 Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Juan Matarot, head of the Media Edible Economic Forum. Welcome. And I would actually write directly to introduce Senator McKinnon, which you all know already. He's here at the position Senate Armed Services Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And next to me is Senator Robert Menendez, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Would you like to start, please? Senator Menendez, yeah. Well, thank you very much. I'm pleased to be here at the World Economic Forum with my distinguished colleague, Senator McKinnon. We just had a meeting with King Abdullah and had a serious discussion about the current regional situation, and particularly the crisis in Syria. And certainly, we believe that Assad's regime's behavior, it being the use of chemical weapons of the wholesale slaughter of civilians, has crossed a line that forces us to consider all options. There are vital national interests of the United States in Syria. Obviously, large chemical weapons stockpiles could fall into the hands of those who not only have used it appears against the Syrian people, but could use it more broadly and, in fact, could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. We have a potential for the Syrian state to collapse, which could lead to a safe haven for terrorists constituting a new threat to the region with broader implications for our own security. We have an enormous crisis already with the loss of nearly 80,000 lives and displacement of 1 and 1 half million people. And that is why, among many other reasons, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a strong bipartisan vote this past week of 15 to 3 passed a package of legislation dealing with creating a movement towards arming the vetted, centrist elements of Syrian opposition, of helping to create a transition fund, of helping to provide more humanitarian assistance. Clearly, Jordan has faced an overwhelming burden in this respect. We recognize that. We want to be helpful. We hope that other countries would be helpful as well, particularly our fellow Arab countries here in terms of the humanitarian assistance. We would hope that they would be engaged as well, but we will meet our role in that respect. We look forward to the conference that Secretary Kerry is having with the Russians. But there are those of us who believe that a parallel track is necessary in order to send a very clear message that there needs to be a tipping point and a change in Syria. And I think I'll stop there and turn to Senator McCain. Well, thank you. I'm pleased to be back to this important conference here in Jordan. And I want to thank my colleague, Senator Menendez, who's chairman of our Foreign Relations Committee for his bipartisan leadership. And the example is the broad bipartisan support for his legislation that calls for additional weapons assistance to the Syrian rebels. I'm confident that, thanks to his leadership, the United States Senate will pass that resolution with overwhelming numbers. We come here at a time of a severe humanitarian crisis in Jordan. 10% of the number of refugees is equal to 10% of the Jordanian population. We compare that to the population of the United States of America. It would give, if 10% of our population were refugees, you can imagine the enormous strains that this puts on the Jordanian government and people and economy. We are committed, the United States of America. I know I speak for all Americans when we are committed to providing the humanitarian assistance that we possibly can to ease this burden on the Jordanian government and people. As regards to Geneva II, which is something that I think all of us would support, but we have a large degree, I have a large degree of cynicism about the possibility of success unless Bashar Assad is convinced that the battlefield situation will not be in his favor. In other words, if he believes he can survive, I do not believe that he will seriously negotiate. That's why there must be some teeth in Geneva II that if he fails to agree to an orderly transition, then the consequences will be severe. In my view, that would be the establishment of a no-fly zone, the taking out of his air power and to move the Patriot missile batteries to protect that no-fly zone and increased arms to the rebels. Finally, we are very grateful to the government, His Majesty and the government of Jordan. It's a small country that is born a very, very heavy burden as has Lebanon and as Turkey. And this massacre that's going on in Syria must be brought to a halt. I will finally remind you that a couple of years ago, many American experts, including our chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense said the fall of Bashar Assad is inevitable. I don't think you could make that statement today unless we change the situation on the ground in Syria to the advantage of those who are struggling for freedom. Questions? Congresswoman Granger, I think, is back here. We have two microphones here. Please, rest your hand and who would like to go first? Can I see the hand, please? Could you say your name and your organization? He has the microphone. Thank you. My name is Khairallah Khairallah. I'm an Arab columnist. I would like to ask a very simple question regarding the no-fly zone. Where is it supposed to be, in which area, the no-fly zone? I'm not technically disposed to articulating exactly where that no-fly zone is. There are several places where it could be. And I want to emphasize, no one that I know, especially me, advocates American boots on the ground. We believe in the kind of support that's necessary. But the American people would not support it, and nor do I think it would be a productive exercise. The Israelis have just proven that you can take out targets anywhere in Syria with relative impunity. So this argument that somehow it would be too great a risk does not hold water. Please. My name is Hani Safi from Sky News Arabia. My question to you, Senator, after the House Committee approved it, do you expect Congress to pass the law on arming Syrian opposition? I'm sorry, I didn't catch you after the House. Yeah, after the House Committee approved it, do you expect Congress to pass the law on arming Syria opposition? The snobbery, I say that was the Senate, not the House. Well, the vote, which is a 15 to 3 vote on a bipartisan basis is, I think, an expression. The Committee represents a pretty good cross-section of the United States Senate. And I think it is a very strong vote to move forward in the Senate. We are on recess right now. And we will have some pending issues before the Senate that are already going to take some of its calendar. But I believe that we will work to build the same type of support that we built in the Committee. And I believe that we will find support in the Senate in a very strong bipartisan way for the very essence of what we did in our bill, which has multiple elements. One is, yes, about arming the vetted Syrian opposition, those that we believe that would share the values that we commonly share and would be leaders of a very pluralistic Syrian society, where all Syrian society would be included. It also has a transition fund of $250 million to assist in those areas that the opposition already controls, that provide civilian assistance, and to prepare for a post-Assad Syria. It also, of course, lists the cap on humanitarian assistance so that the President will have great aware with all in providing humanitarian assistance, particularly here, as been said by Senator McCain to Jordan. And it also has certain sanctions policies of those who provide arms or fuel to the Assad regime. So in its totality, it's pretty comprehensive. And I think that the nature of the vote that we got and the Committee would be reflective of a vote we will get in the Senate. I just add Congresswoman Kate Granger of Texas, who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee and Defense and a well-known expert on national security who joins us. Do you have anything to say? Thank you, Senator. I don't know whether my mic's on or not. I couldn't agree more with the Senators. What's happened in Syria and the escalation is of concern to all of us. The concern what's happening within Syria and certainly the repercussions to Jordan and the refugee problem. And so, as we've said, I think there's a time, not boots on the ground. I think we're pretty clear on that, however, to escalate and to add to what we're doing for the United States and help from the rest of the region is now very timely and imperative. Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm from Bloomberg News. I have a question to both Senators. Do you think that the Geneva Conference can act as a basis for any political solution going forward? And as for the no-fly zones, can this be done without an international consensus which is lacking at the moment for such a solution? Thank you very much. Well, let me deal with the Geneva Report and I'll let Senator McCain as not only a member of our committee with the Armed Services Committee talk about the no-fly zone. With reference to Geneva II, it is our hope it is our aspiration that Geneva II can be an opportunity for a breakthrough in which we would have a political solution, a diplomatic solution with a transition to a future Syria that is all-inclusive and that, obviously, from our perspective, the United States does not include Assad. Now, I think that you have to give peaceful diplomacy its opportunities, and I think that's what Secretary Kerry is doing along with the Russians. However, I get dismayed when I see the Russians sending advance missile weapons to Syria and I don't quite understand how you do that at the same time that you are talking about seeking a peaceful solution. But it is my hope that out of this opportunity some dynamic can move us in a better direction. While hopeful, I'm also pragmatic, which is why I believe that a parallel track needs to be pursued simultaneously, which is what we did in the committee on foreign relations in terms of the legislation we just talked about and the preparations, I think, that need to be had in the case that, in fact, such a political solution cannot be achieved because right now, unless you change the tipping point in Syria, you have a situation which Assad believes somehow that he can sustain himself through a war of attrition. The problem with that is that it's very difficult for a political solution to be achieved. So I think these other elements that we are talking about are very important towards that and I think going into that conference, Assad must know that not only are these parallel tracks being taken by us, but very possibly by all the nations as well. The only way that Geneva II can succeed is if Bashar Assad believes that the penalty for failure would put him in direct jeopardy. That means there must be a stick associated with the carrot of these negotiations. Anything else than Geneva II is doomed to failure. With cruise missiles and other standoff capabilities, we can crater the runways and take Bashar Assad's air assets out of the fight. In this terrain, in this climate, air power is a decisive factor. We found that out in Libya when we intervened when Muammar Gaddafi was at the gates of Benghazi and air power overwhelmed him. There are many situations in the world where air power is not as decisive. In Syria, air power is the decisive factor. You can take out his runways and you can take out his air and you can take out his air with patriot missile batteries and pilots don't fly into certain death. So if we are going to succeed, we will have to negate his air power capabilities. Dr. Falah Al-Khayyat, Plots. Everybody now, the whole international community is very busy with Syria. But because Senator McCain is a very influential senator who been involved with Iraq, I want to remind them that Iraq is on the brink of civil war and the situation could worsen and it could become even worse than Syria. The problem is that there is no power which is separating the conflicting parties. There is no power which is acting as a fair referee between them. And since the United States troops left at the end of 211, actually what is left in Iraq is two opposing sides. What Senator McCain think the USA could do? After all, as a wise American said, it broke the jar, but it left it broken. Thank you. Well, first of all, I would argue maybe there's three opposing sides, Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. As the Kurdish part of Iraq becomes more and more autonomous in many respects. I think history will judge the United States very harshly for not seriously negotiating a residual force of some 20,000 that would have been and should have been left behind in order to provide a stable force that would have had an impact on the conduct of the Maliki government, including the conduct of the Sunnis. And with that force being absent, our influence over events in Iraq is minimal. And I think the best example of that is the continued overflights of Iraq, of aircraft loaded with arms for Bashar Assad, and the increasing Iranian influence in the domestic politics of Iraq. I share your concern. I am not confident that this administration will take any meaningful steps. Tom Fenton of Global Post. Senators, how confident are you that you can somehow distinguish between the good guys and the bad guys and shape the outcome or help shape the outcome of this civil war in Syria? I'd like to say that the way you do that is you have a no-fly zone and a safe zone where they can organize, train, and equip and make sure that the assistant goes to the right people. Every day that goes by, the jihadists and extremists flow in from all over the Arab world and have more and more influence on the battlefield. A year ago, there was a handful of these jihadists. Now there are estimates as many as 7,000. If you have a place where they can organize, train, and equip and govern, then you can have a chance for us to identify the good guys, support the good guys, and to have an influence over who is running the show there. You wanted to follow up. What you didn't answer is how confident are you that you can sort out the good guys or the bad guys? I'm sorry that you didn't understand my answer. I am totally confident that we can. If we have a safe zone with a stable organization there so that they can govern, organize, and sort out who the weapons and assistance goes to, they can do that. Let me say I believe, after two years, of engaging with the opposition and listening to our own American sources, as well as the participation of our allies here within the region, that we can identify and have identified who is an opposition that we believe is moderate in its position, would be inclusive of a Syrian society that is all-inclusive, that would respect human rights, that would have the essential elements we want to see. Now, for some, the question is to arm or not to arm. That question is gone. There are arms in Syria. The question is, do the right people have the right arms to change the dynamics so that we can end this bloodshed and move to a future Syria? And so I think we're past the question to arm or not to arm. The question is, do we help those vetted entities that would share the values that we and those within the region would share about what we want to see in a future Syria? And I think the answer to that question is yes, that we have confidence in that respect. And if I may just join on very briefly to the previous question. I just want to say, look, we tried to agree with Iraq on a status of forces agreement. Unfortunately, the Iraqis would not enter into an agreement with us, and we cannot have our forces in another country without a status of forces agreement. So that was part of our challenge there. As well, I think this issue of Syria continues to play a very significant destabilizing force in Iraq as well. So as we are focused on Syria, this is important, of course, to end the bloodshed and change the dynamics in Syria. But it's also important to Jordan. It's also important to Iraq. It's also important to Lebanon. It has regional contexts of significant orders. And finally, I would just also say that the Iraqi government must work to meet some of the challenges of its Sunni population so that there can be greater stability, so that you don't end up at the end of the day having a disaffected population be ultimately proselytized by extremist views. One last question. Yes. Dale Gablak, Associated Press and BBC. Yeah, I'm just curious. When we're talking about patriot missiles and establishing no fly zones, I mean, don't you think that Iran is also going to respond in some way to that kind of action? And how will we deal with that? Well, the Iranians have admitted that they have Iranian Revolutionary Guard on the ground. They are supplying weapons. They are training people in Iran and sending them back to Syria. And I would imagine that they could do more. But for all intents and purposes, they are all in. On behalf of Bashar Assad, if we have the present status quo continue, the massacre will continue. Bashar Assad will remain in power. The weapons will continue to flow in. Jordan and Lebanon are clearly being destabilized. And the conflict can become regional. So to worry about what Iran will do is not the determining factor. The determining factor is can we change the equation on the battlefield that right now favors Bashar Assad and the view of most experts? And if we can't counter Iranian activity, then obviously that underestimates the capabilities of the United States and our allies. And again, Senator Menendez and I are in agreement that American boots on the ground would not only called for but would not be a productive exercise because we think that there are ways that we can assist the people of Syria without that being a consideration. Let me just add one note. Well, I have personally not come to a conclusion on the no-fly zone, although I think it is an option to be considered. The reality is such an effort would obviously be beyond the United States. It would be a multilateral effort. And if there's a multilateral effort, the Iranians would have to consider the nature of that multilateral response. Thank you very much. Thank you.