otherwise aren’t being intellectually honest with themselves. This is staggeringly complex, difficult, and can’t be reduced to a simple answer.

But Syria is an example for me of how in the absence of easy answers or one silver bullet that can fix the situation we have to keep pushing forward to address whatever we can. That’s what we did with chemical weapons in the agreement; within 48 hours this government put an interagency team together, agreed on a policy – which you all know is staggeringly fast for the United States Government. Under Secretary Kerry’s leadership and with my help, we went to Geneva, and over a weekend found a way to get chemical weapons out of Syria. So difficult things can get done if the circumstances and the stars align and the good work is done to do so.

As I’ve said, I traveled to over 54 countries, including all the really tough places – Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and onward. I’ve led a team of diplomats working on issues from the South China Sea to sub-Saharan Africa. We’ve dealt with new threats on the terrorism front, including confronting a level of brutality against American hostages that has taken on an even more evil and more public character in the past year.

I’ve watched as we ended conflicts and became engaged in new ones. We’ve seen a health crisis take hold but then come back from the brink, with a huge contribution from the United States and our expertise.

And coming to the end here, the one constant is that there is a powerful hunger for American leadership on virtually every single issue. It takes a different form everywhere to be sure, but for people who say we’re disengaged or not doing enough to promote our interests and values, they’re simply not paying attention. People ask me what hits me most about government service, and what I say is people have no idea of the hard work that my colleagues do day in, day out that nobody knows anything about. You all may more than most, but even you don’t know all of the little things and medium-size things that my diplomatic colleagues and public servants, Civil Service, Foreign Service and locally employed public servants do every day to make people’s lives better and try to ensure a more peaceful world.

So as I leave the State Department, the world feels more complicated than many times in history. It appears that there are many crises and hard to know how to get from here to there. We have come back from the brink of an economic depression in our own country during these four years and beyond, and really moved forward with tremendous growth in this country and hopefully can help others to do the same. This is a time of enormous opportunity – not only protecting our planet and making sure our families don’t feel that their only option to survive a journey – their only option to survive is a journey on a boat across a treacherous sea. There’s a lot more to be done. We’re all very fortunate that I have many, many colleagues here who will continue the work, and I will certainly do what I can from the outside looking in and will probably have a thing or two to say over the months ahead.

So let me stop there, and I’ll be glad to take your questions.

QUESTION: Can you shed any light --

MS HARF: Matt, do you want to go first?

QUESTION: Yeah, I have to leave quickly.

MS HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: If I can just ask very briefly, in terms of what you said about Syria is one place where broader talks with Iran would make sense, and I’m just wondering if, when the Secretary meets with Zarif tomorrow, is this something that’s going to happen like – or could happen imminently? I mean, has the President said yes, I think this is a good idea, we can go ahead with --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: We’ve always been open to having discussions on the margins as appropriate – not because we coordinate, but we certainly know that there are parallel interests. There are great political sensitivities in Iran to having these discussions and probably some limits that are real, but it is important to engage to the extent that we can. I suspect that when the Secretary speaks with the Foreign Minister on Saturday, we will, of course, talk about JCPOA implementation, we will absolutely talk about the American citizens who remain in prison in – detained in Iran, and missing. American Robert Levinson will be very high on the agenda for that conversation. But my guess is there will at least be some listening if not some talking between the ministers about other situations, including Syria.

QUESTION: And do you see potentially bringing the Russians into something like this?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, the Secretary, as you know, has had conversations with Foreign Minister Lavrov. And one of the things that I was privileged to be part of was the meeting with Putin for four hours in Sochi. We know that you know now that President Obama is going to meet with President Putin, and the two topics that are high on the agenda for that meeting are Ukraine and Syria. There will be other meetings that will take place during UNGA that will address Syria that will become apparent over the days ahead. And how groups and countries will get aligned in trying to think through this issue I think remains to be seen, Matt.

QUESTION: Okay. And then very last, on implemention. Is the – what is there to – what is there to talk about right now? I mean, don’t they just have to do it?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: They have to do it, but everything has a lot of detailed procedures that go with it. So to get the stockpile out or to make sure the stockpile gets down to 300 kilograms, if indeed it’s – (inaudible) keeps going down and up, it’s really quite something – to (laughter). How was that (inaudible)? It’s sort of my life, up and down.

MS HARF: Do you – (inaudible) one of these?

QUESTION: Do you want mine there? It’s a high one.

QUESTION: I’m sure this --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: No, no, no, no, it’s okay.

QUESTION: But is it anything more than just kind of telling them, look, you’ve got to live up to your end? I mean, there’s not much more to --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: To live up to their end, but there are – we and the Chinese are working to help where the Arak reactor is by leading the working group on the Arak reactor with all of the participation of the P5+1, the European Union. The Russians are helping on the stockpile and the stable isotopes. There are a lot of specifics that have to happen, so I think there’s discussion and concern about our guidelines for sanctions relief and sanctions lifting. So there’s a lot of conversation to be had here. People want to make sure that we cross all the T’s, dot all the I’s, and people do what they committed to do.

QUESTION: Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Sure.

QUESTION: Do the --

MS HARF: Sure. Paul. Wait, sorry. Paul.

QUESTION: Yes. I just wanted to ask about your comments about talking to the Iranians about Syria. Do you think it’s possible that there might be some way to set up a more or less permanent channel with the Iranians about Syria, something other than – that is a little less ad hoc than --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I truly don’t know, Paul. I think, as I said, there are very strong political sensitivities, differences within Iran about whether there should be discussions with the United States. I think there are serious limitations to what Foreign Minister Zarif can do in any formal sense right now. So as I said, there will probably be some listening as well as some talking.

MS HARF: Jay – or do you want to follow up, Lesley? Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: During the Iran talks, did you ever have a discussion with them specifically on Syria?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: We had many – not many, but we’ve always said that on the margins of the nuclear talks, the only formal discussions we had were about the American citizens who were detained. But in informal conversations, there was probably not any topic that we didn’t have some conversation about, including Syria.

MS HARF: And Yemen.

QUESTION: And then some --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: And Yemen, and Iraq, and the world at large.

QUESTION: And then --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: And ISIL.

QUESTION: And as the Secretary’s trying to pull together this new diplomatic effort, do you – I mean, if you – there is an acknowledgment in this building that you have to have the Iranians in the room to decide on what’s going on to – on Assad specifically. You can have the Russians, but the main backer is the Iranians. Do you think that they should be in there from the get-go, or do you think that you can bring them in later and have that conversation?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I think there are many ways that things can proceed in Syria. I think that we have partners in the region that we are very committed to. We are very concerned, as you know, about Iran’s support for Hizballah, and we certainly would not support any effort that increases the weight of that proxy. In fact, Hizballah should be out of Syria; Hizballah should not be a threat to Israel, and that is an ongoing concern of ours in all of this. So whether this becomes a direct engagement – which will be quite difficult – or whether it happens in other circles, I think, remains to be seen.

QUESTION: But Iran needs to be involved in that?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I think the – I think everyone has said that Iran certainly has interests in this region. Some of them are parallels to ours and some of them we quite disagree with and think are a threat to the region. And we have spent considerable time with the Gulf countries, with Jordan, with Israel, about their security concerns where Iran is concerned and Iran projecting power in the region in ways that destabilize the region. And that is a significant concern. So if there are ways to change that equation, that increase the security of the Gulf states, increase the security of Israel, and we can work with our partners to do so, we want to.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: How about the --

QUESTION: Would --

MS HARF: Jay, wait, hold on. I cut Jay off a little bit ago.

QUESTION: How about the Assad regime? Is there any more sense that they should be engaged, and have there been any communications between the U.S. and Assad in recent months, either directly or through third parties?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well look, the President has been very clear, the Secretary has been very clear, we do not think it is credible for Assad to remain for any length of time as the leader of his country, that he has lost all credibility to lead his country through the use of chemical weapons, through barrel bombs. We appreciate that there may be a political solution where Assad is there for some period of time in some capacity while a transition takes place, but there is no question in anyone’s mind – and I think even those who support Assad right now understand that he has lost his credibility with his own people, his contract with his own people by the horrific actions that he has taken over the past years, and that the other players in the region will not stand down from the commitment to his not being a leader of people whom he has really destroyed. He’s destroyed his own country and he has left the vacuum for ISIL to move in.

So I don’t think it’s a question of whether Assad has a long-term future in Syria. I don’t believe that he does.

QUESTION: But have there been contacts, either directly or through third parties, with the regime?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: We have not had direct contacts to discuss the future of the Assad regime. But of course, Russia has and Iran has, and there may be others who have had as well.

QUESTION: You’ve had – have you had any contacts, either direct or indirect, with the Assad Government, regardless of the topic, in recent months, let’s say, the last several months?

MS HARF: I mean, if you talk about indirect – like, talking to the Russians who then talk to them – is that what you’re talking about?

QUESTION: Yeah. Firstly direct. Has there been no direct?

MS HARF: I don’t know.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Where the conflict in Syria’s concerned, there have been no direct.

QUESTION: Outside of the conflict in Syria?

QUESTION: But regarding other things, it’s possible that there’s been discussions?

QUESTION: Against ISIS.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Hm?

QUESTION: Against ISIS.

MS HARF: But no – but last year we did say that Ambassador Power – we said this on the record last year, that Ambassador Power – remember, she talked to her – the ambassador at the UN to tell him when we were going – when we began strikes. Do you remember that?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS HARF: We said that on the record at the time.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Yes. That is true.

QUESTION: So what were you going to – we can go off the record if there’s something more to it than that.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I think the most important thing is that we want to make sure that any strikes that we have taken don’t get misinterpreted and therefore create risk for our own troops.

QUESTION: So basically, that channel – or a channel on that topic alone has continued. Is that --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Ambassador Power has that relationship if it’s needed.

MS HARF: Samir.

QUESTION: Do you expect the Secretary to make any effort to reconcile between Minister Zarif and the Saudis at the UN?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I don’t think this is probably going to be the time or the place where we’re going to be the ones who resolve a relationship that has a very, very long history, for understandable reasons. I know that there’s been lots of discussion by lots of people about how important it would be for Saudi Arabia and Iran to find a place where they can live with each other, but I certainly understand the Saudis concern about Iranian actions that have created a destabilized situation. I know that Foreign Minister Zarif has made some efforts. He went to the funeral of the King of Saudi Arabia. So there have been some positive efforts as well.

QUESTION: Can I follow up?

MS HARF: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: During your talks, informal talks with Iranians on the margin of the negotiations, did you ever ask the Iranians to let Lebanon elect a president?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: We’ve been clear with everyone that we think that Lebanon deserves a president. (Laughter.)

There is of course the --

QUESTION: Thank you. I’ve got to run. I’ll see you in New York.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Sure, Matt. Yeah, see you in New York.

MS HARF: With that drink. You better have that drink.

QUESTION: Indeed.

QUESTION: Obama-Netanyahu meeting coming up. But ahead of that, what’s going to take place especially next week at UNGA, if anything, to mend fences between the U.S. and Israel concerning the Iran deal? And in particular, are there any U.S. initiatives that are under consideration with Israel to help them, perhaps, feel more comfortable with the deal or feel like they have more of a say-so in Iran’s compliance?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, look, we have had very close consultations with Israel throughout this whole process. We will on implementation as well. I would expect American diplomats to be flying back and forth to Israel on a regular basis and ensuring that those consultations on implementation take place. I would expect that the Secretary will have discussions while he is in New York. I – and our relationship with Israel, I believe, is as rock-solid as it’s ever been. Yes, we went through a difficult time. We didn’t have a moment to breathe after Vienna; we were immediately into a very difficult battle on Capitol Hill, which we prevailed, but it was – took a lot of work to do so.

But the President’s been very clear that we want to make sure that what we would have always done, which is to negotiate a new 10-year MOU with Israel about Israel’s security continues, that we ensure that as every president has done in every term, increased our commitment in whatever way is possible, and those discussions have begun and will continue.

QUESTION: Do you have a sense on whether Israel is any more comfortable now with the outcome with the deal than it might have been say a couple of months ago?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: You’ll have to ask the Israelis how they feel about it.

QUESTION: Can I ask you a question about – as you reflect on your tenure here, do you ever worry that the nuclear deal with Iran could go the way of the nuclear deal with North Korea? And are there – what parts of the new deal with Iran are you most worried about when it comes to implementing it?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: It’s so different than the North Korea deal, and just for the record, because people get very confused, I didn’t negotiate the agreed framework. I was the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. I helped it get through Congress in terms of the funding for KEDO, and when I negotiated with North Korea it was to try to get a missile moratorium so they wouldn’t have a delivery vehicle for a nuclear weapon if they got to one. And during the entire Clinton Administration, not one ounce of fissile material was added to the fissile material, which was plutonium that North Korea had at the beginning of the Clinton Administration. It was only after the Clinton Administration that they got enough fissile material for many nuclear weapons and they have all of those nuclear weapons, as we’ve seen in the tests that have taken place.

So this is an – such a different deal. That was a four-page agreement. This is many, many, many, many, many pages, as you all know. This is incredibly detailed. This covers uranium, plutonium, and covert. The North Korea nuclear agreement only covered plutonium. There was no Additional Protocol; in fact, the Additional Protocol got created in part as a reaction to the failures of the North Korea agreement. It’s just an entirely, entirely different situation, and Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon and didn’t have highly enriched uranium or weapons-grade plutonium ready to go for a nuclear weapon at the time we put this deal together.

So couldn’t be a more different situation. But it is a very complicated deal. There are a lot of pieces to it. They all have to get implemented. The most hopeful part is that we did have the Joint Plan of Action, and everything that Iran was supposed to do they did. That is hopeful for compliance for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. But it’s an agreement that has to be implemented not just once but constantly for many, many years. And it is possible, I suppose, whether it is in this country, another country, or in Iran, that the administrations can change and people take a different approach to this. I think the faster the compliance on everybody’s part, the better the compliance, the greater the sustainability of the deal.

MS HARF: Jay.

QUESTION: How do you respond to criticisms that would say that our Syria policy was basically held hostage to the Iranian negotiations? I’ve heard from Iranian sources that during the talks – or maybe not through the P5+1 – but it was communicated that if we started to hit
Assad in 2013 like we said we were, the process would have died.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Truly, I have never heard – that has never been a consideration in the policy discussions that I’ve been part of, and I’ve been part of most of them. We – excuse me, if there’s any water around, I’d love it – bad allergies.

There is – the nuclear deal wasn’t held hostage to anything but its own terms, and this was frustrating to a lot of our partners because they wanted us to fix everything with Iran, as you saw in the congressional debate. And I understand that sentiment. There’s a lot to be fixed, whether it’s human rights in Iran, Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region, state sponsorship of terrorism. All of that is quite real. But the nuclear deal was about the nuclear deal, because if Iran had a nuclear weapon, as I’ve said to you all before, the ability to project power would be even greater and the deterrence effect would have been horrific.

So it was critical to deal with that while at the same time continuing all of our efforts to deal with all of those other issues, which we are continuing to do and intensifying those efforts. So I don’t think they’re connected.

QUESTION: Can I just have a follow-up too?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Yeah.

QUESTION: I saw Adam Szubin speak about a week ago and he was the hardest I’ve ever seen of a U.S. official saying anyone doing any business with the IRGC companies or entities will get – have – will get sanctioned under our secondary sanctions.

And I guess I still wonder: Do the Iranians really know that? Because if you look at the Iranian economy, if you’re going to do any big telecom infrastructure anything in Iran in the next couple of years, I don’t see how you do it without doing it with an IRGC entity, and I just don’t know how the Iranians are going to say – if we really start hitting French telecom companies that are doing something with the IRGC they’re going to say this is a breach.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, I think it depends, and Adam and his colleagues at Treasury, and Chris Backemeyer, my colleagues here at State are working on the guidance around sanctions lifting and what is an IRGC entity and what is a sub-sub-sub-subsidiary. So I think people are working through all of those issues, but yes, I think the Iranians are quite well aware what sanctions remain because of our counterterrorism laws, because of our human rights laws, and that’s – makes this very complicated. No two ways about it. But I think even given that, if Iran takes all of its actions that it’s supposed to on the nuclear-related side, and I believe they will, they will get significant sanctions lifting.

QUESTION: Can I ask about Parchin? There’s a lot of different interpretations regarding whether the IAEA team was actually physically there or not. Can you maybe clear that up for us, please?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: The IAEA team –

QUESTION: At Parchin, were they physically standing there, or can you tell us off the record?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I would – I would send you to the IAEA.

QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up? (Laughter.) Given that --

MS HARF: This is good. This is --

QUESTION: I had nothing to do with it.

QUESTION: Debbie Wasserman Schultz came out and said that she went to a Situation Room meeting and was told certifiably that a certain wire report was wrong in that Iran will have no self-inspection. Who told her that, and what was the argument that the Administration was making to people like her?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I have no idea. I have no idea.

QUESTION: You have no idea.

MS HARF: Who told her that, yeah.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Who told her that.

QUESTION: And what – what was the argument that Iran would indeed – that the IAEA would indeed be doing the inspection?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: All I can say to you is that – is refer you to the IAEA and what the director general said last week, which is that they are satisfied that their prerogatives are preserved and that the actions that Iran took and they took are technically authenticated, and they are satisfied with where they are and how they’re proceeding.

MS HARF: And the IAEA also said there’s no self-inspection. I mean, they used a term that was close.

QUESTION: Well, they basically – they have an interesting understanding of self-inspection, apparently, which can mean self-investigation versus self-inspection are two different things, but if you don’t go on site, you’re not inspecting.

MS HARF: I think --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, the director general did say he did make a visit with Taro.

QUESTION: After the – afterward.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: And with (inaudible).

QUESTION: And why do we have to stay quiet on it when the Iranians don’t? I mean, they’re all over the press talking about this secret agreement that we apparently aren’t allowed to talk about, but they have said no one – no one was at the site, Amano was there for just a few minutes. It just seems a weird imbalance where they can talk about a confidential agreement but we can’t.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: We subscribe to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement and that some things are safeguards confidential, and we believe in that. And we can only speak for ourselves and Iran will speak for itself.

QUESTION: Did the Iranians finalize their approval of the agreement in parliament?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: They expect that that will happen next week, and I think they believe that it will come to a close and to whatever recommendation they’re going to make or decision they’re going to take sometime next week.

QUESTION: Thank you.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: That’s what they’ve told me. We’ll see.

QUESTION: What will happen if they don’t approve it? It means Khamenei doesn’t want the agreement?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I don’t know. I don’t know.

QUESTION: Is there any indecision on our part, like – or we just think this is theatrics that they’re going to --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Do I think they will approve it? I think they will find their way to approving it; yes, I do. And I think that’s the hope and expectation of the Iranians, but we’ll see.

QUESTION: What do you consider your most memorable moment in these weeks and months of negotiations? Is there a moment that stands out to you?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: What popped in my head is the ability to go to sleep. (Laughter.) Look, I think getting the deal, obviously, was extraordinary. Two years – really four years for me of very hard work and the amazing, amazing team of people in this government and the other governments who worked so hard on this. The reason you don’t hear from me some huge moment of celebration and elation is, as soon as we did the deal, before we left Vienna, we were already on the phone with members of Congress. We were already on the phone with – doing outreach with groups all over our country. So we didn’t even get a moment to say, wow, this is pretty – this is a historic moment. Whether it makes history or not remains to be seen, but it was certainly a historic moment.

So I think that was – it was extraordinary. And the one – I will say that last week, I think you all know that we had upstairs for the whole Iran team a reception that the Secretary put together because he wanted to thank the whole Iran team. And much to everybody’s complete shock, the President of the United States showed up, and I was thrilled for the team that he did. I didn’t know he was coming, the Secretary didn’t know he was coming, until he came. And --

QUESTION: You weren’t even there, right?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I wasn’t even there, and the Secretary wasn’t there when he came. No, I was in a SVTC with Lisa Monaco. So the Secretary was saying – doing Dan Feldman’s farewell. So – but we came in before he left, which was fortunate. But it was almost better that we weren’t there because it was about the team. It was about these extraordinary people who – particularly the technical people who had worked so hard and put this all together and put their entire hearts and souls, their families on the line, their relationships on the line to make this commitment of public service. So that at least gave everybody a moment.

I should also say, because I’ve thought about this – Marie asked me this morning what was the hardest moment in these four years, and without a doubt it was Benghazi. It was the night Chris Stevens died. I was up most of that night and on the phone with Beth Jones all of the time because she – I was the Under Secretary, she was the Assistant Secretary. And I was at Andrews Air Force Base to welcome the coffins after Kenya and Tanzania, and I was back for the return of these coffins. And there is just nothing more awful. Anne Smedinghoff. I was in Afghanistan and I talked to the first and second tour folks, and she was part of that group, and to think delivering books her life ends. And the guy who often did the logistics for us in Geneva and in Lausanne --

MS HARF: And in Lausanne, yeah.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: -- was a guy who has lost hearing in both of his ears – he wears hearing aids – because he had been with Anne Smedinghoff when she died, and the blast took away his hearing, most of his hearing. And it’s just – I said in my farewell remarks when the Secretary had a farewell event for me this week that when I go on airplanes, which has been often, and they say at the beginning, “All service members are free to board,” I feel like all of the State Department folks who are there should be able to board too, because they do service and they put their lives on the line too. And most of the American public doesn’t realize that.

But every day I wake up – and this is quite different than when I was here before during both Christopher and Albright’s tenure, though it started to change under Albright’s tenure. Every day starts with what embassy is at risk. I spent the last few days in Ouagadougou worried about folks there because of the attempted, perhaps, coup that is now – appears to be resolved. But every day, that’s – that is first thing in the morning: Who’s at risk? Who’s at risk?

QUESTION: Can – go ahead, please.

QUESTION: Just another Iran question. I’m curious still --

MS HARF: Just to play the type, Jay. Don’t worry.

QUESTION: Like, what did you learn – from the beginning to the end did you learn most about how that regime operates? I mean, because those reporters – it was still like, was Zarif really empowered by the supreme leader? Was there really coordination? Were they getting sandbagged? Four years of it, you must’ve got a sense on how that regime operates, and I was just curious what your – what you – what the most you learned about it.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I think, first, that Iran has politics. We tend to think because there is a Supreme Leader – and there is, and he is very powerful – that there are no politics, that what he says goes. I think he lets those politics play out. He’s very savvy about holding onto the power that has – that he has. The revolution is still very present in that country, and the tenets of the revolution. At the same time, I do think there is a large and growing younger generation, and where that country will go over time, how it will evolve I think remains to be seen. I don’t think any of us know, could crystal ball that easily.

So I do think politics played out for them. I think Minister Zarif was empowered, or there would have been no deal. There would have been no deal. But that didn’t mean that every moment of every day there was complete consistency throughout that government about how to proceed here.

QUESTION: Can you tell us, how do you feel about the role Oman played to help --

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: That who played?

MS HARF: Oman.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Oman?

QUESTION: The Sultan out of Oman.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: The Sultan of Oman has been extraordinary, starting with Secretary Kerry’s – when he was Senator Kerry’s – relationship with Sultan Qaboos through the secret channel that was developed to helping with the hikers, helping even today with our concerns about American citizens unjustly detained in Iran. He has been an enormous help to us.

QUESTION: Have they – sorry, have they played any role in Syria?

MS HARF: I think probably one more.

QUESTION: I mean, I saw that the foreign minister of Syria was in Muscat last month.

QUESTION: Yeah.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: We talk to all of the countries in the region about this, because there will not be a solution in Syria without the active engagement of everyone. So we welcome everybody’s thoughts about this.

QUESTION: Yeah, but Oman’s not really directly involved in Syria.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, I don’t think directly involved, but Oman – but we have talked with the Omanis about Syria, of course.

QUESTION: But are they playing a similar role that they did to Iran in – I mean, I just noticed that Muallem went there at least once to Muscat.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: All I can say is that there are conversations with every country about Syria; about Yemen, which is obviously very present for the Omanis; and the region as a whole.

QUESTION: What should we be looking out for as we listen to Rouhani this weekend and on Monday when he comes to the UN? And what will you be listening for to see that he’s committed to this deal?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Well, what first came to mind is I will be listening to see whether in fact we can find a path to get the Americans home. It is – given that we have this deal, as a humanitarian action, I really, really believe it is way past time for them to come home and for Iran to help us to find Robert Levinson and bring him home. So I think most of the families are going to be in New York. There is great concern, and that will be uppermost on everybody’s mind.

And where the JCPOA implementation is, obviously we’ll want to hear about the President’s commitment – which I expect we will – to the implementation of the JCPOA. And it’ll be very interesting to hear what he says about the region in general and what Iran is willing to do and not willing to do.

QUESTION: How much is the American --

MS HARF: I think we have one more – one more maybe. One more.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, is it becoming a --

MS HARF: Jay, you can have the last one.

QUESTION: Just quick on – is this becoming a prisoner swap, though? I mean, Rouhani on 60 Minutes was the clearest I’ve heard a senior Iranian official say there are Iranians in American prisons that were basically placed there because of the sanctions, they need to get out.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: The only thing I’ll say, Jay, is we will – we are working as hard as we can, and we hope that Iran will work as equally hard to get our American citizens home.

MS HARF: One last question. Brad.

QUESTION: Just following up, do you have any indications regarding a sentence yet for Rezaian?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: I do not.

QUESTION: When do you start at Harvard?

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: When do I start what?

QUESTION: At Harvard.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: At Harvard? I will leave New York on Friday of next week. I will pack up that evening. I will get in a car on Saturday and I will drive to Boston.

QUESTION: Semester’s already started.

UNDER SECRETARY SHERMAN: Yes. They were kind enough to let me come a month late, which is very nice. Sort of hard when the President and the Secretary said she’s got to stay here to say, “Never mind,” so they’ve been very nice.

MS HARF: Thank you all.

QUESTION: Thank you.