 Good good morning everyone. I want to welcome you to the United States Institute of Peace. I'm Steve Hadley I'm chairman of the board of the Institute We're going to get started the intelligence We've received is that there are power outages and metro slowdowns and all kinds of chaos which Some would say made it a typical rush hour and in the Washington morning But we're going to pass that so people will be joining us as they're able to to get here But we're glad that you all here. This is the fourth event In the Iran forum, which is a series that has been co-sponsored by eight Washington think tanks They are the US Institute of Peace the Woodrow Wilson Center the ran corporation the arms control association the center for a new American security the Stimson Center Plowshares fund and the partnership for a secure America, which I think is really an unprecedented Collaboration and I want to pay special thanks and tribute to Robin Wright who has put this consortium together This event is also brought to you by the Iran Primer, which is US IP's comprehensive website with Resources on every Iran related subject you can think of an analysis from almost any angle And I would urge you to take a look at the site We will have provided a copy of the Iran Primer home page on every seat here So you and if you don't have one you can get one in the back we're delighted to host this original forum involving both former American and Iranian officials who understand firsthand the challenges of foreign policy and particularly US-Iranian relations On April 2nd the world six major powers in Iran announced the framework for what could be a historic nuclear deal the terms remain controversial and somewhat disputed in both capitals and our goal today is to Explore the challenges ahead. Let me quickly introduce our panelists You should have the full bios of these candidates at your seat But let me introduce them briefly starting from my right Ali Akbar Musavi former member of the Iranian Parliament from 2000 to 2004 He was arrested while demonstrating to support equal rights between men and women in June of 2006 and was released 130 days later He moved to the United States in 2009 and is a visiting fellow at Virginia Tech And a human rights and digital freedom advocate. Welcome. Nice to have you with us Next is Jim Slattery a former congressman from Congress from 1983 to 1995 And currently a partner at Wiley Rine LLP He is the first former congressman to visit Iran since the revolution and Attended the world against violence and extremism conference in Tehran in December of this last year He's been involved in interfaith dialogue with Iran for about 10 years Jim. Welcome Next is Michael Singh former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2005 to 2008 And currently a senior fellow at the Washington Institute During his tenure at the White House Michael was responsible for coordinating US national security policy toward the Middle East Including an emphasis on Iran's nuclear and regional activities and his national security adviser I did whatever he told me to do on the subjects on which he worked Remember Welcome Michael next is Howard Berman a former congressman from California from 1983 to 2013 and currently a senior advisor at Covington and Burling LLP as Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Congressman Berman was one of Congress's leading experts on international relations Howard great to have you with us today So with that we are going to begin we are going to go probably till about 1030 maybe 1035 or so given the late start with a conversation among us up here And at that point we are going to open it up to questions. There will be microphones Please wait for a microphone to come to you identify yourself and ask your question And you can direct it to any of the panelists or all of the panelists as you as you see Seek fit So let me begin if we can As I mentioned in the opening remarks there seem to be various versions about what has been agreed so far in the negotiations We've also heard from Iran's supreme leader about some of the the objectives he has in the negotiations about prompt sanctions relief and No access to military sites And and a couple other details which are not fully consistent with what the new US side is said So in light of the the somewhat disarray about what has been agreed so far. Let me ask the panel two questions first how close are we to an agreement and How likely are we to get a final signed document by June 30? And if I might Ali Akbar, let me begin with you Thank you for having me here at first. I would like to thank these organizers and especially US IP for convening this timely event and Also, I would like to emphasize that I'm not representing any organization and the other I Mean the people or group of people. I'm just talking off talking on my behalf My personal opinion here as a former just former member of Iran's parliament regarding your question, I Think we are very very close to a historic moment historic achievement in solving a big international crisis peacefully and diplomatically I'm very optimistic to reach this moment very soon I Even couldn't imagine two years ago To see this such a rate of progress I Remember that two years ago We sent a letter as a seven former members of parliament to three leaders So the Supreme Leader President Obama and Miss Catherine Ashton and proposed this deal it was almost about January 2013 and we had lots of difficulties to even Initiate to talk about and convince many experts in Washington DC. I remember that Woodrow Wilson Invited us and my colleague and I miss Fatima. I got you and I sat in a same in a such a panel discussion to propose and convince some skeptics some friends in Washington to even We couldn't imagine we could initiate This in this deal and talk about that. It was a really difficult. Finally. We tried to convince Washington Post to publish this the exact letter It was five months almost before the election presidential election Even we didn't know that mr. Rohani and this great administration is coming but we just heard something some rumors that some intentions is going on between Talking I mean the behind the scenes between two administrations I mean the Obama administration and Iran's supreme leaders followers and you know his Friends then be proposed this This proposal and and deal and at that time we had lots of difficulties to Even talk about that. But right now I sat here and thank you for having me here again We want to convince some very few skeptics in Washington DC that we can help To finalize a comprehensive deal. It's very very different Moment than two years ago. So I'm very optimistic and I hope that the United States especially Won't lose this opportunity because I think The US lost the first opportunity in 2003 when they got the same agreement but after saying Adding the name of Iran as axis of evil. I think it's damaged the deal. I think this moment Insha'Allah I hope that You won't lose this opportunity and it leads it would lead this deal Iran and the region to a peace to peace and stability in Very near future Thank you. Howard, how do you see it? What are the prospects of getting this done at all? And what are the prospects of getting done by June 30th? I'm a little more nervous than you are about the likelihood of the agreement being reached and It seems pretty clear to me that this American administration Wants to reach an agreement. I think there are some Limitations beyond which it won't go but it certainly wants to reach the agreement the question raised more recently is Does the supreme leader? Want to reach the agreement. He's made some statements in the recent days regarding the timing of sanctions relief Regarding the Sanctity of security and military sites for on which no inspectors can ever go He's made other statements which look like he's thinking of a very very different agreement then I think the p5 could ever sign and Then the question comes up. Why is he talking like this? And the fact is he has made statements like that before he talked about a hundred and ninety thousand Centrifuges at one point so he talked them about a large number of reactors and enrichment facilities and and in the end the one area of the Administrations released Parameters that they haven't really challenged is the reference to the numbers of centrifuges the numbers of enrichment facilities They don't seem to be arguing about About those assertions in the administration parameters so in the end I think a lot of this depends and We've heard for a long time and and I believe that there is a Tension inside Iran between elements of the IRGC and quote hardliners and the the current president and foreign minister and We've always thought where does a supreme leader come down in that in that a Conflict and that to me will be a big part of answering the question of Whether there's a likelihood of reaching an agreement by June 30th Well, yeah, let me ask you if you want a comment I think one of the questions we all have is how should we need the supreme leaders? statements And do you have any advice for us on that one and then I'm going to turn it over to Michael and Jim I Would say that I don't agree with your comment about the Iran's Situation I think I have lots of concern and mostly about the US side because in Iran we have Consensus between the supreme leader the administration the parliament and The vast majority of people it's unprecedented in Iran about one very very important Issue but how about here? No, I don't think so in administration. Yes, I agree with that but how about the Congress and how about the many influence and pressures To Congress towards the Congress about you know break the deal. I I'm very you know I have some doubt, but I'm not really concerned As I said before I'm optimistic even about Congress after April 14 that they got in agreement with the administration the new legislation But still I think it's it's really great because it makes more and this this bill I mean In Congress Mr. Cork's bill That passed in Senate it makes more sustainable To implement in long term in this Agreement, but still we have lots of problem. I I cannot predict What would be the Decision of Congress after Final negotiation final agreement comprehensive agreement in end of June This is just for those this is a bill that was passed last week that gives the Congress 30 days to consider a nuclear deal the option of legislation at the end of that time and Suspends any suspension of sanctions during the period of that consideration So there is now some agreement now in the US side of a process for consideration between The White House and the Congress Though let me ask Michael and Jim there seems to be less agreement on What the substance of that agreement should be everybody seems to agree well a bad agreement is worse than no agreement But there seems to be no real consensus of what a bad agreement would look like and Secretary of State Baker in an op-ed Last Friday suggested that one of the steps we ought to do is get our own house in order and identify the three or four things that really makes a Reasonable agreement from the US standpoint and be clear about them In the same way that some would say the Supreme Leader has been clear about what he needs Is that a good course of action? Michael? Let me start with you and then Jim go to you Sure. Well, you know when you when you ask this question. Is it a good deal or a bad deal? I think it really is sort of two questions in a sense The first is does the deal do what we need it to do is it sort of valuable to our interests to advance the Subjectives we've set out in this case having to do with non-proliferation and having to do with the threat that we perceive Iran poses In the Middle East, but there's a second question, too And this is one that's highlighted by the President especially which is what are the alternatives a good deal in comparison to what? Alternative course of action that would better advance our interests and both of these questions are tremendously controversial You know Secretary St Baker in his op-ed. This is an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and he basically said He essentially said what we've gotten this is the right track But it needs to be improved and he said here are sort of three or four ways in which he would suggest not just Improving it, but he would suggest saying we have to insist on these things and get our other p5 plus one partners to insist on them That essentially gets to the first question trying to make the deal more valuable to American interests a better deal as it were And I do think that all of his suggestions are the right suggestions in a sense, you know getting Iran to Sort of lay out for inspectors its past weaponization work and the sites and the individuals involved in that Getting to this question of military sites Which our military sites can quite easily be nuclear sites as we've seen in the past As well as this question of sanctions phase relief of sanctions and the so-called snapback of sanctions Which may be a bit of a myth in a sense, but that's a separate question But I think it's important that we look as we approach this next period Not just at the question of the substance of a deal which he's addressing but also the alternatives We need to focus on improving our own alternatives if in fact there's no deal because it's highly possible As Howard was saying that we'll get no deal even if we want one and so it's important that you look past That point of failure and say where will we be and making sure that we're well Well positioned if that happens and also worsening Iran's alternatives because this is there's more than one dimension to this We're not the only party looking at this deal And if Iran perceives its own alternatives as worse then it might accept a deal which is more favorable to the United States I think red lines can be useful both in you know first of all you should know your own bottom lines in any Negotiation you should know what it is you're looking for they can be useful perhaps as a negotiating tactic And some would interpret the supreme leader speech one interpretation is that he's setting these maximalist red lines just to influence the sort of Dynamics of the negotiations to get us to give more as you would in any Negotiation about just about anything the thing about those red lines though is I think you have they have to be credible You have to believe in them. So there's this internal process you have to go through and I worry that especially with American negotiators who tend to be you know sort of more transparent in a sense that if we don't actually Believe that these bottom lines are good bottom lines to have you know sort of in Privately that trying to project them publicly will ultimately backfire on us as it did in say the case of Syria So we should have bottom lines We need to figure out for ourselves internally what those bottom lines are and then we need to figure out How do you best project those tactically as part of a negotiation? I? Will just say additionally this all sort of presumes that the deal can be fixed that that Secretary of State Baker's Thesis essentially that the deal isn't where it needs to be but it's the right track and we need to fix it essentially I worry that the deal can't be fixed that the design of the deal is conceptually flawed in in several different ways and You know one way is for example Even if we get this deal it will require Probably any president not just President Obama, but his successor and maybe even that person's successor to be waving sanctions every six months It's a very unstable process because anything can intervene in that process The some of the hardest decisions are left until the future Negotiators love to do that because it saves the hard stuff for when they're not around anymore But it doesn't necessarily mean that's going to come to pass when those dates come Second we have not required Iran to dismantle anything essentially its entire nuclear program remains intact And I think that even if you have positive change in Iran even if Iran Sort of changes its regional strategy becomes friendlier to the United States whatever sort of best-case outcome you can imagine Having that nuclear program intact there Will ultimately be a net negative for the security of the region nuclear programs tend to grow in groups or in pairs as as many here know and I think that even a sort of different sort of Iran with that very robust nuclear program will be perceived as a Threat by for example regional neighbors and frankly any future Iranian government may have a very hard time giving any of that up For reasons of national pride Absence the pressure of sanctions and then just finally the other conceptual flaw is that we have separated between the nuclear issues and the regional issues The problem is there are instruments of power Sanctions for example, they're blunt instruments. There's nothing those are seeing as a nuclear related sanction And so it gets to the question of how will we deter Iranian support for terrorism or Iran's activities in the region? Following a deal without the these tools being available and it either leads you to less effective tools Or more say direct action which actually leads you into sort of more direct involvement and say the conflicts of the region So I worry that yes Secretary Baker's ideas are good red lines to have their good bottom line positions to have But that ultimately the deal as conceived can't be successful even if we reach it Jim, what is your view from the US? Timber what do we do to get our own house in order in terms of proceeding with these negotiations? One of the things I want to share is that in December when I was in Tehran I had an opportunity to visit with members of the modulus key people in the Rouhani government leading clerics They're you know friends of the Supreme Leader and every place I went especially to the modulus I heard one question and that was can President Obama implement the deal? They really wanted to know this and this was of course after our elections After the fact that the Senate had been taken over by Republicans and of course the House continued to be in Republican hands, so They were raising this question Because they wanted me to understand that if we expected them to put their best offer on the table They wanted to know that that best deal could be accepted and would not be scuttled by our Congress And I think we need to be mindful that as all of these questions arise from the Congress It undermines our negotiators Capacity to get the best deal at the negotiating table and that's a part of this that hasn't been adequately focused on and The Iranians are very fearful those that are really aggressively Committing to a deal and in many cases I believe they have bet their political futures and their political careers on getting a deal with the United States Their worst nightmare is that they go out on the limb So to speak put the best deal on the table that they can possibly get and have the United States Congress Scuttle the deal that politically destroys them and it may do even more than that to them And I don't think that we have as Americans fully understood that dimension of what's going on in the negotiations You know I I'm a Kansas Democrat So Kansas is the most Republican state in the Union probably so optimism is sort of hardwired into my DNA, but You know I think that we have this historic moment and the great tragedy would be that our domestic political Forces prevented us from really getting a historic Breakthrough in this relationship with Iran So all Americans really need to be in this debate And we really need to be focused on some of these very tough details and as far as I'm concerned verification is Going to be the key in all of the dimensions of verification. So for example I'm troubled by the statements that the Supreme Leader has made about denying access to certain military sites. I Can understand sort of the military, you know need for that from the Iranian side But we are going to have to have Access Unquestioned access to all of the sites that have anything to do with the nuclear operation and that is a red line and I think that That's going to be tough to get to I want to follow up on that and Frame this question and then go really down the line Howard starting with you and going right down the line In light of this conversation There's two ways to frame it. What are the principle? Obstacles that could prevent the parties from getting an agreement or Flipping it around whether the two or three things that are really required If an agreement is going to be reached and Howard, let me start with you if I could you well I think the answer to that has changed I Can certainly understand why one could look at Washington and think The administration is trying to do one thing the Congress is Instinctively and adamantly against what it's trying to do. How do we count on an agreement with the administration? the equation changed tremendously in the context of this agreement that was worked out between Senator Corker and and senator carton and the White House because it turned everything around one the Congress will not act on The agreement before there's an agreement Secondly it While the Congress will there's no way in the world the Congress will ever approve this agreement The only way the agreement doesn't go into effect and by that I mean The president loses his ability to waive the sanctions that he will need to waive to do the American part of the deal Is if two-thirds of both houses Disapprove of the agreement and then vote to override the president's veto so to me the debate has changed from Instinctively not wanting to do any deal with Iran particularly a deal that didn't dismantle Their entire nuclear infrastructure and Michael's right about that this deal doesn't do that It changed from that debate to debate about issues like Is this a good deal and and and more than that is it a good deal on the issue of Giving significant comfort for a significant period of time that Iran Will not get a nuclear weapon Because Michael raised other issues which are very legitimate issues to raise but I don't think Iran support for terrorism Iran's hegemonic tendon The the sanctions effort that bought the international community together was about Iran's nuclear program and If we try to conflate and bring in every issue into this We will lose the support of the international community. So I actually think We now are the test of is this a bad agreement in the context that Michael asked is This the least worst option There's no And that will be the question that 34 senators if they think it is the least worst option the deal goes into effect Divide one third into four hundred and thirty five congressmen in the same same equation. That's very much changed the The balance of power here now And so I think the parts that I don't know about this agreement the level of verification the what is Just exactly What is going to be the centrifuges that are pulled out of Natanz the what are the consequences? When Iran says no to a particular desire by the inspectors to go to a certain site Those things that hopefully will get filled out to as part of in the next two two and a half months Those who will decide How the Congress reacts so I think it's a much less bleak situation than it was last December in terms of Talking with the folks you talked to in Tehran. Yeah, I agree with you Howard that that the Congressional action last week has fundamentally changed the equation here and I think that if Iranians look at this I mean the bottom line is will the White House be able to hold one-third plus one in the house and Probably not for a bad agreement probably not for a bad agreement You're absolutely correct, and I think the bad agreement ultimately will be defined by the issues of verification In other words, nobody trusts anybody in this deal and all this stuff about well You can't trust the Iranians. Well, the Iranians don't trust us. We don't trust them That is a given let's quit talking about that you know the fact of the matter is we have to have adequate verification of procedures and And that's what I think the Congress is going to ultimately be looking at and when you look at the context of this agreement And perhaps Michael and I would disagree on this. I think given the status quo Compared to this outline as described by the State Department And I underline that because there is clearly a disparity between What the State Department has outlined and what what does the reef has outlined? Okay, but given the State Department outline compared to the status quo and given the fact when you start going through this that the number of centrifuges being dropped from 19,000 to 5,060 operational the volume of low-enriched uranium being dropped from 10,000 kilos to 3,000 kilo or 300 kilos and You know the the other provisions in this and and the Basically fundamentally changing air rack and the plutonium operation and and fundamentally changing what's going on at Ford out I mean these are significant concessions made by the other side and given the status quo I think it's a it's a major step forward again. It all depends on verification So Michael let me go to you put you on the spot a bit Is this deal as outlined in the State Department fact sheet the least bad outcome? And if it isn't what is required to make it in your view the least bad outcome? And then I'm going to ask you to comment briefly on what you've heard So my answer to the first one is no, I don't think it is the least bad outcome I do worry that the deal has outlined in the US fact sheet. First of all, it's not a deal There's clearly unresolved issues. And so it's hard to really evaluate per se because of those unresolved issues But I do think that there are some some big holes in what we have agreed to And I think some of those are what Secretary Baker outlined I think it's absolutely critical for example that those questions that we call PMD possible military dimensions what Iran has done that those really be answered up front because I don't see how you can have a Sufficient verification regime without those questions haven't been answered because it's not a matter of I mean people say well Why do you need Iran to confess? It's not about a confession. It's about the information I think the inspectors need that what are the sites they need to check who are the people they need to talk to? What progress has Iran made today? I don't think you can verify without those things I do think there are other issues the questions of how are sanctions relieved and when I think it's important that we maintain Leverage going forward in the event of Iranian non-compliance Because I think there will inevitably be questions about compliance there always are with these types of regimes There's also this question about access to sites and we've talked about that already I don't think we can permit a distinction between Civilian nuclear sites and military sites given the clear sort of military nature of Iran's past nuclear activities So within the context of what's been outlined I think that those things need to be addressed to make this a deal worth Supporting worth making really But then there's look again I constantly get back to the question of alternatives and I think that one thing we neglect here in our debate is it again It's not just about what are the United States alternatives? It's what are Iran's alternatives and I think that this raises the question of time Because you know we could we could really afford to negotiate for another six months if we had to it's great to set Deadlines and diplomacy if you really committed to those deadlines, and they're credible I don't know frankly that deadlines we said at this stage are credible But we could afford to negotiate for another six months or 12 months frankly I think the Iranians really can afford far less to simply see this say the interim agreement Extended another six or 12 months and I think that we need to bear in mind that Iran's own alternatives are not fantastic And so we need to I think be for the sake of having a sustainable deal a deal It actually survives past, you know 21 months or 24 months I think it's important that we get what we need here will it then be sort of a great deal I'll still say that it wouldn't be a great deal because of these conceptual flaws And I would worry a lot that the deal would not survive the 10 years Even of the initial period, but it's probably at this stage of the game the best that we could hope for Thank you I want to come back to that issue of what happens if by June 30 we don't have an agreement But I'll act by let me ask you this again given your hopes for this agreement as you expressed in your opening comments And given what you've heard here Does it reassure you about some of the questions you had about the US side reassured me at first Let me say this point that we have more much more problem in US side. Please accept this idea Than in Iran. Sometimes I'm joking with some Iranian friends that especially when you had problems that Congress had shut down the government. I was joking to some Americans that saying that You don't have a Supreme Leader here. If you have Supreme Leader Could order. No, it's a bad idea Don't do that. But I'm just joking But so now I'm just comparing the current two systems Politics system political system in Iran and in the United States, especially the current Parliament You don't have too much problem. They are already in agreement and The Supreme Leader if the Supreme Leader decides something Especially this current government. I mean the Parliament would approve it. Definitely And right now they approved the Supreme Leader has created a new term, which was, you know Very very new for for us at least in here. I think also for you the term is called so-called Heroic flexibility so That's it finished and all In the same page, but in here. We don't have such a system More democratic system we have here. We've seen here and between administration and the Congress. We have lots of difficulties So let me ask you please accept from the panel accept this idea that about the comprehensive deal We have much more problem in here than Iran But the second lead I don't agree. Let me Express my idea about your idea that we can extend six months or 12 months again them to Negotiate and negotiate and negotiate because two important election is coming and Is going to be escalated in here the next presidential election and in here in Iran Two important election at the same day and same time February in February 2016 Election election for Parliament and expert assembly, which is very very important this this moment the second one also so I think if you extend the negotiations six months or 12 months especially The domestic policy would affect much more the Negotiations and you cannot get out of the this negotiations When you extend for two two lungs, maybe you can imagine for example ten days or 20 days one months like you in the last the bill they got in agreement between the administration and Congress It's fine, but more than that I Can imagine that it would certainly Put this agreement. I mean the comprehensive deal in jeopardy So this is the second point and the last my last point about the what what you mentioned Previously is that I don't think the verification would be Major problem because we had the same issue in the past when President Rohani was the Secretary of the National Security Council and President Khatami was the president. I mean was in power. I was in Parliament. I remember you had this situation and problem and Iran voluntarily gave to you to access I mean the IAEA to access many many places including some like some military places like Parchin and So but it has a lots of it says its own process Technical problem, which is not my it's not my expertise in IAEA when they want to ask to Have access to certain military places, but When they accept to execute additional protocol I Think it would assure you and everybody if they have any problem security problem for example Israel Security if they have concern about that it would assure you it should assure you and everybody to saying that It won't have you know problem problem about that but about the second problem that right now Both side are talking With each other in Iran, especially it's about sanction. It's more much more tougher than the first one I think because the first one about the Executing or implementation of Additional protocol voluntarily is already accepted in Geneva. I believe that I heard and But about sanctions I think we have two different Idea and they are opposing each other and I think it's also practical and Resolvable and you can you know you can resolve it as well in this during this two months or so I What I hear is I think it's going to come down to these two issues This verification and monitoring issue, which has a number of aspects We talked about and the relaxation of sanctions those seem to be the two crunch issues We have heard now Michael suggests that we have more time We've heard Ali Akbar say just that not much more time because it gets politically complicated So let me bring you Jim in and Howard in and say if At June 30 we have not bridged the apparent differences on these two issues to critical issues What do we do and what's plan B or what is the plan for a soft landing? so that this does not Badly damage the situation in the region well First of all, I feel very strongly that we shouldn't be budging on this June 30th deadline Interesting. I think that we have to dig in on this both sides have to recognize that that the clock is running out for both of us And for different reasons, but let me just observe that if this gets kicked down the road for months We're into heavy Political campaign season will soon be into the into the Iowa caucuses and I think it's important for all of us to understand that the political pressure domestically is Going to be so intense Especially on the Republican side and let me explain why the in the Republican primary the Christian Fundamentalist vote is vitally important to all of these candidates on the Republican side They're appealing to the Christian fundamentalist and on the east coast I don't think we have Just not the awareness of the rising influence of Christian Zionism in this country So we have this reality emerging in the heartland where the strongest supporters of Israel are Christian Zionists who are now in the Christian fundamentalist camp basically and these are voters that are vitally important to these Republicans running for president and so what this is going to do coupled with the fact that we have literally hundreds of millions of dollars Moving in the American political process based on this issue It's a staggering amount of money and all of this is going to put enormous pressure Especially on the Republican candidates for president. Why am I saying this it is going to solidify? Republican opposition to any deal and It's going to make this whole process much more political than it otherwise would be and so this Deadline of June the 30th has to be hard for both sides if I was in Iran And if I was looking at this from the Iranian perspective, I Would say my goodness we've got to get a deal and we've got to get it now And we better be flexible in how we get there because the clock is not on our side of the table And I think that the Iranians that I've had an opportunity to visit with they understand the historic moment For the first time in maybe 35 years We have high-ranking leadership in Tehran and high-ranking leadership in the United States that are together wanting a deal and I think this makes this a historic moment and I think we We better not we better be smart enough to take advantage of it Howard How do you see it if we get to June 30 and don't have it well? I'm I share Jim's nervousness Perhaps for some different reasons the whole threat of this is the pressure that came from International sanctions on the Iranian economy and the election of Rahan But but but but everything is wrapped together late Yes, it's related. Yes, great For the first administration has been sanctioned US government has been sanctioning Iran since 1979 With the exception for a brief period of time of some pistachios and carpets an American company could not do business with Iran in the late 90s We decided to go extraterritorial and impose sanctions on investment in Iran's energy sector of more than 20 million dollars Neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration ever imposed a sanction on there because of the international pushback that they feared would come from extraterritorial sanctions on foreign companies that made those investments Whatever you think of the president of the United States He he undertook a strategy that developed an international coalition. I don't think The Ahmadinejad Presidency with the supreme leader was going to extend its hand in the first year of the Obama administration and Unclench their fist, but I thought it was necessary for the administration and the president to be willing to do that To build up the international coalition that would come down. I Remember oil for food and I watched on a rock a consensus on sanctions that started So wither and wither away and I fear the same thing happens here. All I'm saying is I think We should get a good deal done by By June 30th the extension of the JPOA is it's interesting because there were people who thought that was a Terrible mistake and it provides limited sanctions relief It's not going to take the pressure off the Iranian economy. It's not going to make the people of Iran And and it and again, it's it's more time for The unity of the p5 to sever and there this is a very different time than 19 2009 and 2010 when this coalition was put together Russia is taking a very different approach Generally on issues the there are all kinds of Potential shinks here that I'm concerned about so I'd like to see it done now Let me ask one more question and then we're going to go to the audience for questions And that is this if we've talked a little bit about what happens if we don't get a deal if we do get a deal And Ali Akbar, I'd like to start with you on this if I could What are the likelihood that a nuclear agreement would lead to some kind of breakthrough in relations between Iran and the United States between Iran and its Sunni neighbors and What impact might it have on Iranian behavior on other issues of concern? Like Syria and Yemen and the like and I'd like to hear from you and then just go down quickly down the line And then we'll go to the audience for questions First of all, I would like to emphasize on that point that President Obama mentioned and they finally got an agreement with Congress that It's it's a big fault to tying any other issues other than nuclear in this negotiation or bring Inside this comprehensive deal that it makes Almost impossible the deal But other than that if you take a look at the last speech of the Supreme Leader in Iran Before yesterday, I mean the last one I think almost 10 days ago He mentioned something that I think it was for the first time That mentioned that if we got in agreement with the United States and the Western countries and we could implement it and I mean We got this deal We may allow the negotiators to Negotiate about other problems that we have maybe with the international community I mean in especially in the United States, so it was for the first time that he mentioned so Right after that. I would imagine that and that this deal it would lead the negotiators to Talk about especially at first regional issues like ISIS Yemen, I mean Iraq Afghanistan and many many regional problem that we have right now and work on that and getting agreements like like now like the agreement that we are close to get About the nuclear issue and lastly I think It may lead to even brought this conversation and negotiations to normalize the relationship between the United States and Iran and after that maybe even it may lead to negotiate about Some internal plot internal problem that we have about human rights and many other issues So I'm pretty optimistic about about about that is gonna happen very soon if we got this agreement and put it away from the face, you know between in the international community and and Iran Bottom line based on ten years of interaction with Iranians from the business community from the the Religious communities from the political communities in Iran I am totally convinced that Iran wants a reset with the United States with some limitations and I think that that This nuclear agreement from the standpoint of just us national security interest is Extremely important to get this nuclear issue solved and it's extremely important obviously for Israel as well if we can do this And Make progress there it is a platform from which we can move to a lot of other discussions And we can do so focusing on those areas where there is common interest There are issues in the region that the United States and Iran share and need to address ISIS ISIS hates Iranians as much as it does Jews and and Christians and Americans We can work together Iran in the United States dealing with ISIS I also believe there's an opportunity To deal with the issue of Hezbollah and in Lebanon all of this stuff can be on the table And the first step is to get this terrible nuclear Question resolved and and use the confidence maybe a little bit of trust that we can build in dealing with this To to build a better future together Michael prospects for a broader opening. I think that at this stage they're dim even if we get a nuclear agreement You know It's important to keep in mind on the one hand that we have already talked to the Iranians many times over the years about regional issues We've talked to them about Iraq. We've talked to them about Afghanistan and well before we had serious nuclear negotiations We were doing these things And I think that we should maintain I think one thing that's critical for us to maintain is Flexibility on our tactics. I think that we when we're conducting foreign policy We need to be we can't be dogmatic when it comes to tactics And so I think that we shouldn't regard it as As terrible to use so the tactic of engagement for example at the same time I think we need to be quite unrelenting when it comes to our objectives and defending our interests and here I think is where the difficulty between the US and Iran lies I think there is far more divergence between American and Iranian interests and strategies importantly too Because we may share for example a View that ISIS is bad for the region But the way that Iran goes about dealing with that problem is itself an imical to American interests And we've seen this playing out in places like to Crete and so forth It's I think important to bear that in mind So I don't think that we are at this stage ripe for that kind of breakthrough it because I don't think we have seen The broader shift by Iran that we have been looking for for so long I mean this agreement that we if we get it will be very narrow and technical It's not going to deliver the kind of rapprochement or shift that we have so long talked about I just want to say that and you know so whether Iran actually wants that I think it's very much in question The supreme leader hasn't really moderated his language about the United States where we're still accused daily of having created ISIS Just yesterday Iranian general said that ISIS were American protegees and so forth so we're far away from that on the American side though I'm a little bit uncomfortable with this sort of undertone that democracy is somehow a diplomatic liability It's certainly not it's one of our you know tremendous sources of strength diplomatically in the world and of soft power And it's true that you know as an American leader You can't simply you know decide your own policy and forge ahead you have to have your people behind you You have to have constituencies behind you and so one danger here Of course is that you know that the president needs to make sure he has people behind him that he has public opinion behind him And one thing you see is that I think Americans would like to see a negotiated agreement and polls are very clear about that But they're also very uncomfortable with this broader set of issues They're very suspicious about whether in fact the agreement will be successful in delivering and so there's also you in a democracy You know you have to deliver a deal which has buy-in of your own people You have to deliver a deal which is therefore sustainable over the course of election cycles And I think we just we can't see that as a bad thing. We have to see that as a source of strength for our country Howard, I wonder if at least in assuming there is a deal and that it is from our American perspective a good deal and Does not get disapproved by the Congress goes no back. I think there's a potential for a great going in the other direction because It's not just Evangelical Zionists. I mean There's there's a larger concern about a bad deal, but there's concern in the Gulf there's concern in Israel and my own sense a Little bit of the message I heard when the president announced what he was going to the framework agreement and It was a very strange announcement. He announced one thing in the EU and the P5 plus one and the Iranians announced another thing, but but He made a point of emphasizing the efforts both with Israel and with our traditional Arab allies to demonstrate that we are going to be there for them in many ways and Yesterday morning's New York Times had an article about the level of weaponry We are in the process of sending to our traditional allies the Saudis the UAE and Are once in a while sometimes traditional ally cutter Maybe it's not traditional. There's nothing traditional there, but Mutual defense agreements Things to deal with the belief that Iran has hegemonic interests and American's willingness to stand with These allies in the region against those interests to what extent does that I Guess what I'm saying is I think there'll be an embassy in Havana before there's one in Tehran Let me let me go to the audience if we can and you'll have a chance to jump in Alright to Final comments from you and from German and then we'll go to the audience. I was overruled by my panel We already had negotiations with Iran about many many other issues other than Nuclear my question is that which which negotiation? Can you please tell me that and what was the outcome? I think you just invited Iran and work just behind the scenes not officially when I was in Parliament to talk about Afghanistan issue that you had Iran completely cooperated with the United States But right after that President Bush mentioned and and you know had this very famous Statement saying that Iran is it Access in one of the I think three three countries acts of evil So it damaged When other than this in this time, when did you have negotiation serious negotiation? When did you I mean the US? Recognize Iran as a partner as a stakeholder Iran is a regional power. There is no doubt. I think you agree with One thing I you didn't you didn't invite even about Syria you one time United Nations had in Geneva meeting and Ban Ki-moon Invited Iran right after that because of the pressure of the United States they cancelled the Invitation so but behind the scenes you had other on cooperation recently about ISIS Iran Already cooperated about to create but you didn't have coordination or officially saying that Iran is a Is at least one stakeholder in the region and invite them and respect them talk them like now You are talking with Iran. It's it's I think it's almost two years About just nuclear you didn't have this Opportunity we didn't have this opportunity to invite it on you and recognize Iran as a partner not as an enemy as an enemy I think you should answer this question a quick copy and I will answer that quick up. Yeah Yeah, I want to come back to something Howard mentioned, which I think is very important and that is that I know that our Sunni Allies in the region particularly Saudi Arabia and Jordan are very fearful of a rapprochement Between the United States and Iran and they see it as sort of them losing influence Iran gaining influence I think Israel has some similar concerns And you're absolutely spot-on in the need for us to make sure that our Sunni allies and Israel understand that just because We have an improved relationship between the United States and Iran does not in any way diminish our Obligations to the defense of Israel and to our historic commitments to our Sunni friends and allies in the region And I think that there's going to need to be tremendous diplomatic effort made to reaffirm those historic obligations and commitments We'll go to questions. I need to say one thing one of things that seems to be lost in history is That there was an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue in 2003 and 2004 between the EU 3 Britain UK the UK France and Germany and Iran and it involved the suspension of enrichment and a Negotiation to eliminate that program that agreement broke down in the implementation heavily because of the election of Ahmadinejad as president of Iran in 2005 spring of 2005 on a very different agenda and he walked away from that agreement and restarted the nuclear program I raised that because the implementation and execution of these kinds of agreements is very Difficult and it's going to require a lot of commitment in both sides Which is why it is so important that if there is an agreement it has Bipartisan support in the Congress of the United States and bipartisan support of the American people so that there can be the Sustained implementation of that agreement because we've seen on the North Korea agreement In 1994 and in the 2003-2004 agreement with Iran and the EU 3 That if you that you can lose these agreements if you cannot have a sustain a successful implementation Questions from the audience Let's start right here My coming to you. Please identify yourself. Hi. I'm I'm Ms. Barzan. Subet. I'm a visiting fellow Georgetown and Managing editor very on politics.com. So my questions for mr. Singh I'm wondering if you could expand on something you said earlier that's been on my mind But I haven't heard really addressed anywhere else Which is does a final nuclear deal take sanctions off the table as a major form policy tool on Iran? The assumption being that sanctions have been so tied to the nuclear issue that if the US tries to a major Push on another issue then Iran can re-escalate on the nuclear issue because sanctions are the whole reason it came Constraints nuclear program in the first place. Thank you So I think that it's a very complicated issue and when we talk In these agreements and it's in the text of agreement about a nuclear related sanction It's important to bear in mind. There is no such thing as a nuclear related sanction in American law And so the first question is what sanctions exactly do we have in mind and does it in any way match with what the Iranians have in Mind my guess is the answer to that right now is no and that will be one of the things Which the negotiators are talking about if you look for example at sanctions on? The national Iranian oil company Nyak these sanctions are for Nyak's association with the Revolutionary Guard Corps Not which is not nuclear related per se if you look at the sanctions on Iran's arms exports These are contained in UN Security Council resolution 1929 That is a does a tool which has nothing in a sense to do with the nuclear program It is nuclear related in its implementation Then you look at sanctions on Iran's nuclear imports and exports clearly nuclear related But we'll want to keep those in place For obvious reasons and the agreement gets into this question of procurement So the sanctions question is actually very complicated far more complicated. I think then often it's given credit for I think though that what's clear is that what Iran is looking for out of this agreement is to get Substantial relief from sanctions especially those which prohibit its access to the international financial system And the sanctions on its oil exports now to the extent you think those are the only sanctions as Congressman Berman said that have really gotten Iran to budge. You could have a debate about that itself It's it's obvious. Therefore why they'd want those lifted If we lift them we're lifting them right you were not saying we're gonna lift them on the nuclear issue And then reimpose them for some other reason that doesn't seem sustainable right and so the question is what tools that are Effective are you then left with to influence Iran's behavior? So when we say we're going to counter maintain sanctions on these other things the question should be How will that be effective in this environment of slackening pressure on the most important points? Giving Iran tremendous amounts of revenue. I think the Wall Street Journal suggested 50 billion dollars Getting to congressman Berman's point about you know Not only will Iran not be not only do we not negotiate on these regional issues But in fact Iran will have much more revenue if they wish To pursue these regional activities that we're so concerned about so my concern is that it because you need to demonstrate Your commitment to countering Iran in those points and your major sanctions tools are no longer available to you That it actually leads you to more direct action It leads you to to more involvement in the region against Iranian activities Then you had to begin with unless you deliver this sort of you know I think it very unlikely at this stage rapprochement between the US and Iran and Iran somehow changes this behavior and there is a sense that people have that I think Discomforts them with that this this agreement is built on a gamble that that will happen Yes, sir right here Daniel Lake and research consultant at the Tavanna initiative my question is for any panelist who feels like they should answer assuming that a Deal is reached and assuming that the various timelines that are outlined in that we're outlined in the Press releases 10 years on limits of centrifuges and so on are adhered to To my mind it seems that there there have been critics of the deal. It says after 10 years That part is null and void and Iran can do whatever it likes to my mind the challenge then because becomes what can the US and Iran Do in that time to change the calculus or specifically what can the US do to change Iran's calculus? So that that is no longer such an alarming prospect once the 10 years go by I'm wondering do any of you agree with that way of looking at things and what can the US do towards that end? Thank you anyone want to I'll just answer briefly the Agreement does provide that a number of provisions dealing with supply chain and inspections go beyond 10 years and In any event even after the agreement expires Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspection provisions that come with The non-proliferation treaty and the IEA safeguards agreement and the additional protocol and the like so There will be some things that are designed under the NPT rubric To ensure that a country that is signed up to the NPT to be a non-nuclear state is not moving towards a nuclear weapon The question that is raised is if you leave Iran with a substantial Nuclear infrastructure how confident can you be that those will be adequate? And I guess the other thing I would say is that those can be reinforced by a Declaration that the president has made many times and many several presidents have said which is if Iran Moves towards a nuclear weapon that is a line that raises the the military issue So there is it isn't that you know everything is over the question will be is the post agreement inspection regime and verification read Adequate to ensure that with this nuclear and infrastructure Iran is not able to covertly move towards a nuclear weapon Additional protocol continues for 15 years doesn't it and then at least 15 years no additional protocol is forever. Yeah, that's correct Yeah, it's forever the problem. The problem is in our version There is a distinction There's something beyond the additional protocol the original protocol is not quite Anytime anywhere At the moment we get to see Something that concerns us and and that will be one of the issues on this verification issue. Are there additional measures? Applicable to Iran that would be an additional additional protocol that would last in Perpetuity for a longer period of time and how will respond Iran respond to that because the supreme leader has said That that is off the table Iran is not going to be treated differently than other non-nuclear weapons states. Yes, ma'am back there Thank you very much. My name is Pat Berg stressor and I'm the former public diplomacy and public affairs advisor at the State Department for Iraq But I've spent time in Iran and the question that I keep hearing people ask is What is actually driving us foreign policy today? We've partnered with people like Saddam Hussein. We've partnered with bin Laden and The question that I hear is is it the lobbyists? Is it the political consultants? Is it political careers and Are we going to have a balance in terms of treating all countries? Basically with the same same rules That would be the best way to say it Anyone want to take that one off? All right If I could when I look at the Middle East right now over the next few years I think ISIS is going to be a very very serious threat to many countries in the region and I find it very interesting and important that Iran and the United States have a common interest in confronting and and dealing with ISIS and Just think about World War two for goodness sakes, you know, if we if we had failed to realize that we needed to deal with Joe Stalin would we have been able to win the war short answer that question is probably not and So there are times when when the facts on the ground Demand that you deal with people that you may not necessarily like to deal with because there is a greater evil that must be confronted And so I I see an opportunity here for the United States and Iran to cooperate and dealing with a horrible Threat to the region right now in the form of of ISIS I am mindful that that if that is not done properly that our Sunni friends in the region will be very fearful and they'll see Iranian influence growing but let me just make a quick observation on this Iran is a country of 80 million people. It is three times the size of Iraq It is three times the size of Saudi Arabia It has the world's fourth largest supply of oil the world's second largest supply of natural gas it is a regional superpower when it comes to energy and the people at 90% literacy rate of everybody under 45 The median age in Iran is 28 people don't realize this But 60% of the university students are female 65% of the graduate students are female And the biggest problem I think Iran is going to have in the future is what in the world are we going to do with all these educated women and then you know And I just I just think that we have to recognize that whether we like it or not a Country of that size with that level of education and sophistication with their history They are going to be a powerful influence in the region whether we like it or not It's a little bit like pretending like China isn't going to have growing influence in Asia You know, they're going to have growing influence and we have to deal with the new realities in these areas I guess from my point of view I think that look American foreign policy needs to be guided by a sense of our national interests and a sense of our Objectives and I think actually if you look at American foreign policy in the Middle East over the years We we have not had actually that different a sense from one administration to the next of what are our interests in the region Which our objectives be in the region that we have had very significant disagreements over the strategies that we should pursue in the tactics That we should employ in in support of those strategies, and I think that's absolutely appropriate This is the foreign policy debate in Washington But you know if you look at for example President Obama's Iran policy compare it to President Bush's Iran policy Which I helped work on when I was in the National Security Council. The distinctions are not stark They are distinctions that are Significant to be sure But not massive so we have the same basic objective prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons preserve the global Nonproliferation regime preserve stability in the Middle East to the extent we can and To do that to use sanctions and diplomacy President Bush's charge to us was to find a way Between Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and going to war with Iran, and I would say that's probably still what motivates American policymakers And so we have these great debates in Washington, and it's you know We should and it's you know what I think a lot of us enjoy doing in a sense But it's important not to exaggerate the fundamental differences in the foreign policy United States from one to the next And in terms of the regimes and should they be applied equally and so forth Well look the fact is you can't take a cookie-cutter approach to different countries Japan has a significant nuclear weapons program and is by all accounts I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I misspoke Japan has a significant nuclear program, which is civilian and has abided by It's obligations Iran violated the nonproliferation treaty Not just in 2002 with the Iraq and not Natanz facilities But with then that subsequent Fordo facility by refusing to answer IEA inspectors questions And so here what you see is that Iran is in the situation It's in because it has violated the commitments, which it voluntarily signed up to and so I think it's entirely appropriate that it get Treated differently in some other country. What just tell you what just one last thing on There's no doubt that special interests lobbies groups of people have influence on American foreign policy and that is called democracy and But in the end I think it is That role in decisions made I think is quite overblowing my guess is The Cold War and people's perceptions of the Cold War had a lot more to do with what we did in Iran in 1954 than a particular oil company. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not but That There is a some sense of people trying to find the national interest Pressure groups influence. Yes, but I don't think there is decisive as people want to think We're running to the end of our time and what I'd like to do is take about three questions And then give panelists a chance to respond to those questions and we'll see how much time we have that Let's take the trifecta of three people right up there Ma'am you in the back and then the two gentlemen right in front this triangle right here Hi, my name is Chaim Nawaz. I have no affiliation. My question is for mr. Makal Singh The Obama administration will be hosting the Gulf States and camp David next month Do you see this an opportunity to bridge the gap between? administration's position On the deal since we fundamentally see it differently than our Gulf partners We see it as a way to curtail and limit the threat of Iran and they say it as a way to increase The threat of Iran and second on the sanctions. They argue that a deal would not Would not Adjust Iran's attitude in the region and they don't want the sanctions to be lifted because of that Well, we have the sanctions now and Iran did not adjust its attitude. Anyway, thanks Yes, sir. Yes, I'm a Frank Fletcher researcher with Daniel Morgan Academy here in DC. Mr. Hadley, what do you think the Iranian missile capability says about Iranian intentions? Yes, sir. My name is Hussein Karaguli. No affiliation a question to dr. Mousavi You mentioned the supreme leader his health we understand is deteriorating and There doesn't seem to be any clarity as to who would come after him So I would flip the question that you had brought about the consensus internally in Iran And if the supreme leader were not to be with us anymore, how would that change? And the verification and the credibility of the deal that that Iran would be signing and very quickly also to congressman Berman I'm wondering if a deal with Iran would actually help With our Arab allies and those of within our Arab allies that are still ISIS fanboys And and whether a deal with Iran would actually help the stability of the region your thoughts on that Fine, let me ask if someone has a question for Jim slattery It's which case if we do we'll take that one and then everyone will have an opportunity to answer a question Make any final comments any questions for mr. Slattery. This is a chance. Yes, ma'am Down here in the second row. Hi. I'm severe Daniels I Was just wondering when you raise the issue of the political the the Christian Zionist movement as a factor in shaping the prospective success of this deal or not Do you think that if it's settled by June 30th that there might not be more, you know Efforts to derail it at even after the deal goes through Good, let's let me take all of these and we're just going to go right down the line if we can start with you Ali Akbar, please Both sides of the United States and Iran. We are suffering from lack of understanding each other The culture of Iran many many You know proverbs and many cultural Words that and we have in our culture. I don't think 80% of that We understand in the United States and vice versa in here many ticks in politics and is going on in inside the United States and in Iran. We don't have enough knowledge so I think either Also about the Supreme Leader's speech and other other people and I think I just heard I'm hearing always mr. Allen air is working on Iran's culture And talking with Iranians and can can communicate because I think daily he has access to some, you know Literature or talking to Iranians. So we need this kind of exchange right now We should not wait until finalized even this deal You asked me that US and what can US Do to you know help To breach this gap, I think you should start right now expanding this sort of Exchange educational tourism many things you you are not allowing Iran you and ambassador exceptionally to come here and talk directly to you to the politicians you should allow allow them right the way to come here and daily talk to you and Also, and you have lots of restrictions to travel to Iran you can cancel Obama can cancel Direct flights to Iran from from tomorrow mr. Singh and you can go To Iran and talk directly with Iranians vice versa. I talked to some members of Parliaments when they come here right like now Besides the I Mean the World Bank meetings last year He was just criticizing the US. I mentioned US is here. You are in the US United States you should go to talk to the Congress and Finally, fortunately, he had some you know some kind of tour and besides that had some discussion and right after that I heard lots of words and sentence from him About new understanding about the what's going on in the politics in the United States We need both mr. Slatter unfortunately Had this chance for the first time after 35 years to go to Iran. We need that and you have lots of restrictions I think and also but I think Obama administration Obama Himself has enough courage to initiate something what he did to call mr. Rouhani You know that we have lots of problem in Iran even when mr. Rouhani went Iran after Answering his call some many people, you know through the Shoes against him and you know in front of him in airport We have many problem, but we have in our culture for example in Muslim community. Just one example If you said Salam, I have to answer you Obama called mr. Rouhani and he had to answer it mr. Carol like mr. Karabi is in house as my previous boss In Majlis he came here. He didn't have any Planned meeting with congressman many American officials, but some I don't know Iran American guys offered him in UN Can you talk directly to this congressman this senator he mentioned and they are they want to say to you Hello, he mentioned yes, we have in our culture We should you know we have to you know respond if somebody said Salam you should Salam I like we should say Salam and they started after that they asked the senator and many congressman They asked mr. Carol can we talk more and sit and they didn't have plan to Talk to each other and somebody brought some chair and talking so this is all you know This is very very tactical problem very you know We have and also the sanctions that you have right now You know that many many many people friends here I think they know that I am advocating since 2009 to relieve the sanctions on the I city stop internet freedom and did this this kind of and we had lots of achievement But right now we have much more difficulties to convince the administration mr. Cohen To relieve the sanction to expand backbone of internet in Iran Right now mr. Rouhani has the big tender is Is gonna have I think it's revolutionary project Called had been one one of his his slogan to expand backbone of the internet in Iran We couldn't even until today Convince mr. Cohen to relieve the sanction and allow all u.s. Company To sell this equipment to Iranians to have access to information so Communication and you know this exchange it would be very very important, and I hope that us Can start and initiate this initiatives, and you you can see What happens after that I think thank you Ignorance and fear are the enemies of peace and president Eisenhower was a big believer in people-to-people Diplomacy I am to I believe that we should have Exchanges immediately between members of the modulus and members of the United States Congress we should get to know each other and tear down these walls of fear and ignorance that exists between these two countries and The way to do that is for people to talk to each other one of the things that's been stunning to me frankly is that in dealing with This administration and talking to the people that are involved in these negotiations. They don't know any Iranians They don't have any acquaintances on cross the table, and this is for goodness sakes 2015 and I mean this is the fruit of Isolation and it's just ridiculous in this modern era to your question Let me just clarify that when I talked about Christian Zionism and the rising influence of it within the Christian fundamentalist community I'm just pointing out that that this is a very significant factor and force in Republican primary politics and I am only pointing that out because as we get deeper into the election process these forces become more powerful and more influential and That's why I am suggesting it is so important for us not to move this June the 30th deadline Focus on getting the job done on both sides by June the 30th I Look, I just I'll respond to these two questions just though on this last point that congressman slattery made I just think it's worth bearing saying again that I think the Concerns that people have about Iran in the country are widespread. I mean you see polls would suggest, you know 67 or so percent. I just don't think it's a matter of a small sort of special interest, which is trying to skew things And I think frankly that you know to the extent sort of the Christian community has those views are widely shared On the missile question Let me just say I think it has been a mistake on our part not to insist at the missile question that Iran's ICBM development as well As it's space launch activities for example be addressed in these negotiations I mean if you just recently I think the head of strategic command US strategic command talked about North Korea potentially now having the ability to hit the Western coast of the United States with mobile ICBM launchers. This is one of the most serious types of threats that our country can face And obviously a long-range missile program is part of any nuclear weapons program And so keeping it off the table, which we did because the supreme leader said it as a red line refused to talk about it I think was not the right strategy to take The GCC Leaders Summit Which is supposed to happen at Camp David now there's been a date set look my worry if I were sitting in the NSC as an NSC staffer would be that we're not prepared for this summit Whenever you get leaders together, it's very important that you have that does that the meetings be successful And I just worry that we haven't done the spade work number one to really understand and address The concerns that our allies in the region have You know you've in fact seen I think some statements which have gone in the opposite direction Which have done the opposite of sort of reassuring our allies that we in fact are on the same page as they are when It comes to interests and second I don't think that we know what our program is for countering and deterring Iranian behavior after a nuclear deal is signed So I don't know that we know what we're going to put on the table And I think it's dangerous when you have this kind of summit without first doing that sort of diplomatic and staff spade work at The lower levels to understand what should these leaders be talking about and what can they come out of the summit? Having agreed upon because the worst thing I think you can have is a summit that's considered a failure I think that sets us back. And so I think we need to do more work We need to be patient we need to do that work at the working level before we do it at the leader level And I just don't see that yet Howard last word I Think the question was if there is a deal are there opportunities for a Larger us Iranian area of cooperation Although Well, I could see a situation I It's not that I could see it I can conceive of it. I would be nice to see it Does the Iranian leadership? decide That we should try a different approach in Syria to deal with these threats than the one of simply propping up and Arming Assad is there is there a room for an Iranian role in a and a successor leadership that represents The elements of Syrian society and that works to isolate those forces I mean I there could there could be opportunities the one thing I remember We've had this period of incredible tension with the regime in Iran for many many decades Every information I've seen about polling to the extent you can do polling in Iran The Iranian people are more pro-west and pro-american Then many of the people in other countries in the Middle East I Caught I came up with a theory the more strange we are from the government the better the people like us the Closer we are to the government the more they hate us so but I I Think we should always be willing to look at new opportunities, but but but but not naively you know and And I think that would make sense for any administration. I Want to bring this to a close. I want to thank you all for coming I want to say that we look forward to seeing you at our next Iran forum event Which will focus on Iran's role in the region and please join me in thanking our panel this morning