Could it be true?

The Iranian connection may also have a Shanghai connection as well.

If true, this is very troubling. Very troubling, indeed!

Via Power Line (via the Washington Times)

Intelligence: China Supplying Terrorists In Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan

Bill Gertz, writing in the Washington Times, said today that China is supplying large quantities of weapons to both Iraq and Afghanistan, through Iran:

New intelligence reveals China is covertly supplying large quantities of small arms and weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, through Iran.

Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms.

According to the officials, the Iranians, in buying the arms, asked Chinese state-run suppliers to expedite the transfers and to remove serial numbers to prevent tracing their origin. China, for its part, offered to transport the weapons in order to prevent the weapons from being interdicted.

U.S. Army specialists suspect the weapons were transferred within the past three months.

The Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China, and to continue to claim that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism. U.S. officials have openly criticized Iran for the arms transfers but so far there has been no mention that China is a main supplier.

There is no question about the fact that Iranian-supplied weaponry is making our task more difficult in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The question is one of degree. I don't have a good sense of whether this is a major factor or a small one. Likewise, it would take more information to determine whether China's contribution is material or not.

Still, why put up with even a trickle of Chinese weapons to our enemies? The economic growth on which China's leaders have staked their country's future is dependent on China's relationship with the U.S. Somewhere in our government's vast bureaucracy there are people who could suggest ways in which we could make it unprofitable for China to supply our enemies.

First off, how on earth did the Washington Times uncover an international arms conspiracy involving one of our biggest trading partners and one of our greatest enemies?

Then, on the one hand, if China is supplying the weapons being used to kill American Soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, then that is simply outrageous. On the other hand, China probably sees our arming and funding of Tibet as being along the same vein. This is not to suggest that we are wrong to support Tibet, but it seems especially relevant to any outrage we may have towards China.

British Hostages to be Released

In what has widely been described as an act of war, Iran captured and took hostage 15 soldiers from international waters. Iran claimed the soldiers were in Iranian waters, and released the coordinates to prove it... except that the coordinates they gave proved that the British solders were NOT in Iranian waters. When confronted with this issue, Iran released a new set of coordinates to "prove" the British soldiers were in Iranian waters.

Iran held the British soldiers for almost two weeks, creating an international crisis and bringing Britain and Iran to the brink of war.

Today the crisis will be put to rest. Ahmadinejad has decided to "pardon" the British soldiers who were abducted by his country and held hostage for the past two weeks. This "gift" to the people of Briton is nothing more than a calculated political stunt.

Iran was in the wrong. At every step in the process, Iran was wrong and was facing severe consequences for their actions. Iran has now released the soldiers - soldiers they had no right to abduct and take hostage in the first place, so now what will the international response be?

Unfortunately, I fear this will prompt a "no-harm, no foul" response from the international community. If the West takes action against Iran for their discretions, the West will be seen as aggressors despite the fact that this would be a response to Iranian actions.

Meanwhile, Iran is still actively working to pursue the creation of nuclear weapons. Whether this hostage crisis was an attempt to divert attention away from Iran's nuclear aspirations is unclear. What remains to be seen is whether their will be a "honeymoon period" after the British soldiers are released, giving Iran much needed time to work uninterrupted on their Nuclear program.

I say that the moment those British soldiers touch down in England, the international community immediately begin focusing on a response to the hostage taking & further sanctions over Iran's nuclear program.

From the Inbox:

I was wasting time before heading home this afternoon and came across this interesting little article.

Iran to hit back at US ‘kidnaps’
IRAN is threatening to retaliate in Europe for what it claims is a daring undercover operation by western intelligence services to kidnap senior officers in its Revolutionary Guard.

According to Iranian sources, several officers have been abducted in the past three months and the United States has drawn up a list of other targets to be seized with the aim of destabilising Tehran’s military command.

In an article in Subhi Sadek, the Revolutionary Guard’s weekly paper, Reza Faker, a writer believed to have close links to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, warned that Iran would strike back.

“We’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks,” he said. “Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”

...

“The capture of Quds members in Irbil was essential for our understanding of Iranian activity in Iraq,” said an American official with knowledge of the operation.

...

Military analysts believe that Iranian threats of retaliation are credible. Tehran is notorious for settling scores. When the Israelis killed Abbas Mussawi, Hezbollah’s general secretary, in 1992 the Quds Force blew up the Israeli embassy in Argentina in revenge.

...

“In Iraq, the Quds Force can easily get hold of American — and British — officers,” said a Jordanian intelligence source.

Read the Full article

Not particularly threatening at the time but look at it in the light of the recent "apprehension" of Royal Navy "spies" in the Shatt-al-arab waterway.

Wow, that IS kinda scary.

It is a major problem when these islamo-fascists repeatedly tell us what they are going to do before they do it and still we do nothing to stop them. When they scream death to America, America needs to respond with death from above.

I haven't blogged much about the UK soldiers abducted in international waters by the Iranians. I don't know how else to see this than as outright act of war. This was a military attack on the UK, a NATO nation and close ally of the United States. Maybe these are just hollow words, or maybe I have just got it wrong, but I thought that an attack on one NATO nation was an attack on all NATO nations. Why haven't the NATO nations jointly invaded Iran and freed first the British soldiers, then the Iranian people?

Iranian Connection: Part V

Top spy: Iran training Iraqis to use explosives

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is training anti-American Iraqi Shi'ites at sites inside Iran and Lebanon in the use of armor-piercing munitions blamed for the deaths of 170 U.S. troops in Iraq, the top U.S. intelligence official said on Tuesday.

The case against Iran becomes stronger everyday. It is merely a matter of time until this reaches a boiling point. Now the big question, I think, is this: Are we going to wait until Iran is a nuclear power or take them out before that happens?

Edwards Urges "Smarter" Approach

Edwards urges direct talks with Iran
TODD DVORAK, Associated Press Writer

DUBUQUE, Iowa - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards criticized the Bush administration on Sunday for failing to engage directly with Iran to resolve problems with the Iraq war and Iran's effort to develop nuclear weapons.

"It's a huge strategic mistake not to be dealing directly with Iran," Edwards told the Associated Press in an interview before a campaign event in Dubuque.

"What we should be doing with Iran, both on the Iraq issue and the nuclear issue, is being much smarter than we're being now. We have tools available to us to engage them."

You see... international diplomacy can be tricky. When dealing with an islamo-fascist state like Iran (a country hell bent on acquiring nuclear weapons with which to wipe Isreal and the United States off the map), sanctions and the threat of military invasion are basically ineffectual. You need a smarter, more nuanced appraoch. To defeat Iran you need to use "tools" - like Edwards - and "talk" at them.

Simple, see. All you need to do is talk at them and they will crumble before us. Sheesh, why didn't Bush think of that! Edwards is a shoo-in in '08.

Is it just me or is Edwards "smarter" plan of "talking to Iran" an aweful lot like Kerry's "smarter" plan.

Steyn's Commentary on Recent Iraq Developments

I love Mark Steyn. He is probably my favorite columnist.

According to a report by the New York Sun's Eli Lake last month, Iran is supporting Shia insurgents in Iraq and Sunni insurgents in Iraq. In other words, it's on both sides in the so-called civil war. How can this be? After all, as the other wise old foreign-policy "realists" of the Iraq Study Group assured us only in December, Iran has "an interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq.''

Au contraire, the ayatollahs have concluded they have a very clear interest in fomenting chaos in Iraq. They're in favor of Sunni killing Shia, and Shia killing Sunni, and if some vacationing Basque terrorists wanted to blow up the Spanish Cultural Center in Mosul, they'd be in favor of that, too. The Iranians don't care who kills whom as long as every night when Americans turn on the evening news there's smoke over Baghdad. As I say in my book, if you happen to live in Ramadi or Basra, Iraq is about Iraq; if you live in Tehran, or Cairo, or Bei-jing, Moscow, Pyongyang or Brussels, Iraq is about America. American will. American purpose. American credibility.

There was a TV station somewhere -- was it Thunder Bay, Ontario? -- that used to show a continuous loop of a roaring fireplace all night, and thousands of viewers would supposedly sit in front of it for hours because it was such a reassuringly comforting scene. The networks could save themselves a lot of money by adopting the same approach: Run a continuous loop of a smoking building in Baghdad all night while thousands of congressmen and pundits and think-tankers and retired generals run around Washington shrieking that all is lost. America is way out of its league! A dimwitted tourist in a fearful land of strange people who don't watch "American Idol." Iraq is so culturally alien that not a single Sunni, Shia or Kurd has come forward claiming to be the father of Anna Nicole's baby!

Get a grip, chaps! In Iraq, everyone's a tourist. This al-Qaida honcho, al-Masri, is an Egyptian. His predecessor, Zarqawi, was a Jordanian. Al-Sadr is a Persian stooge. For four decades, the country was a British client. Before that, it was a Turkish province. The Middle East is a crazy place and a tough nut to crack, but the myth of the unbeatable Islamist insurgent is merely a lazy and more neurotic update of the myth of the unbeatable communist guerrilla, which delusion led to so much pre-emptive surrender in the '70s. Nevertheless, in the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet, the political class spent last week trying to craft a bipartisan defeat strategy, and they might yet pull it off.
Read it all.

H/T Protein Wisdom

Iraq: Hard is not Hopeless & Iranian EFP's

Feb 14 Baghdad Press Conference

GEN. CALDWELL: Good afternoon. "A-salaam aleikum."
Although operations to secure Baghdad have continued over the past several months, last night the government of Iraq announced the beginning of the new buildup called Operation Fard al-Kanun (ph), which roughly translates into Operation Law and Order. This new iteration of the Baghdad security plan is Iraqi-conceived and Iraqi- led. It is an evolution of the previous phases with specific enhancements being made in the political, military and economic spheres based on lessons learned from the past operations.

Politically, Prime Minister Maliki's government has taken full ownership of this plan and is making a clear political commitment to its success. A resolution supporting this new strategy was unanimously endorsed by the Council of Representatives. Prime Minister Maliki has instructed his security forces that there will no longer be any political interference in military operations. Iraqi commanders have also been assured no neighborhood and no target is off limits.

Militarily, the first additional Iraqi forces and the first of five additional U.S. brigades have arrived in Baghdad and are conducting operations. General Petraeus is adamant that to win this conflict we have to protect the population. Consequently, Iraqi army, Iraqi police, and coalition forces will actually live together in joint security stations throughout Baghdad in order to be closer to the Iraqi people that they are protecting. The additional forces will also enable us to create more transition teams to assist, teach, mentor and coach the Iraqi security forces. There will be both an increase in the number and size of the teams, and they will reach down to the lower-level units within the Iraqi army and police units.

...

While there is cause for optimism, there are several reasons why -- need to be patient with this new strategy.

First, it will take time for all the additional troops being deployed to arrive and begin operations. Additional Iraqi and American troops comprising the, quote, "surge" will not be completely in place until late May.

Second, the non-kinetic efforts will take time to produce effects on the streets of Baghdad. The government of Iraq's economic development program, for example, places greater emphasis on long-term job creation, rather than make-work programs.

Finally, most of Iraq's problems are systemic and will not be turned around immediately because of the new security plan. The key to solving Iraq's problems, whether militarily, economic or political, is leadership -- Iraqi leadership, to be precise.

Much of the criticism of Prime Minister Maliki's government forgets that it is still less than 10 months old, trying to undo the damage caused by 35 years of brutal, corrupt dictatorship. This government, along with the Council of Representatives, is learning as it goes and will not discover solutions to the complex problems facing Iraq overnight.

...

While it is understandable that much of the focus of the media attention remains on Baghdad, successful operations continue in other parts of Iraq as well. On February 11th, Iraqi security forces conducted a raid near Baqubah that resulted in seven anti-Iraqi forces being killed and 27 detained, with only one Iraqi army casualty. And in Samarra, a series of caches consisting -- over 550 live rounds, of more than 1,200 pounds of explosives, was discovered and destroyed. And last night and continuing through this morning coalition forces detained 27 suspected terrorists doing a series of coordinated raids targeting al Qaeda in Iraq network. Twenty of these suspected terrorists were captured in Ramadi where ground forces also seized several weapons, computers and electronic equipment doing these operations.

...

As General Petraeus noted on Saturday when he took command, although many significant challenges lay ahead, he said, quote, "hard is not hopeless," unquote. Rebuilding and securing Iraq will be a total team effort requiring the cooperation of the government of Iraq, the U.S. government, coalition forces and the Multinational Force Iraq. While the recent measures announced by the government of Iraq are a step in the right direction, it would be a mistake if expectations are raised so high that people give up on the new strategy prematurely. The enhanced iteration of the Baghdad security plan needs to be given time to work.

And with that, I'll be glad to take whatever questions you have.

...

Q. Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times. ... one of the things that has also arisen is this apparent contradiction between what was said at this background briefing and what General Peter Pace has said, essentially saying that he was not personally aware or convinced, apparently -- and I apologize if I'm not paraphrasing his comments perfectly -- that the weapons that were found here were necessarily sent here at the direction of the Iranian leadership.

So I was just wondering if you had any suggestions as to how we should go about sorting out that contradiction, any guidance. And also, I mean, the response was very extraordinary state-side, by bloggers, by critics and so on. Does it dismay you that there's so much skepticism about the claims that were made at that hearing?

GEN. CALDWELL: Let me first start off by talking about what was said at that backgrounder on Sunday here in Baghdad and what General Pace said. I think what you'll find is there is a tremendous amount of agreement between the two. When General Pace was talking, and the same thing that was said during the backgrounder is that we in fact do have physical evidence of Iranian munitions, especially the explosively formed penetrators, the EFPs, being supplied to various extremist groups here in Iraq. General Pace said that, too, during those comments he had the other day.

We also talked about that we have in custody a number of Iranian Qods Force officers, and as General Pace said and we agree and has been stated, as a minimum who are here illegally in Ira[q]. General Pace is -- and to quote him, specifically said, quote, "We know that the explosively formed projectiles, penetrators, are manufactured in Iran," and, quote, "It is clear that Iranians are involved and it's clear that materials from Iran are involved." And I don't think you'll see any disagreement there. That's exactly what was said on Sunday, too.

There was a military analyst on Sunday who made a comment that made an inference that there was some connection, when asked about where does the Qods Force get their guidance and direction from, said it comes from the highest levels of the government. The intent behind that press conference on Sunday was not to talk about that. You know, it was very clear when we came out and talked Sunday, we stated up front, this is about a force protection issue. This is about the fact that American forces, coalition forces, Iraqi security forces and innocent Iraqi civilians -- men, women and children -- are being killed by munitions and weaponry that are being produced in Iran, produced as late as 2006 in Iran, and are making their way into Iraq, where they are being used to kill people.

...

And when we start seeing EFPs rise at a rate of 150 percent since January of last year till the end of this past year; when we see the number of EFPs being utilized against Iraqi security forces and coalition forces at the highest levels ever in the months of November, December and January that we've ever seen in this country since mid- 2004, when we first noticed the first EFP being utilized, there is an incredible discussion that went on, asking ourselves: Do we acknowledge and tell those insurgent elements that are using this that it is a lethal weapon, that it is effective, and that it is killing people; or do we reach out, after having exasperated (sic) and tried through both diplomatic and other military means to ask Iran to not be associated with -- not allow the machining and production of and to stop the smuggling of EFP component parts that are coming from Iran into Iraq and killing people here in this country?

You know, the Iraqis deserve the right to be able to determine their destiny. They need -- deserve the right to be allowed to have security and stability and self-governance. And when these type of munitions are coming in from a neighboring country that says they want to assist and help this country move forward, then we want to engage them. We want to tell them we need to stop -- you need to stop -- we need your assistance; we need you to stop the production of EFP component parts that are being brought into this country, assembled and used against coalition forces and Iraqi security forces.

We know since 2004 there's been just over 170 coalition forces killed by these.

We also know since 2004, over 620 additional coalition forces have been wounded by these, and yet they're an extremely small percentage of the overall number of IEDs that we have been confronted with in this country.

So that's the purpose behind that press conference. That's why we came out and talked. It's all about force protection. It's about ensuring the safety and security of the Iraqi people, of which we have the coalition forces and Iraqi security forces working to help make that happen.

...

Q. How are you? Miguel Marquez with ABC News. ABC is reporting that Muqtada al-Sadr apparently has left the country, perhaps out of fear that he may be a target of the U.S. military, perhaps not. Everybody in his camp says he is still in Iraq. I wonder if you could address that at all.

...

GEN. CALDWELL: As far as Sadr goes, yes, our reporting does indicate that in fact he has left Iraq, and it appears that he is in Iran. Obviously I'm not going to discuss or speculate as to why he has done that. But we, in fact -- all reporting does indicate he has left Iraq.

...

Q. Jim Glanz, New York Times. Are you -- first, we've all gotten letters on our pieces, no matter how balanced we try to be, in the presentation of evidence the other day. So I think we'd all appreciate if you did pull the veil off the evidence --

GEN. CALDWELL: Okay.

Q. -- present it publicly. And also, are you rescinding now the connection to the highest levels of the Iranian government?

In other words, are you saying you don't think that's the case; you're not willing to make that supposition? And if so, then what can you tell us about how much involvement you think the Iranian government has? Because you are -- you've said repeatedly you're appealing to them. But if it's just some smugglers -- you know, forgive me for being a little colorful here, but on goats coming across the border, well, that's a different situation than having it be ordered from Tehran.

So I think we'd all like to know where you think the line is drawn in terms of command here, command and control. And are you going to rescind the earlier supposition?

GEN. CALDWELL: Jim, what I'd tell you is that obviously the reason we have picked up some Qods Force officers within Iraq is because they are conducting -- we consider to be illegal activities here within this country. And Qods Force officers obviously work for the government of Iran. And as you know already, the government of Iraq has asked -- expelled two former Iraqi -- Iranian officials that were here, that were Qods Force officers and told them to go back to their home country.

So we know that the Qods Force is associated in some manner or form with these illegal activities that are ongoing.

The whole point is -- I guess what I'd say, Jim, as a Multinational Force officer, as the Multinational Force spokesman, we're -- we are not so much as worried about the intent behind why this is occurring, but rather the actions and the resulting effect of those actions and what they do to the security forces, both the Iraqi security forces and our coalition forces. It's the actions that we're concerned about. I mean, people can argue about intent all day long. I can tell you on the ground we are very concerned about the actions, the resultant effect that occurs because of what they are doing. And that's the reason we're getting involved and have gone public to talk about this. We're not trying to get into all the other discussions associated with this.

Q . It just seems fair to ask, General, whether you're rescinding that comment. I'm sorry to be a pest on this, but that's been a big focus for all of us. We've all had to take questions on this. And so you're the guy with the answer on that. Is that -- are you still standing behind that, or is that being taken off the table now by the U.S. military?

GEN. CALDWELL: Jim, I will tell you, again, the purpose and reason behind that briefing was to talk about force protection issues and the concern that we have with explosively formed penetrators that are being utilized against Iraqi security forces and coalition forces. And that's the reason we did the briefing. That was the purpose behind it. We are not trying to make any inferences. We are trying to talk to the government of Iran and tell them that we know these things are being produced and manufactured in Iran and are making their way into Iraq.

...

GEN. CALDWELL: ... On Sunday during the press conference that was conducted here in Baghdad, these same pieces of equipment were showing that are on this table. These are pieces of equipment that have been seized here in Iraq by either Iraqi security forces or coalition forces; some as late as of about two weeks ago.

The first item there to probably show you is the EFP. This EFP was found and cleared in about two-three weeks ago now. ...

GEN. CALDWELL: Two weeks ago. So this is -- and they come in varying shapes and sizes, as you've probably seen from the pictures that were provided, but we wanted to show one that had been recently. So as late as 2007, this explosive foreign penetrator here was found and cleared.

(To Major Webber) -- was this one in Baghdad?

MAJ. WEBBER: Yes, sir.

GEN. CALDWELL: In the Baghdad area.

Now, if anybody would like to ask a question, please feel free to do so about the EFP. If not, we'll pick up another piece of equipment and show you that.

Q. General, I just have a question. How many -- you said that 170 coalition forces have been killed by these particular brand of explosives. What about Iraqi forces and -- (off mike)?

GEN. CALDWELL: I'll have to go back and get the exact figure on that. Obviously, what was showing in the picture the other day was a Hilla SWAT vehicle that had been hit by an explosive foreign penetrator that we used in one of the visual pictures there.

But I'd have to go back and check with the Iraqis on their -- I mean, we generally know their numbers, but we don't track it as thoroughly as we do our own numbers, the coalition force numbers. I'd have to ask to see if we can get you --

Q. Can you say on the record, you know, what links these things to Iran? We talked about this before, but you've showed the EFP, the serial numbers, but could you just briefly reprise on the record how these are linked to Iran.

GEN. CALDWELL: The explosively formed penetrator that they had there, the machining that is done to produce that is such of a fine precision. There have been very rude, elementary attempts to replicate it here in Iraq, very unsuccessfully.

But we know that those, in fact, are produced and made in Iran and then smuggled -- component parts are smuggled in and then assembled here in Iraq.

When you look at the 81-millimeter mortar shell -- this is an 81 -- (To Major Webber) You know, rather than me talk, you're the expert, why don't I let you talk.

MAJ. WEBBER: Yes, sir. It's an 81-millimeter high explosive mortar round. Again, distinguishing features for us identifying country of origin are the actual stenciling on the warhead itself, the geometry of the tailfins, and the construction of the tail boom itself, which is a one-piece construction cast, which is for us a key identification feature that it's of Iranian origin.

...

GEN. CALDWELL: I think what's key about this too -- and, Marty, correct me if I'm wrong -- is that the weapon of development that normally occurs in this region is an 82-millimeter mortar shell. This is an 81-millimeter mortar shell, which really is just produced in Iran. The American version of the 81-millimeter mortar shell, as Marty was talking about, the tailfin can spin off. And the one that's produced in Iran is of a single piece.

Q. General, could you give an assessment of how much Iranian munitions are found here in comparison to, for example, Egyptian or -- (repeats question using microphone) -- Can you give an assessment of how much, in terms of quantity, Iranian munitions are found here in comparison to, say, Russian or other countries of origin?

MAJ. WEBBER: Sir, that's a very tough question. Ideally, all the reporting that we see come from our EOD teams out in the field. The Iranian ordnance that we see and recover is not as much, taken into a whole, the amount of caches, the amount of ordnance, especially what was left over from the Saddam era and pre-Saddam era. Therefore, what we're seeing now -- what we're drawing the attention to is the stuff that's been manufactured post-Saddam era, 2006, 2005.

GEN. CALDWELL: I think the key thing to make on this is that when we introduced this on Sunday, the intent was to talk about the explosively formed penetrator, and the recognition that there are other munitions making their way in here. But the one that we were concerned about is the explosively formed penetrator, which specifically is made in Iran and, again, causes the greatest number of casualties from IED incidents.

Although there's a lot of IED incidents that occur every day in this country, the EFP use is very, very small, yet has the preponderance of casualties as a result of it.

If you would, how about -- show the RPG round, would you, Marty, and talk that for a second? I'll let him talk that one for a second.

MAJ. WEBBER: This is essentially a P.G. 7 round, specifically a P.G. 7-AT-1. Historically, Iran manufactures four versions of this, which you can find in their ministry of defense industry's catalogue. However, this one, based upon the markings, that it is a -1, which indicates it is a new model of the P.G. 7-AT round, which there is one other version called the NADER, which is very popular. However, this one, again -- the lot number, it's a lot five, manufactured in the year 2006.

GEN. CALDWELL: And again, to point out our concern that incurs again here is, these are munitions that are being produced as late as this past year. It's not like they were already in existence or been around for a while like most of the munitions that we find in this country. But rather, this is something that was produced as late as 2006 and then smuggled into Iraq and utilized over here.

Marty, if you would, how about showing them the EFP slug.

MAJ. WEBBER: Yes, sir.

Essentially, this is an EFP, explosively formed penetrator. When you have the soft, malleable metal -- in this case, this particular one is a copper slug, which means the concave disk that was in the nose of the EFP, explosively formed penetrator, was made of copper. The explosives, when they detonate, essentially take the soft, malleable metal, form what we call a "slug," and that's what you see here. And this is the slug that travels at high rates of speed towards its target, and the kinetic energy is what ends up penetrating whatever the target is.

GEN. CALDWELL: Let me -- you had a question over there, sir. Go ahead. You haven't asked one yet.

Q. One was, I think we were told that the English writing is because they're sold in the international arms market.

GEN. CALDWELL: That is correct, sir.

Q. And again, it seems like you're getting into an inference there. If they're on the international arms market, maybe people here bought it from Syrian contacts or Lebanese contacts. I mean, that seems to work against the idea that it would be brought in by Iranian directors.

GEN. CALDWELL: Yeah. I guess, as we went through on Sunday, in the last 60 days, between -- just to take a current piece of intelligence, when you look at some of the Iranian and Iraqi detainees that we have picked up and conducted debriefings with, they in fact have told us that Qods Force provides supports to extremist groups here in Iraq, in the forms of both money and in weaponry. I mean, these are -- through the debriefings, they're telling us.

And we also know -- they've said that they have gone so far, the Qods Force has, to provide training for extremist groups within Iran. They have talked about how there are extremist elements that are given this material in Iran, and then it's smuggled into Iraq. We have in fact stopped some at the border and discovered it there, coming from Iran into Iraq.

I think what you saw today is part of the government of Iraq's initiative here on their new security plan, the enhancement of this. They shut down all their borders, points of entry, for the next 72 hours. And during that next 72 hours, as the government of Iraq has explained, they're going to re-look a lot of their procedures, reorganize the physical layout of and revamp these points. And one of them will be transfer points that will be established so that when vehicles do come in that they have suspicion or they decide they want to unload and transfer, they can in fact check the cargo to make sure in fact there aren't illegal munitions and weaponry being smuggled in from other countries into Iraq.

...

Q. Wasn't it said at the briefing the other day that the government of Iraq had actually confirmed to you that two of the Qods Force officers had provided offensive weapons to a political faction here in the country? The two Qods Force officers arrested on December 20, 21, with the list of inventory of weapons supplied. At that briefing we were told was the government asked for a response; it was said that yes, the government responded and said that groups need these weapons for their protection and that they've been supplied by these officers. Will you clarify that, please?

GEN. CALDWELL: I think the discussion there was talking about an inventory sheet that was picked up in that raid that had a list of weapons on it. And when senior members of -- were confronted with that and discussed it, both political parties and government officials, some explained that there is a need for certain weaponry to be -- that do come in that people use in, quote, for their -- "for protection purposes." And the concern we had in looking at that list is that on that list were sniper rifles, mortars and some other elements that are clearly offensive in nature, not defensive in nature. And so therefore the concern that that list of weaponry was not defensive in nature only, but rather had offensive capabilities associated with it.

Q. But it was described as a list, though, an inventory list of weapons supplied, past tense, already happened. So you are saying that the government told you, yeah, they came, and also this reason.

GEN. CALDWELL: The explanation came from somebody associated with the groups where the raid was connected (sic). ... I just want to be real careful in trying to quote somebody who provided information. When we asked for an explanation from security personnel, civilian security personnel and others, as to why we would see an inventory with that type of equipment on it, that was the initial explanation given. And then we said, but there are offensive weapons on this and therefore that's the part that's unacceptable.

...

GEN. CALDWELL: ... we know there are other munitions and armament that is made in Iran that does make its way into Iraq.

The other day we had a CH-46 helicopter that went down. Initial indications were that it was mechanical. As the investigation has continued, it's now been determined that was not in fact the case and in fact it was downed by hostile fire. And as the investigation has continued, it now appears that that was probably brought down by some sophisticated piece of weaponry. That investigation is not complete yet, but those are the -- now the indications.

But we're not trying to make any inference that it came from any particular area, but rather just that's what brought it down. So please don't make a leap of association here, because we are not doing that at all. We have nothing at this point that we would talk about, associate with that.

Hillary: Don't Mess with Iran

From the AP

Clinton warns Bush about action in Iran
By DEVLIN BARRETT,

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton warned President Bush on Wednesday not to take any military action against Iran without getting congressional approval first.

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority," Clinton said in a Senate speech.

Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq — a vote that has prompted some Democrats to demand that she repudiate.

Since then, the New York senator has become an outspoken critic of Bush's handling of the war. She said the new Democratic Congress must not let him make similar mistakes in the increasingly tense relationship with Iran.

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization," Clinton said.

She also insisted the resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks did not allow for U.S. action now against Iran.

Clinton, who has come under fire from anti-war Democrats, excoriated the previous Republican-controlled Congress for not questioning the administration over the past six years.

"We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action," she said, later adding: "This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress."

Clinton spoke shortly after President Bush said he was certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry.

U.S. officials have said that Iran is behind attacks against troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Here is what I think:

The Iranian Connection IV

President Bush continues to make the case that something must be done about Iran. I predicted war with Iran by 2008. Looks like this are right on track.

Below are the Presiden't comments today, but first read this:

Pace: Iran Complicit in IED Attacks on Coalition
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam, Feb. 14, 2007 – The Iranian government is complicit in improvised-explosive-device attacks on coalition and Iraqi forces, Marine Gen. Peter Pace said today in Jakarta, Indonesia.
However, he said, officials are unsure what level of Iranian government is part of this complicity.

Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is visiting U.S. Pacific Command areas.

As Pace spoke to leaders at the National Institute of Resilience, the Indonesian senior military college, leaders at the institute asked him about proof that Iran is sponsoring IED attacks in Iraq and supporting Shiite terrorist groups.

Officials in Baghdad this week said coalition and Iraqi forces have discovered bomb-making materials that have come from Tehran. These include “explosively formed projectiles” that can be used against heavily armored vehicles, such as Bradley fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks.

Coalition forces also have captured Iranians during attacks against two bomb-making cells in Iraq.

"The Iranian government must know that we have discovered their weapons," Pace said. "And they certainly do know -- because they asked for them back -- that we have found Iranian citizens involved in this. What I do not know is if the number one, number two, number three leaders of their government, whether or not they are directing or not directing these actions."

The general said he wanted to be as precise as possible about Iranian involvement. "What I said was that I do not know the level inside the Iranian government that knows about or is complicit in it," he said.

But officials at some level in Iran do know about this. "That activity against our soldiers and Marines in Iraq is unacceptable," he said. "We will keep being aggressive inside Iraq going after these networks."

Pace said earlier in his trip to Australia and Indonesia that there is "zero chance" of the United States going to war with Iran. He said many times to audiences in both Australia and Indonesia that the United States will use diplomatic pressure to get Iran to stop its actions in Iraq and to get Iran to stop research on developing nuclear weapons.

And now for the President's comments

Q Thank you, sir. General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not, by themselves, implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

Q And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know? But the point I made in my initial speech in the White House about Iraq was, is that we know they're there and we're going to protect our troops. When we find the networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq, we will deal with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them. I have put out the command to our troops -- I mean, to the people who are commanders, that we'll protect the soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq and will continue doing so.

Now, let me step back on Iran, itself. We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with Iraq [sic]. There's a variety of issues that we have with Iraq [sic]. One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq. Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon. And I believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind. And it turns out there's a lot of countries in the world that agree with that assessment. After all, we did get a Chapter 7 Resolution out of the United Nations that included EU3, as well as Russia and China. That's a positive development.

The message to the Iranian people is that your leaders are making decisions that are isolating you in the world, thereby denying you a brighter future. And I believe Iran is an unbelievably vital nation. It's got a great history, it's got wonderful traditions, it's got very capable, smart people. There is -- I believe there's also a desire to not be isolated from the world. And our policies are all aimed at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward, and I hope their government hears that message.

Anyway, that's a long answer to a short question, and now you're trying to get to me to -- Gregory. Excuse me, David. David.

Q Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

David, our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon. As you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've been covering me, and pretty much ever since I've been the President. And we've made it very clear to the Iranians that if they would like to have a dialogue with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable suspension of their program. I would hope that they would do that. I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.

But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with, the program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way. And we'll continue to work toward achieving our common objective with other nations in the world in a peaceful way.

Sheryl.

Q -- using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard your question, and I told you, I was confident that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, was providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives -- that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also -- it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.

Q But given some of contradictions, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: There's no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds force, Ed.

Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.

What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

Now David says, does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the Commander-in-Chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground. And we'll continue do so.

President's Press Conference

Today President Bush gave a press conference in which he discussed a number of important issues, particularly with regards to Iraq and Iran. Enjoy:

Press Conference by the President
President's Remarks

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming in on an icy day. I have just finished a conversation with General David Petraeus. He gave me his first briefing from Iraq. He talked about the Baghdad security plan. It's the plan that I described to the nation last January, and it's a plan that's beginning to take shape. General Petraeus and General Odierno talked about how the fact that the Iraqi government is following through on its commitment to deploy three additional army brigades, Iraqi army brigades in the capital. We talked about where those troops are being deployed, the position of U.S. troops with them, as well as the embeds with the Iraqi troops, and we talked about the plan.

He also talked about the new Iraqi commander. The commander who Prime Minister Maliki picked to operate the Baghdad security plan is in place; they're setting up a headquarters and they're in the process of being in a position to be able to coordinate all forces. In other words, there's still some work to be done there to get the command and control center up and running in Baghdad.

We talked about the fact that our coalition troops that are heading into Baghdad will be arriving on time. In other words, I'm paying attention to the schedule of troop deployments to make sure that they're there, so that General Petraeus will have the troops to do the job -- the number of troops to do the job that we've asked him to do.

We talked about the coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces. And I would characterize their assessment as the coordination is good. In other words, there's good conversation, constant conversation between the commanders of our troops and their troops, and that's a positive development.

The operation to secure Baghdad is going to take time, and there will be violence. We saw on our TV screens the terrorists will send car bombs into crowded markets. In other words, these are people that will kill innocent men, women and children to achieve their objective, which is to discourage the Iraqi people, to foment sectarian violence and to, frankly, discourage us from helping this government do its job.

Yesterday there was a suicide bomber. In other words, there's an active strategy to undermine the Maliki government and its Baghdad security plan. And our generals understand that, they know that they're all aimed at, frankly, causing people here in America to say it's not worth it. And I can understand why people are concerned when they turn on the TV screens and see this violence. It's disturbing to people, and it's disturbing to the Iraqi people. But it reminds me of how important it is for us to help them succeed. If you think the violence is bad now, imagine what it would look like if we don't help them secure the city, the capital city of Baghdad.

I fully recognize we're not going to be able to stop all suicide bombers. I know that. But we can help secure that capital; help the Iraqis secure that capital so that people have a sense of normalcy -- in other words, that they're able to get a better sense that this government of theirs will provide security. People want to live in peace; they want to grow up in a peaceful environment. And the decision I made is going to help the Iraqi government do that.

When General Petraeus' nomination was considered three weeks ago, the United States Senate voted unanimously to confirm him, and I appreciated that vote by the senators. And now members of the House of Representatives are debating a resolution that would express disapproval of the plan that General Petraeus is carrying out. You know, in recent months, I've discussed our strategy in Iraq with members of Congress from both political parties. Many have told me that they're dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. I told them I was dissatisfied with the situation in Iraq. And that's why I ordered a comprehensive review of our strategy.

I've listened to a lot of voices; people in my administration heard a lot of voices. We weighed every option. I concluded that to step back from the fight in Baghdad would have disastrous consequences for people in America. That's the conclusion I came to. It's the conclusion members of my staff came to. It's the conclusion that a lot in the military came to.

And the reason why I say "disastrous consequences," the Iraqi government could collapse, chaos would spread, there would be a vacuum, into the vacuum would flow more extremists, more radicals, people who have stated intent to hurt our people. I believe that success in Baghdad will have success in helping us secure the homeland.

What's different about this conflict than some others is that if we fail there, the enemy will follow us here. I firmly believe that. And that's one of the main reasons why I made the decision I made. And so we will help this Iraqi government succeed. And the first step for success is to do something about the sectarian violence in Baghdad so they can have breathing space in order to do the political work necessary to assure the different factions in Baghdad, factions that are recovering from years of tyranny, that there is a hopeful future for them and their families. I would call that political breathing space.

And by providing this political breathing space, in other words, giving the Maliki government a chance to reconcile and do the work necessary to achieve reconciliation, it'll hasten the day in which we can change our force posture in Iraq. A successful strategy obviously -- a successful security strategy in Bagdad requires more than just military action. I mean, people have to see tangible results in their lives. They have to see something better. They not only have to feel secure where they live, but they've got to see positive things taking place.

The other day, the Iraqi government passed a $41 billion budget, $10 billion of which is for reconstruction and capital investment. There's a lot of talk in Washington about benchmarks. I agree -- "benchmarks" meaning that the Iraqi government said they're going to do this; for example, have an oil law as a benchmark. But one of the benchmarks they laid out, besides committing troops to the Iraqi security plan, was that they'll pass a budget in which there's $10 billion of their own money available for reconstruction and help. And they met the benchmark. And now, obviously, it's important they spend the money wisely.

They're in the process of finalizing a law that will allow for the sharing of all revenues among Iraq's peoples. In my talks with members of Congress, some have agreed with what I'm doing, many who didn't -- they all, though, believe it's important for the Iraqi government to set benchmarks and achieve those benchmarks. And one benchmark we've all discussed was making it clear to the Iraqi people that they have a stake in the future of their country by having a stake in the oil revenues. And so the government is in the process of getting an oil revenue law that will help unify the country.

The Iraqi government is making progress on reforms that will allow more of its citizens to reenter political life. Obviously, I'm paying close attention to whether or not the government is meeting these benchmarks, and will continue to remind Prime Minister Maliki that he must do so.

We've given our civilians and commanders greater flexibility to fund our economic assistance money. Part of the strategy in Baghdad is to clear, and then to hold, and then to build. We've been pretty good about clearing in the past; we haven't been good about holding -- "we" being the Iraqis and coalition forces. So we spent time today talking to General Petraeus about the need, his need and his understanding of the need to hold neighborhoods so that the people, themselves, in the capital city feel more secure.

But also part of the strategy is to make sure that we build. So we're giving our commanders flexibility with reconstruction money that they have at their disposal. We're also sending more PRTs, provincial reconstruction teams, into Iraq, trying to speed up their arrival into Iraq so that the Iraqi people see tangible benefits from the government that they elected under one of the most progressive constitutions in the Middle East.

Later this week the House of Representatives will vote on a resolution that opposes our new plan in Iraq -- before it has a chance to work. People are prejudging the outcome of this. They have every right to express their opinion, and it is a non-binding resolution. Soon Congress is going to be able to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding, a bill providing emergency funding for our troops. Our troops are counting on their elected leaders in Washington, D.C. to provide them with the support they need to do their mission. We have a responsibility, all of us here in Washington, to make sure that our men and women in uniform have the resources and the flexibility they need to prevail.

Before I'm going to take some questions, I'd like to comment about one other diplomatic development, and that took place in the Far East. At the six-party talks in Beijing, North Korea agreed to specific actions that will bring us closer to a Korea Peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons. Specifically, North Korea agreed that within 60 days it will shut down and seal all operations at the primary nuclear facilities it has used to produce weapons-grade plutonium. It has agreed to allow international inspectors to verify and monitor this progress. It is committed to disclosing all of its nuclear programs as an initial step toward abandoning these programs.

In exchange, five other parties at the table -- that would be China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- have got commitments. We will meet those commitments as this agreement is honored. Those commitments include economic, humanitarian and energy assistance to the people of North Korea.

This is a unique deal. First of all, unlike any other agreement, it brings together all of North Korea's neighbors in the region, as well as the United States. The agreement is backed by a United Nations Security Council resolution. That resolution came about -- the sanctions came about as a result of the resolution because of a unanimous vote in the Security Council.

This is good progress. It is a good first step. There's a lot of work to be done to make sure that the commitments made in this agreement become reality, but I believe it's an important step in the right direction.

And with that, I'll be glad to take your questions, starting with you, Terry.

Q Mr. President, on Russia. Is the Vladimir Putin who said the United States is undermining global security and provoking a new arms race the same Vladimir Putin whose soul you looked into and found to be trustworthy? Has he changed? Are U.S.-Russian relations deteriorating?

THE PRESIDENT: I think the person who I was referring to in 2001 is the same strong-willed person. He is a person with whom I have had agreements and disagreements throughout the course of my presidency and his. We've disagreed on the utility of NATO. I've tried to convince Vladimir that NATO is positive. It's a positive influence, that democracies on your border are good things to have. The democracies tend not to fight each other. And I firmly believe NATO is a stabilizing influence for the good, and that helps Russia. Evidently he disagrees with that assessment; part of his speech was expressing concerns about NATO.

There's a lot we can work together on, and that's what's important for American people to understand. We know that we've got common goals that make sense for both our peoples. Two such goals are Iran, convincing the Iranians to get rid of its nuclear weapons. And Russia's leadership on this issue is very important to getting a Chapter 7 Resolution out of the United Nations. And by the way, they were constructive in terms of the resolution I just described about North Korea. In other words, where we have common interests, and we work together on those common interests, we can accomplish important things for the security of our own people, as well as the security of the world.

And, secondly, Russia and the United States work very closely on proliferation concerns. We're both concerned about the proliferation of technologies that could end up hurting our people and other people in the world.

So there's -- it's a complicated relationship. It's a relationship in which there are disagreements, but there's also a relationship in which we can find common ground to solve problems. And that's the spirit -- that's the spirit I'll continue to work with Vladimir Putin on.

Steve.

Q Thank you, sir. General Pace says that these bombs found in Iraq do not, by themselves, implicate Iran. What makes you so certain that the highest levels of Tehran's government is responsible?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes --

Q And how can you retaliate against Iran without risking a war?

THE PRESIDENT: What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known. What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds force to do what they did.

But here's my point: Either they knew or didn't know, and what matters is, is that they're there. What's worse, that the government knew or that the government didn't know? But the point I made in my initial speech in the White House about Iraq was, is that we know they're there and we're going to protect our troops. When we find the networks that are enabling these weapons to end up in Iraq, we will deal with them. If we find agents who are moving these devices into Iraq, we will deal with them. I have put out the command to our troops -- I mean, to the people who are commanders, that we'll protect the soldiers of the United States and innocent people in Iraq and will continue doing so.

Now, let me step back on Iran, itself. We have a comprehensive strategy to deal with Iraq [sic]. There's a variety of issues that we have with Iraq [sic]. One, of course, is influence inside of Iraq. Another is whether or not they end up with a nuclear weapon. And I believe an Iran with a nuclear weapon would be very dangerous for world peace, and have worked with other nations of like mind. And it turns out there's a lot of countries in the world that agree with that assessment. After all, we did get a Chapter 7 Resolution out of the United Nations that included EU3, as well as Russia and China. That's a positive development.

The message to the Iranian people is that your leaders are making decisions that are isolating you in the world, thereby denying you a brighter future. And I believe Iran is an unbelievably vital nation. It's got a great history, it's got wonderful traditions, it's got very capable, smart people. There is -- I believe there's also a desire to not be isolated from the world. And our policies are all aimed at convincing the Iranian people there's a better way forward, and I hope their government hears that message.

Anyway, that's a long answer to a short question, and now you're trying to get to me to -- Gregory. Excuse me, David. David.

Q Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?

THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.

David, our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon. As you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've been covering me, and pretty much ever since I've been the President. And we've made it very clear to the Iranians that if they would like to have a dialogue with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable suspension of their program. I would hope that they would do that. I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.

But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with, the program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way. And we'll continue to work toward achieving our common objective with other nations in the world in a peaceful way.

Sheryl.

Q -- using faulty intelligence to provoke Iran?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I heard your question, and I told you, I was confident that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, was providing weaponry into Iraq. And to say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the Commander-in-Chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way. And I will continue to do so.

Bret.

Q Mr. President, on the North Korea deal, the former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton, yesterday said, "It's a bad, disappointing deal, and the best thing you can say about it is that it will probably fall apart." This is from a man you repeatedly praised for his judgment and leadership at the United Nations. His main criticism is that the financial pressure led North Korea back to the table, and now it's being released. How do you respond to that?

THE PRESIDENT: I strongly disagree -- strongly disagree with his assessment. I have told the American people, like the Iranian issue, I wanted to solve the North Korean issue peacefully, and that the President has an obligation to try all diplomatic means necessary to do so. I changed the dynamic on the North Korean issue by convincing other people to be at the table with us, on the theory that the best diplomacy is diplomacy in which there is more than one voice -- that has got an equity in the issue -- speaking.

And so we had a breakthrough as a result of other voices in the United States saying to the North Koreans, we don't support your nuclear weapons program and we urge you to get rid of it in a verifiable way. Perhaps the most significant voice that had been added to the table was China. But the South Korean voice was vital, as was the Japanese and Russian voices, as well. So the assessment made by some that this is not a good deal is just flat wrong.

Now those who say the North Koreans have got to prove themselves by actually following through on the deal are right. And I'm one. This is a good first step. It will be a great deal for the North Korean people if their government follows through with the agreement, which, by the way, started in September of 2005. The agreement that we announced the other day was a continuation of the initial agreement in September of 2005. And for those who say that, well, this is an interesting moment and now it's up to the North Koreans to do that which they say they will do, I couldn't agree more with you.

And the first phase is to shut down and seal their facility, their main weapons manufacturing facility, and then disclose their programs. And for that, they'll receive some help from the South Koreans -- the equivalent of 50,000 tons of fuel.

And the second phase is to disable and abandon their facilities. In other words, this is a phased approach that will enable all of us to say to our respective populations we're watching carefully, and that there's an opportunity for the North Koreans to prove that this program can work.

If they do the second phase, there is a -- there will be about the equivalent of a million tons, minus the 50,000 tons, available food, economic assistance and fuel. I am particularly interested in helping get food to the North Korean people. Now, that's not going to happen until there's some verifiable measures that have been taken.

The financial measures that you're speaking about are really a separate item, because it has everything to do with -- it's a banking issue that our Treasury Department is analyzing to determine whether or not funds were illicitly moved through the bank.

Let's see, yes, sir.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on Iran one more time. You saying today that you do not know if senior members of the Iranian government are, in fact, behind these explosives -- that contradicts what U.S. officials said in Baghdad on Sunday. They said the highest levels of the Iranian government were behind this. It also -- it seems to square with what General Pace has been saying, but contradicts with what your own press secretary said yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: Can I -- let me -- I can't say it more plainly: there are weapons in Iraq that are harming U.S. troops because of the Quds force. And as you know, I hope, that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there, and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops.

Q But given some of contradictions, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: There's no contradiction that the weapons are there and they were provided by the Quds force, Ed.

Q What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government.

What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

Now David says, does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops. That's what that means. And that's what the family members of our soldiers expect the Commander-in-Chief and those responsible for -- responsible for our troops on the ground. And we'll continue do so.

Yes, ma'am. You're not a "ma'am." Martha.

Q Mr. President, do you agree with the National Intelligence Estimate that we are now in a civil war in Iraq? And, also, you talk about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would come here, and yet you say it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you square those things?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, victory in Iraq is not going to be like victory in World War II. It's one of the challenges I have to explain to the American people what Iraq will look like in a situation that will enable us to say we have accomplished our mission.

First, the -- Iraq will be a society in which there is relative peace. I say "relative peace" because if it's like zero car bombings, it never will happen that way. It's like -- the fundamental question is, can we help this government have the security force level necessary to make sure that the ethnic cleansing that was taking place in certain neighborhoods has stopped.

Look, there's criminality in Iraq, as well as the ethnic violence. And we've got to help the Iraqis have a police force that deals with criminals. There is an al Qaeda presence in Iraq, as you know. I believe some of the spectacular bombings have been caused by al Qaeda. As a matter of fact, Zarqawi -- the terrorist Zarqawi, who is not an Iraqi, made it very clear that he intended to use violence to spur sectarian -- car bombings and spectacular violence to spur sectarian violence. And he did a good job of it.

And so there -- and then there's this disaffected Sunnis, people who believe that they should still be in power in spite of the fact that the Shia are the majority of the country, and they're willing to use violence to try to create enough chaos so they get back in power.

The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We've got people who say civil war, we've got people on the ground who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is -- it was dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it, so that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is even-handed in its application of security; a place where the vast resources of the country -- this is a relatively wealthy country, in that they've got a lot of hydrocarbons -- is shared equally amongst people; that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution where the local provinces have got authority, as well; and where people who may have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can participate in the life of the country; and is an ally in the war on terror. In other words, that there is a bulwark for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful.

Q Do you believe it's a civil war, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I can only tell you what people on the ground, whose judgment -- it's hard for me, living in this beautiful White House, to give you an assessment, firsthand assessment. I haven't been there; you have, I haven't. But I do talk to people who are and people whose judgment I trust, and they would not qualify it as that. There are others who think it is. It is, however, a dangerous situation, thereby requiring action on my part.

Listen, I considered several options -- one, doing nothing, and that if you don't believe the situation was acceptable, then you should do something. And I didn't believe the situation was acceptable. Secondly, I could have listened to the advice of some and pulled back and hoped for the best. I felt that would be extraordinarily dangerous for this young democracy, that the violence in Baghdad could escalate mightily and then spill out across the country, creating chaos, vacuums into which extremism would flow; or make the decision I made, which is to reinforce the troops that were on the ground, to help this Iraqi government and security force do what they're supposed to do.

Sir. You dropped?

Q Bad hands. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: You know, you got the Blackberry and everything there.

Q I'd like to ask you about troop morale.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q As you know, a growing number of troops are on their second, third or fourth tour in Iraq. There have been a growing number of reports about declining morale among fighting men. I spoke personally to an infantry commander -- tough guy, patriot -- who says more and more of the troops are asking, questioning what they're doing here. Does this come as a surprise to you? Are you aware of this? Is it a minority opinion, is it a growing opinion, and does it concern you?

THE PRESIDENT: I am -- what I hear from commanders is that the place where there is concern is with the family members; that our troops, who have volunteered to serve the country, are willing to go into combat multiple times, but that the concern is with the people on the home front. And I can understand that. And I -- and that's one reason I go out of my way to constantly thank the family members. You know, I'm asking -- you're obviously talking to certain people, or a person. I'm talking to our commanders. Their job is to tell me what -- the situation on the ground. And I have -- I know there's concern about the home front. I haven't heard deep concern about the morale of the troops in Iraq.

Q -- tell you?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, they'd tell me that. Sure, absolutely. Just like they told me that they thought they needed extra troops to do the job. Sure.

Listen, I want our troops out of there as quickly as possible. But I also want to make sure that we get the job done. And I made the decision I made in order to do so.

Jim.

Q You spoke positively about the role of diplomacy in North Korea, and you obviously gave it a long time to work. Where does diplomacy fit in, in terms of Iran, and do we have any leverage if we try diplomacy there?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess you could call getting the EU3, China and Russia on the same page on a Chapter 7 Resolution successful diplomacy. I thought that was diplomacy. And it took a long time to get there. I mean, we're working hard to send a concerted message to the Iranians -- a focused, unified message that the world believes you should not have a nuclear program. And so this is a multilateral approach to try to get the government to alter its course on a nuclear weapons program.

I can't think of any more robust diplomacy than to have more than one party at the table talking to the Iranians. And we did so through the United Nations in this case. If they want us at the table, we're more than willing to come, but there must be a verifiable suspension of this weapons program that is causing such grave concern.

We'll continue to work with other nations. Matter of fact, I believe that it is easier for the United States to achieve certain diplomatic objectives when we work with other nations, which is precisely why we adopted the strategy we did in dealing with the Iranians.

Sheryl.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, it seems pretty clear where this Iraq vote in the House is headed. Your press secretary has said repeatedly that members of Congress ought to watch what they say and be concerned about the message that they're sending to our enemy. I'm wondering, do you believe that a vote of disapproval of your policy emboldens the enemy? Does it undermine your ability to carry out your policies there? And, also, what are you doing to persuade the Democratic leadership in Congress not to restrict your ability to spend money in Iraq?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks. A couple of points. One, that I understand the Congress is going to express their opinion, and it's very clear where the Democrats are, and some Republicans; I know that. They didn't like the decision I made. And by the way, that doesn't mean that I think that they're not good, honorable citizens of the country. I just have a different opinion. I considered some of their opinions and felt like it would not lead to a country that could govern itself, sustain itself, and be an ally in the war on terror. One.

Secondly, my hope, however, is that this non-binding resolution doesn't try to turn into a binding policy that prevents our troops from doing that which I have asked them to do. That's why I keep reminding people, on the one hand you vote for David Petraeus in a unanimous way, and then the other hand you say that you're not going to fund the strategy that he thought was necessary to do his job, a strategy he testified to in front of the Senate. I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done.

Secondly, I find it interesting that there is a declaration about a plan that they have not given a chance to work. Again, I understand, I understand. The other part of your question?

Q It emboldens --

THE PRESIDENT: The only thing I can tell you is that when I speak, I'm very conscience [sic] about the audiences that are listening to my words. The first audience, obviously, is the American people. The second audience would be the troops and their families. That's why I appreciate the question about whether or not -- about the troop morale, it gave me a chance to talk to the families and how proud we are of them.

Third, no question people are watching what happens here in America. The enemy listens to what's happening, the Iraqi people listen to the words, the Iranians. People are wondering; they're wondering about our commitment to this cause. And one reason they wonder is that in a violent society, the people sometimes don't take risks for peace if they're worried about having to choose between different sides, different violent factions. As to whether or not this particular resolution is going to impact enemy thought, I can't tell you that.

But I can tell you that people are watching the debate. I do believe that the decision I made surprised people in the Middle East. And I think it's going to be very important, however, that the Iraqi government understand that this decision was not an open-ended commitment, that we expect Prime Minister Maliki to continue to make the hard decisions he's making.

Unlike some here, I'm a little more tolerant of a person who has been only in government for seven months and hasn't had a lot of -- and by the way, a government that hasn't had a lot of experience with democracy. And on the other hand, it's important for him to know, and I believe he does know, that the American people want to see some action and some positive results. And listen, I share that same desire.

The faster that the Maliki government steps up security in Baghdad, the more quickly we can get to what Baker-Hamilton recommended, and that is embedding and training over the rise in presence, protection of the territorial integrity of Iraq, and a strong hunt for al Qaeda, and terrorists who would try to use that country as safe haven. I thought the Baker-Hamilton made a lot of sense, their recommendations. We just weren't able to get there if the capital was up in flames. That's why I made the decision I made.

Yes, Peter.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, we've now learned through sworn testimony that at least three members of your administration, other than Scooter Libby, leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media. None of these three is known to be under investigation. Without commenting on the Libby trial, then, can you tell us whether you authorized any of these three to do that, or were they authorized without your permission?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks, Pete. I'm not going to talk about any of it.

Q They're not under investigation, though?

THE PRESIDENT: Peter, I'm not going to talk about any of it.

Q How about pardons, sir? Many people are asking whether you might pardon --

THE PRESIDENT: Not going to talk about it, Peter. (Laughter.) Would you like to think of another question? Being the kind man that I am, I will recycle you. (Laughter.)

John.

Q Thank you --

THE PRESIDENT: You like that one? "Recycling" him. (Laughter.)

Q That took care of one of my questions, as well, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: If that's the case, sit down. Next question. (Laughter.)

Q A lot of our allies in Europe do a lot of business with Iran, so I wonder what your thoughts are about how you further tighten the financial pressure on Iran, in particular, if it also means economic pain for a lot of our allies?

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting question. One of the problems -- not specifically on this issue, just in general -- let's put it this way, money trumps peace, sometimes. In other words, commercial interests are very powerful interests throughout the world. And part of the issue in convincing people to put sanctions on a specific country is to convince them that it's in the world's interest that they forgo their own financial interest.

And John, that's why sometimes it's tough to get tough economic sanctions on countries. And I'm not making any comment about any particular country, but you touched on a very interesting point.

And so, therefore, we're constantly working with nations to convince them that what really matters in the long run is to have the environment so peace can flourish. In the Iranian case, I firmly believe that if they were to have a weapon, it would make it difficult for peace to flourish. And, therefore, I'm working with people to make sure that that concern trumps whatever commercial interests may be preventing governments from acting. I make no specific accusation with that statement. It's a broad statement. But it's an accurate assessment of what sometimes can halt multilateral diplomacy from working.

Let's see here. Ann.

Q Thank you. Iraq is not only being debated in Congress, but it's going to be debated in the presidential election that's coming ahead. Is that debate -- is there a chance that that is going to hurt your progress in Iraq? And is it appropriate at some point, perhaps, for the government to brief the presidential candidates so they have a better understanding of what it is you're trying to do?

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that question. I thought for a minute you were going to try to get me to comment on the presidential race, and I'd just like to establish some ground rules here with those of you who are stuck following me for the next little less than two years: I will resist all temptation to become the pundit-in-chief and commenting upon every twist and turn of the presidential campaign. As much as I like politics, and I'm intrigued by the race -- it's very similar to how I deftly handled Baker's question -- I won't comment.

Secondly, I remember a member of Congress came to me before one of my speeches -- I think it was the Iraq speech, as opposed to the State of the Union speech, and said, you'd better be eloquent in order to convince the American people to support this plan. He didn't say "articulate," he said, "eloquent." (Laughter.) And my point to the person was, what really matters is what happens on the ground. I can talk all day long, but what really matters to the American people is to see progress -- which leads to your point, Martha -- and that is, progress can best be measured by whether or not the people can see noticeable changes of security inside the capital city. In this case, the Baghdad security plan has got to yield peace in certain mixed neighborhoods, for example.

And so, therefore, to the extent that it affects votes, speeches, perceptions, elections, what really is going to matter is what happens, ultimately. And that's all I really care to comment about it. You know, it's --

Q -- reelection --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not running. (Laughter.) And I know that's going to disappoint some of you. But, anyway, that's pundit-in-chief type questions, so I'm not going to answer those. You're trying to get me to be pundit-in-chief.

Let's see here. Hutch.

Q Good morning.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thanks.

Q I'd like to follow on Sheryl's question about undermining the troops. Do you have to support the war to support the war here? I mean, if you're one of those Americans that thinks you've made a terrible mistake, that it's destined to end badly, what do you do? If they speak out, are they by definition undermining the troops?

THE PRESIDENT: No, she actually asked "the enemy," not "the troops." But I'll be glad to answer your question. No, I don't think so at all. I think you can be against my decision and support the troops, absolutely. But the proof will be whether or not you provide them the money necessary to do the mission.

I said early in my comment -- my answer to Sheryl was, somebody who doesn't agree with my policy is just as patriotic a person as I am. Your question is valid. Can somebody say, we disagree with your tactics or strategy, but we support the military -- absolutely, sure. But what's going to be interesting is if they don't provide the flexibility and support for our troops that are there to enforce the strategy that David Petraeus, the general on the ground, thinks is necessary to accomplish the mission.

Michael. Michael, who do you work for? (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, I work for Politico.com.

THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me? Politico.com?

Q Yes, sir. Today. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: You want a moment to explain to the American people exactly what -- (laughter.)

Q Mr. President, thank you for the question. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Quit being so evasive.

Q You should read it.

THE PRESIDENT: Is it good? You like it?

Q David Gregory --

THE PRESIDENT: David Gregory likes it. I can see the making of a testimonial. (Laughter.) Anyway, go ahead, please.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. You spoke hopefully about your ability to work with Democrats, their willingness to work with you in this new world. I wonder how that's going so far, what you've learned about how they think, and does the current debate constitute grounds for divorce?

THE PRESIDENT: Interesting way to put it. First of all, I think they're patriotic people who care about our country -- back to Hutch's penetrating comment, or question. I do. I was very appreciative of the reception I got at the State of the Union. It was a cordial, respectful reception that gave me the chance to talk about what I believe. I was also very grateful for the reception I received at the Democratic retreat that I went to there in Virginia.

You know, my impression of the meeting there was that we share a lot in common; we're people that actually put filing papers down and ran for office, we were willing to put our families through the grind of politics, we wanted to serve our country, that we care deeply about what takes place in Washington, America and the world.

My hope is, is that we can get positive pieces of legislation passed. I think there's a lot of expectation that the difference of opinion on Iraq would make it impossible for us to work on other areas. I disagree with that assessment. And I hope I'm right, and the best way to determine whether I'm right is will I be able to sign legislation that we have been able to work on.

One such piece of policy is a balanced budget. There seems to be agreement that we should have a balanced budget. I laid out one way forward to achieve that balance. And it shows that we can balance the budget without raising taxes and do so in a five-year horizon. And I'd like to work with the Democrat leadership, as well as, obviously, my Republican folks, to get it done.

Secondly, an interesting opportunity is immigration. As you know, I strongly believe that we need to enforce our borders and that -- and have taken steps to do so. But I also believe that in order to enforce the borders, we need a temporary worker program so that people don't try to sneak in the country to work, that they can come in an orderly fashion, and take the pressure off the Border Patrol agents that we've got out there, so that the Border Patrol agents don't focus on workers that are doing jobs Americans aren't doing, but are focusing on terrorists and criminal elements, gun runners, to keep the country -- both our countries safe -- Mexico and the United States safe.

I also know that we need to deal with the people who are here -- the 12 million people who are here illegally. I have said multiple times that we can't kick them out of our country. It doesn't make any sense to me to try to do that, and I don't think -- maybe some feel that way, but I don't feel that way. But I also don't believe we should give them automatic amnesty -- automatic citizenship, which I view as amnesty. And look forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to have a comprehensive immigration plan.

Energy is an opportunity for us to work together. We've done a lot of work in the past on promoting alterative sources of energy. America has done more than any nation in the world in promoting alternatives and renewables, all aiming to make sure our economy grows, that we have energy independence, and that we're good stewards of the environment. And I look forward to working with the Democrats on the Energy Independence Initiative I laid out.

One such initiative was the mandatory fuel standards that relies upon alternative fuel to power automobiles. Ethanol is the first and most notable place where we can start, but we also need to spend monies to develop technologies that will enable us to make energy out of products other than corn -- switchgrass or wood chips, for example.

The problem with relying only on corn is that -- by the way, when the demand for corn stays high, the price tends to go up, and your hog farmer gets disgruntled with the alternative energy plan. And, therefore, what's going to matter is that new technologies come online as quickly as possible to take the pressure off of corn ethanol, or corn, as a result of being used in ethanol, and we can work with Congress to do that. That's an area we can work.

Health care. I got a letter the other day from a group of Republican and Democrat senators talking about the desire to work on health care. And they liked some of my ideas. But my only point is that there's an opportunity for us to work together to help the uninsured have private insurance so they can be -- so they can get good health care. And there's an opportunity to work together there.

The governors are coming into town soon, and I'm going to have Secretary Leavitt describe to them the affordable grants program that is a part of our comprehensive approach, including rewriting the tax code.

Finally, No Child Left Behind needs to be reauthorized. I fully understand that if you read your newspaper articles -- which I do sometimes -- and listen carefully, you'll hear voices in both parties saying they don't like No Child Left Behind --it's too much testing, or, we don't want to be held to account, or whatever they say. The bill is working. It makes a lot of sense.

There's an income gap in America that I talked about when I went to Wall Street. And what's clear to me is that our kids have got to have education so that in this global economy, the jobs of the 21st century stay here at home. And it starts with good education. And, therefore, I will argue vociferously the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be reauthorized, it's working, it's an important piece of legislation, and will reach out to Democrat members, as well as Republican members, to get this bill reauthorized.

And so there's a lot of areas, Mike. I'd say it's a little early in the process. This is a two-year term. We've got time to work together to get important pieces of legislation done. And I'd like to start. As a matter of fact, this afternoon I've got members of both parties, both chambers coming down to visit about how we can continue to work together to get some legislation done.

As I told the Democrats, and as the Democrats have made clear to me in my visits, that neither of us are going to abandon our principles, that I don't expect them to change their principles and they shouldn't expect me to. But there's ways for us to work together to achieve legislative successes for the common good. That's what the American people want to see, and that's what I believe we can do. Is it going to take work? Yes, it's going to take work. But it's okay, that's why you pay us all this money.

Richard.

Q Thank you, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Last question, then I've got to go have lunch with Bob Gates, Secretary of the Defense.

What are you looking at? Checking the time? For the viewer out there -- you're getting a big -- timekeeper and everything. (Laughter.)

Q I don't mean to interrupt. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I just thought he was looking at the watch because he was getting bored. I wasn't sure, you know?

Q I'm never bored.

THE PRESIDENT: Remember the debates?

Q Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. (Laughter.)

Q Mr. President, Republican and Democratic Presidents before you sat down for face-to-face talks with the Soviet Union, a nation that was clearly hostile, tyrannical, and had a huge nuclear arsenal. Why do you think that face-to-face talks between yourself and the leadership of Iran would be any more compromising for you?

THE PRESIDENT: Richard, if I thought we could achieve success, I would sit down. But I don't think we can achieve success right now. And, therefore, we'll want to work with other nations. I think that we're more likely to achieve our goals when others are involved, as well. I really don't want to put the situation -- let me put it this way: I want to make sure in the Iranian issue that the whole world stays engaged, because I believe that's a more effective way of convincing the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions. That's why.

Look, this is a world in which -- and I'm not suggesting you're this way -- but this is a world in which people say, meet -- sit down and meet. And my answer is, if it yields results; that's what I'm interested in. And so I believe the strategy that -- and by the way, I remember this during the North Korean issue, debate. People kept saying, well, all you've got to do is sit down with the guy. And I kept saying, well, I think it's going to be more effective if we have other people at the table with us saying the same thing, so that just in case he decides not to honor the agreement, there will be other people saying the same thing I'll say, which is, you said one thing, you did another. It will make it easier for us to send that message that the world is pretty well united in solving this problem peacefully.

And so that's why I made the decision I made. It sounds tempting for somebody to say, all you've got to do is sit down with the people. I'm in a little different position in that I'm trying to achieve certain objectives. And we are making progress on the Iranian issue. If you step back to early on in the process, there was doubt as to whether or not the world would come together, sometimes because of the reason John mentioned. There were conflicting interests. And I believe we are making good progress toward solving this issue peacefully.

And we'll continue to try to solve the issue peacefully. It's an important issue whether or not Iran ends up with nuclear weapons. It's one of these issues that people are going to look back and say, you know, how come they couldn't see the impending danger? What happened to them? You've heard me say that often about what would happen if we don't -- if we were to abandon our efforts in the Middle East for stability and peace, through forms of government that are more likely to defeat an extremist ideology that would like to be able to prevail.

And it's a -- at any rate, that's why I made the decision I made. Presidents have to weigh different options all the time. Look, I fully understand there are some who are -- don't agree with every decision I make. I hope the American people understand I make those decisions because I believe it's going to yield the peace that we all want.

Listen, thank you for your time. I enjoyed it very much.