 I think we have heard enough about Israeli position. Is there any other person, any other student volunteering to make any comment about the country that he or she is going to be represented, but your person views? Go ahead. America. Here is the United States taking the lead again. Yes. As a major country, first of all, I want to thank Wikileaks to prevent our private security issues. I think it's an irony, yes. It's my personal view, first of all. Iran's position for nuclear ambition is a problematic issue, not only for the Middle East issue, but for both security issues. As the United States does it, I can say that we definitely mentioned the importance of human rights. And this is an issue for the Security Council, not only for the Secretary General or the World Issues. But first of all, Security Council must take into account that Iran's nuclear ambitions is very important for the world security. Yeah, it is a concern for the world. It's a concern for the whole world. And you mentioned something about human rights in between. So how do you relate this issue to human rights? East of Pakistan is very important, as it's mentioned in the. So do you mean that if Iran abuses its rights stemming from the NPT, and this will set a negative precedent, a bad precedent for other countries, and there will be more restrictions on the intentions or on the attempts of other countries to acquire peaceful nuclear technology. So well, concern for the world, security perspective, but also peaceful applications of nuclear energy. So yeah, I mean, it is difficult to say that whoever wanted to benefit from nuclear technology had never been obstructed. There is this very typical case of Turkey, which, again, you can follow from my publications. And it's available just back in 96, 97. I wrote on why Turkey was not successful in bringing nuclear technology to the country. And that was mainly because not only because Turkey didn't have any plans or didn't have any financial resources or this and that, but the main reason was the concerns about Turkey's potential ambitions or intentions and the fear of this secret collaboration between Pakistan and Turkey and the United States based on some rumors, based on some information that they seem to have a little bit aggravated, and based on the statements made or comments made by some people who were not necessarily in responsible positions when they made these statements, but those who were indeed retired personnel from the military, from diplomacy, from state bureaucracy, or even politicians. So Turkey was actually not allowed to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful applications for more than three decades, four decades, when I wrote that piece back in 96, 97. Now it's already a healthy century. Well, finally, Turkey is building its first nuclear power plant. Well, even the pro-nuclear people are concerned that this is the best way of bringing technology, nuclear technology to Turkey, because there is not going to be any difference between the Russian firm building this nuclear power plant in St. Petersburg or in Akkui, because it is going to be built and operated for a long time by the Russians. So, well, this is a whole different situation, but yet there are some countries like Turkey who were not wanted to have this nuclear capability because of what they could do with that capability. And Iran was actually one of them, but Iran found a way, as we have seen here over the past two weeks or so, how they found a way to overcome all these obstacles talking to other actors, getting technology or material or scientific knowledge from various sources and more specifically from Russia. And of course, in the meantime, because of their commitment and well-preparedness, they have achieved to bring in themselves to this level that they are at this moment. But on the other hand, of course, the MPT allowed a number of states to benefit from peaceful applications of nuclear energy. And now there is this increasing interest or desire, especially in the Middle Eastern countries, even in African countries, in bringing nuclear technology to their countries. For instance, United Arab Emirates signed a deal with the South Korean firm, South Korea actually, something that will cost them like $20 billion. It's a big project for nuclear reactors. It's a big plant. So United Arab Emirates is going to benefit from nuclear technology. Well, this would be one of the last things that would come to one's mind because oil rich as well as natural gas rich countries, why would they need nuclear technology? Well, this is a question. It's not a question to ask. It's a question that many people ask when people try to find an answer. Of course, Qatar is planning to do the same. Other countries in the region, Saudi Arabia is planning to do the same. And some African countries are also planning to do the same. So therefore, my explanation, I mean, my answer to these questions, of course, I'm not in a position to give a definitive answer. I cannot say here is, this is the answer to the question, but this is one of the answers which I personally believe is the case, of course, because it is my personal opinion, but there may be some people who would just challenge it just or you may agree or disagree, but it is something that comes out of the necessity in the eyes of the ruling elite in these countries. We're not talking about typical democracies and well-established state structures and certain nations. For instance, Qatar, if it has a population like a couple of millions, maybe 10 or 115 or maybe most five percent of its population is Qatari. The rest are coming from other parts from South Pacific, South Asia, and even Latin America who go there for working into having a good life, which is good unless you are under the sun. It is a very hot country. I was there in May this year, but the living standards actually are very high. So there is this search among the Qatari ruling elite, the Sheikh and Amir and whoever other people are actually has to have to respond to Iran's nuclear program because there is this growing concern, as I just said and many times as well, before when they look at the map, they see nothing but Iran around them. So Iran's nuclear weapons or the capability to build nuclear weapons on a short notice is something that is like a nightmare for these small monarchies, a small, you know, sheikdoms or kingdoms or this and that. So therefore, in order to legitimize their rule in the eyes of the people whom they rule there, this must seem to be doing something. So of course, neither Qatar nor United Arab Emirates nor Saudi Arabia being the biggest and most powerful among the Gulf states can't do anything that would definitely provide enough security assurances to their own people. They always are in need of alliances with other states and the United States being one of them and the most important one. And again, I'll repeat what I said in the first hour, as we now understand from the Bikliqs, the statements that have leaked to the press, these countries or the representatives of these countries are reportedly, we don't know whether these are reflecting the truth as a whole because these are the notes that are, or just maybe memoranda written by some embassy people, by some, I don't know, those who take notes and they may make mistakes. There's always this margin of caution and we're not in a position to make any statements, different statements about these things. But that said, we understand that they have real concern about Iran's nuclear program. So of course, I didn't have enough time to study these countries in their public domains. I've been there only on two, three occasions for a few days, like three, four days. Of course, I try to benefit from my being there in terms of making observations, talking to people and to get an opinion as to how they think about the situation there. This is not, this is an academic curiosity. So what I understand is that the ruling elite in the Gulf area are really concerned about this situation. And in order to feel like they are doing, they are fulfilling their responsibilities toward their people, they must do something. So since they cannot do anything militarily, there is this Gulf Cooperation Council but it doesn't have any meter arm. So it doesn't have a meter, the branch or there are no contingencies that the Gulf Cooperation Council of GCC would have anything. They don't have anything meter. It's just an organization of Gulf countries in order to have a, to commensurate some of their foreign policy objectives. Listen, it's not a big deal. It's not a political actor or a meter actor. It cannot constitute something like a pact, something like a meter organization that would stand firm against Iran. This is just not the case at all. So in the absence of anything that they could do in the meter domain by themselves, they can do two things. First, of course, what is first and foremost for these ruling elites in the area is to survive, is the continuation of their rule. So for the Saudi Arabian King, for the Qatari Amir or UA's, five Emirates, or seven, I forgot. Anyway, so therefore the first and foremost concern is continuation of their rule. So they can do this only in two ways. One, of course, is to create or establish alliances with other powers, the United States being the most important one, and they have done so already. And we have seen during the Gulf War, the first Gulf War, 1991, that United States and the coalition forces have used their territories for deploying large number of troops, hundreds of tons of troops, because at one point the total number of troops accumulated in the Qatari, in the Saudi Arabian and Bahraini territories, exceeded 600,000 troops, most of them from the United States and UK, et cetera, et cetera. So, well, according to some, this has given the way to the emergence and evolution of the Osama bin Laden's movement, because he based his movement against the presence of the infidel, being the non-Muslims coming from other states, putting their feet on the sacred holy territory, Saudi Arabia, et cetera, et cetera. So this is something that had its own separate dimension. So the first thing, or one thing that they can do is to establish, form a coalition's alliance with the big powers in the United States. And the second thing is to, in a sense, take such actions that would put pressure, if any, to opposition movement. Of course, it is very hard to speak of opposition in these Gulf Emirates or kingdoms or monarchies as a whole. Monarchy is not a term that our friends from the Gulf like, I know, but this is how people from outside perceive them, just for ease of use, for facility of use, I'm using that term. So, there is not much opposition that we can think of or the opposition in the sense that we know, which would just mobilize large number of people and just revolting against the established kingdom, sheikdom, emirate, et cetera. But at least, even if it is not the case today, there is also a certain degree of unease or discontent, discomfort in the public domain as to what our king or emir or the sheik doing against this. So other than the military alliance with the big powers, the other thing would be to seem to be doing something that would at least give an image or create a perception in the public domain that they are going to level or balance the Iranian nuclear program. So, of course, nuclear reactors do not produce bombs. You do not just put fuel from one end, you get the bomb from the other end. There is no such thing. It is just more than absurd. But nuclear programs, nuclear reactors that are for energy generation, electricity generation or isotope production for curing some illnesses, et cetera, or for fertilizers for agriculture, these are all installations that are needed for peaceful applications. But the very same peaceful applications can be used in such a way to constitute the basics, the fundamental, the essence of a meter program even when there is one such an ambition. So, for instance, the fuel in the nuclear reactor which generates electricity, when it becomes a waste, as we mentioned here, there is plutonium in it. If you can extract plutonium, you can use in your weapons or you can use this nuclear program for covering or for preventing the rest of the world from seeing what is behind actually going on. Or at least the public domain without having much knowledge about the specifics, about the technical details of a nuclear program, once there is one introduced in the country, people in the public domain, I mean, the population will think, wow, we are going nuclear too. We are going to build our own weapon. Well, of course, it's not going to be said probably loudly, but it's something that will provide a certain degree of, I don't know, or create an impression in the public domain that the administration is doing something. I read the very same or if not the same similar remarks on the website of some data papers when there's a news about the actual nuclear power plant that is going to be built by the Russian firm, there are kinds of comments coming from the readers. They say, now we are going to have our nuclear program, we are going to have our nuclear power or nuclear weapon as if these facilities, which are pure for peaceful applications, will themselves produce nuclear weapons. There is this misperception. So therefore, based on this, yeah, the United States is definitely underlining or emphasizing that it is a problem that the whole world should be concerned about. Secondly, it is something that might undermine countries' acquisition of peaceful nuclear technology if Iran abuses or exploits its privileges for malign purposes. So therefore, in order to offset this view actually, which somehow was predominant at some point, these countries in the Gulf have embarked upon billions of dollars worth of nuclear programs. And as I said, United Arab Emirates signed just about this time last year or maybe early January this year, a deal with South Korea is $10 billion. And actually what I said, my comment, anyone might contend this comment, of course, I don't have any definitive sort of position here, my comment is that United Arab Emirates bought a certain degree of legitimacy for its own ruling elite with this image created in the eyes of its own population. So this is something, therefore, must be also seen from this perspective. Otherwise, it really doesn't make too much sense, at least for this time being. We don't know much about what's going to be the future of energy. I mean, there are all these conflicting reports about there are so many years left reserves left in the world, like 20 years, 30 years, et cetera, et cetera. No one is in a position to give a very solid answer as to for how many years the existing oil reserves or natural gas reserves will be sufficient to provide enough energy wherever this energy is needed. So what explanation for the Gulf States to embark on a nuclear program might be to have cleaner energy and to conserve some of their oil and gas and substitute some of their needs with the nuclear energy. Fine, I can buy that. But when looked from a different perspective from someone who studies nuclear proliferation and security issues, of course, I always put a question mark at the end of these explanations that these are only for energy conservation reasons and also for having cleaner energy. Well, these are definitely real concerns that exist in these countries, but may not be the most important reason as to why they spend 20 or so billion dollars for acquiring nuclear technology transfer. Ibrahim, you had a question. Do countries have them not exist besides the military purposes? They can't say that they've prepared themselves for the future in the economic energy area? Yeah, sure. I mean, as I was just saying, there are all these conflicting reports about how much oil reserves or natural gas reserves are left. We don't know because some say, well, maybe 20, 30 more years. Some others say there are still unexplored areas and there are some indications that are very promising that more than a couple of hundred years we may still have more than necessary oil and gas. And when I discuss this issue with my good friend, Nesjit Pamir, who is one of the most important energy experts in the world, not only in Turkey, and whose idea and opinion actually mean a lot to me. He actually is not in the position to also give a definitive answer. He says it is not possible to say anything like this, like there are only 20 more years in a stock's left or 30 years or 50 years. Because even in Iraq, in the El Anbar area, which is pretty much the middle or west part of the country, I mean, there are more than 10 times more oil reserves that they had anticipated before. So, and it's very close to the surface and the cost of it is much, much less. For instance, today, nowadays, the barrel of oil is like $80 something and the cost of extracting this is less than a dollar. So you make, of course, there are some intermediate stages and people who benefit from this and get their share, but you make 80 times more benefit profit than when compared to the cost incurred, I mean, in extraction of this oil. Also in Siberia, also in Central Asia, also in the Caspian area, also in the United States. I mean, we always hear these rumors about the United States finding oil and just put it in cap for further use when dressed. And some people even started making comments that in the moon there are certain energy reserves. So I don't know. I mean, it will be far too realistic to make such a comment. Like, because in, say, 20, 30 years time, there would be no oil in the Gulf and therefore, 90s whites for them to invest, well, that sounds pretty much fabricated, very artificial and argument. To me, well, I agree, disagree. It's all open to speculation. All right, so taking advantage of this U.S. intervention, I just wanted to give some sort of a perspective from the Gulf, which we have not covered with respect to this issue. All right, anything else with respect to the United States? Well, is the U.S. happy with the reports or? Yeah, the United States, of course, always emphasizes the role of the IAEA, which is something, something I also emphasize on a number of occasions here. The role of the IAEA is something that I might very well ask in the final exam, so I would like you to study. It's important because, because of what? Let me ask you. Why do you think Bushra, the IAEA's role is important in this picture? If you don't have any answer, I can ask anybody else. Okay, Amelia, I can't hear you well, please speak up. Yeah, I mean, and there are sort of problems associated with the IAEA implementing its role or just executing its role. And I don't think the United States is 100% happy with the role the IAEA is playing here, because the United States, of course, now it's lowered the tone of its criticism with respect to the IAEA so far, or at least until say two, three years ago, the United States was, if not directly making these accusations, but was criticizing the International Automatic Energy Agency for not emphasizing certain things as much as they would like to be emphasized, because the United States, the US administration, anybody actually, knowing the weight of the agency in the world politics. Well, it's a technical body. It is established in 1957 to provide guidance, assistance to states that will develop nuclear technology in order to do things right correctly, not only politically and more specifically, technologically, scientifically, et cetera. So it is not a political body and it should not be politicized. And what I have seen so far, with maybe minor exceptions, the IAEA authorities have reframed from making such political statements or such statements that would have political implications beyond their purpose. Of course, once pushed into the center stage of politics, you have to say something, because people are not necessarily expecting some technical explanations, which may not mean too much. Even if the knowledgeable people might just read this kind of explanation, they may not understand what the situation is. The IAEA is in a position to make, if, of course, provided that they are given this authority or this permission to do so, they are in a position to say, definitively, with 100% precision, whether there is anything wrong with the nuclear program of a country, not only Iran, but any country, or everything is fine. So for the IAEA to be able to say this, it must be empowered with the powers conferred upon the agency by the additional protocol. But the additional protocol is enforced only for those who have signed and ratified them. Iran not being one of them. Iran signed but not ratified. And it's not going to be one of them. It's not likely to ratify in the foreseeable future if there is no resolution in the conflict between P5 plus one, plus one, and Iran. So therefore, the IAEA has the power, the capability, the ability, the technical skills, and also the prestige that is necessary for making a conclusive definitive statement that a country is not doing something wrong or it is doing something wrong. But in the case of Iran, it is not in this position. And what the United States asked or expected from the IAEA because of its importance or its significance in the eyes of world community? And they believe, the United States believe, if the IAEA blamed Iran for doing things wrong, they would provide a lot of support to the US and Israeli positions. But the IAEA refrain from crossing the threshold, going beyond its mandate. And so far, as I have seen throughout the past two decades, implementation of the IAEA inspections, reports, and everything, they try to be at the very border of falling on either side. Because if they say something that could not be fully technically, scientifically substantiated, they will definitely lose the confidence that the world actually, the community states, everybody have about the IAEA. But if they do not make some statements because of some political concerns, they will not have fulfilled their mandate. Remember, the task of the IAEA is the timely detection of diversion of significant quantity of fissile material from peaceful to major applications. For the IAEA to fulfill the mandate within this MPT framework, they have to be able to be up to the task at all times. They should not be obstructed from having access to technical findings, scientific findings, or data. They want to talk to Iranian people. They are not allowed to do so. They want to go to some facilities. They are not allowed to do so. They want to carry out some inspection in some territories. They are not allowed to do so. Well, can we blame Iran for not allowing, in one sense, no, because they are subject to the model protocol, the older one, the 1970, 721 protocol, insert 153. But on that hand, we can blame because if a country doesn't have anything to hide, and if they have confidence on their own program, if they definitely are telling the truth, there should be nothing to hide. And therefore, they should allow such an international agency, which has not been corrupt, at least, and which is not only because they won the Nobel Prize, not to get with the Director General of Baraday. But actually, this agency cannot be blamed for being corrupt. I mean, you can say anything about the IAEA, but you cannot just say the IAEA has been the tool of the powerful against the weak. No, the IAEA has always tried to maintain a certain balance between its technical mandate as well as the political expectations or the expectations of the politicians from them. So it's a very hard thing to do. It's like walking on a very tightrope. It's something that every single step you make, you have to pay attention. So the IAEA, therefore, could not satisfy the United States. But as I said, also in the previous weeks, they could not satisfy the Iranians either. So that's a good sign if an agency, which is seen, even if it is not or it doesn't have such a role, if it is seen as brokering a deal between two actors and if that actor is not satisfying the expectations of either side, well, in some respects, that might be a negative thing. That might be a bad thing because it might display its incompetence that it cannot do anything. But on the other hand, depending on the context, and especially in this context, Iran is not satisfied with the IAEA. And the United States is not satisfied either with the IAEA. That's, in my perspective, a good sign. Because neither the Iranians nor the Americans have been successful in manipulating the agency for their own purposes. And the IAEA has done the right thing. And so far, they said, we are not in the position to make a definitive statement that Iran is building a weapon. But we cannot also provide enough assurances that they are not doing. So therefore, there are certain gaps in the information that they need in order to give a definitive answer. So the role of the IAEA, if it is a concern for the whole world, must be further emphasized, of course, not only by giving up ambitions to manipulate this agency by big powers like the United States, but also Iran must also allow this agency to carry out its inspections. All right, so far with the US. And let's use our last 10 or so minutes with a different country perspective, such as which one? Is there in Syrian, quote unquote here? Go ahead, Dalar. What is the Syrian position? I mean, your own personal thoughts based on what you have learned about the Syrian position. You don't have to give a Syrian perspective if you don't want to, but just anything that based on your research and communication with the Syrian authorities so far, how is the situation being interpreted by the Syrians or in Syria? A little bit loudly. Yeah, OK. Now you are going to give a Syrian perspective. OK, go ahead. Can you speak up a little bit? Avoid of weapons of necessary reason. And its position towards this technology has always been linked with its own agency such as medical treatment. So you definitely believe that every country has a right to possess link with its own agency and this is why you can use it in any case. And so if you have to talk about permanent decent, the reason this slide has been one of the issues that extends towards non-proliferation sequence is that you learn this in Gaza and in many, many other things. They have this talk with peace in the region and besides, Syrians don't believe that this slide has weapons. So Syrians think that this slide will be proliferated in the region and we go. And as I said before, Syria is always against any country to possess such weapons. So with that said, since this slide was given the wrong worst-case-sick enough also has a right to possess such weapons So does Syria acknowledge the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons? Is this what you say? Well, I don't think that would be meaningful under the MPT because Syria, this could be a view of a Syrian authority, a personal opinion. But I don't know if it could be the official position of Syria because the MPT that Syria has also signed and ratified and Syria is a state party to the MPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. Syria cannot acknowledge the right of any other country, let alone Iran, which is its very close ally in the region, any other country to have nuclear weapons or to pursue nuclear weapons ambitions. I think there must be something that needs to be corrected in your conversation with the Syrians. Or maybe you should warn them that they should read if this is the view coming from the Syrian authorities. This is from the nuclear weapons profession. But if it is Iran, they are the girls. Is it what they say? And after this, they said, if Israel is possessing such weapons and ends possessing such weapons to the region, then Iran has also a right to advance such nuclear program, so as aid. Again, I repeat, I think if this is the official position of the Syrian diplomats that you had a chance to talk to, either you or he should or she should check. Because it is not possible, I mean, formally speaking, I mean, from a legalistic point of view, I think Ozzam is going to add something. I will add something. Yes. We have told the minister and he told us that we do not support Iran's nuclear program, but we also do not support Israel or any other country. Yeah, that's a different thing. And you can guarantee that Israel would not use the nuclear. That's a whole different issue. What I'm saying is no member of the NPT, be it a nuclear weapons state or non-nuclear weapons state, can make such statements in a formal conversation or in a formal statement acknowledging that a country has the right to go and develop nuclear weapons. This is not possible from a legalistic point of view, from even a diplomatic point of view. But if they said something like, well, in view of the threat posed by the Israeli nuclear weapons capability, never acknowledged, but never denied, but we believe that they exist, we understand Iran's ambitions to take such measures to protect itself, blah, blah, in an oblique way, in an ambiguous way, he or she can make such a statement. But when it comes to acknowledging Iran's right to develop nuclear weapons, this is something that must be really corrected. This is not possible. So therefore, no official statement can be in that format from any country. Well, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea, these are now the only four states who are staying out of the NPT. And all others are members of the NPT. And no member of the NPT can make such a statement. But as I said, the Syrians may have a certain degree of sympathy with Iran's nuclear program, not nuclear weapons program, but advancing their nuclear capabilities doesn't necessarily mean that they are advancing for major purposes. Because as you know, Israel hit a nuclear facility in the Syrian territory, which is al-Qubar. It means Qubar all life. We have nothing to do with it. We have no shares, no secret connection, nothing. But this al-Qubar reactor was hit by these Israeli jet fighters in 2007 in September or 2007, right? The time is passing so fast. Well, and this reactor was just destroyed. But what I read from different sources that Syrians are trying to rebuild the reactor or just build a similar reactor, which is different. What was significant with respect to this reactor, by the way, as a parenthesis, as a footnote, that was almost the exact same replica of the Yongbyeon reactor, the North Koreans built, operated, and extracted enough plutonium from its waste. And the plutonium was used in the nuclear tests that North Korea conducted in 2006 and 2008. So the al-Qubar reactor, if and when finished, based on the statements made by American Israeli scholars, experts, it could produce enough plutonium for Syria to extract and to use in its nuclear program. These are all statements made by Israelis and Americans, of course, in order to serve their own purpose. But the Syrian position, of course, must be seen from a wider angle. And Syria is maybe, if not only, but the most important ally of Iran in the region and in the world. Yes, Iran has many friends in the world, supported by a number of countries, not so many, and we have seen actually in the voting of the UN Security Council membership as non-permanent members. And Iran was one of the least, one of the countries which had received least support. But still, for a country which has been presented to the world as being the sponsor of terrorism, as which has been isolated, and which has its own self-imposed restraints, constraints in entering into relations with other countries, still it was a good deal of countries. But Syria, being one of the most important countries from the Iranian perspective, and vice versa. I think the position of Syria with the Iran's nuclear program cannot be a negative one. They definitely expect something that I said last Friday that Iran wants to be the nuclear supplier or the supplier of nuclear technology to the third world countries, the non-aligned movement countries, Islamic countries, and also countries in its region in the Middle East. So Syria might have some expectations because of having a common denominator against Iran, because Syria has lost Egypt after Egypt, after the Yom Kippur War, the whole process, and the Camp David peace process set out going to Israel, and this Israeli-Egyptian peace deal, et cetera. So Syria, in order to feel more confident and to have this alliance relationship, favors Iran's position. And wants Iran to remain as a powerful, accurate region which may back up Syria in its policy. So therefore, Syria may not have a negative view of Iran's nuclear program, but whatever view they may have, they can never make such explicit official statements that they are acknowledging the right of Iran to build nuclear weapons. Anyway, so far and so long with Iran's nuclear program, so in the next two weeks, I mean, two weeks time that you have, please get together with your teammates, revise the statements that you have prepared, the things that you are going to say in the simulation. And if there's anything that you would like to consult with me, just either drop by any time you like, or just send an email, make an appointment. But beyond this, I will send via email several readings with respect to terrorism issue. And we will use our remaining four class hours, I mean, one hour on Friday, two hours next Tuesday, and one hour next Friday. We will devote our time to studying terrorism and seeing its implications for the world and for the region. So check your emails. And whenever you get these attachments, please have them printed or read from the screen. But come to class having read and make some comments and participate. All right, see you next Friday.