White House press secretary Jay Carney conceded the six month time frame in which Iran has pledged to curb some of their nuclear activities has not yet begun Thursday in the White House press conference.
CBS News' Major Garrett asked Carney why the administration is concerned about Congress passing new sanctions under the condition the measures will only be levied if Iran breaks the terms of the Geneva agreement.
The White House spokesperson did not answer directly, instead asking rhetorically why Congress would pass a resolution now for something they plan to do in six months when legislators could just address the issue then.
Garrett interjected the move could send a message on the cost of noncompliance to Iran. Carney proceed to recite the often employed administration line that Iran would not be negotiating if the rogue regime did not understand consequences of further sanctions:
MAJOR GARRETT: Two questions on Iran. As I understand it, the technical conversations and negotiations are still going on about implementation of phase one. So as a practical matter, the six-month time clock has not actually begun. Is that true?MR. CARNEY: It is my understanding that technical discussions are ongoing. And then once those are set, the clock is turned on and the six-month period begins.Q: OK. The sanctions talk primarily on the Hill is about if, after that six-month time expires and things have not been complied with bythe Iranian side, then sanctions would -- new sanctions, tougher sanctions would begin. So help me understand why the administration believes that --
JAY CARNEY: Because Congress can act in six months rather than act nowon what they'll do in six months and by --(Cross talk.)
CARNEY: -- they passing that kind of --
GARRETT: -- Iran about the cost of not complying?
CARNEY: I think Iran is fully aware of the costs of noncompliance.They're so aware of it that they came to the table. They have been paying the price of noncompliance.
GARRETT: But, well, no --
CARNEY: Failure to -- failure to --
GARRETT: -- coming to the table and agreeing to something is not the same thing as implementing.
CARNEY: Absolutely, which is why, if they fail to comply with their agreements in the preliminary round or in the -- or fail to reach a comprehensive solution with the P-5 plus one, the sanctions regime remains in place and the modest relief that is provided with the compliance by the Iranians in the -- with the first agreement, the preliminary agreement, will be reversed. And we would likely encourage both our partners internationally and Congress to respond to that failure to comply with additional sanctions. It is our view that it is absolutely the wrong and worst time to take any action that undermines the chance for a diplomatic solution by dividing the international community and emboldening Iranian hard-liners. And we believe that that's what passage of new sanctions would do. Again -- because the purpose of building this vast, comprehensive and effective sanctions regime was to compel Iran to the negotiating table and to compel Iran to change its behavior, to make commitments to change its behavior. And we have made progress as a result of the effectiveness of the sanctions, and now we need to test whether or not Iran is serious. And we'll do that by verifying their actions,verifying that they're in compliance, and making sure that through their actions rather than the documents they sign or anything they may say, they're meeting their commitments. Because ultimately the goal is -- the reason why we are where we are is that Iran has failed to meet its obligations to the United Nations Security Council and to the international community when it comes to development of a nuclear weapons program.
Many foreign policy experts have questioned how additional sanctions could be harmful if Iran actually plans on fulfilling their commitments to the agreement. Elliott Abrams of The Council on Foreign Relations indicated increased sanctions would actually make Iran more likely to abide the conditions of the Geneva deal: