The Latest from Iran (27 September): Is There a Compromise Brewing?

NEW Iran’s Nukes: Did Gates Just Complicate the Obama Position?
NEW Transcripts: Secretary of Defense Gates on CNN, ABC
Iran's Nuclear Program: Gary Sick on the US Approach after the "Secret Plant"
Iran’s “Secret” Nuclear Plant: Israel Jumps In
Iran: The “Die Zeit” Article on Opposition and Change
Iran Video: Ahmadinejad Interview on CNN’s Larry King
The Latest from Iran (26 September): The False Flag of the Nuke Issue

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



2100 GMT: Back to Compromise? After a day of tough signals, this paragraph on Press TV's website from President Ahmadinejad return-from-US press conference in Tehran jumps out: ""By his change of rhetoric, Obama has signaled a strong commitment in the presence of the General Assembly. If the American government is seriously pursuing the path of change, Obama's speech can be considered a start."

2045 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi's website Kalemeh is down, and Mehdi Karroubi's Tagheer is still suspended 72 hours after announcing it was going off-line for construction.

1830 GMT: Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi Giving Up Key Position? Tabnak offers the intriguing report that Ayatollah Yazdi, a firm supporter of President Ahmadinejad, is resigning from the Secretariat of the Assembly of Experts.Yazdi will retain his membership of the Assembly and his Vice Chair post, but his withdrawal from the Executive diminishes a key challenger to Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Yazdi was absent from the recent Assembly of Experts meeting.

1545 GMT: An Economic Victory for the Republican Guard. An Iranian consortium in which the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps is reputed to be a major actor has bought a 51 percent stake in the State telecommunications firm in the biggest privatisation in Iran's history.

1445 GMT: Another Ministerial Fraud? After the criticism of the Ministers of Interior and Science for dubious doctoral degrees from British universities, now it is the Minister of Transport Hamid Behbahani who faces allegations of false credentials. An article in the French daily newspaper Libération, claims Behbahani plagiarised parts of a work of the Professor Christophe Claramunt, his Chinese colleagues, and the Canadian academic Gerry Forbes for a 2006 publication in a Lithuanian journal.

1440 GMT: Your Latest Proof of the "Velvet Revolution". A Revolutionary Guard offical has said that the television signals of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting were jammed during the election campaign. Brigadier General Gholamreza Jalali claimed that "enemies of the country" had tried to jam the transmission during a Presidential campaign debate.

1200 GMT: Report that student activists Ali Rafai and Mohsen Jafari have been released from detention.

1045 GMT: The New York Times Gets the Story Wrong...Big-Time. EA's Mr Smith picks up on this morning's article by , NewDavid Sanger and William Broad, which opens:

The Obama administration plans to tell Iran this week that it must open a newly revealed nuclear enrichment site to international inspectors “within weeks”, according to senior administration officials. The administration will also tell Tehran that inspectors must have full access to the key personnel who put together the clandestine plant and to the documents surrounding its construction, the officials said Saturday.

The story asserts that, while "Iranian officials have...said the facility near Qom is for peaceful purposes, they have not explained why it was located inside a heavily guarded base of the Revolutionary Guards".

Mr Smith notes:

This is incorrect. In remarks yesterday to Iranian Television, [Iran's top nuclear offcial Ali Akhbar] Salehi said that they felt like they needed to build a plant for uranium enrichment with maximum security to avoid 'stopping the production of enriched uranium for peaceful purposes'. I think everyone agrees that Natanz [Iran's first enrichment plant] isn't that secure, built as it is in open air. Therefore you would have to think that Iran is getting pushed in going underground with its nuclear plants because of the never-ending military threats, mostly from Israel but also, incessantly, from the US.

So I wonder what would have happened if the hawks in Tel Aviv and DC had actually kept quiet rather than waving the military scarecrow all the time.

The US can say whatever it wants, but the heart of the matter is that, unless the IAEA proves that Iran has been feeding uranium into these plants, there is no violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now, we can discuss ad libitum what the real aims of Iran are, as Sick has valiantly done, but everyone is, so far, putting intentions on trial, rather than actual, hard evidence on violations by Iran. True, Iran has been lying and is not reliable in its disclosures. But does this amount to legal violation? It doesn't appear so...

0835 GMT: This is More Like It. A day after Iran's nuclear negotiator offered Iran's willingness to consider International Atomic Energy Agency access to the second enrichment facility, its ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltaniyeh, puts on a show of defiance: "I categorically reject that there have been any concealment or any deception."

As we predicted, Soltaniyeh rests Iran's legal case on the second plant on the claim that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty did not force revelation of the facility's construction, only its imminent capacity for enrichment: "It is a pity that none of these three leaders have legal advisers to inform them that according to comprehensive safeguards we are only obliged to inform six months before we put nuclear material [into the plant]."

The ambassador adds the flourish that it is Washington, Paris, and London who are the nuclear rule-breakers:

Those three countries in fact have violated for the last 40 years NPT articles. The United Kingdom has [a] secret program of [Trident] nuclear submarines...[costing more than £30 billion.... France is also working on the nuclear weapon programs continuously. Americans are working hard on the nuclear weapon posture review. These are all deceptions and concealment.

0825 GMT: Two new pieces on the Iran nuclear programme. Ali Yenidunya takes a look at Israel's intervention (rhetorical so far) while Gary Sick assesses how the "secret plant" story shapes US strategy and tactics in talks with Tehran.

0655 GMT: Acting Tough. In a move about as surprising as the Pope's endorsement of Catholicism, Iran has announced that it has test-fired two short-range missiles in a missile exercise called "Great Prophet IV". And there will be more launches as the exercise is planned to last several days.

The signal to the "West" --- We Won't Be Pushed Around --- will poke US and UK media into headlines of how this demonstrates Tehran's threat in the context of the furour over the second enrichment plant.

0615 GMT: And a Deal on the International Front? US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton moved quickly to welcome the comment of Iran's lead official on the nuclear programme, Ali Akhbar Salehi, that Iran would permit visits by the International Atomic Energy Agency, under the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to its second enrichment plant (a "defensive facility"). Clinton said:

It is always welcome when Iran makes a decision to comply with the international rules and regulations, and particularly with respect to the IAEA. We are very hopeful that, in preparing for the meeting on October 1, Iran comes and shares with all of us what they are willing to do and give us a timetable on which they are willing to proceed

Hmm.... Salehi's remark appears to have been a holding statement while the Ahmadinejad Government considers its next move, and Clinton's welcome --- unsurprisingly --- fits into a US strategy to back Tehran into a corner of acceptance. The Los Angeles Times reports this morning:

The U.S. and its allies plan to demand that Iran provide "unfettered access" to scientists and information regarding an underground uranium enrichment plant suspected of being part of a secret nuclear weapons program, an Obama administration official said Saturday. A deadline for the access has not yet been determined, but Iran probably would have to comply within weeks.

0600 GMT: Relatively little breaking in Iran this morning, as we look for further signals that there is a compromise plan, led by or involving Hashemi Rafsanjani, making its way through the Iranian system.

What little has come out points more to the continued fencing between opposing camps. Reports are circulating of more official complaints against Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign, while Mehdi Karroubi's Etemade Melli party website has published information about the abuse and rape of another detainee.

The most interesting claim is that Sardar Khorshidi, the father of President Ahmadinejad's son-in-law and a decorated commander during the Iran-Iraq War, has said he personally witnessed vote-rigging in the June election. He also points to the fragility of the regime: ""If each protester had a stick on Qods Day, the Army wouldn't have withsood them."

A "Normal" Middle East: US Presses for Arab Steps on Israel

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

The Jerusalem Post reports that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, working on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meetings, urged senior officials from Oman, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel. She later told reporters that talks were "extremely productive."

While Arab nations still insist on an Israeli settlement freeze before gestures such as the opening of trade and commercial offices, permission for Israeli overflights, and academic and cultural exchanges; Washington is increasing its pressure. Jeffrey Feltman, the top US diplomat for the Middle East, said after Clinton's meeting:

We don't want to wait for the perfect package. It's time to start negotiations now... We hope that the Arabs would find ways to demonstrate to the Israeli public that Israel will be an accepted, normalized part of the region.

Still, progress is still far from assured. The State Department's press release did not mention any "extremely productive" outcome, balancing calls for the re-launching of Israeli-Palestnians negotiations without preconditions with the vision of a freeze on settlements to foster a viable Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders:

The Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and the United States met today in New York City to coordinate on efforts to promote their shared vision of a stable, peaceful and prosperous Middle East, and to intensify their consultations as partners and friends.

The Ministers welcomed the trilateral meeting among President Obama, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and President Abbas on September 22, and expressed their hope for rapid progress towards the resumption of negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Ministers welcomed President Obama’s important statement before the UN General Assembly which calls for the re-launching of negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. The Ministers reiterated their call for a freeze on settlement activities. They expressed their continued support for an independent, viable, and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel, with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, in accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, the Road Map, and the Arab Peace Initiative. They reiterated their full support for the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian government led by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and their efforts to build the institutions of a future state. The Ministers also reiterated their support for achieving a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: The US State Department Line

The Latest from Iran (26 September): The False Flag of the Nuke Issue

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Following the Obama-Sarkozy-Brown statements on Iran's second enrichment facility, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and State Department spokesman Ian Kelly spoke about the issue.

Clinton stated that the US was now awaiting Iran's response at the 1 October meeting with the "5+1" powers. Asked whether Washington was willing to engage in further conversations if the Iranians did not offer a "serious" response, she said: "We’re going to take it one day at a time."

Ian Kelly added that the US had been watching and analysing the facility for several years. He claimed however, that the existnece of the plant did not invalidate the conclusions in the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, which said that Iran had suspended research and development of its nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

Video & Transcript: Obama After the Israel-Palestine Meeting

After the tripartite meeting, President Obama's press statement made its mark on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

In his statement, Obama called both parties to look at future and move forward. He called both leaders "to do more." It means consolidating security against Hamas for Mahmoud Abbas and putting a 9-month settlement freeze into practice for Benjamin Netanyahu at first. Most importantly, President emphasized the significance of negotiation the permanent status and refrained from using a "full halt toIsraeli constructions" yet used "restraining settlement activity."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AP_jkuSe_QE[/youtube]

Transcript:

Please be seated, members of the delegations.

I have just concluded frank and productive bilateral meetings with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas. And I want to thank them both for appearing here today. I am now looking forward to this opportunity to hold the first meeting among the three of us since we took office.



As I said throughout my campaign and at the beginning of my administration, the United States is committed to a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. That includes a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that results in two states, Israel and Palestine, in which both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people can live in peace and security and realize their aspirations for a better life for their children.

That is why my Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and my Special Envoy George Mitchell have worked tirelessly to create the context for permanent status negotiations. And we have made progress since I took office in January and since Israelis -- Israel’s government took office in April. But we still have much further to go.

Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security, but they need to do more to stop incitement and to move forward with negotiations. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians and have discussed important steps to restrain settlement activity. But they need to translate these discussions into real action on this and other issues. And it remains important for the Arab states to take concrete steps to promote peace.

Simply put it is past time to talk about starting negotiations -- it is time to move forward. It is time to show the flexibility and common sense and sense of compromise that’s necessary to achieve our goals. Permanent status negotiations must begin and begin soon. And more importantly, we must give those negotiations the opportunity to succeed.

And so my message to these two leaders is clear. Despite all the obstacles, despite all the history, despite all the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. We have to summon the will to break the deadlock that has trapped generations of Israelis and Palestinians in an endless cycle of conflict and suffering. We cannot continue the same pattern of taking tentative steps forward and then stepping back. Success depends on all sides acting with a sense of urgency. And that is why I have asked Secretary Clinton and Senator Mitchell to carry forward the work that we do here today.

Senator Mitchell will meet with the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators next week. I've asked the Prime Minister and the President to continue these intensive discussions by sending their teams back to Washington next week. And I've asked the Secretary of State to report to me on the status of these negotiations in mid-October.

All of us know this will not be easy. But we are here today because it is the right thing to do. I look forward to speaking with my colleagues. I'm committed to pressing ahead in the weeks and months and years to come, because it is absolutely critical that we get this issue resolved. It’s not just critical for the Israelis and the Palestinians, it’s critical for the world, it is in the interests of the United States. And we are going to work as hard as necessary to accomplish our goals.

Thanks.

Transcript: George Mitchell on Obama-Abbas-Netanyahu Meeting

After the end of the tripartite meeting, the U.S. Mideast special envoy George Mitchell briefed reporters and answered questions. Here is the background of the meeting and what the outcome of this meeting means:

Transcript:

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Sorry we're running a little bit late today. We will do a statement from, and take some questions -- our Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, former Senator George Mitchell.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Thank you, Robert. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'll make a brief statement, and then I'll be pleased to respond to your questions.

The President had direct and constructive meetings with both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, and then he held his first trilateral meeting with the two leaders. As the President said, this was an important moment. Let me first give you some brief details.

Each of the three meetings was about 40 minutes long. The tone was positive and determined. The President made clear his commitment to moving forward, and the leaders shared their commitment. In the meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Abbas, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones, Tom Donilon and myself. For the trilateral meeting, the President was joined by Secretary Clinton, General Jones and myself.



In their meetings, Prime Minister Netanyahu was joined by Foreign Minister Lieberman, Defense Minister Barak, and National Security Advisor Arad. President Abbas was joined by Secretary General Yasser Abed Rabo, Negotiations Affairs Department Director Saeb Erekat, and Foreign Minister Riyad Al-Maliki.

This was the first meeting between Israelis and Palestinians at this level in nearly a year. Even nine months ago, such a meeting did not seem possible. Less than a week before President Obama took office, conflict was raging in Gaza and southern Israel, causing deep suffering on both sides. Today the atmosphere is different. Both parties share the goal of a two-state solution and of comprehensive peace. And both parties seek the re-launch of negotiations as soon as possible, although there are differences between them on how to proceed. The United States stands with them to help advance toward these objectives.

We have made progress, on security and economic opportunity in particular, but we have much further to go. As the President said in his public comments, it's past time to talk about starting negotiations. All sides must summon the will to move forward. Permanent status negotiations must begin, and begin soon. This was a message that the President conveyed to each of the leaders in private, as well.

We're now going to enter into an intensive, yet brief, period of discussion in an effort to re-launch negotiations. Our aim is clear: to finally succeed in achieving our shared goals and to end the cycle of conflict that has done so much harm.

I will be meeting with my Israeli and Palestinian counterparts, and with the Arab states as well, and we'll build on the work that was done today to encourage all parties to take responsibility for peace and to act on their commitments.

I want to make a brief personal comment. I believe deeply, rising out of my past experience, that just as conflicts are created by human beings, they can be ended by human beings, with patience, determination, and dedication. Our aim is to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region that will enable Israelis, Palestinians, and all of the region's people to share a secure, prosperous, and stable future.

We knew this wasn’t going to be easy. It's a mark of the President's deep, personal and ongoing commitment to peace that he chose to participate directly at this juncture. As he said today in his public comments, despite all the obstacles, despite all of the history, despite all of the mistrust, we have to find a way forward. That's what we will be focused on in the days ahead.

Now, I'd like to just read to you a couple of quotes from what the President said in the meetings. I wrote these down -- they're either 100 percent accurate or very close to 100 percent accurate. (Laughter.)

He said, "It's difficult to disentangle ourselves from history, but we must do so." "The only reason to hold public office is to get things done." "We all must take risks for peace." "Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is critical to Israel's security and is necessary for Palestinians to realize their aspirations."

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and now I'll be pleased to take your questions. And I'll leave it to Robert to identify the questioners.

MR. GIBBS: Jen.

Q You said that -- you were talking about your own respect for the President's willingness to engage in the process at this point. Why did you decide to go (inaudible) these meetings even though there's nothing to announce and the two sides remain so far apart? Why did you decide to take that step?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Because of his deep personal commitment and his desire to move forward to convey to the parties his sense of urgency, his impatience, his view that there is here a unique opportunity at this moment in time. That may pass if there is further delay. And as I said in my remarks, I think it does demonstrate his -- it's a demonstration of the depth and sincerity of his commitment.

Q But why is this a moment of opportunity when they're so far apart right now?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Well -- I'm sorry, you can't hear her?

Q Can't hear.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Yes, she said, why is it a moment of opportunity when they're so far apart right now?

First, the reality is that while differences remain between them, we have made very substantial progress. And without being argumentative, I would not characterize their positions as being so far apart right now. Secondly, it is precisely because there are still differences and that we need to move forward that the President elected to hold this meeting for the very purpose of seeking to impress upon the parties the need for urgency and to close these final gaps.

Q As you said, the tone of the President's comments to the press was one of impatience. And I'm just wondering what specifically was said in the talks today that give the President hope that this can move forward? You talked about things that have happened in the past that you see as progress. But what happened today? What did they say in the talks that made him feel like this can go forward?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I would not be so presumptuous as to quote the other leaders, but I can tell you my understanding and interpretation of their comments was that they are committed to a comprehensive peace. They both, of course, have previously expressed their support for a two-state solution. They recognize the urgency of moving promptly and have so stated. But they did restate their views and their positions on those issues on which there remain differences.

And so I think it will be very helpful for them to have heard from the President the views that I've just identified that he has and has expressed to them, and to recognize that, notwithstanding all of the many issues which he confronts, that he is prepared to take the time at this juncture, when there is not an agreement between them to re-launch negotiations, to devote his time, effort, and his -- what I think is his deep commitment to get this process going, to move to the next stage.

Q I know you don't want to quote for them, but can you talk about the tone of the conversation?

SENATOR MITCHELL: The tone was at all times cordial. It was direct, frank. I think it fair to say at some points, one could describe comments as blunt on all sides. These are men who have serious responsibilities, who recognize their responsibilities, and I believe the President impressed upon them, including but not limited to some of the quotations I read out here, that this is a matter of urgency.

Q The administration has spent the last few months focused intensely on settlement freeze on the -- of the Israelis, and confidence-building measures on the part of the Palestinians. Now, today you're talking about the need to move quickly to permanent status negotiations. Does that mean you've decided to skip the settlement freeze focus, and that it might be easier and quicker to get results if you go -- move straight to final status?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Our objective all along has been to re-launch meaningful final status negotiations in a context that offered the prospect for success. We have never identified the steps requested as ends in themselves. We have always made clear that they are means to an end, the end being the re-launching of negotiations on permanent status in a context in which there is a reasonable prospect for a successful conclusion to those negotiations.

So there is absolutely no change in our focus. There is no change in what we feel is the way forward. We want to get negotiations re-launched, and everything we have said and done in this period has been in an effort to achieve that objective.

Q But are you moving --

Q -- about the format of the negotiations? Will the U.S. be at the table, or are there going to be only bilateral, or will the Quartet be somehow involved?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We have had discussions with negotiators from both sides on those and many other issues. We anticipate that there will be a substantial period of time -- in I would say a matter of weeks -- between the time that there is an agreement to re-launch negotiations and the time that they commence. And we will, during that period, explore in even greater detail than we have the resolution of those issues.

We anticipate that there will be an active United States presence. But of course that does not preclude the likelihood of direct negotiations between the parties. No successful negotiation is all of one or all of the other. There has to be both in appropriate circumstances on appropriate subjects. And we're going to try to proceed in a manner that is guided by a single standard: What is the method that will be best calculated to achieve the desired result of a comprehensive peace in the region?

Q Can I ask if you've got any more details on who is going to participate in the intensive talks in New York this week, in Washington next week? And what realistically can Secretary Clinton report back to President Obama so quickly -- he said mid-October, right?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Right. I will meet on Thursday in New York with two representatives of the Prime Minister of Israel -- Isaac Molcho and Mike Herzog -- both of whom have participated very actively in the discussions that have gone on. I also will meet with Saeb Erekat in behalf of the Palestinians, with whom also we've had extensive discussions. I expect also to meet with Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, with whom I've also met on many, many occasions.

We do not yet know the composition of the negotiators that they will send next week, but we anticipate that they will be the same ones -- either those I mentioned or people with whom we have also been engaged over the past several months.

Q How directly was the issue of a settlement freeze discussed? Did you push the U.S. view that they were illegal?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I'm sorry. What's the question?

Q How directly did you -- was the issue of the freeze on settlements discussed? And was there any pushing of the -- what I understand is the U.S. position that they are illegal?

SENATOR MITCHELL: Our position remains unchanged. It was discussed in all of the meetings. And we will continue to do the best we can to achieve a re-launch of negotiations. I want to emphasize our objective from the beginning over the last several months has been very focused, a re-launch of negotiations. The actions we've asked parties to take were not ends in themselves; they were means to the end. And that's the end we continue to seek.

Q And is this the obstacle, now? Is it still the obstacle?

SENATOR MITCHELL: I'm sorry?

Q Is it still the obstacle, the settlements?

SENATOR MITCHELL: There are many obstacles. They're not -- I want to make clear there are differences that remain, and that is one. That's not the only one, there are others. We have substantially and significantly progressed in reducing the number of issues on which there is disagreement. And we hope to complete that process in the near future.

Q Senator Mitchell, does the President support the Israeli proposal a temporary freeze of settlements for six to nine months? Does he support that, a temporary freeze of settlements?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are continuing our discussions on that issue with both sides on how best to create the context for a re-launching of negotiations, and the -- (cell phone rings) --

MR. GIBBS: -- in the Senate and peace in the Middle East, the respect doesn't come. (Laughter.)

SENATOR MITCHELL: We had worked that out so that you'd do that when I get a tough question. (Laughter.) From now on you've got to do a little bit better in terms of the timing. (Laughter.)

And so that's what we are continuing our discussions on. We have not reached an agreement on that issue.

Q And do you think the temporary freeze would be enough to move to the final status negotiations? Is the President still in favor, he wants to see a complete freeze with all settlement activity?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are continuing our discussions on that issue. And we're trying to bring it to a point where we can re-launch the negotiations, and we could discuss it with both sides.

Q Senator Mitchell, I want to push you on this question of a -- I know you said there hasn't been a change in what you guys are doing. However, over -- since the administration has been in office, you guys have been pushing very hard on the settlement issue and not talking as much about moving directly to final status talks. And so I guess I'm wondering has there been -- was there any discussion in the meetings today that changes or alters the approach to moving quickly to final status talks? And if not, then why the sort of apparent change in rhetoric from the President?

SENATOR MITCHELL: With the greatest of respect, I do not share your characterization of what we have done. It may be the case that the public reports have emphasized that area at the expense of others, but we have been very clear from the beginning, first, that there is a wide range of issues, and we have made significant progress on those issues, and that they were all directed to a single point, and that was a re-launch of negotiations.

I'll just tell you a story to tell you how I'm feeling right now. When I was Senate majority leader, we had a long and contentious series of debates and actions on a major issue, and we had resolved what I thought were most of the issues; there will still differences. And lo and behold, a big article appeared, I think it was in The Washington Post, which, wouldn't you know it, highlighted the differences, and proclaimed it a failure. And I asked the reporter, in a polite but complaining way -- (laughter.)

MR. GIBBS: From The Washington Post.

SENATOR MITCHELL: And he responded. He said, Senator, you will never see a headline that says "Two million commuters made it safely to work today. But if one car crashes and a couple of people are killed, that will be the headline." He said, "That's the way the world works." And I accept that's the way the world works. But the emphasis which you describe has not come from us. We have emphasized -- I have repeatedly said our objective is to re-launch negotiations. And all of these are steps to achieve that end.

And we have made significant progress in many of the areas -- economic growth, very substantial; agreement on the removal of illegal outposts; a whole series of other actions regarding specific areas that I understand don't get attention precisely because we've passed the stage of disagreement over them.

So we're going to continue our efforts. We believe that we have come a long way; that there is a very decisive difference in where we are now than where we were when the President took office; and we feel a sense of urgency to take it the next step and to bring it to a conclusion.

Q I'm sorry, can you start final status negotiations without the settlement issue being resolved? And should that happen?

SENATOR MITCHELL: We are not identifying any issue as being a precondition or an impediment to negotiation. Neither the President, nor the Secretary, nor I have ever said of any one issue, that or any other, that it is a precondition to negotiations. What we have said is that we want to get into negotiations. We believe the suggestions that we've made and the requests that we've made would, if accepted and acted upon, create the most favorable conditions available to try to achieve success in those negotiations. But we do not believe in preconditions. We do not impose them. And we urge others not to impose preconditions.

MR. GIBBS: Thanks, guys.

SENATOR MITCHELL: Thank you, all.