 I just wanna bring up a couple things and ask people to react if they like. We haven't talked too much about the JCPOA and Iran and the Trump effort to create dissent in Iran. And I'm curious what you all think about the Trump policy. The European Union says it's trying to create the special investment vehicle. Nobody's sure it's going to work. Nobody's sure quite what it is. My sense is the Iranians themselves do not wanna break out of the JCPOA and the Europeans are trying to find them excuses so they can stay in. But I'm curious whether what you think the end result of this Trump policy against Iran is likely to be. Does anyone want to respond? I don't think that Trump will achieve his goal. His goal, he said, is a regime change in Iran. He hasn't quite said that, but that's what he means, yes. And he wants Iran to just accept his conditions. I don't think it will happen. I think that the result could be the contrary. We could have a radicalization of the Iranian regime with General Soleimani being the leader, the new leader of Iran. I think the Europeans are right, including American allies, the British, the French, the Germans, the Russians and the Chinese also to try to do this vehicle. I hope it will work. I think it's very important that we don't accept that America makes a deal, negotiates a deal with a lot of effort and then have it sanctioned in the United Nations and then just throw it. I think, of course, the answer, but I agree with you that most of the population of Iran wants to keep the agreement. They don't want to go nuclear, but if they are pushed, if they are humiliated, there's something that we have to consider in the Middle East, dignity of nations. Americans should take care of that. If they are pushed to the extreme, I think that all the American foreign policy in Iran would be counterproductive. Right. Mona and Miguel, then. We'll fail to destroy all the facilities. This is one. But what will happen that it will radicalize more the Arab and Muslim worlds and generate more terrorism and anti-American activity? So military action against Iran is no good today because it will be a preventive strike. It won't accomplish much good and it will fail, as I said, against organized militias and terrorists who are much better armed and they're accepted by the local population and they're prepared to die for their cause. So this is what we'll get. Part of what's interesting. Causing the Iranians to rally around the flag. Part of what interests me is the way Trump simply has done what the Saudis and the Gulfis have always wanted. Miguel, what do you think? Very shortly. I think the Europeans have to stick, demonstrate that the deal is going well. But we cannot exclude, we cannot ignore that Iran have an expansionist policy. So we cannot clothe our rights and not see that Iran is in Gaza, is in Hezbollah. So the new agenda has to be built. So I think the deal now is how the Europeans are going to say, okay, I stay with you on the nuclear deal but we have to address other missile, anti-ballistic missile, the role of Iran in the region and how we engage with the Arab world. So that is the new element. Maintaining our position. No, it's interesting because the EU3 have had at least three conversations with Iran on security issues outside nuclear, but they haven't really gone anywhere. We have to. Oh, Dan, did you? Before coming here, once in the afternoon, I went to a session on Iran and the official said the following. We want to apply maximum, maximum pressure. We want to be able to prevent Iran from exporting any oil. Hoping that this will force the Iranians to come to the table and the administration then will have a treaty that deals with missiles, terrorism. And if this doesn't work, then we have the military option. But we have heard about the military option from Bush. We have heard that from Obama. And if you look at Trump, first he's unpredictable. He said he was against the war in Iraq. He said he was against the war in Syria. My interpretation, I don't think he wants to start a war. And therefore, I don't know where this policy is going. But perhaps it tomorrow could elaborate more. We do not know yet what the negotiations with North Korea, the Trump's negotiations will actually produce. But the tactic of first threatening and scaring the other side and bringing them to the table that worked with North Korea, at least to get them to the table, will not work with Iran. We're dealing here with a proud nation, with an imperial past. And you will have to find a more accommodating way of getting them to the table because I think ultimately it's in their interest to be there. Because I know one of the things that the European negotiators are worried about is that Israel, Bibi, who has thought about bombing Iran at least twice before, when Obama tried to stop it, that Trump might not feel the same way and would get pulled into a military action that the United States doesn't even start. I think the threat of military action by Israel were actually meant to motivate the United States to negotiate the agreement. But obviously Miss Antonia was not happy with the specific agreement. The idea of an Israeli military raid against the Iranian nuclear is very problematic. The capacity, it's only one country that really has the capacity to do that. That's the United States. But the threat of that action I think played an important effect on diplomacy. The beauty of the threat is that you use it you use it vocally and not practice it. Stay on something else. Just 30 seconds. As I look at the Middle East and as I look at the violence and as I look at the wars it seems to me that all the actors don't take into account what someone once said. When you act in defense of your security and the integrity of your country make sure that when you act the act is moral. But more importantly the end result should be moral. And I think that should be kept in mind. One last question for you if you just be brief which I'll do it in a not very sophisticated way. Does Mohammed bin Salman survive the next year or will he be moved out as Crown Prince? What does anyone think? Yes, no. Or don't want to touch it? It's a question. Will Mohammed bin Salman last another year as Crown Prince or not? I think he will do because he was appointed by the king as the president of the inquiry commission on the secret services. The king did not appoint a vice Prince Crown Prince and I think that Mohammed bin Salman controls the surroundings of the king. I think the king hasn't got all his decisions with him. And we see that now Mohammed bin Salman has got the support of Russia which is quite important. So I don't think he will deal with that. What about others? Sorry, we're running out of time. I think that he will not survive another year. This latest brutality has tarnished his reputation terribly even though he is supported by the young people in Saudi Arabia, but he also has made a lot of enemies. The conservatives, the princes, the business and now the international community is not very much for it. So there were suggestions that his brother, his younger brother who is I think the ambassador in the United States could take over. Anyone else quickly and then we'll end. I think the question is not to really survive as Crown Prince, but what happens next? And Prince Hassan in Jordan can tell you that you can be Crown Prince for many years and then not become the king. Listen, just please join me in thanking this panel. We've been great. We're on time and thank you all very much.