the top, and then I will turn it over to you, Matt, in your summer jacket, which I like.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS HARF: On Libya, the United States welcomes today’s announcement that the UN-facilitated

Libyan political dialogue will resume again on June 8th in Morocco. Libya’s crisis can

only be solved through a political, not a military solution. Libyan stakeholders participating

in the UN dialogue are working to preserve Libya’s sovereignty and territorial integrity

as they finalize discussions on a draft political agreement that will form a national unity

government. We commend the efforts of the United Nations and Special Representative

to the Secretary-General Bernardino Leon in facilitating these discussions.

In support of these talks, Deputy Secretary Blinken spoke this morning to Libyan House

of Representatives President Aguila Saleh Issa and Nouri Abusahmain of the former General

National Congress. Blinken highlighted our strong support for both groups’ decisions

to attend the upcoming political dialogue and urged their support of the finalized political

agreement and the establishment of a new national unity government as soon as possible. All

Libyans will benefit from the end of the military conflict and increased security and stability.

A strong, unified government will, again, be the best defense against any terrorist

threat which is taking advantage of the current political environment.

A couple more items, guys. Thanks for hanging with me here.

On Macedonia, Deputy Secretary Blinken met this morning as well with EU Commissioner

Hahn to discuss the recent EU Eastern Partnership Summit in Riga and EU policy to the east,

particularly focusing on Ukraine, Georgia, Serbia, Macedonia, Bosnia, and Moldova. With

respect to Macedonia, the deputy secretary welcomed Commissioner Hahn’s successful

mediation efforts earlier this week and praised Macedonia’s government and opposition leaders

for reaffirming on June 2nd their commitment to Euro-Atlantic principals, interethnic relations,

and good neighborly relations and good neighborly relations in preparation for early elections

by the end of April 2016. The deputy secretary underscores that while the path forward will

not be easy for Macedonia, the United States together with our European partners will be

actively engaged to support Macedonia in meeting these challenges and ultimately the goal of

Euro-Atlantic integration.

Two more quick things, and then I promise the floor is yours, Matt.

An update on Secretary Kerry: Secretary Kerry continues to recover in Massachusetts General

Hospital in Boston. His doctors feel he is on schedule with his recovery, which is proceeding

normally if not better than expected. He has been exercising, walking several times yesterday

and again today, and also resting though, and letting his broken bone heal. He plans

to take advantage of the weekend to continue this routine and then make decisions about

the days ahead. This morning he has already spoken with National Security Advisor Susan

Rice, received briefings from Chief of Staff John Finer, Counselor Tom Shannon. I believe

if he hasn’t already, he will be speaking again with Under Secretary of State Wendy

Sherman, who you all know is in Vienna continuing the Iran negotiations.

And then the last item at the top, which is more of a personal item, I think as many of

you know, I started my new position on Monday as senior advisor on strategic communications

to Secretary Kerry. That’s focused on big strategic priorities and most importantly,

of course, the Iran negotiation. So it’s time to get to work on that, so today will

be my last briefing at this podium after about two years, just about two years. And it’s

been an exciting, interesting two years if you think the Iran talks were still in the

secret channel when I started this, Cuba policy was, what, decades --

QUESTION: Also in a secret channel?

MS HARF: Also on a secret channel, that is true. Good point, James Rosen. Russian tanks

weren’t in eastern Ukraine, and also just sort of the daily business of diplomacy. So

given all that’s going on, that’s why we do this every day, why I know you do this

every day as well – the only podium who briefs every day no matter where the Secretary

is – and I appreciate the last two years. It’s been fun, it’s been interesting,

it’s been, at times, very difficult for all the issues we all cover and face. So with

that I won’t get too emotional, but thank you, and we’ll do a good briefing today.

We’ll make it a good one to go out on.

QUESTION: We’ll try.

MS HARF: And Jeff will be briefing next week, and then John and Mark as soon as they’re

ready will be up here as well.

QUESTION: Right.

MS HARF: And there have been things like the lights going off. You remember when the podium

broke. We’ve had some interesting times in the last two years.

QUESTION: Yes. Yes, we have. It certainly is the end of an era.

MS HARF: It is.

QUESTION: I’m not sure what era it will be called. We’ll leave that to --

MS HARF: The Psaki and Harf --

QUESTION: -- historians and internet philosophers. But thank you --

MS HARF: Philosophers is a nice word for them.

QUESTION: -- for showing up every day and doing what you did.

MS HARF: It’s been fun.

QUESTION: It – I’m not sure that you’re – is that an honest assessment of it being

fun?

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: The spokesperson who launched a thousand memes, your Twitter legions of fans

and foes I’m sure will be --

MS HARF: I’m sure they will miss --

QUESTION: -- disappointed in your --

MS HARF: -- will miss it.

QUESTION: But anyway, we will --

MS HARF: But we’ll still all be talking on these issues. We’ll also be working together.

You’ll still all be coming to me for questions on things. It will just be not at the podium.

And so it’s been a long and interesting and important few years. So thank you all.

QUESTION: We will certainly miss you. Right. Getting down to business.

MS HARF: Getting down to business.

QUESTION: I’m touched by that display of emotion on your part by the way. (Laughter.)

MS HARF: For Matt, that’s actually – (laughter) – that’s actually, guys --

QUESTION: That was effusive. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know, James. Would you like to say a word or two?

QUESTION: I think I speak for everyone who is a regular in this room, which I can’t

even include myself in that grouping, in saying that we all appreciated the grasp of the issues

and the passion and conviction you brought to your defense of this Administration and

your engagement with us.

MS HARF: Thank you.

QUESTION: And to the extent there was very harsh criticism, only some small measure was

probably self-inflicted – (laughter) – and it tended not to come from people who dealt

with you on a regular basis.

MS HARF: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.

QUESTION: Arshad.

QUESTION: I’d like to say one thing. Best of luck.

MS HARF: Thank you. Thank you.

QUESTION: And thanks – well, thanks for your late night endeavors. I know that a lot

of this stuff had been going on late into the night, and you’ve taken our emails and

MS HARF: That’s true.

QUESTION: -- responded, and we appreciate that.

MS HARF: Thank you. Well, look, in some respects you’re covering – we all care about the

same issues. We’re coming from it – from a different perspective, but we’re all doing

this so the American people and the world knows what we do in this building. So with

that, let’s get down to business.

QUESTION: Right. So --

MS HARF: Ask a good first question, Matt. Come on.

QUESTION: Well, I’m afraid it’s not particularly good.

MS HARF: No pressure.

QUESTION: But it is – it is an important question.

MS HARF: Okay.

QUESTION: And it – but it goes back to this IAEA report and the Iran and the --

MS HARF: What better place to start today?

QUESTION: Yes. And the uranium. So I don’t know if you’ve seen this two-page thing

that ISIS --

MS HARF: David Albright?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS HARF: Yes.

QUESTION: The good ISIS.

MS HARF: The good ISIS, yes. I actually have it right here.

QUESTION: Okay. So --

MS HARF: I briefly looked at it earlier.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, the main point other than the stuff about shooting messengers is

not going to make the issue go away, blah, blah, blah --

MS HARF: Right.

QUESTION: That the crux of this is that they say, as they were cited in this story that

you took issue with, that they are skeptical about whether Iran is actually going to be

able to --

MS HARF: Correct.

QUESTION: -- take this problem, to deal with it. And --

MS HARF: Right, right. They say that sort of the notion that they have to get back down

there at a certain time – they sort of agree with many of things we’ve said. I think

they’re skeptical --

QUESTION: Right.

MS HARF: -- that Iran technically can do it.

QUESTION: But they say given the stridency of their criticisms, meaning this Administration’s

--

MS HARF: Meaning ours. Yes.

QUESTION: -- of those who have raised the oxidation issue, the State Department should

explain the basis for their confidence. Can you do that?

MS HARF: Well, again, as we’ve said, in both the original JPOA and in the first extension,

Iran converted enough of this material, this LEU, from uranium hexafluoride, the form that

it was in as it was produced in the centrifuges, to another chemical form such that Iran reduced

the overall stockpile back under the limit. The other chemical form of uranium is much

for difficult for Iran to use in a breakout scenario. Our experts anticipate Iran will

have no problem converting the excess uranium hexafluoride produced during the second extension

in the same way.

So again, we have seen them do this twice. The IAEA has taken note of this process before.

And we and our experts anticipate Iran won’t have challenges doing that. I understand that

David Albright is skeptical. And again, if we’re standing here on June 30th and Iran

hasn’t done it, then they would be in violation of the JPOA.

QUESTION: But can you explain the reason – is the basis for your confidence – is that

– is your confidence based on the fact – on only the fact that they’ve managed to do

it --

MS HARF: No -- to do it before.

QUESTION: -- before?

MS HARF: I think it’s based on two things, primarily. One is that they have done it before,

which shows that they know how to do it and they’re capable of doing it. And also, we’ve

had technical discussions at an expert level with them about this process, and that is

why our assessment is that we believe and anticipate they will be able to get back down

where they need to.

QUESTION: Okay. But I’m still – that doesn’t really explain the – I mean, I can understand

why you would say that the basis for your confidence was that they have done it in the

MS HARF: In a process that’s been --

QUESTION: – that they’ve managed to do it before.

MS HARF: -- outlined publicly.

QUESTION: But I don’t get the second part of why that’s – I mean, you’re basically

taking them at their word that --

MS HARF: No, because --

QUESTION: No?

MS HARF: -- we’ve had technical discussions with them about how they are going about doing

this and will go about doing it. They’ve proven they can do it technically and from

a technological perspective. And I’m not exactly sure what the skepticism is on David

Albright’s side from a technical perspective. I’m happy to get one of our nuclear experts

to debate the finer points of this with him. But having talked to our team, the fact is

they know how to do this, they’ve done it before. We’re talking to them about the

current stockpile and how they’re going to get it down to the form that is acceptable

and the level that’s acceptable.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t it be – wouldn’t it be in the best interests of the deal and

the Administration and the rest of the world who are watching this – these negotiations

unfold if you were to be a little bit more skeptical of Iran’s intentions and abilities

in this?

MS HARF: Well, I’m – look, Matt, on this one – one issue, which is a – one smally

defined issue, right – this isn’t about their intentions overall, this isn’t about

their capabilities overall – on whether they can get down under 7,850[1], on that

very narrow issue, technically they know how to do it, technically they’ve demonstrated

twice before that they can, and we’ve talked to them about how they’re going to. So it’s

not that we just take them at their word; we’ve seen their actions to do so. And again,

if they don’t, that will be a problem.

The bigger technical question when it comes to a final deal, right – this a question

for JPOA implementation; this actually isn’t really a question for the final negotiations

– is how they will get down to 300 kilograms. And so these are both important issues, but

they’re just a little separate, and the discussions are ongoing about how they’ll

get down to 300 kilograms. There’s several ways they can do it. They can down-blend it,

they can ship it out of the country, they can sell it on the open market. But those

are two separate processes from getting down to [7,650]. That is something, quite frankly,

technically we’ve seen them do. We don’t have reason to think they won’t be able