Edited State Dept. video hides key admission on Iran nuke talks

Fox News reporter James Rosen reported Monday night that a section of a Dec. 2, 2013 press briefing was somehow erased from the State Department’s own video of the event. In the section that was erased, Rosen was interviewing then-spokeswoman Jen Psaki about when the talks started.

The issue came up in the last week after Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes admitted in a New York Times interview that talks had started around 2011. But he said the White House later pointed to the election of moderate Iranians to the government as a justification for letting the talks start in 2013.

Rosen pressed Psaki in 2013 on whether the talks really started in 2011. While Psaki made no clear admission that the talks started two years earlier, she did seem to admit that government officials might not tell the truth in order to maintain the secrecy of an event.

“Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?” Rosen asked.

“James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that,” she replied.

When pressed again, Psaki said she had no more information. Still, Rosen reported Monday that Psaki’s comments were essentially an admission that the administration lied about when the talks started, and the circumstances under which they began.

The entire exchange, and some comments leading up to and following the exchange, don’t appear on the State Department video that was up Monday night. Instead, a white flash is seen where the edit was made, at about 26:55 into the video.

Rosen said the State Department had no explanation for how or why the video was edited. In the meantime, however, the entire transcript can be read below.

The issue has become important because Rhodes’ controversial interview, which has many Republicans fuming about the White House effort to shade the truth on the Iran deal in order to ensure its passage.

A transcript of the missing video footage follows here:

MS. PSAKI: I can take a closer look once we see the transcript of the interview and see if we have more comments on Foreign Minister Zarif’s comments.

QUESTION: You’re saying your team does not watch Al Jazeera?

MS. PSAKI: Well, that is not true; we do. However, I believe there’s only been a very short clip that has played of this interview that I’m sure will get lots of attention once it all plays.

QUESTION: Beyond the interview, he’s freely reaching out. He visited Kuwait. He’s reaching out to the other Gulf countries. He wants to visit Saudi Arabia. I mean, there is an effort underway to alleviate their fears and actually encourage them towards participating in Geneva II to make it a success. You must have some sort of a reading of this effort.

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have any particular reading of it for you, Said. Our position, I think, has been pretty clear on whether or not they attend the Geneva conference.

QUESTION: I have another really quick logistics thing. On the December 20th meeting, that’s Wendy Sherman and that – it’s the same iteration?

MS. PSAKI: It is that level. Exactly, yes. Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is that new or was that announced last week or something —

MS. PSAKI: I believe we talked about it last week as being the next meeting.

QUESTION: On China – (inaudible).

QUESTION: Please, Jen, can we stay on Iran, please?

MS. PSAKI: Sure. Let’s stay on Iran and then we can go to China.

QUESTION: On the 6th of February in this room, I had a very brief exchange with your predecessor, Victoria Nuland —

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — about Iran. And with your indulgence, I will read it in its entirety for the purpose of the record and so you can respond to it.

“Rosen: There have been reports that intermittently, and outside of the formal P5+1 mechanisms, the Obama Administration, or members of it, have conducted direct secret bilateral talks with Iran. Is that true or false?”

“Nuland: We have made clear, as the Vice President did at Munich, that in the context of the larger P5+1 framework, we would be prepared to talk to Iran bilaterally. But with regard to the kind of thing that you’re talking about on a government-to-government level, no.”

That’s the entirety of the exchange.

As we now know, senior state department officials had, in fact, been conducting direct, secret bilateral talks with senior officials of the Iranian Government in Oman, perhaps dating back to 2011 by that point.

So the question today is a simple one: When the briefer was asked about those talks and flatly denied them from the podium, that was untrue, correct?

MS. PSAKI: I mean, James, I – that – you’re talking about a February briefing, so 10 months ago. I don’t think we’ve outlined or confirmed contacts or specifics beyond a March meeting. I’m not going to confirm others beyond that at this point. So I don’t know that I have any more for you.

QUESTION: Do you stand by the accuracy of what Ms. Nuland told me, that there had been no government-to-government contacts, no secret direct bilateral talks with Iran as of the date of that briefing, February 6th? Do you stand by the accuracy of that?

MS. PSAKI: James, I have no new information for you today on the timing of when there were any discussions with any Iranian officials.

QUESTION: Let me try it one last way, Jen —

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: — and I appreciate your indulgence.

MS. PSAKI: Sure.

QUESTION: Is it the policy of the State Department, where the preservation or the secrecy of secret negotiations is concerned, to lie in order to achieve that goal?

MS. PSAKI: James, I think there are times where diplomacy needs privacy in order to progress. This is a good example of that. Obviously, we have made clear and laid out a number of details in recent weeks about discussions and about a bilateral channel that fed into the P5+1 negotiations, and we’ve answered questions on it, we’ve confirmed details. We’re happy to continue to do that, but clearly, this was an important component leading up to the agreement that was reached a week ago.

QUESTION: Since you, standing at that podium last week, did confirm that there were such talks, at least as far back as March of this year, I don’t see what would prohibit you from addressing directly this question: Were there secret direct bilateral talks between the United States and Iranian officials in 2011?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more for you today. We’ve long had ways to speak with the Iranians through a range of channels, some of which you talked – you mentioned, but I don’t have any other specifics for you today.

QUESTION: One more on Iran?

QUESTION: The Los Angeles Times and Politico have reported that those talks were held as far back as 2011. Were those reports inaccurate?

MS. PSAKI: I’m not sure which reports you’re talking about. Are you talking about visits that the Secretary and others made to Oman, or are you talking about other reports?

QUESTION: I’m talking about U.S. officials meeting directly and secretly with Iranian officials in Oman as far back as 2011. The Los Angeles Times and Politico have reported those meetings. Were those reports inaccurate?

MS. PSAKI: I have nothing more for you on it, James, today.

QUESTION: One more on Iran?

MS. PSAKI: On Iran? Let’s just finish Iran and then we can go to China. Go ahead, Roz.

QUESTION: One of – one more on Iran. Foreign Minister Zarif said, directly contradicting the Obama Administration’s contention that sanctions worked, he told our interviewer that when the sanctions were first imposed, Iran had 200 working centrifuges. Today, they have more than 19,000. What is this building’s reaction to his comment that sanctions did not work and did not bring Iran to the negotiating table?

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I would like to look more closely at the context of the comments. But, just as reminder, President Rouhani and others have talked about how the impact – how growing the economy and putting an end – doing – bringing an end to the sanctions is something that was a priority for them in order to help the economy and the Iranian people. There’s no question, if you look just at the facts of the impact of oil revenues, the impact on their economic growth writ large that there was a huge impact of – that there – the sanctions had an enormous impact, and that that was a driving factor in bringing the Iranians back to the negotiating table.

In terms of progress made on their efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, whether through centrifuges or at their various facilities, that to me sounds like a separate question. Obviously, there was concerns about steps they were taking and progress they were making, which was why it was so important to come to an acceptable agreement that would halt and roll back the progress of their program.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, though —

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — Secretary Kerry, when he did his round robin of interviews after the announcement of the deal in Geneva, more than once stated that when Iran had reached out to the Bush-Cheney Administration in 2003, Iran was only in possession of 164 centrifuges. Now, he would go on to say, they have 19,000, and this therefore represents the best possible deal that could be secured.

Isn’t it a fact that since the Obama-Biden Administration took office, 70 percent of Iran’s centrifuges have been installed?

MS. PSAKI: Well, I’d have to look at the statistics, James, but we have not questioned the fact that Iran has made progress on enrichment and on developing a nuclear weapon. We have not questioned that. That’s one of the reasons why we stepped up sanctions over the past couple of years. The President and Secretary Kerry were big proponents of that. We worked with the international community to do just that to put that necessary pressure in place.

The point I was trying to make to Roz is that – what she’s asking sounds to me like two separate questions, so that was —

QUESTION: Right. I’m pursuing the separate one part that she carved out, and that is to say – and if this is untrue, I’d be grateful to be disabused of the notion – but the great bulk of Iran’s progress in the development of its enrichment program has taken place under President Obama’s watch, correct?

MS. PSAKI: I’d have to check on the specific numbers. The —

QUESTION: You’re not prepared to dispute that statement, as —

MS. PSAKI: Well, James, I think what we’re focused on at this point is the fact that we’re now at a point where we are halting and rolling back the progress of their program and we’re working towards a comprehensive agreement to bring an end to it. I can’t speculate for you what would happen without – what would have happened without sanctions. I would venture to guess —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) sanctions.

MS. PSAKI: But they were being paired together, so that’s why I’m bringing it into the conversation.