 Highness first of all I would like to thank you for being with us I think it is the fourth if not the fifth time that you are attending participating in the World Policy Conference so first I want to thank you very much it's always a great honor and pleasure to have you and we are going to have a conversation starting the two of us but quickly we will enlarge it and my first question will not be totally unexpected I suppose Saudi Arabia seems to fear the outcomes of the negotiations which have started with the Iran the five of the so-called five plus one negotiations and also to be concerned with the evolution of its relationship with the United States so could you comment on that to start the discussion? In the name of Allah the Most Gracious, Thierry de Mont-Brial is someone when he says you come you come and so I have not been enough times at the World Policy Conference so but today I hope to make up for past absences your question is relevant and I've heard it repeated in many events and through many people and I think it starts from a wrong premise and that premise is that Saudi Arabia feels that it is as you said concerned or worried about any engagement between the United States and Iran first of all Saudi Arabia engages with Iran it has embassy in Tehran and Tehran has an embassy in Riyadh and we've had that engagement since the rapprochement between the kingdom and Iran that occurred in 1995 when the president king was then crown prince met with then president Rafsanjani at an Islamic summit conference in Pakistan and relations had been broken during Khomeini's time because of various events that took place in the holy places in the kingdom and other terrorist acts against Saudi interests in different parts of the world and so that rapprochement took place and since then we've been engaged with Iran as I said the last president of Iran Mr. Ahmed Inajad met with our king at least four or five times during his reign in Iran and the king is the man who is very frank and very blunt and engaged with Ahmed Inajad on those two bases even publicly so to consider that the kingdom would be against American and Iranian engagement is mistaken furthermore I think the five plus one talks with Iran you remember how they started it was the E3 versus Iran and then it was the EU 3 plus 1 and then EU 3 plus 2 etc and now it's the five plus one I think the kingdom and the Gulf States particularly would like to see that progression in numbers continue one more time so that the five plus one will become five plus two with the Gulf Cooperation Council represented on these talks because after all the five plus one are talking about our area and it is our interests that are at stake here more directly and more immediately than the European or the American or the Russian or the Chinese for that matter just consider on the nuclear issue not only the military aspects but simply the aspects of a potential accident in a nuclear facility hundred and some 20 kilometers away from our shores on the Gulf and we have very large population centers on our side of the Gulf from Kuwait going all the way down to Oman that potential for for a natural disaster exists Iran as we all know lies on very unstable grounds and not just politically but also geographically and so any accident as we've seen in the last year two earthquakes in the area of the Bush reactor so you can imagine our concern from that aspect and engaging with Iran and going forward on eliminating any questions or any concerns about the development of nuclear weapons is good for us the GCC countries met a few days ago at a summit conference in Kuwait at which they expressed their welcome of the agreement recently signed in Geneva but also made the GCC made the point that this is an interim government an interim agreement and we will hold our applause until there is a final agreement that eliminates any possibility of Iran developing weapons of mass destruction thank you very much now assuming that there is in the not to this time future permanent agreement on the nuclear of the nuclear issue how could we go how could we go beyond that to stabilize the medallist as a region or to put my question in different way is it possible to have any order in the medallist without some positive cooperation between some of the major actors including Turkey Iran Saudi Arabia and perhaps Israel and maybe one or two Egypt perhaps so what do you think that success of the negotiation on the nuclear dimension could pave the way for a more profound settlement of the medallist issues I'm holding my my my views on on whether or not these interim talks will lead to a final and agreed to settlement on Iran's nuclear ambitions until we see what those agreements can be my preference my preferred view is that we should have in the area a zone free of weapons of mass destruction and in that context I will remind our distinguished audience that in the non-preparation treaty review conference that was held in 2010 in New York following from the previous review conferences the MPT signatories all of them including the five permanent members of the Security Council agreed to have a conference on the issue in Helsinki Finland that was supposed to be held December like this month in in Finland two years ago last year sorry 2012 unfortunately two weeks before that conference was supposed to be held the United States simply issued a statement saying that there was no ground to believe that this conference will succeed and therefore we think it should not be held needless to say I disagree with that opinion of the United States and I think that is where the issue of nuclear proliferation and nuclear armament should be dealt with to secure two things first of all a level playing ground of all of the countries in the Middle East that you mentioned not just Iran or Saudi Arabia but including Turkey and Israel and others Egypt who may have views on this subject but also another aspect I think that is needed to make this zone free of weapons of mass destruction a workable entity is to get from the five permanent members of the Security Council to guarantees for this zone the first guarantee should be that they will provide a nuclear security umbrella for the area of the zone and I'm talking about the five permanent members jointly and the second guarantee is that they should sanction any country is seen to be developing a weapon of mass destruction in the area not just by economic and diplomatic and political sanction but also military sanction with these two guarantees I think if you allow for a period of let's say five years during which the countries of the zone should resolve the issues between them to make the zone a viable entity and to eliminate any fears or questions on any of the members of the zone we have I remember when I first made this proposition several years ago to some European diplomats the first response that came from them was that Israel is not going to accept and my immediate first response to that first response is so what if Israel doesn't accept let it be you establish the idea of the zone you provide the guarantees by the five permanent members and then you let Israel come in and negotiate whatever it is that they want to negotiate the same with Iran and so these are I think ideas that more precisely and more workably can be done rather than devoting as we have seen has been devoted 10 11 years to the negotiations with Iran and yet we're still not there and we're not sure that even when we get there that there will not be more to come but it is an issue that is very much alive in our part of the world and I think we require the necessary attention from the rest of the world to see that we have a stake in it so these ideas of yours which have been trying to promote yes how do you think they have been received by the countries which matter for this game if I may say so and but this takes me back to the question in the United States to which you did not really answer I don't know how these countries take it so far I've been making these ideas discussing them with officials for several years without much much response but I think there is as we see in the press and in the media not just in the United States but in Europe and in other places there is a general growing attention to this issue and there are various groups around the world that are working to promote the idea of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East in both Europe and America and in the Middle East so I hope that they will come around to to agreeing to these kinds of of of proposals as far as the relationship with the United States we've had since 1933 when the first oil companies started coming to dig for oil in Saudi Arabia a very long and well established relationship based on mutual benefits and and interests during these nearly 70 some odd years we've had our ups and downs needless to say the first up if you like that we had was the meeting between King Abdul Aziz and President Roosevelt on on the Red Sea in 1945 that's when the official relationship started with with America at that time President Roosevelt came to King Abdul Aziz with the idea that he wanted to convince him to accept the principle of settling Jewish refugees from the European theater into into Palestine because they were being persecuted in Germany and so on and the King's response to President Roosevelt at the time was well if the Jews are being persecuted by the Germans why settle them in Palestine give them the best piece of land in Germany and let them stay there anyway the really the negotiations between the two ended when President Roosevelt gave assurances to King Abdul Aziz that he will not make a decision on that issue until he coordinated and consulted with the King and other Arab leaders this assurance was repeated by President Truman when he succeeded President Roosevelt soon after his death but by 1947 and 48 when the elections were coming up in America President Truman simply forgot about the issue of consultation and went ahead and not only recognized Israel but provided all the necessary help for it that also affected the relationship and the issue of Palestine and Israel has been a continuous point of contention between Saudi Arabia and the US culminating if I may say in the 1973 oil embargo if you remember so the relationship between the Kingdom and America has been going up and down since then at the moment on the issue of Syria on the issue of nuclear non-preferential on the issue of of the nuclear talks with Iran we have our differences with the United States and we express them publicly but that doesn't mean that the relationship is only those three topics at the moment I don't know if there are any Americans here but we have more than 100,000 Saudi students in the United States spread all over the United States in various universities and that program has been going on now since 2005 and it will continue so on that aspect the human relationship aspect the relationship between the two countries is going forward on business aspects I think America still is our primary trading partner on other issues like defense and security we have full strategic consultation with with the United States so it's not a one-sided relationship that we have with the United States but multifaceted one where the interests of the of the two countries coincide on a lot of issues but they diverge on on some other issues by the way there are a number of American cities in this room I think they will intervene in the conversation but nevertheless there seems to be currently a crisis of trust at the highest level could you comment a little bit on that well I can comment on my personal and non-official view because I do not represent the government but what I hear I hear from Saudi public there is an issue of confidence and when you have president of the United States declare statements on topics that affect us we take it for granted that he will stand by those statements more clearly it was the issue of the so-called red lines in Syria we've seen several red lines put forward by the president which went along and became pinkish as time grew and and eventually ended up completely white and so that kind of assurance when it comes from from leader of the country like the United States we expect him to stand by it I'm not saying that president Obama doesn't have his problems of course he does and he inherited a country that is almost bankrupt and in two wars with depletion of not just material but human lives as well and I'm sure he's thinking in terms of what is best for the United States but when you have people that you deal with especially in the Middle East that have long-standing interests and and have engaged with you directly and without any hesitation on defending those interests you should be able to give them the assurance that what you say is going to be what you do and I think I wrote here for the benefit of the world I hope for the benefit or the benefit of the world policy conference a paper on on on on Palestine and let me just read to you what a few sentences from here of what I wrote because I think they reflect on this issue on the overall confidence and and and trust now I say here Mr. Kerry has to resist Netanyahu's unceasing efforts to deflect the final status aims of the talks into an interim agreement that still denies the full rights of the Palestinians to an independent contiguous and viable state with its capital Jerusalem and its refugees settled through an agreed procedure between Israel and Palestine the site of a US House of Representatives applauding the denial of basing human rights to the Palestinian people cannot and should not obstruct the American people from supporting the unalienable rights of Palestinians as enshrined in all divine and human criteria and as enjoyed by all the people of the world I hope for gone to say that now well into Mr. Obama's second term Mr. Kerry is attempting to achieve what has not been achieved before an Israeli Palestinian peace treaty the world is watching and will not applaud a truncated peace Kerry faces two objury at sly and totally devious pair of opponents Netanyahu and the American Congress they will do everything to put a wrench in the wheel of Mr. Kerry's vehicle of peace if the president retreats from his position on compromise along the 1967 border as he did on his red line on use of chemical weapons by Assad then the whole enterprise of peace between the Arabs and Israel will evaporate these are I think expressions of what I believe affect the whole issue of trust and if you look at nuclear non-proliferation the US government basically scuttled that issue of zone free of weapons of mass destruction if you look on Syria as I mentioned the president went back on many many statements if you look on on the issue of reaching out to Iran and so on it was obvious from the president's first term that he wants to reach out to Iran and so we were not surprised but what was surprising was that the talks that were held to go forward were kept from us and not just from us but apparently even from the other p5 plus 1 members so how can you build trust when you keep secrets from from what are supposed to be your closest allies so what to what we go forward I think the as I mentioned before the applause for a final p5 plus 1 Iran deal will be held until we see the final issue resolved and it's interesting I noticed in particularly in this past year the issue of six months seems to be a necessary component of any of the developments in our part of the world you have the Iran agreement based on a six-month interim term you have the Palestinian issue now remaining six months and and you have other issues connected to six month I don't know what it is any who whether it's a question of of of Einsteinian time plus place issue or simply a convenient device to keep us waiting and not upset the the the cart bear enough during this this six months but when the six months are finished what's going to happen I don't know parenthetically last time of the fifth WPC we had a very interesting session related to the banking world of the concept of trust and Jean-Claude Trichet remembers that very well because he was on the spot and the difference between trust and confidence I use the word trust and you use the word confidence you make any difference between the two words I don't quit quibble on on on very esoteric vocabulary vocabulary the distinctions but I think trust and confidence are the same yes you have to have one in order to have the other let before I open the floor for for discussion could you tell us what would be in your judgment best case hypothesis a best scenario before the end of the second term of President Obama and what would be a worst case scenario I read talking about the Middle East of course possibilities on the Middle East I think the talks Mr. Kerry is holding with the Mahmoud Abbas and Netanyahu are quite important and I hope and wish for success there I will keep my skepticism alive until I see what what they come up with but if they do come up with I think that will roll out a lot of of subsequent issues that that are equally affected by this this matter that to me is is the crucial aspect of the relationship not just between Saudi Arabia and the United States but between the Arab and Muslim world and the rest of the world if you like particularly the West if you can solve that problem and it is an problem that is solvable everybody knows what the solution is which is a compromise along the 1967 borders with mutual guarantees and and swaps and things like that they've talked about it in taba they've talked about it in Annapolis they've talked about it in so many places yet no one has had the political will to put it in in practice Mr. Kerry is devoting a lot of energy and effort and that is to be applauded but how far he will get if he doesn't get the president's full support on that I think we have to see what happens there you seem to be skeptical I am I'm inevitably skeptical from what I've seen and this is not something of an issue of yesterday it's more than 60 years that there has been an issue so to restore trust this is more important or to trigger positive developments in the Middle East what you are talking about the Kerry negotiations are more important than the fate of the Iran negotiations I don't think you can put it in those terms because they're all connected yes and that connection makes the resolution of one beneficial for the other so removing from the table a long standing conflict that has been depleting human and material resources considerably will help in pushing forth the other issues like the nuclear issue of Iran like the problem in Syria the problem in Syria today I think is is not only a tragedy but it's it's it's a clear in my view it's it's a clear negligence on the part of the world who continue to watch the suffering of the Syrian people without taking steps to stop that suffering it's almost I think it can reach the level of being a criminal negligence on the part of the world community and to allow it to continue and to fester like that is unacceptable thank you very much so I will give the floor first with American citizen Walter and second to an Israeli citizen and to a Lebanese citizen I'm walters I'm Walter Stathler my background is that of a career US diplomat although I'm not here in that capacity today you clearly have undergone a great deal of frustration but of course as you know you're not the only one either in the Middle East or in the United States of North America could you come up with two or three practical doable steps that could be taken during the course of the next 12 months or so that would indeed enhance the two terms that I was thinking of as well trust and confidence and possibly stability in that part of the world and my other question is have you been talking to your and our partners and allies who have been involved in this process as well well I have suggested what I think is a doable and practical proposal on the zone free of weapons of mass destruction I'll just repeat it briefly the five permanent members of the Security Council who are also the declared nuclear states in the world issue a statement from the United Nations Security Council saying we the five permanent members of the Security Council want to see a zone free of weapons of mass destruction established in the Middle East and we will offer the following guarantees to make this zone workable a nuclear security umbrella for the members of the zone and sanctions including military sanctions against any of the countries seen to be developing a weapon of mass destruction and you the potential members of the zone you go and fix your problems in the next five years so that that zone can be made workable with these two guarantees in your background that I think is a practical step and can be done very easily because don't forget all the five permanent members of the Security Council have declared a policy of the removal of all nuclear weapons from the world so they don't have to convince themselves of that issue to achieve this zone free of weapons of mass destruction and even in Israel there have been leaders like Yitzhak Rabin and Hood Olmert who said that they would be considered they would consider the issue of nuclear removal from the Middle East if there was peace and they could be assured of their safety should that issue be brought to the table Iran ironically is the country that first put the idea of then a nuclear free zone in the Middle East during the Shah's time in 1974 and have continued to support the idea of the zone free of weapons of mass destruction so it shouldn't be difficult to get us all together one positive aspect that I heard recently is that since the scuttling of the conference in Helsinki there have been two meetings of the the countries that that I think they're called the trustee countries or something like England the United States Russia and the UN the United Nations they've met with representatives from most of the of the zone potential zone members the last one was held I think last month or a couple of months ago at which 17 Arab countries attended Israel attended but Iran did not so there is at least some progress there or having Israel sit with 17 Arab countries on this specific issue and that could be built on on the issue of Palestine I think we've always said that we need the big bear behind our backs to push us to overcome whatever reluctance may be in our political arena if the prime minister of Israel can point to the big bear pushing him behind him he can tell his his opponents in the Knesset and in the political parties in Israel do you want to anger the big bear and the same with Mahmoud Abbas unfortunately the big bear has not proven to be very bearish like recently and I think this is where Mr. Kerry's role has become so important because he is actually playing that role now and he will need as I said the support of the president to get things done when the crucial time comes for Netanyahu and Abbas to look at the really important issues like Jerusalem like land swaps like security arrangements etc etc that's where the big bear has to not only bear his teeth but also extend his clothes and be ready to to do his job thank you very much may I treat we were in the same business at one time you know so you trust each other well trust but verify I was glad to listen to you I think I would dream about possibility you come to the Knesset and make that speech in the Knesset you'll find that many Israelis will agree with you in most of what you have said maybe except of the rejection of Saudi to settle Israel Israeli Jewish in Palestine but with the rest I find myself agree with most of what you say practically Israel is the according to foreign sources is the most effective one to prevent countries in the Middle East from having the nuclear weapon we did in Iraq according to foreign sources we prevented from Syria suppose it hadn't been done in Syria what could happen today and I think that's in this situation I'm the biggest supporter of the Arab initiative which was a Saudi initiative but again I try to push it in many governments which I was member or being member of the government of Sharon of Olmert as a member of the government and I tried to push it very strongly I found in Israel a very big support in this night the problem is how to move it we cannot move the initiative only by talking to the Palestinians I think if you will be the bear to I mean Saudia will be the bear to push this initiative that will be the best solution because in that case if we have the Arab initiative coming true with the same price which anyway we will pay in order to have peace with Palestinians we can have peace with 56 islam countries including the normalization it will change the world it will change the Middle East that's the reason why I supported the normal heart the secondly is the best guarantee for existence of that piece because if we have peace with all the other world nobody can dare to break it and I believe that we have to give it a push in order to move ahead when I try to push our prime ministers to call reality and ask them to join and let's negotiate this this initiative he said they're not accepting and I believe that Saudia when they come up with the initiative they expect us to negotiate the Palestinians come to an agreement and then the Arab initiative will take over it does work facts are if you remember that Olmert was suggesting to Abou Mazen almost everything seems said in the Arab initiative and he refused to sign the same thing happened with Arab fat when Barack Clinton offered him almost everything and refused to sign the reason in my opinion they refused because they cannot take the decision needed on their side to give up what they call the right of return your initiative was very clever and very wisdom was phrased in the saying you have to find agreeable justifies solution to the Palestinian refugees agreeable men that is ready to agree and I believe that nobody in Saudi or Arab leaders believe that Israel can really accept back into Israel Arab refugees rather than they should go to the Palestinians that and maybe compensated that's the point in my opinion which is the main obstacle for the Palestinians to sign agreement maybe you can be the bear to push it and solve this problem and you welcome to the Knesset if you would will be happy to arrange it thank you well thank you very much let me just remind you that Saudi Arabia put out not just the Arab peace initiative but a previous initiative under the late King Fahad in 1981-82 it was called the Fahad plan and it was the first time that after Camp David with Sadat and Begin the that the Arab world all of the Arab world accepted the existence of the state of Israel if you know I don't know if you remember any before that it was used to be called the alleged state of Israel but from 1981-82 all the Arab countries including half of the Assad in Syria and Saddam in Iraq etc. Qaddafi in Libya they all accepted the Saudi view that Israel exists it's in our borders and that border should not be changed that was the main thrust of the of the Fahad peace plan what happened when King Fahad put it forward it got full Arab approval but not even a word from Israel Israel totally ignored that issue and then the Arab peace initiative that King Abdullah put forward in 2002 when he did it what was the response from Israel at that time I remember correct and he succinctly that Prime Minister Sharon was the Prime Minister his political advisor Dov Weiss class said this to describe this initiative as the most dangerous threat to to Israeli existence and no Israeli leader after that would accept that the initiative was there to be discussed President Perez said there are some good language in the initiative and would armored said equally similar words about about the initiative I think Zippy Livny equally gave it some some some very guarded support but no official statement from any US from any Israeli representative either said okay we will discuss the Arab patient if we have our reservations but let's sit down and talk about them so if Israel is not willing to talk to what we propose to them I don't think Saudi Arabia would be willing to talk to Israel unless they do that's one aspect on the aspect of whether Israel is the best guarantor of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in in the area I'd happily accept that if I saw Israeli Air Force planes bombing the Mona reactor in Israel and not just the ones in Iraq and in Syria Israel has nuclear weapons you know that and I know that and so yeah it's simply to come to us and say yes we will be your guardian angel and prevent the Iranians from from accepting it were for God's sake and he gets rid of yours first and then we can talk but that that is I think all hypothetical on the issue of making gestures of coming to to to the Knesset and so on it's not going to happen I wish there was some some some way that I could convince myself that that would be a viable step in the direction of promoting the Arab peace initiative but if there is no official response to that initiative no Arab leader or I think even any individual will come to the Knesset because they simply don't trust that there will be the necessary action taken after that so accept the Arab peace initiative sit down and talk with the Israeli with the Palestinians and then as we say in Arabic to every discussion there is another discussion so that is what Israel should do I think which is what I'm actually illustrated by the current conversation so now I have two options okay one is that I could leave my seat and organize Israeli Saudi dialogue but I am not sure that this is totally wise at least this year the other option is to continue the program as planned but we are running behind schedule and we have a tight schedule so I will take three questions I will take three questions I will ask each of you to be concise even Mr. Tabet short I will ask you your Royal Highness to answer as briefly as possible and then we will continue immediately with the session with Itamar Rabinovich so if I don't leave my seat your Royal Highness you you will leave yours okay okay but no one will interpret that as a political move and we will try to end on time because Madame Pauline Marois have to leave immediately after lunch to catch her plate so the schedule is quite that so my three the three questions are ambassador Farid yes said Farid Farid where are you you were from Iraq then ambassador Im Sunjoon from Korea South Korea you know Sunjoon I was going to say unfortunately and and at last but at least Mr. Riyad Tabet from Lebanon okay so Farid thank you Terry thank you Your Highness actually I have a question but before that there's a statement that I have to make having to do about Israel's role in preventing Arab states from going nuclear military nuclear and the Iraqi example is quite telling Iraq had developed a excellent with French help research nuclear reactor that had very good first rate really first world class experiments conducted by first rate Iraqi physicists who had studied in the U.S. and in the UK he's he's a physicist himself by the way yeah I know what I'm talking about when Israel bombed Iraq Saddam convened the Iraqi nuclear atomic energy Commission and decided to announce the nonproliferation treaty it was then and there that the Iraqi physicists who were there who were incensed at what Israel had done decided to go full blast and helped Saddam develop a quite exceptional program of enrichment Iraq was the first country since the Americans to pursue five different tracks to enrichment all the others all the other nuclear countries that came after the United States pursued one or two but Iraqis pursued all five tracks all that because they were spurred and angry at what Israel had done so don't do this again don't bomb I don't think it's a way to do things and I think the statement that was heard earlier is is somewhat a bit self-serving but I do have a question to his highness one issue that was not dressed enough is Syria it's an issue that is on our hearts in Iraq we've been through hell over the last 10 years by the accounting of the best accountants of victims in Iraq a group in the United Kingdom called Iraq body count we've had about 120 to 130 thousand deaths since 2003 in Syria that number has been exceeded in just two years it's really a tragedy people are preparing themselves for this next milestone which is Geneva what can we do in your mind to make Geneva success and what can Geneva be like and I'm asking you this question because Saudi Arabia was involved in a previous effort regional effort to bring peace to the area namely the TAF agreements where it had a predominant role so based on that experience what do you think we could do as an international community as regional players to make Geneva as successful as it can be thank you thank you so June well thank you Terry I mean thank you for you know you said I come from South Korea not North Korea well I was a very strong and impressed with the formula with which we you can resolve the Iranian nuclear issue I mean your highness I mean suggested I mean two elements security guarantee and military sanction well my question first is that how could you I mean impose military sanction for a country which has quite sizable military capability I'm afraid it could lead to military conflict or eventually a war and my second question my mind immediately moves to a more dangerous more grave I mean nuclear issue in our region which is North Korean development of nuclear weapons and I was involved with the negotiation to resolve this issue for a long time longer than maybe negotiations with Iran we have been in negotiation more than 20 years but without much fruit and do you think I mean your formula could be applied to the case of North Korean nuclear issue thank you thank you Riyadh my cross coming water al-tesh water antagonism with the Iran had the consequences on the terror we were young abah rain we were young in iraq in syria is particularly liban is that you don't think that this antagonism could generate a conflict and even an intercommunity war between the shia and the sun in the region because the problem of Iran on which focus on the west is not only nuclear there are other consequences so three simple questions and thank you because they have all the questions were extremely short je vais essayer parler en français si oui oui oui oui l'antagonism que vous décrivez de l'arabie saoudite vers l'iron du côté de l'arabie saoudite c'est c'est le contraire c'est l'antagonism iranien vers l'arabie saoudite qui a qui était le commencement de cette je peux pas dire conflit mais divergence de de politique et d'opinion entre les deux pays alors le roi abdallah a proposé quelques efforts pour avoir une belle relation de respect mutual et même de d'amitié entre l'iron et l'arabie saoudite la dernière c'était le plus le plus profond je crois c'était pendant le mois de ramadan le plus sainte moi de du calendrier musulman l'année dernière quand il a convoqué un conférence de sommet de sommet islamique au mec c'est le mec n'est-ce pas la mec la mec à la mec pour discuter cette question de divergence entre entre les le monde shia et le monde sunni dans le monde islamique et ahmed in agade était là bas et autres représentants de pays pas seulement de monde arabe mais tout le monde islamique et on a conclu la conférence avec une agreement d'avoir un centre de dialogue entre le shia et le sunnah dans la ville de medina la sainte ville de medina en arabie et c'est ça la politique de l'arabie saoudite c'est d'embrasser mais comme ça les embrés en anglais notre notre frère musulman n'importe quelle quelle direction et vous avez dit qu'on est au Liban c'est l'antagonisme saoudien est-ce que vous êtes en train d'entendre les les mots de monsieur Hassan Nasrallah récemment elle dit que c'était l'arabie saoudite qui a mis les les bombes à l'ambassade iranien dans le quartier chi et qui était protégé par hezbollah c'est seulement un exemple que monsieur nasrallah a dit vers l'arabie saoudite si vous retracer ces mots depuis qu'il est venu qu'il est devenu le chef de hezbollah vous auraient dû avoir l'antagonisme que lui représentant de l'iron à vers vers l'arabie saoudite en iraq aussi si vous suivez les mots et les discours des imams chiites dans l'iraq vers l'arabie saoudite décrivant l'arabie saoudite comme le pays de terrorism de wahhabism etc etc c'est pas une signe d'amitié vers l'arabie saoudite même si vous si vous suivez les discours des imams chiites en iran même sur les les les chaînes de télévision et chaînes radio bombardés contre nous vous aurez dû avoir que c'est l'ennemi de de l'iron c'est c'est très très grand contre l'arabie saoudite et je ne sais pas comment on peut convaincre qu'on frère musulman en iran que l'arabie saoudite ne sait pas de les de les faire mal chacun nous avons presque depuis cinq ans maintenant presque un million iraniens qui vient pour faire le pèlerinage et le petit pèlerinage en arabie chacun chacun et je peux dire et ils sont reçus avec hospitalité avec cordialité etc etc et comme j'ai dit nous nous avons essayé d'engager avec avec l'iron depuis 95 mais c'est l'iron qui a les troupes militaires en syrie c'est l'iron qui a qui a engagé hezbollah de l'invasion de la syrie c'est iran qui a engagé les brigades à base de l'iraq pour l'invasion de la série et c'est l'iron qui qui qui a pressurisé les les parties chiites en iraq de accepter monsieur maliki comme premier ministre et cette interference et cette jeu de de de pégamonie vers les pays arabes n'est pas acceptable j'ai dit dans un de mes discours que nous dans le monde arabe n'acceptons de porter les les vêtements occidentaux même en même cas nous n'aurons pas accepté de porter l'aéropa iraniens parce que c'est nous qui qui vont décider notre notre future c'est par l'iron c'est pas les états unis c'est pas l'europe et de cette de cette façon je crois que c'est à l'iron de montrer leur bon bon goodwill vers nous bon exemple pour le courier pour pour pour courier i'll speak in english i wish i could speak korean but i don't for korea i don't know if if what i propose is applicable to north korea or not because i don't know much about the situation in north korea you're better placed to make that that decision but i think zones free of weapons of mass destruction are the way to go to remove any potential nuclear conflagration and i agree with you that a threat of use of force to establish a zone in the middle east may start a war but i think this is what we in the zone have to consider when we are making our decisions on whether to acquire weapons of mass destruction or not and the other question you have to remind me what it was farid the question from iraq farid can you just repeat the question it's a very short totally a syria syria well i think in as much as i propose a five permanent member security council statement to come on the zone free of weapons of mass destruction i don't see why the five parent members of the of the security council can't issue an equal statement saying the fighting has to stop in syria and this will mean that Assad will get no more weapons from russia and iran that hezbollah will have to withdraw from from syrian territory the iranian revolutionary guards fighting on the ground will have to withdraw from syrian territory etc etc and we the five permanent members agree on that and wish to see it happen that i think will go a long way to mitigate any of the of the military ambitions of any side there never pass as well as on votre siège well believe me we've sat together at the discussion remember in princeton was it mr abinovich where mr abinovich what is he uh