 This I believe you're right here Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome we're delighted that you're here This I I've lost track. I think this is the fourth of the fifth This is the sixth I believe in the series that we're doing jointly with the with Texas Christian University's Schieffer School of Journalism and CSIS They of course are celebrating the fact that Bob Schieffer is one of their alums. I would do this We're delighted to however to have this partnership and the goal is to bring a Reason sensible debate in front of the American people and of course to do that You have to have first-rate and enormously talented public policy figures and intellects that are going to participate in that discussion Bob has been leading these and everybody we when we call and ask people to participate It's never a problem to recruit fine people because they know that he's a fine and fair journalist And we're going to live up to that great tradition Bob. I'll turn it to you to introduce up. Thank you very much John Thank you all and welcome again As John said, this is the fifth in the series of programs sponsored by CSIS And the journalists in school at TCU our previous sessions those of you who've been to some of them Have been about Afghanistan about Iraq about the intelligence community our last one Was very timely because it was about North Korea today. Our subject is Iran What does its government want? Is it determined to develop nuclear weapons? Or does it want nuclear power for peaceful purposes and what can or should the United States do about it? What should our policy be? toward Iran we have gathered another Distinguished panel perhaps our most distinguished. I would say it's a look here today John Alterman Director senior fellow the CSIS Middle East program He has served on the State Department policy planning staff was an advisor to the Iraq study group Lectures at Johns Hopkins in George Washington University was an award-winning teacher at Harvard and author or co-author of four books on the Middle East Elizabeth Cheney lives most recently served in government as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs prior to that she practiced law in the Excuse me the private sector in the international finance corporation, which is part of the World Bank Group in 2000 she was director of vice presidential debate preps for the Bush Cheney campaign has also served as special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of State for assistance to the former Soviet Union and as a US aid officer in Budapest and Warsaw Ken Pollock director of research senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Middle East policy of Brookings He served as director of national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations He also served on the National Security Council He's been a research professor at the National Defense University and spent seven years in the CIA And then Robin Wright one of America's most Informed journalists I would say on foreign affairs She is the diplomatic correspondent for the Washington Post has reported from a hundred and thirty countries How many countries are there that must be nearly all of them? she Has worked for the post the LA Times CBS News and the Christian Science Monitor spent five years in the Middle East two years based in Europe and Seven years in Africa her latest book is dreams and shadows the future of the Middle East and Robin I think I want to start with you because I think in light of the news on North Korea today Although we're going to focus on Iran. I think we really ought to take some notice of that What does this mean and what's going to happen now? well, the North Koreans provided a declaration on This nuclear program it does not go far enough It does not address critical issues including how many nuclear weapons it has its uranium enrichment program and particularly its proliferation notably to Syria and so there are a lot of questions that remain it does not fulfill its obligation under as part of the six-party talks Clearly the Bush administration thinks this is an important development because it's it's a continuation of what happened with Libya getting it to give up its weapons of mass destruction and has particularly important repercussions for Iran the kind of thing we'd like to do in reaching out on With the are this the world's six major powers and its recent offer this month To get to to begin as some kind of dialogue with Iran if it suspends its own uranium enrichment I should add by the way that Robin went to North Korea and was with Madeline Albright when it on a very similar Condemnation didn't you there's this how is this like like that trip? Well, I often say it's deja vu because at the end of the Clinton administration There was a an attempt to get both Middle East peace and a deal with North Korea And we're finding ourselves in very much the same boat on the same issues eight years later What do you want else on the panel like to talk about this Liz? What what do you what are your thoughts in general on North Korea and this announcement today? Well, I think that actually I would agree with much of what Robin said I think it's it's concerning for the reasons that Robin mentioned Concerning because although I'm not sure anybody's actually seen the declaration yet outside of the US government It looks like there were key pieces of the create the North Korean nuclear program that were left out and so I think that it is a Troubling development that we would be taking steps that seem to be significant steps in terms of removing them from the terrorist list And from the trading with the enemy act sanctions in exchange for something that seems to be of questionable value one of the things it's not apparently in the list of Nuclear activities that they handed over Is the number of nuclear weapons that they have there apparently isn't and that is not included in what we got the information We got nor apparently is this right Robin? There's no information on what the deal was between North Korea and Syria Yeah, and they and they have to acknowledge that as for the US to follow through I think That's going to be continue to be a big issue particularly on the Hill Do you think there's any chance that? Secretary of State Rice would would go to North Korea now as Madeline Albright did at the end of the Clinton administration I think the North Koreans would probably have to do an enormous number of things very quickly in order to get Rice to make a trip, and I think it would probably be very controversial on the Hill And probably some resistance within the administration or lack of enthusiasm Although I will defer to another on this panel who might may know more than I do I wouldn't be But do you think Condoleezza Rice might be going well, I certainly don't want to speak for Secretary Rice But but I do think it was interesting. There's been some great reporting in the post including by Robin Secretary Rice last week Appeared at the Edward of the Wall Street Journal, and then the post picked up on her comments They're noting that we've found traces of highly enriched uranium on some of the pages of the documents North Korea turned over So I think it's you know one has to wonder But again, I commend Robin for some of that great reporting in the post. All right Can I just make one small point the In terms of the price the United States has to pay taking it off the terrorism list in the and the Removing it from the and trading with the enemies act. That's not a huge price to pay as Experts have been telling me all day long that North Korea except for the Japanese abductees, which is an issue that dates back a long way North Korea has not been deeply engaged in terrorism for a long time in the kind of way we define terrorism and There are still so many sanctions imposed on North Korea that That lifting these restrictions won't have it's not going to lead to any major rush in terms of new business with North Korea There will still be enormous number of restrictions So it's not a great price to pay either and that's we may be seeing a little bit of bizarre ism, you know in I mean bizarre isn't trading bizarre in in trying to get more for What they give up? Okay. All right. Well, let's talk about what we came here to talk about and that is Iran Ken How would you? If you just give a picture of where where Iran is today, what do you think they're trying to do you don't mean geographically? I think we most of us in this room probably I can do that pretty close to where it is, but where do you? What is Iran trying to do today? Are they trying to build a nuclear arsenal? Are they trying to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes and if so, why the first thing I'd say is I think we need to be very careful about making generalizations about the entire Iranian government right from the get-go I know it's hard and especially as we get going all of us myself included are gonna say Iran is doing this Iran is doing that but we need to keep in mind that Iran is a deeply fragmented political system and Different players within the Iranian political system often have very divergent views They don't always support the policy being pursued by the government and oftentimes what you see the government doing is Actually some effort to achieve a balance between very different fronts I think it's clear that the Iranians have set themselves on a course that will allow them to have a nuclear weapons Capability the ability to build a nuclear weapon if they choose to do so I think it's also clear that there are some elements within the Iranian system who would like to have the actual bombs themselves Others who probably think that it'd be nice to have the bombs But it's not a priority for them and they might actually be willing to give up the capability in return for getting a whole lot of things Well, we often see at least my rate of the Iranians is that the supreme leader the most important man Most important person in the Iranian political system Ali Khamenei What he typically tries to do is to kind of satisfy all of the different elements of his political system by giving them a little bit of each It may be that in 2003 he decided you know what we're going to give up this weaponization program That's what the NIE said, but we're going to keep the uranium enrichment program going That's the most important element in achieving this capability It may also be that they haven't figured out among themselves whether they actually want the bombs or they just want the Capability to build the bombs a lot of people have suggested and including many Iranians that what they're looking for is what they call a Japan capability the ability to build bombs quickly, which is certainly what Japan could do That may or may not be meaningful depending on exactly how we respond how the countries of the region respond But what I think that it does for all of us at the beginning of this Conversation is it opens up the probability or the likelihood that we don't know exactly what the Iranians are trying to do They're trying to acquire capability that would make a lot of countries very nervous And I would say they should be very nervous But I don't think that we have a clear sense of what Iran as a collective has decided they want at the end It may actually be very responsive to our actions and other countries actions You know, it's very interesting to hear you say that because the diplomat from that part of the world said to me a Couple of weeks ago Iran may not be where they would like us to think they are in all of this What do you what would you say I agree with can I take it back a step? I'm not sure that they've decided what they want to do because they I'm not sure they've reached a point in their program Where they have to make that kind of decision It seems clear to me that a lot of people in the Iranian government and I take Ken's point that the Iranian government Is not nearly as rational a beast as the US government But a lot of people in the Iranian government said, you know keeping this in play is useful in lots of ways It draws attention to Iran. It makes us a powerful country in the Gulf It brings our gulf neighbors to talk to us to try to assuage us I think in many cases a lot of Iranians have written off the US as a country that can never have anything but a Hostile relationship with Iran so they don't really count that as a cost and they say you're having this in play Isn't such a bad thing. We'll sort of look at the next president. We'll see how that plays out And we'll just keep it going. I think We make a mistake if we assume That there's an underlying goal and that they're all sort of resume builders racing to get the job at the end of their Career, they're all trying to get I think they're in play and they think having this as an element of being in play Enhances Iran's position in the world and helps Iran reach what they think is their rightful position as a global power And certainly the biggest the most important power in this very oil-rich part of the world in the Gulf This I'm gonna guess that you don't exactly agree with that because I just want to have a quote here that Someone gave me where you said we don't have the luxury to have the debate We've been having about should we talk should we not talk the time for diplomacy here is rapidly coming to an end Is this what you were talking about? Well in part I mean my sense is that it's dangerous to sort of sit back and say just because the international community including the IAEA You know has been pretty unified in terms of reporting on Iran's efforts to attain a nuclear weapon We ought to just assume gosh. They're just trying to be in play I mean I think that the only responsible position as a nation that we can take is they actually want what they say They want which is they want a nuclear weapon and and frankly as we have gone forward here through and you know Exhaustive round of diplomacy. I think that the costs for the Iranians so far have very clearly not been sufficient to get them off that path I think that this this quote was really about sort of the current political debate and The issue of do we talk to the Iranians? Do we not talk to the Iranians and my sense of it is that that's really the wrong question that the real question We have to force ourselves to ask is can we live with a nuclear armed Iran and If we ask ourselves that question then you know two different paths flow from that and I think that you've got you know People in different camps in this city not surprisingly. You've got some people who would say yeah We can live with it, you know for a whole range of reasons They can be contained sort of the traditional diplomacy can work. We ought to just admit we can live with it and go forward I think you've got others at the other end of the spectrum who will say absolutely not and this is where I am We can't live with it that it's an existential threat to Israel It's a significant threat to American national security. It's not something we can tolerate I think the problem is you've got people in the middle and those people in the middle say we can't live with it It's true. You ask them and they say it's too dangerous, but but they're not really willing then to take a hard look at Well, what does that mean? You know has diplomacy worked has talking to Iran worked. Is it possible? Is it likely? That we're on a course here that will actually lead The Iranian government to disarm and well, what does it mean? You know, I think that that that we've now seen just in the last few days the Europeans impose some pretty important sanctions I I'm not ready to say sanctions will not work under any circumstances I think there are some very tough things that could be done diplomatically, but I think there are two key things that have to happen One is I think we need to get some of our Arab partners into this Issue in a way that they haven't been we need to get countries like the Saudis for example To say to the world, you know, we'll bank with you, but not if you bank with the Iranians We need we need there to be some real fundamental pain involved Diplomatically for the Iranians to realize it's not worth the cost but secondly I think the Iranians have to believe that we will use force if necessary and I'm concerned because you you know had statements for a period of time there from people like the chairman Or the commander and sent com who's it's been relieved Suggesting that force was off the table and the problem is whenever you've got statements like that in my view It actually makes the potential of having to use force greater You know because people will think well the Americans aren't serious about using force There's no reason for us to to participate diplomatically and frankly it convinces the Europeans that they maybe don't have to be as Tough as as we need them to be The more we talk about force I think the less likely you are to get Gulf ally Cooperation on precisely the kinds of issues you're talking about they are terrified I think their worst-case scenario is the US goes in their second worst-case scenario is the Iranians get the bomb their best Case scenario is that we manage this stuff I think the other part of this is if the goal of the diplomacy is to get an Iranian surrender To get the Iranians to say you're right. We're wrong We're just going to turn all over. I think that's a really steep Price for diplomacy. I think it's going to be really hard to get a country like Iran to do we got Libya to do it But I think it's going to be awfully hard to get Iran if we can find a way to To have something that's I wouldn't say face-saving But easier for the Iranians to swallow which makes it easier to deal with Iran in the region I think it's a much more likely path for successful diplomacy and saying either You pull a Libya Or we're going to Bob you because I don't think anybody yeah But but two things on that first you and I have a fundamental disagreement about where our Gulf allies are on this issue And I guess we're talking to different people, but I think that that you have actually for the first time It's different things that could be But I think you've got for the first time in a long time frankly a convergence of Interests between Israel and some of it's the Arab neighbors I think actually a nuclear armed Iran is a much worse nightmare for a country like Saudi Arabia Frankly, then then it sounds like you perceive it to be But but secondly nobody is saying Libya or will bomb you I mean we've now had at least since 2005 Significant aggressive diplomacy and if anything we've had a situation where you know just in the last couple of months The Iranians are in a position where sort of they're not meeting any of the deadlines They're not doing any of the things they're supposed to do and the EU goes to them with a new basket of incentives So I'd say you know nobody is actually pursuing the policy that you're suggesting If anything in fact, you know the Iranians are being offered carrots, you know repeatedly and you know Learning a lesson from it, which is not an irrational lesson Which is you know why step off the track if we're going to get more carrots for staying on the track How close are we to a nuclear armed Iran I? Have no idea and honestly I don't think anyone does the estimates are all over the map a lot of it is about Assumptions about what specific pieces of intelligence mean I'll put it this way I wouldn't bet that the Iranians will never have a nuclear weapon. I wouldn't bet that they wouldn't have one tomorrow It's somewhere in between. I think most the estimates are that somewhere it is several Months only years down the road But I don't think we know and I think that you know Liz makes a point that we've played out a lot of the clock here We've lost a lot of time Personally, I think we still have more One little anecdote that's very telling I interviewed the Minister of Defense in Iran I'm not too long ago and and he said to me if only we were as bad as the North Koreans Maybe we'd be getting American aid Which you know it's their prism, you know, I want to make a couple of points I would go one step further than John did and I think there's the danger that the more we Threaten force the more the hardliners in Iran who may back a nuclear program will want it and use that as justification I also think we've probably reached the point that I don't think that military option the military option is really terribly viable for the United States because of our Because of Afghanistan and Iraq and I think that we've looked at this issue Just in terms of Iran in the US when the reality is that Iran is because of Iraq and Afghanistan it is now the regional superpower. It has enormous leverage that it didn't have four years ago five years ago and That any military strike on Iran would have to involve not just whatever the sites We suspect may house a program But would also have to to strike along the border at forward positions because we have to protect our troops in Iraq that it would end up looking much more like a broader war than Just strikes on a military on military or suspected nuclear facilities and that would backfire it and I think there's a there is There are a lot of people to Pentagon who are not terribly enthusiastic about that particular option And I also think that because Iran has reached a point where it is so powerful We may be in a position that we don't particularly like where the diplomatic option of doing You know it's often been called the grand bargain and so forth that that may be the only viable option to get them to give up Whatever nuclear program they have I don't think that they are going to suspend uranium enrichment at all I think it's the price unless they get something huge out of it They're not going to do it in based on what we offered them earlier this month from the six parties of dialogue with the United States incentives for You know membership in the World Trade Organization some kind of political dialogue including them in a security forum That's just not going to interest them. So that's dead in the water. They're going to wait until The new administration comes in hoping that they're going to get something better But I think that even if you got a Barack Obama offering them, you know direct talk That's still not going to be enough They want it all on the table and they've got enough chits Unfortunately now that they can get a lot more than we would ever want to give them Go ahead. If I could just comment on Robin's point I do think that's been part of what's been missing from our diplomatic efforts with the Iranians And you know the simple way to think about it is that what's really been missing is a concerted Multilateral effort a concerted international effort, and I think that Liz would probably agree with us that we haven't had a tremendous amount of support But what I would say about that and Liz may disagree with this is that part of the reason for that is we've not been willing to do Two things first we've not been willing to put up very big positive incentives for the Iranians in the event that they actually say yes We've not been willing to say we will lift our economic sanctions We will not just bring you into the world trade organization. We will provide you with trade credits We will provide you with investment guarantees We will help you to address all of the crippling economic problems Which quite frankly are what really matter most to the Iranians I think that's an important thing to have on the table not just because I think it makes the deal more attractive to the Iranians themselves But more importantly in many ways because it makes the deal more attractive to our other allies to the Europeans to the Russians to the Chinese Etc. I think the other part of it is that I don't think that we have been willing to do some real serious horse trading With our allies when it comes to Iran We've not been willing to go in there and say Iran is one of our highest priorities And therefore we are willing to bargain with you to get your support on this issue and in return We are willing to give you something that you want on some other issue Look at how we've handled the Russians We have antagonized them on every single issue that matters to them and then asked them to turn around and support us on Iran I don't think that you could possibly imagine how they would be willing to do so I can't tell you exactly what we should be willing to negotiate with the Russians because I'm not a Russia expert But I think that the next administration is going to have to sit down and decide how important Iran is and if Iran He is one of the most important issues out there, and I believe that it is we're probably gonna have to say to the Russians All right, here's what we want from you on Iran and in return Here's what we're willing to give you on some things that matter to you and my first my top of the list would be missile defense For me missile defense supposedly about the Iranians I'd give that up in a heartbeat if that would help get the Russians on board for tougher sanctions on Iran Yes, ma'am. I mean, you know it's striking to me the extent to which The problem always seems to be us and the problem always seems to be the United States hasn't yet offered up just the right concession We haven't offered up enough concessions And if we would just offer some more concessions then the Iranians would suddenly, you know Ahmadinejad would suddenly take more of an interest in the economic situation of his own people than in his nuclear weapons program And I think it's it's it's a fundamental sort of misunderstanding of Ahmadinejad of his motives of his intents of what he wants and What concerns me is that in fact, you know, you're in a situation now where we are about to have a new administration come in and And particularly if it's an Obama administration, you know, the incentive always is well, gosh, let's just you know We'll be nicer. Let's just do some more and one of the best lessons I learned about this was from Ken Pollack and the opening of Ken Pollack's book about Iran where he talks about his experience Helping to draft the speech Madeline Albright gave when after you can tell a story better than I can hate being quoted back to myself I'm sorry, but it's a great story. Somebody read the book It's a great book I highly recommend it to anybody who hasn't read it But you know the Clinton administration was approached numerous times by numerous Representatives saying look the Iranians want a better relationship with America. We've got a reform minded president We want a better relationship. Just apologize apologize for your support for the Shah Apologize for your support for the coup and and we'll be there for you. We'll give you better relationship So we did we stood up and apologized and the response was you know Well, the great Satan has finally admitted that you lied and that you're criminals So what do you want from us? So I think that we we have to be very very careful particularly because of the time Frame we're facing here in terms of their progress towards a nuclear weapon that we don't just sort of fall into Well, gosh if we just gave them some more maybe we could get them to turn around Briefly and that is I think we all invest far too much We're the ones who have given Amani Najad the kind of status that he has he is not an important person in Iran When it comes to national security, he's one person on the national on their national security council It's a different Different makeup he's one voice and Khamenei the supreme leader is the one who will make the final decision and Talk to you about you know Iranian leader the president is is I don't think very productive when it comes to the debate First it seems to me that that Ahmadinejad is certainly a rising Power vis-à-vis the leader that he's getting more power But the other part this goes exactly to Ken and Liz's point our greatest asset in Multilateral force in Iran is that Ahmadinejad Such an outrageous guy that he keeps agitating everybody He keeps saying stupid things if it weren't for Ahmadinejad if Ahmadinejad doesn't win the presidential elections in June And instead we have somebody with precisely the same strategic goals Except he can keep his mouth shut and he understands the Holocaust really did happen Then we have a problem because then everything we have been using to try to get the Gulf allies and the Europeans and Everybody else to create a coalition against Iran to really get them on board for some sort of diplomatic effort Suddenly everybody says well the Iranians are less threatening now. We have a president. He smiles more. He's not you know He's not crazy and then suddenly that whole coalition falls apart that the best advantage We have in this is that they have a president who scares everybody and if we have to deal with this next President has to deal with us with a president who doesn't scare anybody He's gonna have a heck of a harder time than we have right now Let me just go around the table here and maybe kind of make short answers to this question We'll have an election after the election should the next president talk to Iran and under what circumstances can The next administration absolutely ought to offer to talk to Iran Under pretty much any circumstances. I think not making the offer hurts us more than making it The question is what do we talk about? What do we ask the Iranians to do? And what are we willing to do? Robin It's probably an aunt something as a journalist. I shouldn't answer. Okay, Liz Well, I think there's a myth that we aren't talking to Iran I mean, I think you know, we've clearly got discussions underway in Iraq Which are supposed to be focused on and as I you know for all I know they are focused on What Iran is doing in Iraq? But I think it's very important for the next president to recognize that particularly a president himself Offering to sit down with the foreign head of state, you know, that conveys a huge amount of legitimacy And we've seen again, I feel like I'm you know a shill here for the Washington Post But we've seen again great reporting in the Washington Post by Glenn Kessler actually about the extent to which the Europeans who are Involved in the EU three negotiations are very nervous about Obama's offer to speak unconditionally to Ahmadinejad that European diplomats You know who are not often known for the steel in their spine Recognize that in fact this would be a setback that it would harm the multilateral Negotiations that are going on now. So, you know, again, I think it gets us off onto an issue We shouldn't be focused on because you know, it's a fun one to talk about I suppose But the real issue is what are you going to do to prevent them from attaining a nuclear weapon? John I want to underline Liz's point that there's a myth that this administration hasn't talked to the Iranians We talked to the Iranians through and past the axis of evil speech. We talked to the Iranians about Iraq I think this administration has talked to the Iranians more than they've not talked to the Iranians But it seems to me at the structure of our discussions with the Iranians have too often Been trying to take a lesson from the Syrian negotiating strategy and the Syrian negotiating strategy with Israel has been for four decades Concede everything we're looking for Before we get in the room and then we'll go into a room and have a negotiation And I would point out that that negotiating strategy has gotten Syria not a single inch of the Golan back We have to have discussions with the Iranians. I agree with Liz You don't start off by saying our opening gambit as the president will come to Tehran They'll say all the nice things and then we'll see where we can go But it seems to me that that the structure of our negotiations Has to be to be serious to be meaningful to have some sort of build-up where there's the possibility of actually doing something Rather than saying drop everything we're looking for and then we'll talk to you We want to go to questions from the audience as we always do and I'd like to give you a little warning So you can get your questions ready So I'll ask a couple more questions and then we'll be ready to go to the audience for question You gave some part of an answer to this but one of the questions I brought here today is Why don't the Russians and Chinese do more to stop Iran's nuclear program? Are they just ignoring the threat from Iran or why why are they not on board? Recognizing what so many in this country seem to recognize as a real threat my conversations with them indicate that By and large they just have bigger fish to fry They will all agree that the Iranians should not be allowed to have this capability and they don't want the Iranians to have this capability But they've got other issues on their plate that are more important to them for the Russians It's a whole series of things It's Bosnia and Belarus and Ukraine and Chechnya and so on down the list missile defense as I mentioned for the Chinese It's energy and what's interesting with the Chinese is it's not so much energy from Iran per se It is energy from the Middle East and they will seem to make it clear that they'll take it from anywhere But they got to get it where they've got it now Unfortunately, they've got a zero-sum idea about energy, which is very pernicious one and that leads them to try to buy up Oil fields basically, which is a not a very smart way to go about things and it sets them in competition with us But what they have said to me at least privately is look if you guys would meet us on our energy needs We would be glad to help you with Iran because at the end of the day. We're just not that concerned I mean why does that mean help us with our I mean in how I think from their perspective? And it's it's hard to say but I think from their perspective right now It's a matter of the more that the United States made it possible for the Chinese to feel that their energy consumption Requirements over the next 10 or 20 years would be accommodated by American actions and other actions the more that they felt that there was oil and gas out there for them to consume The more the more relaxed they would be about these other issues of which Iran is a part and again I think that's one where we could go to the the Chinese and need to go to the Chinese and horse trade with them and say What do you need? What can we do to reassure you about energy and in return? Will you join us in getting tough with the Iranians if we do these things for you Robert? Can I just have one small thing? My sense is that the relationship between Iran and China now has evolved to the point that it's not just energy And it's been very interesting to see Iran. I've been going traveling there almost every year since 1973 and watching Iran go from a country where you know the cars were American the air conditions were American the books the You know the fast food joints everything was American and then after the 79 Revolution they switched more to the Europeans And then as the Europeans began squeezing and they went they bought started buying more Korean and Japanese and so forth and now it's China and that so it's a relationship that I think Because Chinese don't have human rights standards and so forth that that you know This is a great relationship for both parties and that we may find that it's that even if we if the Saudis would Accommodate the Chinese on energy or others That that it's a relationship that they actually like And I mean John you've also spoken to my sense is that it's a much better relationship for the Iranians than it is for the Chinese Yeah, we just a two-way relationship. That was my point. We just came out with a book on China the Middle East in the United States who's released on Tuesday Well, I've been to Beijing twice has spoken a whole number of people in the government and academia and journalism and elsewhere My sense of the way that Chinese see all of this is partly to think the US is going to take care of any real threat Coming out of Iran that they have no interest in really Maintaining the security the Gulf they're happy for the US to do it But they're terrified the US is going to start a war and disrupt their access to energy they see their capacity to Get through instability and in the Middle East as much less than the US much more fragile economy Much more dependent on imported oil. So my sense of what Chinese diplomacy is is first They're happy to play for time they actually prefer to play for time and Where they'll go is the more the Iranians seem to be leaning toward conflict the more they'll bandwagon with the US and The more they sense the US is leaning toward conflict the more they'll side with China their goal is to not have conflict Because I think the Chinese are absolutely agnostic as to who's ruling the government in Iran So what the government of Iran is doing they're trying to get the energy I just want to figure anybody there is going to sell them energy. So they don't really care at all It's a totally unemotional issue I think it's refreshing for the Iranians to deal with somebody who just wants to make a commercial relationship and doesn't say Well, let's talk about your society and they are trying to do whatever they can To just keep the energy flowing and not have a battle of any kind break out in the goal Liz you want to wind this? Well, I mean, I'd like to actually broaden it up a little bit Because this whole issue is sort of what inspires other governments to join us or not join us I think will be a critical one for the next administration and the calculation in the Arab world is very different And I think that the calculation there has been very much to watch America and to try to get a read on whether or not we are committed and we are dedicated and We are going to stay the course both in Iraq and with respect to ensuring the Iranians don't get a nuclear weapon And I think you see examples Across the region for them. It's not sort of this economic calculus. It's much more a Willingness to sort of stick your neck out a willingness to stand up and say okay We're with the Americans will work with you on this Depends very much on knowing that we aren't going to pull the rug out from under them It depends very much on knowing that in fact, we will follow through and I think You know while it is certainly the case that no one wants or wishes for conflict In fact, I think John and I have a fundamental disagreement I think that that there are a number of nations in the Gulf for whom the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran Is one that is a much larger danger to them and something they fear much more than The potential of US military action or other nation military action to ensure that program is set back First of all, I know exactly the guys who you're talking about and I've met with actually you don't know all the guys I probably not all but a bunch of me a bunch of my due because they've told me And you believe I believe some of them But I think the other thing is said there's a desire to see if the US will follow through and I think That underlines a really important issue, which I've heard a lot in the Gulf and elsewhere in the Middle East is It's very important that people have a sense of American reliability That not only the US will do but it says it will do but that will do so successfully and that I think is is one of the Ways in which Iraq has has so much hurt The US in the Gulf because of a sense the US Isn't reliable that that the outcomes aren't reliable and that causes people to hedge that causes the Saudis and by Ahmadinejad to Mecca that causes I think the Arabs to be much more cautious and ultimately much less Much less comfortable being a hundred percent in the boat with us Against Iran and much more saying well the Americans will take care of the big stuff with Iran And we'll try to improve the atmosphere and it's I think we have to do something to Recreate that sense of American reliability in the Middle East, which I think has been damaged over the last five years Yeah, I think we do need to Sort of get back to a point where people understood that you know our enemies should fear us and our friends could count on us But I think the Iraq effect is a more complicated one I think that particularly now that we've seen the success of the surge You know the situation now is one in which people are concerned that we will in fact leave and not reap the benefits of The success that we've had and so I think it's not quite correct It's more complicated than sort of saying because Iraq was harder because Iraq took longer Nations now say well We're not sure we can count on the Americans if we had not in fact gone through with the surge If instead we had done what some were arguing then which was to pull back and not to not to actually be there to help The Iraqis win I think that would have sent a hugely detrimental message and I think that you know you see people in the Middle East in particular, but globally following our political debates back here and Often in fact not making a distinction between you know Senator Biden says he wants to partition Iraq is you know often interpreted Particularly in the Arab world as well the US government wants to partition Iraq and not distinguishing between the Congress the executive branch Sometimes failing to understand, you know what can be a very muddy and complicated situation But surely the debates that we have here about the extent to which we can walk away from the Middle East have a huge Impact and a detrimental impact in my view on getting people around the world to stand up with us for those things We say are very all right. Let's take some questions from the audience. I'll start right on the front row From the International City Managers Association the first part of my questions for miss Cheney and the rest is Everybody you mentioned that we should when the Iranians say they want to develop nuclear weapons We should listen to them and I don't I think it's I don't know how safe it is to say that anybody in the administration in Iran has expressed a desire like that This leads to the second part, which is that every major grand diatola in Iran has issued as a standing fatwa banning The development of nuclear weapons including the supreme leader. This is available on his website in like five different languages Stated repeal and see Stani has issued a statement saying nuclear weapons creation is forbidden in Islam So I was wondering if this this should play a part in our capital is first in the first part Well, I think there's no question But that they've got a nuclear program underway And I think the question is whether you believe the assertions that it's for peaceful purposes or not And and it's not just the United States asserting that they're developing nuclear weapons I think you've got the IAEA and others engaged very directly and looking at the uranium enrichment looking at the extent to which the Iranians have walked away from offers of Deals involving the Russians and others where if what they really wanted was a peaceful nuclear program They would have access to that technology and to the materials they needed for such a program, which they don't have so You know, I think that that you know To me that is a case closed. I don't think there's any question, but that they're attempting to Develop a nuclear weapon. I think the question is how far along in the program They are and whether their efforts will be set back You know before they get to the point where they actually have a weapon Robin Do you want to take the second part? Yeah, no, I think it's a very important point that given our Iraq experience We all need to be very careful what we say because as Ken pointed out. We don't know an enormous amount We don't know very much at all the IAEA doesn't either and I will tell you I covered the Iran Iraq war and I saw a lot of the chemical weapons victims in From Saddam Hussein's use of a variety of weapons chemical weapons against the Iranians And there was an enormous debate in Iran about using chemical weapons in return And then the end of the day they didn't even though the UN documented year after year after year after year that Saddam had used chemical weapons. I think there has been restraint in the past I mean I fully understand and I would not be surprised if Iran does have a nuclear program But I think we we have to be very careful as a nation about how much how far we go in making these Proclamations about what they're doing in part because it is true that that they have said at least publicly over and over and over You know that they're not and I just think we need to be careful next question Right there. Thank you. Uh, my name is Jay Irwin. So I'm a lawyer at Wilmer Hale You know, are there any elements within Iran whose Support or whose success we might engender who are less committed to a nuclear power program and Who might be willing to make trades? More easily and is there a realistic chance of their success? Did you mean to say power? You mean nuclear reactor nuclear power. I meant nuclear weaponry Okay, if I could Look for me. This is this is really what the game is about I would never take the military option off the table, but I do have a lot more reservations I think about it than Liz does and in particular at the end of the day if you really decide look We simply cannot live with Iran with a nuclear weapon What you're really saying is that we would be willing to invade Iran And I don't think that the American public is ready to invade Iran to prevent it from having a nuclear weapon So that bounds my my what I'm willing to do I will say I'd really prefer that they not have it and I'm willing to go to great lengths to prevent them from doing so But what you're getting at is that I think at the end of the day because I don't think the American public is willing to go there It's about convincing the Iranians to turn off this program And that's really actually what the Bush administration's policies have been about I have problems with the tactics But I understood exactly what they were trying to do And I thought they were right they were trying to convince the Iranians not to go down this path by creating an Incentive structure that would enable those elements within Iran And there are people within Iran who seem to indicate that they would be willing to give up this program under the right Circumstances to do so to win the fights against the Ahmadinejads and the other people who don't want to give it up and my Rationale my argument has been all alone that it is going to require a very powerful set of positive incentives and a very Powerful set of negative incentives to win that fight and that is why both strong sanctions and big Carrots big positive incentives are both going to be necessary And my final point is I I would disagree with Liz as brilliant as her point wasn't quoting me Of course it was brilliant I would disagree with her that I should don't think we should see these things as concessions They're not concessions They're conditions under which we would if the Iranians did the right thing We wouldn't response to the following things and to go back to the previous question It is worth always keeping in mind that the Iranian regime is very careful Not to describe what they're doing as a nuclear weapons program because I think that they recognize that their people really wouldn't be Terribly interested in that even though some might many others would be willing to give it up They always describe it as about their economy I think that that reinforces this point that that's their Achilles heel and that's where we can put the greatest pressure And it was true that a minute job doesn't seem to care about the economy and the impact that it has on the people The supreme leader as Robin pointed out the man is really going to make the decision. He does I think there's An important sort of point to watch and it's building on something Ken said which is sort of how does the Iranian public feel about the nuclear program and You know, there's been conventional wisdom Sort of you know, I'd say as long as Ahmadinejad has been in power Which is that it is a point of national pride for the Iranian people and that we risk Offending that national pride if we assert that Iran doesn't have a right to a nuclear program Right, but I think that that you're seeing a shift even now on specifically on this nuclear energy program And there have been some reports recently out of Tehran that you've seen graffiti for example playing on Ahmadinejad's famous statement Now which is nuclear power is our national right And in some neighborhoods in Tehran, you've seen graffiti up on the wall saying, you know Danish pastries are our national right So people really sort of mocking Ahmadinejad and mocking the program and my sense is that the Iranian public is Sophisticated enough and aware enough of the extent to which their program is causing them to be an international pariah That we shouldn't be too quick to assume that in fact you've got sort of majority of the Iranian public Supporting a nuclear program of any kind. Oh, I disagree. I couldn't disagree more there every poll It's been taken including by American groups using, you know Reliable polls right sampling and so forth show that the overwhelming majority of Iranians believe that nuclear energy is their right In Iran, they believe that that is the key to development They think it's a proud culture and that's the only way they can restore their To develop, you know to be more than oil power and the fact is that Iran is scheduled to run out of oil in 2025 Or run out of exportable oil in 2025. They really do need nuclear energy So there may be you know anecdotal evidence about I think graffiti and so forth But there's and in my own experience and I go to Iran all the time is that you you find people who love the regime who feel fiercely That that Iranian that nuclear energy is is the key to their future Yeah, but I think well, I mean that's anecdotal also, but but my only point would be Right, but you know polls particularly I would say polls taken of Iranians by Americans are not all No, they're not by America But so my point is to say in the same way that you're making the point that we need to be cautious about what we know And what we assert about their program I think we need to be cautious and not talk about the Iranian people as all having a Nationalistic sense of pride and demanding a nuclear power program because I don't think it's as simple as that I don't think it's as clear as that and I think particularly in a time in which the Iranian people are facing increasing difficulties economically You know, they are not Sort of sitting there in a vacuum without access to outside information And I think they understand and they can see the extent to which resources are going towards this program the impact that it's Having on Iran economically because of the external sanctions I just don't think we ought to assume that they all are a monolithic group that has one particular view about sort of the Benefits of a nuclear program. Let's do you do you want to say let's talk a little bit about sanctions to sanctions in general Are sanctions the answer here? We talked about the economy and what's important there will sanctions make a difference Are they making a difference now? I sanctions make a difference when they Give a clear enough option To get out of them when they are specifically targeted when they are broadly supported. I think one of the narrow sanctions often don't work sanctions with very muddy sorts of conditions lots of conditions you have to have a democratic government those sorts of things you can't really judge Don't work, but I think the most important part of this is Iranians have to feel that or the Iranian government has to feel that extremely discreet and doable actions will lead to discreet Consequences which can be positive or negative and it seems to me that a lot of the sanctions that we've been doing have Have not had that sort of specificity that makes conditionality work and Liz I know you probably dealt with conditionality a lot when you were IFC It's something people debate about in the academic literature. It's hard to do And I think we rely on it To do more than often that kind of conditionality can can accomplish Can I make a comment? I've been looking at this issue of sanctions because I think it's really interesting at two points. First of all I think the the banking measures that have been taken over the last two years In encouraging international financial institutions to cut off credit to cut off loans has really hurt Iran in ways that we don't fully under you know, we don't Fully appreciate that's probably been far more effective than the kind of sanctions that we've imposed through the United Nations Which you can sanction the Revolutionary Guards of the Quds forces or aid elements of them and it doesn't really make Much tangible impact. It's kind of psychological warfare And I I also think that that sanctions Iran is a funny place I I lived in Africa during sanctions on Rhodesia and South Africa and so forth and and so it takes a long long time to have an impact We've had sanctions on Iran we have now for 30 years And yet you can still get pampered diapers and Oreo cookies and IBM computers in Iran, you know, it's And you don't pay top dollar for them. I mean that it's a lot of stuff gets gets in so Banking I think is what's begun to hurt them in a way that sanctions the kind of sanctions we traditionally have imposed have not so far I think there is another cost to it. I could which is that you know, part of it is that Iran's economy as you know Will Robin is deeply dysfunctional and it's kind of impressive that even with a hundred and thirty hundred and thirty five dollar a barrel oil They are having such enormous economic problems and they ration their own gas Right exactly and the fact of the matter is that a lot of what I think sanctions are doing are preventing them from taking advantage of International trade and international investment international finance to solve those problems And I think that's why you're seeing this issue Surfacing in the debates among Iranians and just to go back to my previous point. That's what this is all about It's not about starving the Iranians death. Nobody wants to do that It's about convincing the government that its current course is not a productive one And that it would be better for them to do something different And again, however, we're hurting their economy and I'm not convinced that they I suspect Robin You've got a better sense of how the sanctions are hurting their economy than they do. I think for them. It's much more episodic It's much more kind of ephemeral Atmospheric but the more that they feel it and the more that they think that their own economic problems and more of their people Think that their economic problems are being caused by the sanctions and therefore want the sanctions gone as a way of dealing with Those problems that can have the effect that we want It can provoke the debate that we're trying to get any more question right here Jim Norman, I have no particular affiliation at the moment There seems to be consensus that at the end of the day, we don't really know the status of Iran's nuclear weapons program and There's been talk of other nuclear players like Israel Russia and China, but no one's mentioned Pakistan or India and Since they're right there in the neighborhood. What impact do they have on any negotiations or any diplomatic strategies? That would involve an Iranian nuclear weapons program. You might what who would like to talk about that I'm not sure all that much India because of energy, you know, that gives that's another dynamic that that gives Iran a market for its oil And they spy a lot of the gasoline to Iran Exactly. So it's a two-way again. It's another two-way economic relationship that that's important in both countries Pakistan Has its own problems I'm not sure. I mean Iran frankly lives in an neighborhood five of the eight worlds eight nuclear powers are Nearby either on its borders or nearby and that shapes a lot of its thinking More than that's the most impact. I think it has though right here I'm sorry. I didn't mean to call on all men so far. It just they first up with their hands It's a very good question you want to start let me just go around here get the very You don't start with a cake shape like a key Am I the only one old enough to Think you ultimately have to talk to a range of people and yet that my sense of the way Iran works is That you know We have a balance of powers with three branches of government each one sort of constrains one another and you can actually diagram it My understanding of Iran which I'm sure is less sophisticated in your understanding of Iran Is that the balance of powers that everybody has four people in government who are constantly trying to undermine them? And everybody in the government is trying to undermine everybody else and to move things forward I don't think you can just have a single point of contact and a single a single avenue my sense Of how we'd have to engage Iran would be to try to engage different groups Simultaneously and then bring this together at some point as we moved up the chain Well, I don't think we should be talking to them, but I do think That doesn't mean we should be okay Although I do think there's a group that's gone on mentioned here Which is the Revolutionary Guard Corps and I think that you know There's a real question if you're you know going to engage in discussions with a nation like Iran, you know Shouldn't you consider the power that somebody like Soleimani has? And how in the world do you begin to engage in negotiations with somebody like that? I mean, I think you know fundamentally again the important point of negotiations is that you negotiate from a position of strength and It seems to me that right now the Iranians have been very clear about exactly what they want what their objectives are and It's hard to imagine a scenario in which we as Americans go to them At a time when you know, we have been working to impose these sanctions multilaterally And say all right now forget about everything we said we want to sit down and talk to you And that that is perceived as anything But us going to them sort of had in hand from a position of weakness and my sense is that that could be in fact very very dangerous But I would like to hear from you know Sure, and Rob about sort of their view of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and the role that it's actually playing and sort of the leadership of the country Sure I'll start by saying that at the end of the day the Revolutionary Guard Corps will do with hot to me decide would come in a decides They help shape his attitude. They are part of the discussion But when he makes a decision They fall in line and again That's why he is the critical actor and I think you're right that they were an obstacle They're part of that group that John was talking about that's constantly trying to undermine everyone else But I don't think that we should allow them to necessarily dictate our actions I would also say that well, it's always nice to negotiate from strength You don't always have that luxury and sometimes you just have to negotiate and I think for me what's important is not so much that we're having the conversation but what we say and under any sort of circumstances we don't have to we don't have to necessarily go into Negotiations with the expectation that we're going to cave we have things we'd like from them They have things that they probably like from us you use the negotiations to see if you can establish that and the last point I'd make is I think there's one other group that I think everyone on the panel will agree We also need to be talking to and that's the Iranian public and I think that we've not done a very good job of engaging them either and I think that there's a lot of mythology among the Iranian public as to exactly what the United States is And is not trying to do and I think we have to do a much better job of actually speaking directly to them and making it clear to them That some of the things that they're hearing from the regime are not true that we're not trying to overthrow the government That we're not looking for an excuse to invade them at least I hope we're not looking for an excuse to invade them and that we will we acknowledge that they have legitimate security Concerns and we would like to see them brought into the community of nations And we might even be willing to help them to solve their own economic problems I think all of that could be very useful Liz let me just ask may I just follow up on something you said you said that did you don't think we should be talking to them Just briefly. What do you think we ought to be doing just exactly what we're doing now? Should we take it somewhere beyond that what what should I think that that we're in a situation now Where there are things that that we could have done frankly previously particularly with respect to Syria That that I think we failed to do and that would have put us in a stronger position now than we Find ourselves in But I think that that clearly we need to say to the Iranians You know we we're not fooling here and we aren't willing President Bush is not willing to be the president on whose watch the Iranians attain a nuclear weapon I mean it seems to me that no president would want that and So I think that we need to do everything we can to dispel this idea that somehow we don't have the capacity Militarily to take action if necessary to set back that program. I would disagree with Robin on that But I think that's the fundamental key at this point given where I think they are on their program and given how little Frankly, I'm willing to risk in guessing about that Is for them to recognize that you know despite what you may be hearing from Congress despite what you may be hearing from others in The administration who might be saying force isn't on the table that we're serious. We will not Tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran and and it seems to me that that's the only responsible position for us to take But it leads to a question that I wanted to ask Ken Which is would you be willing to enter into negotiations like the ones you're describing if you knew that while those Negotiations were underway You were in fact providing cover for the Iranians to get to the endpoint in their nuclear weapon program to get and you know Enough centrifuges that they could then produce a weapon, but you've you've defined the terms in a way that I couldn't possibly agree to Which is providing cover for them to do that On the other hand if you're talking about the current circumstances where it's clear that they're going to be moving ahead with their centrifuges Why not? We're not stopping them for otherwise The negotiations might cause them to stop more important than that the negotiations might give us leverage with our other allies To help them bring greater pressure to cause the Iranians to stop Except what what you usually see happen in these circumstances And I think what the history of this particular diplomacy has shown is that when the talking is underway when the diplomacy is underway It's always a reason not to be too tough It's always a reason to serve say, you know gosh Don't take that step because if you take that step then the talks are going to fall apart How do you avoid in a bureaucracy like ours the talks becoming the end objective? I think as you well know that is one of the needs one of the requirements of leadership You need a president who's willing to step in and say the talks are not an end in themselves There are means to an end and when would you I'm sorry When would you stop the talks when would you say okay, that's it we they've run their course It's clear they're not going to work. We're you know, that's it There are a variety of different circumstances when I think that that could be the case If it becomes clear to us for one reason or another that the Iranians are just trying to buy time That would be a reason if the Iranians Cross some threshold that we as the through the course of the negotiations had specifically gotten an agreement from them That they wouldn't do so when another option opened itself up All of those to me strike me as reasonable reasons to end negotiations But they've done all of those things over the course of the last, you know, three years anyway, so let's let me just let me just Interject something here. Let's just say For the sake of discussion that the diplomacy has ended We're talking about military options should be on the table. What military options? Well, I you know, I'm not an expert on military options And I hesitate to be very specific given that people may attribute what I say to others Yes But but we won't tell. Yeah No, look, I mean, I think there are clearly a number of things that we could do That would have an impact in setting the program back I don't think that it's responsible for anybody to minimize the difficulties involved To minimize the potential for Iranian retaliation and it seems to me That's why this issue always fundamentally comes back to are you willing to accept a nuclear armed Iran? And if you lay out sort of the risks that go along with the nuclear armed Iran are those more detrimental Potentially to the United States and to our allies than the risks of Iranian retaliation But it but it does seem to me that when you talk about well, we'll just resort to military action That's a very complicated question to try to answer. I mean what military action? What what would an invasion of Iraq look like or would it be an invasion? Yes You think you Iraq was complicated or messy and we came up with unexpected You know obstacles Iran would be many many many many many many many times more difficult more complicated messy or Bigger population. I mean, I just it's such a nightmare I I find it hard to even fathom that people who know Iran really believe that's a viable option But I just wanted but that's where you get to then you would come down on the side of saying that entails more risk And more potential harm to our national security than allowing them to attain a nuclear weapon I mean ultimately, you know, if you think the diplomacy is gonna work then you let that go as far as you can But ultimately you come to that that fundamental or talking about a hypothetical But the fact is we haven't even tried the direct dialogue in a negotiation side of it You know, it's it's leaping once again to military force without trying the other steps along the way Same bite can do you just a couple things first? I completely agree with Robin that Invasion of Iran the way like the Travis in Iran has three times the population four times the landmass and five times the problems of Iraq I don't think that the American public is gearing up for an invasion of Iran There is the airstrikes option and as an old military analyst I looked at this in great detail the problems with the airstrikes though really lie in the kind of future Outcomes we can obliterate everything in Iran if we choose to do so our air force and Navy are not bogged down in Iraq In fact, they're looking for something to do The problem is That when you start looking at all right Let's assume for a moment that we actually had perfect intelligence that we actually know where all the Iranian nuclear facilities are and We obliterate every single one of them What are you gonna get at the end of the day? Chances are you are going to engage Iranian nationalism and whatever the right answer is between Liz and Robin at the moment I think that we can all agree that chances are if the United States launches an unprovoked war against Iran and obliterates Several dozen or several hundred facilities in Iran that is going to engage Iranian nationalism And that is going to work very much in the favor of Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards They are going to be very much in control What's more, I think it's also clear that that will justify bit rebuilding the nuclear program And they will say we need a nuclear weapon to prevent the Americans from doing exactly what they just did to us Well, I'm gonna let me just say as before what would be the reaction in the neighborhood In the neighborhood in Iran's a neighborhood what would be the impact on the price of oil for example? I mean Robin West knows more about oil markets and I do said today would pick a number Said pick a number 200 isn't too high. I mean it would go up but but I think that there's a fundamental issue and I think Ken and Liz may disagree on this judgment and the issue is is Iran Merely hostile or is it irrational if Iran is merely a hostile power They're a weaker power and we can Successfully deter them if they are irrational power There is no set of deterrent forces we can assemble which can protect the neighborhood from an Iranian strike If indeed they are an irrational power Then I think it leads you to Liz's point that an Iranian bomb is an intolerable threat to a very important part of the world If they are merely a hostile power as I think comes through in in Robin and Ken's analysis That leads you to a whole different set of outcomes and leads you to how do you design a way to deter Iran because ultimately? Iran's nuclear arsenal even if they create one if they get to that point How do you manage that given? American military capability now I think Liz is in part coming down on both sides of this because she's saying we should present them with the option We should we should give them a clear choice But that partly depends on a sort of rationality if they'll make the right choice Well, you want to respond? I think it's dangerous to say well gosh, they're irrational I think they are they're dangerous and I think they're dangerous for a number of reasons some of which we haven't talked about You know their support for Hezbollah And Iran armed with a nuclear weapon can make an announcement to the world We have a Hezbollah cell in Chicago and it's got a nuke But we're not going to tell you where it is and unless the United States does the following things immediately We're setting it off. I mean that the potential for blackmail because of Iran's connection to terrorism for example Is one of the things that makes Iran a threat with the nuclear weapon and and makes me Much more skeptical about the ability just to contain and deter a nuclear armed Iran Add to that sorry just one more point but add to that Iran's Constant statements about its ability its willingness the need to obliterate Israel I think you know one ignores those only if one is sort of fundamentally irresponsible in in You know Maintaining our own national security and national security of one of our greatest allies all right We're coming into the final turn here There's a gentleman right back here that is had his hand up and tried to ask a question you sir. Would you like all right then right here? To mix metaphors if the reports of Michael Gordon are an outward invisible sign of something and The words of various Israeli officials are to be believed We may be Dodging an 800 pound wrench here, which is to say what if Israel takes action first What then? That's a that's an excellent question of show this car with Ken. We'll just get everybody a chance to First I actually think that the likelihood of Israel I don't think it's zero, but I don't think it's quite as high as people are getting worked up about my experience with the Israelis is they know our intelligence capabilities and intimately and We only find out about their exercises when they want us to find out about their exercises That said I think that they are trying to signal that we are really concerned about what's going on here And you guys don't want to let this go too far down the road You know what happens? Look my guess is if the Israelis actually do something you're going to they are going to provoke an Iranian response What I don't know is how the Iranians respond You know this government has some interesting ideas about Israel and its connection to the United States and other countries in the region We don't know exactly what's going to happen It is conceivable to me that they decide to retaliate against us in addition to the Israelis But my guess is and I know that this is something that Israelis are concerned about and it is one of the Disincentives that they face is I think the Israelis are very nervous that if they do it what happens is actually That his Bola and Hamas are told we gave you guys 15,000 rockets for a reason using I Think the danger is that Any action by Israel will be seen as having not just received an amber light from the United States But a green light and would probably have to involve they will believe some complicity whether it's flying over a rocky airspace You know use of some kinds of war planes or equipment They're supposed to have limits on them that there will be a perception that this was not an Israeli operation But an American Israeli operation this you know I I Don't disagree with very much of what they said of what Robin and Ken said I mean I suppose I think that the Israelis mean it when they say that it's an existential threat to them and That they make calculations accordingly And I certainly don't think that we you know should do anything but support them because I think it is an existential threat to them John I May agree with everybody. I think the is no. I mean the Israelis are really nervous and I think the Israelis are genuinely puzzled both about what the Iranians are up to and what they can do about it I Imagine that part of this exercise was a signaling exercise to the rest of the world saying get serious partly It was for them to see what they could really do and to make sure that they had that option But I don't think the Israelis are confident They have that option the Israelis aren't confident We're going to deal with it for them and they're not confident the Iranians are going to behave and if the Iranians don't behave They're seconds or minutes away from having a nuke on their doorstep at some point in the future, and they don't know when This is not the first time the Israelis have engaged in long-range military exercises like this They've done it at least a couple of times in previous years So, you know, it's it's a signal, but it's also something they want to have the capability to do If nothing else it should underscore the point that Iran's pursuit of this capability Whatever their ultimate goal is is in and of itself Inherently destabilizing and something which we ought to try to turn off if we possibly can All right. Well ladies and gentlemen, I think we're kind of at the end of this one I didn't hear many coughs out there today So I let this one run a little longer than it normally does. You're very a tinny Thank you very much on behalf of PCU And of course our partner and all this CSIS we're going to take off July and August But we'll be back as we say on television for the new season in September. Thank you all very much