'Meet the Press' transcript for October 4, 2009

MR. DAVID GREGORY:  This Sunday, the challenges weighing on the White House at home and abroad.  In Afghanistan, will the president commit to more troops for the war as his commander on the ground wants?  Iran, will talks push that country to give up its nuclear weapons program?

(Videotape)

PRES. BARACK OBAMA:  If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely.

(End videotape)

GREGORY:  Our exclusive guest this morning, a key member of the president's foreign policy team, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.

Then, the economy.  Unemployment inches towards a staggering 10 percent despite the massive stimulus.  Where are the jobs?

(Videotape)

PRES. OBAMA:  Today's job report is a sobering reminder that progress comes in fits and starts, that we're going to need to grind out this recovery step by step.

(End videotape)

GREGORY:  Plus, prospects fade for a public option as part of the healthcare plan.  And the president goes for the gold but comes home empty handed; the 2016 games to be held in Rio, not Chicago.  Strong opinions about what it all means:  New York Times columnist David Brooks, Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow and Republican strategist Mike Murphy.

Finally, in our MEET THE PRESS Minute, remembering New York Times columnist William Safire, who appeared on this program 99 times throughout the course of his career.

But first, news about Iran in this morning's newspapers.  The New York Times reports they may be closer now to producing a nuclear weapon than originally thought.  It comes as the chief international weapons inspector arrived in Tehran last night and met this morning with Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Was it--what does it all mean for the administration's efforts now to negotiate with Iran?  Here with us live, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice.

Ambassador Rice, welcome.

MS. SUSAN RICE:  Thank you.  Good to be with you.

GREGORY:  Let's get right to this New York Times reporting this morning.  This is what the article actually says.  The headline:  "Report Says Iran Has the Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb.  Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired `sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable' atom bomb.  The report by experts in the IAEA stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative, subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.  But the report's conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States." First off, does the U.S. concur with these conclusions?

MS. RICE:  Well, David, I'm not going to get into characterizing the substance of a confidential report or our own intelligence.  But suffice it to say, our whole approach is predicated on an urgent need to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons capacity.  And that's why a united P5+1 last week presented Iran with a very plain choice:  Prove to our satisfaction that their program is, as they claim, for peaceful purposes and open up their facilities to inspections, freeze their uranium enrichment program, commit, as they have done, and follow through on that commitment to provide fuel for enrichment outside of the country or face real pressure and consequences.

GREGORY:  But they have the know-how to make a bomb.

MS. RICE:  I'm not in a position to characterize that report or our own intelligence.  But the point is whether they have it now, whether they seek it or whether they will obtain it down the road, we are very focused on preventing that from occurring.

GREGORY:  Well, why can't you say when you think they're going to have it or if they have it now?

MS. RICE:  Well, there are various assessments and they don't all align.  But the point is we share the concern that an Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a great threat to U.S. national security and the security of, of allies and partners in the region.  And that is why we're very determined to take the steps necessary to prevent them from obtaining that capacity.

GREGORY:  But given this report, given that the president has talked about a deadline of September, what is the deadline for Iran to either put up, to negotiate away its nuclear potential or face consequences?

MS. RICE:  Well, we're very much in a, a period of intense negotiations now. What happened last week was a constructive beginning, but it was only a beginning, David.  And the onus is now squarely on Iran to adhere to the commitments it has made.  If it doesn't, time is short.  We're not interested in talking for talking's sake, we're not interested in interminable negotiations.  They have to demonstrate conclusively that their program is for peaceful purposes.

GREGORY:  You talk about these--the potential for consequences.  You won't negotiate indefinitely.  The question is how much leverage does the U.S. really have?  Charles Krauthammer, critical of the approach, saying, "Look, you don't have China and Russia really on board." This is what he wrote in an opinion piece on Friday:  "Do the tally.  In return for selling out Poland and the Czech Republic by unilaterally abrogating a missile-defense security arrangement that Russia had demanded be abrogated, we get from Russia...what? An oblique hint, of possible support, for unspecified sanctions grudgingly offered and of dubious authority--and, in any case, leading nowhere because the Chinese have remained resolute against any Security Council sanctions. Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling and pious concern about Iran's nuclear program--whereas the real objective is stopping that program.  This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb." Is this a cat and mouse game?

MS. RICE:  No.  Look, this is a very serious process where we are together aligned with the P5+1--that's Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany and the United States--presenting Iran with a very stark choice:  Either they give up their nuclear weapons program conclusively to our satisfaction, or they will face additional pressure.  That is the agreed position of the P5+1.  Now, it's, it's true that Russia and China have historically resisted sanctions, but we have moved Russia and China in a very constructive direction just recently on North Korea, where we now have in place, with their unanimous support, the toughest Security Council sanctions on any country in the world. We are united in presenting this choice to Iran, and Iran new--now has the responsibility either to adhere to its obligations internationally or face that pressure.

GREGORY:  What, what crippling sanctions are you considering?  What kind of pressure against Iran if they don't comply?

MS. RICE:  There are a range of, of sanctions, David, under consideration. There are those that we might pursue multilaterally in the context of the Security Council, there are others that we could do outside of the Security Council with partners in Europe and elsewhere, and then there are those that we can take by ourselves unilaterally.  There's a wide range.

GREGORY:  Economic sanctions?

MS. RICE:  Economic and otherwise.  But that is one option.  But right now we are in a period of intense negotiations.  It's not a, it's not an infinite period, it's a very finite period.

GREGORY:  So what's the period?

MS. RICE:  Well, we will--we have some very important milestones that we are expecting...

GREGORY:  I know, but the president...

MS. RICE:  David...

GREGORY:  The president has said September.

MS. RICE:  This--no, the president said...

GREGORY:  And now you're saying a finite period.  So what, what's the period?

MS. RICE:  The president said that we would take stock in September, and indeed we did.  And we presented Iran with a very stark choice on October 1st. Now we have some deadlines that the Iranians themselves have committed to. They will meet October 19th at the expert level to discuss the Tehran Research Reactor.  That's an important step.  ElBaradei, the IAEA director, today confirmed that on October 25th the Qom reactor will be open to IAEA inspections.  The Iranians have also said that they will come back to the table within the month of October.  So we will look and see whether those steps are indeed fulfilled.  If they are, that will indicate a degree of seriousness that we've not seen yet.  If they're not fulfilled, then obviously we are in a two-track posture and we have the pressure track before us.

More from NBC News broadcasts   Petraeus: ‘Realistic’ to begin transition in 2011   Huffington: War ‘not a right-left issue’ More going to extremes for shot at fame?   One-on-one with Bill & Melinda Gates One man’s trash becomes another’s home Low-tech tactics boost border fight Follow on Twitter: Making a Difference

MORE FROM MEET THE PRESS

Meet the Press Section Front

Nov. 29: Rick Warren, Bill & Melinda Gates Nov. 22: Senate roundtable, Brinker, Snyderman Nov. 15: Clinton, Duncan, Gingrich, Sharpton Nov. 8: Casey, Barbour, Rendell, roundtable, Brokaw Nov. 1: Tim Geithner, David Plouffe, roundtable Oct. 25: Cornyn, Schumer, Burnett, Sorkin, roundtable Oct. 18: Jarrett, Dodd, Kyl, Shriver, Podesta Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 4: Ambassador Susan Rice, roundtable Sept. 27: Bill Clinton, Paterson, Kyl, Webb Meet the Press Section Front   Add Meet the Press headlines to your news reader: