 Well, welcome, everybody. Thanks for skipping lunch and coming to our panel. The subject today is finding a new equilibrium in the Middle East. We have a terrific panel of representatives from the region. To my left, Adal al-Jabbar, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia. Deputy Prime Minister Simsek from Turkey, Minister van der Leyen, Defense Minister from Germany, Foreign Minister of Bahrain, and Dr. Gargash, the foreign minister of state of foreign affairs from the UAE. So I thought I'd just begin by taking a couple minutes to talk about what I think are the forces of disequilibrium that are impacting the Middle East, are actually impacting the whole world. And then I want to give each of the ministers a chance to talk about what they see as the things that are created as disequilibrium, but also how we stabilize the region. So my very short take on the world is I think we're actually in the middle of three climate changes at once. We're in the middle of a change of the climate of the climate. We're going from what I call later to now. So when I was growing up in America in the 60s and 70s, later was when you could fix that river, clean that lake, repair that forest, save that orangutan. You could save it now, or you could save it later. Well, today later is officially over. Later will now be too late. So whatever you're going to save, save it now. That's a climate change. And we see this in the Middle East with rising temperatures and rising water issues, among others. We're in the middle of a change of the climate of globalization. We're going from a world that was interconnected to a world that's hyper-connected to a world that's now interdependent. And an interdependent world is a very different world from an American point of view. In an interdependent world, first of all, your friends can kill you faster than your enemies. So if some big European banking systems were to go bankrupt tomorrow, that would affect me in America very much. Wait a minute. Europe, Europe. That's the EU. That's NATO. They're allies. Yet your friends can kill you faster than your enemies in an interdependent world. And secondly, you get a geopolitical inversion in an interdependent world where your rivals falling becomes more dangerous than your rivals rising. So as an American, if China takes six more islands than the South China Sea personally, I couldn't care less. If China loses 6% growth, oh my goodness, this room will be basically empty. That's a climate change when you move from an interconnected world to an interdependent world. And lastly, we're seeing a change in the climate of technology. Every company today can and therefore must do five things. Be able to analyze, optimize, prophesize, customize, and digitize slash automatize any job product or service. So I flew over here on United Airlines. And the sensors in those GE engines were connected to GE. And they were telling United Airlines exactly what altitude flight to get optimal energy efficiency that whole trip. You can optimize now. You can analyze. I can now, thanks to big data, find the needle in the haystack of my data as the norm, not the exception. I can prophesize. You may have seen the IBM Watson ad where the repairman comes to a high-rise building, tells the doorman I'm here to fix the elevator. The doorman says the elevator is not broken. And the IBM repairman says, I know, but it will be in six weeks and three days. I can do predictive analytics. I can customize just for foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia named Adelaide. And I can now digitize and automatize every job product or service. You put those five together, that's a climate change. Now, you put all three of these climate changes together. And you have huge pressures on every country in the world. And for frail countries, sometimes these pressures are just overwhelming. And that's why we're seeing more governments just collapsing and borders changing. And certainly, this has affected the Middle East region, among others. And creating what is the new divide in the world, which is no longer east, west, north, south, communist, capitalist, the new relevant divide in the world is between a world of disorder and a world of order. So that's kind of my macro sense of things. And if I could call on Minister Aljubaret to start. We're just going to go right down the line. I'd love you to give us a sense of what do you see as the forces that are really challenging, stability in the region? And what do you think are the best pathways forward? Thanks, Tom. I think I agree with what you said in the beginning for a great setup. The challenges that we have in the region are sectarianism, extremism, inefficient government, unaccountable government, government that is not transparent, looking backwards, not forwards. And I think the solution to that is making governments more efficient, more accountable, more transparent, providing opportunities for our youth so that they can realize their hopes, their dreams, their ambitions. And you do that by opening up your society. You do that by opening up areas for investment domestic as well as foreign. You do that by streamlining regulations, making it simple to incorporate, making it simple to start companies. And you do that by allowing people to do what they do best, which is connect with others and deal with others. So I always say in the Middle East, we have two competing visions. We have vision of light, which is what I just described. And we have a vision of darkness. And the vision of darkness is sectarianism. It's trying to restore an empire that was destroyed thousands of years ago. It's using sectarianism and terrorism in order to interfere in the affairs of other countries so that you can promote this revolution and this impure list expansion, even at the cost of the well-being of your people. That's the dark vision. Does it have a name? Yes, it's called Iran. And the other one is called Saudi Arabia. And I think history has shown that light always prevails over darkness. And I think once that we have that issue settled, our region will move to a much better place. Interesting. Minister Simpson. Thank you. I do agree that the two main fault lines that is dragging Middle East down are ethnic and sectarian fault lines. I think the solution to Middle Eastern problem is not true creation of new borders, because that would be a call for perpetual conflict. Because what makes Middle East so rich and cradle of civilization is the diversity in terms of religions, ethnicity. And I think the best path for Middle East also is true more fundamental rights and freedoms for everybody, hopefully more democracy. But it's difficult. I think if we can go back, one point that was highlighted by my Saudi Arabian friend is that youth is another issue. Between now and 2050, you're going to get working age population growing by 180 million in the Middle East and North Africa. So for the next essentially 35 years, you're going to have an extra 180 million coming on board looking for jobs. Ultimately, once you overcome the challenges, today's challenges, the next challenge would be diversification and obviously better skills, better education, and jobs for these 180 million youth that will come on board. Already, youth unemployment rate is relatively high. So that's really the second challenge. It's a major one, something that we cannot overlook. Clearly, stable and prosperous, peaceful Middle East is in national interest of all of us. I think we should prosper with our neighbors. And that's clearly the key. You either go down with your neighbors or prosperous. My final statement on this part is that over the last few years, we began to recognize the significance of having a functioning state. And I'm not talking about a prospering, it's a state in the neighborhood that is functioning, that it can take control of its own borders and stop export of terror. So that's been a huge challenge for us. Turkey is the world's largest refugee hosting country. Three and a half million Syrians, including 370,000 Syrian Kurds who are still settled in Turkey, which we welcome, of course, we do our best. But that does create challenges. Three and a half million Syrian refugees in the world. Yes, to be exact. It's three and a half million. And if you add about 200,000 Iraqis, that takes the number to about 3.7 million. It's a huge challenge, but none of these problems, just the way U.S. mortgage problem, subprime crisis, you know, U.S. wasn't exporting houses to Europe and elsewhere, but the problem affected. Similarly, problems affect all of us. That's why I think we need to have a very strong stance against all form of extremism and terrorism. There's absolutely no question we agree on this. I think we should try to solve our problems to more dialogue, but definitely we should not pick various ethnic groups and sectarian groups the way you pick up a football club. Very interesting. Mr. Vandeline, you get to be the outside expert. Well, I would not like to be the outside expert, but I'd like to represent the European interest because the Middle East is our immediate neighborhood. You are our neighbors. And therefore, we have a vast interest in stability and friendship on both sides. And I can just keep on taking your point that beginning with terror, terror needs always a soil on which it is growing. And of course, there's this horrible, cruel ideology of Daesh. But the soil is also growing or was growing because of feeling of lack of perspective, lack of influence, marginalization. So the question whether we're going to defeat Daesh is on the one hand, of course, a military one. But on the other hand, a strong question of whether we're going to be able to give people a perspective in that region. And there, for the first point, I see also a strong role of Europe to be with our partners together, engaged in reconstruction, in re-stabilization, in reconciliation, because it needs many to work on these fields together. Second point is we see in the region a lot of different interests. Syria, Iraq, many, many different powers have been projecting their interests in the region and had a fight within the region, which was normally a conflict that should have been settled elsewhere. Therefore, my second emphasis is on, if we want to solve problems in that region and come to a new equilibrium, it can only be under the umbrella of the United Nations, because there are so many different interests that the one and only place where everybody has to stick to the rules we once agreed, and nobody is the winner or the loser, are the United Nations. So make the United Nations strong. The Geneva process strong. De Mistura strong is the second of the main goals. And the third one is if you look at the area and other conflict places in the world, the new dimension in it is also the cyber dimension. So besides the traditional fight against terror, which is a military one, besides the traditional reconstruction, reconciliation process, we all know it is important, we have the strong process within social media, which is which kind of narrative will be the dominant and the persuading one. And to be better all together, where we share the same interests of moving towards a peaceful world, moving towards democracies, human rights, to share this narrative the broad way in the cyberspace and to promote it will be one of the major tasks we have to fulfill. Thank you. Shekhar. Well, thank you very much for inviting me to this session. You talked about change. The region of the Middle East is used to change, is very much used to it for decades. We all remember throughout its modern history some important events that made a lot of change in our area, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the rays of modern-day Turkey, the revolutions in Iraq and Egypt, and a lot of change. And then the arrival, of course, I'm kind of jumping quickly, the arrival of the Cold War. The Cold War maybe was in some points volatile, but in the Middle East it was kind of a recipe for understanding between different powers. While at the same times the Middle East powers were not there in calling all those shots because we hardly had any hardware or any armies or at that time to be able to do it ourselves. Today also there is change. We're going through another phase of change, but a lot of Middle Eastern countries are party to that change, our partners in that change towards either protecting it, prosperity, making everybody a stakeholder in the region to their own prosperity, or to destruction with their own weapons. So this is what we are facing now in the Middle East. The two different views, as Adelia mentioned it, the two side, one side we want to continue to work with our allies and working together, bringing the region together in our path to prosperity and the other ones they want to take advantage of this very weak stage of moving from one phase to another and advancing their own aims. So it's very important here for the world powers and mainly here I'm talking about the United States and Russia they both have huge interests in the Middle East to really work together to continue to find an understanding, to find an equilibrium because if we would leave it to the countries of the region to do it themselves now at this huge conflict happening it will not necessarily produce the right outcome for us for the future. And the main aim that we need to concentrate on here is to protect the nation states. Some would say okay those nation states were created in some way whatever the creation reason was. We don't look back to that. If it was a line in the sand, I'd rather keep that imperfect line in the sand that is internationally recognized than try to seek another one and try to reach another one risking instability and chaos in order to reach another imperfect line. So let's stay there and try to defend it and try to work together and then eventually some of the countries will have to realize that whatever aims they have for themselves be it hegemonic, be it through supporting proxies will not work and that's what we need to achieve. Thank you. Dr. Anwar. Thank you Tom. I think number one is we need to shift gears really. We need to shift gears from the current normal which is really chaotic, you know, religiously infused, you know, a lot of blood being spilled for ideologies and things like that and move from the current normal to normal. Normal means security, normal means the ability of a state to actually produce opportunity and normal of course means civic states rather than states that are trying to look into the past and find the gold in each. In a recent last year's survey on Arab youth they clearly identified two major issues that they consider paramount, unemployment and extremism. These are, you know, this is the voice of the future. Now vis-a-vis extremism I think we should also shift. So basically we are winning the war against terrorism but we need now to win the war against extremism. We've been all talking about terrorist finance, we need now to speak about extremist finance because I think that is essentially the normal evolution of where we need to go. So we need to shift from the current normal to normal and from normal to the future. We need to be ordinary states, similar to states in the Far East or in Europe on other areas. There is no exclusiveness. We should not come and brandish that exclusiveness. We should think of our solutions as local. We should create these solutions but also look global I think. Thank you. I'm gonna ask a few follow-up questions and I really wanna open up to the floor because we've got a lot of, I know really knowledgeable people here. Adel speaking of change, one of the biggest change agents certainly in Saudi Arabia's modern history and the region is the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. What doesn't the world understand about the Crown Prince? I think people are not used to Saudi Arabia moving quickly. I don't think they're used to Saudi Arabia moving boldly. Our population is 70% under the age of 30. They're young. They're probably the most connected in terms of social media in the world of any people. They know what's going on. Several hundred thousand of them have studied all around the world from Japan to the United States, both young men and young women. Like I said earlier, they have hopes, they have dreams, they have ambitions and they want it now. They don't want to wait 20 years or 30 years. They expect good government. They expect transparent government, efficient government. They expect the ability to do what they set out to do without much hindrance. And so you have to open up the path and get out of the way. That's how our country will rise. And in order to do this, you have to have a fundamental transformation of your country. You have to open up areas that previously were not open entertainment, recreation, open up the media space, allow more public discussion and deal with corruption in a very clear and strong manner, attract investments, come up with projects. For example, when we have a project that, like NEOM in the north, that will probably end up in cost. Explain to people what that is. NEOM is a futuristic city that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is building in the north and part of Saudi Arabia belong to the Red Sea that will be connected to Egypt and connected to Jordan. It will be based on technology, artificial intelligence, robotics. It will be a clean energy. It will be a magnet for high tech industry and for entrepreneurs. People say, well, you could do other things with that money. Well, John Kennedy could have done other things with the money he spent on the moonshot. But he wanted the moonshot because it transformed America. It restored energy in America. It restored ingenuity and creativity in America. And so for us, this is what this project is going to be doing. We want to transform Saudi Arabia. This is one of the signature moments or the signature projects for it. We, in the past, people have always criticized Saudi Arabia for moving too slowly. So now that you're moving fast, people are surprised and their heads are probably spinning and they're saying, oh my God, why are you moving so quickly? The same when it comes to our foreign policy, for instance, and our national security policy. For many years, I used to hear people say, the Saudis want to hold our coattails while we go to battle for them. You're a strong country, you're a powerful country, you should lead. And then when we lead, because there's a vacuum, when America retreated, and into this vacuum, evil forces flow, so when we lead, people are stunned and say, my God, what are you doing? Are you being reckless? No, we're not. We're leading. If you want us to lead, then support us. And if you want us to support, then lead. But we can't be in a dam if we do a dam if we don't situation. So, what do people not understand about the His Majesty the Crown Prince? I think people understand what he's trying to do. He wants to turn Saudi Arabia into a normal country, into an innovative country, into a country that is strong domestically, as well as internationally. He wants to empower youth. He wants to empower women. He wants to make our country an example for the Arab and Islamic world. And he thinks we should take our rightful place among the countries in the world that are innovative and dynamic and strong. And in order to do this, like I said, change has to be comprehensive, and it has to be in line with the expectations and the ambitions of your people, especially your young 70% of whom are under the age of 30. Thank you. Minister Simsek, what does America maybe not understand about Turkey's current dilemma right now with a kind of post-ISIS Syria and a post-ISIS Iraq? We've got a vacuum there now. They know the ISIS has been defeated. Clearly, it's a question. Who's gonna fill that vacuum? What's your take on it? Do we fully understand this? Could we get a clash between two NATO countries? Well, sometimes we're also finding it very hard what our friends are up to. There is a form of communication, but there is, you know, what they do also on the ground. And there are inconsistencies. And we've been very frank about that. So let me give you a perspective. For decades in Turkey, prior to my government, there was kind of like policy of assimilation denial about Kurds. We came in and we said, look, this is wrong. We're gonna put an end to it. And we want to address our ethnic, let's say, problems through more democracy, more fundamental rights and freedoms in return for terrorist, you know, PKK dropping arms. And there was this reconciliation process and it was going reasonably well. The power vacuum, lack of functioning state in Syria and part of Iraq was that there was this fertile ground for the likes of terrorist organizations like PKK, which is on EU and US terrorists to actually acquire more weapons, more sophisticated ones, recruit more people and obviously become even a more formidable threat, national security threat for Turkey. What puzzles us is that US has opted to choose a terrorist organization to fight another vicious barbaric terrorist organization, which is Daesh. So that's really where there is dialogue of deaths. We obviously would like to see a more move towards recognition of these concerns. So what Turkey is saying is this. Of course, Daesh is a big threat to humanity. That's why Turkey moved in Syria, clenched 2,000 square kilometers of Daesh. But we have been experiencing significant terror attacks, not only from Daesh, but also from PKK. Ethnically, I'm a Kurd and I come from a very humble background. My parents were illiterate subsistence farmers and I'm a deputy prime minister of Turkey. The biggest Kurdish city doesn't lie on Iraqi or Syrian border. The biggest Kurdish city in the world is Istanbul. So Turks and Kurds are well integrated. Carving out a piece of territory from Turkey cannot be a solution. That's why I was referring to and therefore, I think the support for PYDYPG, which is clearly a subsidiary of PKK, is a national security threat for us. And so we are puzzled. We find very difficult to understand what U.S. is up to. They're telling us this is a short-term tactical partnership to combat Daesh, but clearly, this is not the right strategy. So this is where we are, but we do still hope that there will be a better understanding as we go forward and hopefully we can all work together to create a unified, a unified, stable and hopefully prospering Syria because it's in our national interest and security interest. We have no interest in one single inch of Syrian territory. We have no quarrel with Kurds or with anybody else. And we want to be a constructive player in the region to help, as I said at the beginning, to prosper with our neighbors. Thank you. Minister Vandalin, is America today a source of equilibrium or disequilibrium in the Middle East when you think of what President Trump did on Jerusalem, which was a real departure from the global consensus, threatening to break the Iran agreement, which was really a UN-blessed agreement that the EU was a partner in? What kind of challenge does this pose for America's European partners? It is quite a challenge because the unpredictability behind that, what we see is hard to cope with. I have to say that on my colleague's side, my colleague, Jim Mattis, the Defense Minister, it is an excellent cooperation. He's highly experienced. He's a friend of Europe. He has a huge knowledge. He's a supporter of NATO. So he is very reliable and it's good to have him there in the Pentagon. But your question leads me to another point. I've heard the word power vacuum a few times here. Yes, it is there. So is the existence of this power vacuum, and it's difficult to deal with it without any question, not a call on us to step in and take on our responsibility as hard as it is. It's easily said and difficult to do. But this is what I see for Europe, to be more reliable and take on responsibility. We just created the European Defense Union, to speak with one voice, mainly in foreign affairs too, to be a reliable partner and to foster this process of modernization you have been talking here. The second point that I see and talking about the power vacuum or the problem to predict the reaction of the White House in different fields of politics. If I look at Syria and Iraq, it has been impressive that there was seeing Daesh, the threat of Daesh, a coalition against terror which included 70 countries. About 30 around were active in the fight against Daesh and we were successful. We are very different, but we had one main goal that was defeat Daesh. We're not totally done, there's still pockets and the ideology is still there in the room, but this was unifying. Now in a second step, with having defeated, mainly defeated Daesh, the problem will be that we do not fall back and all these small ethnicity conflicts and whatever the different interests are in the region to have a fragmented Syria, fragmented Iraq, but to keep them together and to keep us together with this one vision of peace and stability and prosperity, as you just pointed it out. And that brings me to the third point. Yes, I've seen that Russia stepped in a lot in Syria over time, Russia will not be able to maintain its military personnel and material in Syria and to rebuild Syria on its own. So the whole world will be needed and this is the chance for reconciliation process which goes back under, as I said, the umbrella of the United Nations, where all of us reunite with one goal to stabilize and rebuild that region and allow me a last point. I've read the vision 2030. It's impressive, it's very ambitious. And I cross all fingers that you're successful. If I look at the panel here and if I look into the room, if we really take it seriously with establishing a modern peaceful society, yes, we need the youth, as you said, we need the education of the young people and they need to have a perspective, but we need women too. And I would wanna put an emphasis on that topic, include the women and the process, include the women and the mothers in the process of reconciliation and reconstruction because this is the only way to build up a modern, inclusive, free and open-minded society. Very good. Sheikh Elad, you're Bahrain's small island. Right on the fault line, you got Iran over one horizon, Saudi Arabia over another, Iraq to the north. And you actually host the American Fleet in the base. Give me your assessment of American foreign policy right now in the Gulf. Do we have it right? Could we use a little advice on one side or another? We really look at American foreign policy and our partnership with America. We have been hacked. Yeah, not me, it wasn't me. It's subtle. It's the translation that's on, sorry. Go ahead, it's the translation that's on. Okay, yes. Yeah. Not me. It's here. Sorry. It gives you time to think. Exactly. Stalling tactic. I don't need the time. What was the question again? Go ahead, Sheikh Elad. Well, America's presence, America's commitment, America's partnership with our region has been there for decades. And those decades also saw some issues. In 1973, there was a major issue of the 1973 war between Egypt, Syria, and Israel. And at that time, the Gulf countries, and especially Bahrain, having the presence there at the same time with the air bridge between America and Israel was something of a stark difference. But that did not derail that commitment because we know that commitment is there for the stability of the region. That is the cornerstone of this partnership. And this will continue. So whether America has some views now about some matters, but America is an establishment. We know a lot of people who are partners to a lot of different things in our region. So this will continue. And usually, whatever situation happens in that country, America is used to turn on a dime normally. But when you said the fault line, yes, now there is a fault line with extremism, which is the Islamic Republic. And there is a fault line that is forming possibly of a new Cold War that I can reach by a speedboat from Bahrain. So this is something that as we see it as a challenge, but we're not seeing it as a threat because we know our commitment with our allies, the United States, as not only the fifth fleet in Bahrain, it's a whole international group of countries having their fleets covering the Gulf and the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Aden, fighting against pirates and Corsairs and all sorts. But when I have to talk about the main challenge of the other side, which is the Islamic Republic, I'm hesitant to use the word Iran, I tell you the truth, because there is an Iran that we know very well, we used to it, even in difficult times in the past, when they used to claim Bahrain and then they changed their mind and accepted that Bahrain is an independent country. Although we had in the past issues and continue to have it with the occupation of the United Arab Emirates Islands, but we always sought legal solutions for that and we continue to do so until today. But there's the mistrust that came with the Islamic Republic. There's the Iran that we know, the Iran the people, Iran the cultural links we have, Iran the culture and Iran the depth of history and civilization. And there is this situation now, since 1979 that we are going through with something that every now and then the people of Iran will have their own views towards it. So we need that to be addressed. Iran need to really change its behavior. We're not there to destroy Iran. We're not there to interfere with Iran, but they need really to change their behavior and be part of this whole international coalition to protect the region with the United States of America. They should not look at the base or the presence of the fifth fleet in Bahrain and the international fleets as a threat to their country. They should work toward being a partner of that group. Then, and when they stopped exporting the revolution, the Iranian revolution, they should respect their own revolution and not think of packaging it and sending it all over the world. This is something that is really not respectful to that revolution. Then we will be able to be on firmer ground to come and talk to the Iran or to the Islamic Republic itself. We don't mind, but we need to talk correct with them. And America's partnership with us is there, it's vital, and it shall continue. Thank you. Since we don't have a representative of Iran on the panel, I'll play that role, I'll be, and Dr. Henry, we'll finish with you and then we'll go to the floor. So from Iran's point of view, I look around. I got American troops in Iraq. I got American ships in Bahrain. I've got American planes in Qatar and in UAE. I've got American troops in Afghanistan. I feel like I'm surrounded, number one. And I had to occupy, I had to effectively seize dominant control of four Arab capitals, Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus, and Sana'a because there was fowl to there, there was chaos. So I'm just stabilizing the region. So what's your reaction to that? Dr. Henry, that is Iran and Russia. We haven't really brought Russia in either. Bring the two of them. Are they forces of equilibrium or disequilibrium? Do they have a point? Well, again, Tom, I think very significant what we saw internally in Iran following this Christmas. I mean, this is really significant. And I think this is going to play into the coming years. Explain what Tom says why. Number one, number one, clearly the economy is flawed. It's stanked. And clearly people really want an emphasis on creating opportunity and jobs. The whole idea of not Gaza, not Syria, but Iran is what you should concentrate on is a clear message not from us across the Gulf. This is from your own population. Don't spend $5 billion, $6 billion annually in Syria. Don't spend the billion dollars on Hezbollah. Concentrate on creating opportunity. And I heard one Iranian lady in many of the clips that came out and she said, we want to be as fortunate as Arab women. So they're not looking really forward to being fortunate as other women in more stable places. They see what's going on. I think the third thing also is everybody thought that following the earlier green movement that this would actually cow the Iranian people and hasn't. This has recurred and the whole emphasis, it will recur. So from the perspective that we see, this is the time for Iran really to analyze again what it's doing for its own stability's sake. I think it's important for Iran to understand that the sort of disturbances that were countrywide and the Iranians now admit we're all internal, it is really an opportunity for them to understand that they have to be a normal country. Now, that's the first thing, is to get Iran to be a normal country. The second thing is, if Iran is a normal country, the normal thing to do is to have a dialogue because we can't be neighbors and not talk to each other. But you can't really have a dialogue with Iran not being in a normal state, that respects sovereignty and respect and independence of other states, choices made by other states, and to try and go with this sort of transnational sectarianism. So I am hoping, I am hoping, and I think we will need to look in the next few months that the anger that was seen on Iranian streets is not in vain, that this is really an opportunity for Iran to sort of recalibrate, re-emphasize, prioritize and understand that an aggressive foreign policy in Arab space doesn't only undermine stability in Arab lands, but it actually undermines stability in Iran. Interesting. So let's open up to the floor. The only rule is no speeches and respectful questions and go right ahead and direct your, let us know who you are and direct your question if you have it specifically to someone. I'll repeat it, don't go ahead, yeah. My name is Nabil, I'm from Kuwait. What do you do, Nabil, if we can ask? I work for a secret group. Sir, as you mentioned in your initial remarks, how Saudi Arabia is the rising leader and that you are filling that vacuum and as the countries surrounding you, Kuwait, being one of them, we will follow you as a leader. My question to you is what's the kingdom's strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic, for dealing with the proxy war in Yemen, for dealing with the takeover of the cities that Tom mentioned, Beirut and others in Iraq and Syria. Just continuing to wait for a Cold War or a revolution or what's the kingdom going to do? Thank you. I think, well, I want to clarify, I didn't say that we are leading, I said, people asked us, they said, you need to step up and take more responsibility for your region because we can't afford to and you have influence and you have wealth and you should be able to do it. So when we step up in order to take matters into our own hands, the very same people who encouraged us to do this are now saying, why are you being reckless? We're not being reckless. We have in Iran, in Islamic Republic, the Khomeini Revolution that changed the Middle East in 1979 for the worse. Our societies were developing their opening up in the Khomeini Revolution, launched a sectarian wave in the Middle East that provoked a Sunni reaction and created extremists among the Sunnis in reaction to the Islamic Republic and Khomeini's revolution. And then Khomeini's revolution sought to export the revolution. It's enshrined in the Iranian constitution. The Iranian state, the Khomeini revolution, does not recognize citizenship. They believe that every Shia belongs to Iran. This is not acceptable. And so they set out to export this revolution on the one hand and to try to restore the Persian Empire on the other hand. And this is what led them to interfere with the affairs of Arab countries. They had no problem setting up terrorist groups like Hezbollah and others and the Houthis in Yemen later. They have no problem attacking embassies and assassinating diplomats. They have no problem committing terrorist attacks in Europe and South America all over the place. And so from our perspective, the Iranians have to decide whether they're a nation state which would be a rational actor that you can deal with, that respects international laws and respects international norms of behavior or if it's a revolution that doesn't recognize any of this. And I don't think the Iranians know what they are. So what do we do? We sat for 35 years and we tried to reach out to Iran. We tried to engage Iran to no avail. All we got was death and destruction in return. Our diplomats assassinated, our embassies blown up, terrorist cells planted in our country, terrorist attacks committed in our country, and we tried to reduce the resistance to cause damage inside Saudi Arabia and outside Saudi Arabia. And so we have to respond. So when you try to weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to strengthen the Lebanese state, that's so positive. Iran has been building Hezbollah for 30 years. So somebody has to come and roll back their influence so Lebanon can become a normal country. We always believe that if Lebanon didn't exist, we have to invent it in Lebanon, in the Middle East, in an Arab country. It has to be the model because if Lebanon falls apart and minorities in the Arab world do not feel safe, they leave. And the rich culture that His Excellency spoke about in the Middle East, we will lose it. So we have to preserve Lebanon. Now, what do we do in Iraq? We're engaging with Iraq because Iraq is an Arab country and should be part of the Arab world and part of the Gulf. We responded to a coup that the Houthis staged that destroyed Yemen's path towards normalization. And we are preventing the takeover by Yemen of a radical Iranian-affiliated Hezbollah-affiliated militia to our south. We do not want to have Hezbollah in Yemen. The Houthis are 50,000 people. They cannot dominate a country of 28 million. So we're working with our allies in order to push back. And we're working with our allies in the Gulf in order to beef up our defenses. And we're working within the Islamic world in order to isolate Iran. We're working with African countries in order to isolate Iran. And we will continue to do so until Iran changes its policies. Thank you. Young lady back there, yeah. Can you identify yourself? My question is again from Mr. Al-Jubeir. You said that the crown prince wanted a normal Saudi Arabia. So my question is, do you see in the very close future the end of the guardianship system for women in Saudi Arabia? I think if you look at the issue of women in Saudi Arabia, in 1960 we had no schools for women. Today, 55% of college students are women. In 1960, there were no professions open for women. Today, some of our most prominent business persons, doctors, engineers are women. Women can vote in musical elections. 20% of our consultative council, which is our legislative body, are ladies. And opportunities are opening up. The ban on women driving has been lifted. They will be able to drive in June of this year. The restrictions on entertainment and recreation have been lifted. So it's a more open society. And I think, and also this issue is something that our society will be dealing with. Our country cannot move forward if we only avail ourselves of 50% of our population. We have to include everybody. And this is the objective also of our 2030 vision. We want to increase, many fold, the participation rate of women in the workforce. Even though 55% of college students are women and more than 60% are graduate students, their participation rate in the workforce is much lower than male participation rates. And this is something we're trying to change. We believe that with opening up the public space, with allowing women to drive, that this will make it easier and will encourage more women to join the workplace. Thanks. Go over here. There's a gentleman over there. Please identify yourself. My name is Cirque du Faisal. I'm a Saudi senior citizen. When King Salman appointed Prince Mohammed bin Salman to be in charge of Vision 2030, the Prince collected a group of young Saudis to develop a performance index for the government. I've just come from the inauguration of this issue number 62 in the promenade. Please go and see it. It measures all efforts of the Saudi government. And when they found that they could do that, they decided to include the rest of the world in that program. And they're offering it to the rest of the world. They've taken all the indices from the United Nations, from the World Bank, from the IMF, et cetera, and put them in this program, which is readily available. And at the touch of a finger, you can find out exactly where governments stand on issues like justice, like human rights, like labor, et cetera, et cetera. And that is what another aspect you asked the minister about Prince Mohammed bin Salman that is very clearly, in my view, not only responding to the age group that he is representing, but also to my age group. Thank you very much. We'll take that as a commentary. Thank you. The young lady here. Up here in the first row. I'm also a young global leader. I have a question for Minister Joubert and Minister Gagash, and then also for the other panelists. But first to you too, when Donald Trump went to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and also the UAE announced a lot of investments into the U.S. economy. And I'm wondering, what are you expecting from the U.S. in return? Deputy Prime Minister Shemsek, you have Turkish troops now in Qatar, while there's, as you notice, this whole, as people call it, the Qatar crisis going on. I'm wondering how far would Turkey go in order, in this whole crisis? What is Turkey's role in Qatar? And how long are you planning to stay there? And Minister von der Leyen, as also a German citizen, we've been hearing so many different varieties of what extremism is. I mean, you all agree on ISIS or Daesh of being an extremist group, but some of the panelists here think that also Iran is spreading extremism. And Germany or the European Union was at the forefront for the Iran nuclear deal. So I'm wondering, are you addressing those worries to your Iranian partners? And also, how can you address them, given that recently you dismantled a couple of Iranian agents inside Germany? Thank you very much. Let me narrow that down, because we'll give Adel a break, if you don't mind, and let Minister Simsek talk about Turkish troops in Qatar and Minister von der Leyen talk about your view of Iran. The panel seems to, these three-fifths of it, agree that Iran has been a source of instability. Is that Germany's view as well, Minister? Well, first of all, we support Kuwait's mediation efforts in addressing the current dispute between Qatar and its neighbors. As I said, clearly dialogue is the best way, and that's really key to addressing there may be differences of opinion. Even within a family, sometimes you disagree. I think GCC countries are a family, and I'm absolutely convinced that they would address the current dispute, and in that sense, we're looking forward to resolution. Regarding Turkish troops in Qatar, they're limited on a scale, based on invitation from Qatar. It's not against any other country in the region that cannot be imagined. We've played a very constructive role within NATO in the past, and of course, we continue to remain, so we have troops in Afghanistan combating extremism there. We went there to help the United States. We are in Somali through humanitarian assistance, so we were in Lebanon, again, as a part of peacekeeping. We were in Kosovo. Turkey is in many parts of the world. It is the fourth, one of the largest players within NATO and one of the largest in the world, so we're there mostly for peacekeeping. Peacekeeping against who, though? No, no, I'm referring, I'm speaking in general terms here. But as far as Qatar is on a limited scale. So I was referring more to broader global true presence. You're going to close this for us because we've told the time is out, so please finish up. There are many, many worries about Iran without any question, and we see a lot of problems with Iran without any question. But we think that the Iran deal encapsulates the core problem, and therefore we think we should stick to the deal as long as Iran sticks to the deal, too. This has to be controlled ongoing. And this does not exclude that, apart from this Iran deal, there are many other problems we have to discuss with Iran without any question. And we see with a lot of worries the growing influence of Iran, be it in Iraq, be it in Syria via Hezbollah, in that area. So this is one more good argument to be present in the region, to have our influence, I'm speaking as a European now, a European voice being heard in the region and European helping hand, helping to rebuild society and reconstruction after this horrible fight against Daesh with all the de-struction we have seen and the human catastrophes we have seen there. So yes, we see the problem with Iran, but we stick to the Iran deal because we think this is the better way to go. It's always better to be in a constant dialogue as hard as it might be than to be on talk and turns anymore. Please give our panel a big hand for the question.