quorum call:

mr. brown: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you. i'd like to talk about an important part of the transportation jobs bill that the senate is debating this week. the bill is about creating jobs by modernizing our roadways and our highways, about making bridges safer. we know what that means in the presiding officer's home state in minneapolis about improving public transportation, about reducing congestion across the country. it's also about improving the public safety of the vehicles that travel our country. we know the success we've had had as a nation because of the partnership between the auto industry and the government in adopting safety rules and working with the industry and making our -- our travel safer. we know about the incredible

increase -- the very impressive increase in safety on our nation's highways. but five years ago, there still is work that needs to be done. five years ago a fatal -- five years ago tomorrow a fatal motor coach accident rocked a small ohio community and brought national attention to the need for commonsense safety computers measures that can save size. bluffton university in bluffton, ohio near interstate 75, alan and hancock dmoints the northwest part of the state. the baseball team was on its way to florida for spring training. their bus lost control on a poorly marked exit ramp in atlanta. like the majority of fatal accidents, the passengers were eveningjected from their seats and thrown through bus windows. seven people were killed, dozens injured. john and joy betts, a couple who have become a friend of

mine, of bryan, ohio has lost their son david. he was a baseball player and a student at buff shall, bluffton. i've got tone know the family as they've been been courageous advocates demanding congressional action. the betts family to its everlasting credit while losing their son used the loss of their son to save the sons and daughters of many other parents who will not face those tragedies because of the work that the betts family is doing on behalf of this motor coach safety legislation. the national transportation safety board's final report from the bluffton motor coach accident echoed recommendations the ntsb had had been urgeing for years. for nearly five years i've worked with senator hutchison whose state has seen its share of tranlic accidents to put -- tragic accidents to put those recommendations into law. we're fighting to make motor coaches safer for the millions of passengers who ride them

every day. and today because of the betts family and other courageous families and activists we're taking a step in the right direction. in the 1110th and 111th and now 112th congress senator hutchtonson and i have introduced the act which includes many of those most-wanted safety improchts. the bill would address many of the shortfalls from the bluffton accident. it would mean better protection for occupants, it would mean -- improve safety equipment and devices and the need for on-board recorders with the ability to collect crash data. the safety measures are neither exotic or complicated p. mayor commonsense that have been in many cases are widely used but since they're not required by law they've not been installed in most american motor coaches. instead of saving lives the public remains at risk. some who oppose improved tour bus safety standards will tell you this isn't a motor coach

problem, they'll tell you they have a problem with road bus companies or bad drivers. certainly that's part of the problem but we can't simply look the other way and reject the idea that improving the safety of motor coach manufacturing and of the motor coaches is unnecessary or fiscalally inprudent. john betts says it's necessary to get bad operators off the road. it's not sufficient as it does nothing though to ensure safety once the crash has occurred. we can get bad operators off the road but we must ensure passenger safety in the tragic event of an accident. if the technology to save lives and reduce injuries exists, we must put that technology to use. last year in cleveland i was joined by john's sister and brother-in-law pam and tom brian of vermillion. we met with a greyhound bus driver who showcased new greyhound buses equipped with commonsense safety measures that clearly will save lives, clearly protect both passengers and motorists on the road.

but the betts family and operators like gray hound understand the urgent need and too often have lived the painful reminders that safety improchts are long overdue. that's why this act is so important, why greyhound has endorsed this bill which is critical to turning public sadness and outrage into public action. bus operators like greyhound think we can do this. manufacturers do, too. the technology is there. the bill is commonsense, it's bipartisan, it will save lives. how many more motor coach deaths in ohio, in texas, most recently in new york and new jersey, do we have to witness before bus companies start doing the right thing? as a father it's disturbing to know that students are still traveling in motor coaches without even the option of buckling up. our laws should ensure that our vehicles and roads are safer, not less safe for students, for their families, for elderly people who often take motor coach charters to events and

concerts and all, tomorrow, mr. president, is the fifth anniversary of the bluffton university tragic motor coach accident. this -- our legislation is in the underlying transportation bill which we are debating on the senate floor today. i urge its passage, i urge the continued inclusion of these provisions senator hutchison and i have asked for. it is commonsense, bipartisan legislation that will save lives undoubtedly. thanks, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: thank you. mr. president. i request proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you. mr. president. i come to speak about cybersecurity legislation that

we hope will be before the senate soon. there is no question, no question at all that this is a critical issue that should be addressed by this congress, and i'm certain that every member of this body is concerned that our nation may be vulnerable to cyberattacks that could have a very severe economic and truly security ramifications. we see stories about cyberattacks daily, whether they are attacks on individuals, on companies, on government. and i believe that it's time for us to take steps to protect ourselves against this emerging threat. in the coming weeks the senate is expected to take up legislation to address this very real problem, and i'm hopeful that this effort will result in legislation that we can all agree is worthy of sending to the president. but right now it appears that we are on track to follow an all or

nothing approach. the problem i see with the bill expected to come to the floor featuring text released by the homeland security committee is it has not gone through regular order and i fear amounts to regulatory overreach. and if that's our only option here, mr. president, it will ultimately prevent us from making progress on cybersecurity here in congress. and i think that that would be an unfortunate outcome. and because that outcome is unacceptable, i have introduced an alternative bill this morning along with a number of ranking member colleagues. i know senator chambliss of georgia was here on the floor earlier. many of us spoke to it earlier in the day. we call our bill the strengthening and enhancing cybersecurity by using research, education, information and technology act of 2012. it has an acronym of course. it's called the secure it for

short. our bill focuses on four different areas that we believe can draw bipartisan support and result in good public law. and those four areas are information sharing, fisma reform, which is intelligence sharing reform, criminal penalties as well as additional research. what the secure act bill does -- and i guess what it does not do is equally important. it does not simply add new layers of bureaucracy and regulation that will serve little purpose and achieve meager results. the homeland security committee bill would arm the department of homeland security with expansive new authorities to review all sectors of our economy and designate what is termed covered critical infrastructure for further regulation. what we hear out there from industry is that this amounts to

regulation almost for regulation's sake. and in the electricity industry's case, this is resulting in duplicative regulation that i'm afraid will lead to a compliance-first mentality. companies will focus on meeting new federal requirements and passing a seemingly endless string of audits. but these heavy-handed statistic requirements from yet one more federal regulator will not necessarily address the very real threats that we face. so again, the concern is you're going to have industry focused on how do we comply? how do we avoid a bad audit instead of using their ingenuity, using their resources to ensure that we stay ahead of any future cyberattack. we need to be more nimble. we have to have a more nimble

approach to deal with cyber-related threats that are constantly growing and constantly changing. the threat that we see today is not necessarily the threat that we might anticipate tomorrow. so we've got to stay ahead of the game. this is important. and this is where our secure it act comes in. i think we've taken a more pragmatic approach by focusing on the areas that we know we can find some bipartisan support. and one area i think that we can all agree on is that the federal government needs to form a partnership with the private sector. we share the same goals. that's clear. the goals are to keep our computer systems and our nation safe from cyberintrusions. we need the private companies to be talking with each other and with the government about the cyberproblems that they face as well as the potential strategies and the solutions to combat them. and to achieve this goal, our legislation encourages the voluntary sharing of much-needed information by removing legal

barriers to its use and its disclosure. at the same time we're very careful to safeguard the privacy and prohibit information from being used for competitive advantage. our bill also provides necessary updates to the federal information security management act. this is the fisma that i spoke to a minute ago. these fisma reforms require realtime monitoring of federal systems, will modernize the way the government marines its own -- manages cyberrisks. the cyberbill will also update criminal statutes to account for cyberactivities. finally, we support advanced cybersecurity research by leveraging existing resources without necessarily spending new federal dollars, i think very important for us. this straightforward approach to cybersecurity, i think, can go a long way in tackling the

problem. clearly our own government agencies here need to be communicating a little bit better with one another. an example of this is the white house and department of homeland security are staging an exercise next week. all of the members have been invited to attend and go through this exercise. it is a mock scenario that will feature a cyberattack on the nation's grid. and while i absolutely think that that is a useful exercise and something that is well worthwhile, i do find it quite surprising, quite surprising that d.h.s. would set up a grid attack scenario and fail to include the tkpwr*eud's primary -- the grid's primary regulators. these are nerc and the federal energy regulatory commission,

the ferc. these are the two regulatory agencies that are in place currently that do provide for that regulation, that cyberregulation. it is mandated that within our -- within our grid that these agencies tend to just this issue. so it does make me question if d.h.s. is even aware that the electric industry is the only industry already subject to mandatory cyberstandards or that the nerc has the ability to issue time-sensitive alerts to electric utilities in the event of emergency situations. it's just kind of hard for me to understand why d.h.s. would proceed with a grid attack situation and not include the existing governmental entities that already have these safeguards in place. and it also begs the question as to whether congress should provide d.h.s. with such

significant and expansive new authorities in the cyberarena. before i close, mr. president, i'd like to take a moment to talk about the process behind cybersecurity legislation. well, my colleagues and i have highlighted the substantive and the procedural problems that are associated with the homeland security committee bill. the majority and even the press have attempted to dismiss our arguments as nothing more than partisan stall tactics.and i stl you that is simply not true. i want to take action on cyber. i know that all of the ranking members that have joined together on this issue want to take action on cyber. we need to do it. i have been calling for action and for legislation since last congress. we have been working on it in the energy committee and have moved out that cyber energy piece. but i do think it is important around this body that there is

some meaning to the process, the process really does matter. that's how strong bipartisan pieces of legislation are enacted. and when you forego that process and you refuse to do the hard work in the committee -- and it is hard -- but if you don't do that, you put yourself on a path to failure with that legislation. and so when you have seven ranking members taking issue with how a bill has been put torkttogether, i think you ougho pay attention to that. the bill that we introduce today is a strong startingpoint for us. some may argue that we immediate to go a little bit further but additional layers of bureaucracy and regulations are not the answer at this time. legislating in the four areas that we have highlighted -- information-sharing, fisma reform -- these are necessary steps that will make a

tremendous amount of dins. if we need to do more in the future, we in congress can certainly hawk that determine naismtion but let's not take an all-or-nothing approach to cyber legislation and ultimately end up empty handed. i would ask my colleagues to take a look at what we have presented today. i ask you to consider supporting the secure i.t. act so that we can continue to ensure that our citizens and country are protected. with that, mr. president, i thank you, and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: mr. majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terlted. officer without objection. mr. reid: for everyone's information, it is not as if we've been sitting around doing nothing. we've been trying to work something out on this highway bill. hopefully in the next little bit we can do it. we haven't been very successful this day. i'm glad we had that vote to try to move forward, but there's still some obstacles in the way. i ask consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning

business, senators allowed to speak up to ten minutes eve. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to -- and we'll do it en bloc -- s. con. res. 35 and 36. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 35 to establish a joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies for the inauguration of the president-elect and vice president-elect on january 21, 2013. s. res. 36, to authorize the use of the rotunda and emancipation hall of the capitol by the joint congressional committee on inaugural ceremonies and so focialg. the presiding officer: is there objection froaght measure en bloc? without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements reemented to this -- related to these matters be printed in the record at the

appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to s. res. 387. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 387, celebrating black history month. the presiding officer: is there objection trowing to the measure? without objection. so o ordered. mr. reid: i dishact the motion be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, there be no intervening being a or debate and an any statements appear ine prord as if given. the presiding officer: woiks. without objection. mr. reid: i ask that we move to s. res. 388. the clerk: commemorating the war of 1812 rand the star spangled banner and so forth. the presiding officer: is there any objection to proceeding to the snaish without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: i ask consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be in intervening being a or debate, any statements on this matter be

placed in the record as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until fry takers may 2, at 10:00 a.m., the morning hour be deemed expired, the fipple tore for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, the senate resum consideration of s. 1813. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: tomorrow we'll continue work on a path to the transportation bill. there will be no roll call votes. there will be no roll call votes until tuesday morning. if there is no further business to come before the senate, it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

>> the u.s. ambassador to syria testified about political unrest and violence and area. he appeared before the senate foreign relations committee. here's a 20 minute portion of that hearing. >> the will come to order. thank you. i apologize for being late. i was on the floor and got a little bit delayed there. i want to go back there at some point in time. senator casey will chair the point of which i will have to do that. we appreciate everybody coming here to discuss the ongoing situation in syria. as we all know, cvs said from

the heart of the middle east, straddling its at the neck and said terry and fault lines and all of the regions important powers have a direct interest in what happens in syria as to nonstate actors like hezbollah, hamas and others. al qaeda, to its affiliates in iraq appears to be trying to take advantage of the unrest, chaos if you want to call it that, which is no surprise. already, as many as 99 civilians have died and many tens of thousands more have been displaced from their homes. and the serious city of homes, there's been showing for three weeks now, hundreds have died in the city is running critically low on food and medical

supplies. get in the indiscriminate killing of its unfitted fans, and give them its back of the hand to the global community as well to the regional powers would've tried to intervene, it seems clear that the assad regime is ultimately going to follow. but the longer the endgame, the messier the aftermath and obviously the more complicated the in between. the prospect of a full flash site. civil war is the start reminder of a terrible situation could become much worse with potentially devastating consequences for neighbors, israel, lebanon, jordan and advanced implications for the middle east. so the question being asked here in the congress, as well as elsewhere in america and in the world is where do we go from here? american may have direct leverage to serious but the

reset transistor area conference was an important moment that could galvanize the international community against the assad government and none of you should ever underestimate the ability of global community to have an impact on any renegade regime anywhere in the world when the full attention and focus of the global community is properly convened. the last year has shown when the world acts with one voice motivated by the cause of freedom, a tyrant's grip on power doesn't seem so fierce. that is why the russian and chinese veto at the u.n. security council wasn't that so disappointing because it actually extended to if not a political lifeline to continue to use violence against his own people. we need to encourage the russians and the chinese and certainly let them know that

while we would like their positive involvement, putting a halt to the conflict, we are able to do and prepare to do much more if they continue to block all progress that the security council. the arab league and gcc have ramped up their political and economic pressure. the e.u. and turkey -- turkey interestingly enough a year ago, close friend and supporter of syria have broken and then the same. the u.n. general assembly in recent weeks voted 137 to 122 condemned the crackdown. two weeks ago the senate passed unanimously a resolution to introduce by this committee condemning the regime for its fertile crack down in expressing solidarity with the syrian people. there is still serious questions about various opposition organizations, including especially this area national

council and free serious army. they share the goal of getting rid of assad and they have done -- they have traveled some distance in the course of the last year. but they have not yet unified in the way that the libyan transitional national council did. so i believe it is time for us to redouble our efforts to engage with serious political opposition to try to shape your thinking and understand it more fully to identify more fully the leadership to strongly encourage them to coalesce into a coherent political force. with the creation of the friends of syria group, there is now a multilateral mechanism for supporting the syrian national council and other political groups of technical assistance. but it is true that many cerium stem cells remain on the fence. especially members of the outright christian and other minority groups. gerhardt five by the regime's

atrocities, but they are also terrified by the potential for broad skill set. strafe. i've come it is absolutely vital that the snc into everything it can to unify politically, to the national aspirations that his personal ambitions come into categorically radicalism and to reassure religious and not take my word is that they will enjoy full freedom in a tolerant and pluralistic post-assad society. the nation's syrian opposition needs to understand that the international community's political support will ultimately be contingent upon their ability to speak with one voice that represents the full diversity of syrian society and also embraces the values that will bring the global community to its side. the debate has started in congress and in the region about whether and if so, how to support the free syrian army. it is critical that we all

proceed with extreme caution and with our eyes wide open. there are serious questions to be answered about the free syrian army, but it is not too soon to think about how the international community could shape his thinking or encourage restraint. we should encourage the free syrian army to subsume it tells under the leadership of serious political opposition. finally, we are all deeply concerned about the disposition of serious biological and chemical weapons and its lethal conventional weapons systems. i know the administration is fully case with respect to this particular challenge and are working diligently to make sure there are contingencies to prevent these weapons from falling into the wrong hands. i would urge all of my colleagues to be fully supportive of those efforts. to help us work through complexities of the situation and i want to emphasize, this is

not idea, not egypt. this is not to needs. this is a far more complicated and difficult proposition . but to help us work through those complexities today, we are joined by two of the most talented and accomplished members of america's lamanna court. i am pleased to welcome assistant secretary of state, jeff feldman and u.s. ambassador to syria, robert ford. i should say, ambassador, do not currently in country. secretary feldman knows the region well and having served as ambassador of lebanon, i think he understands as well as anybody at the full implications this crisis could have. ambassador ford has worked tirelessly to engage with the people of syria during his tenure. ambassador, we'll want to commend you on your courageous and important efforts that you made to distinguish between -- to the client tightest i can

sometimes embrace those abroad and your own connection to the values that he represented. i think we're all very impressed by that. ambassador ford had to leave the country wants in october because of threats to his own safety, but he returned and continued his efforts until the embassy finally had to close last month because of the continued deterioration in security. , but he returned and continued his efforts until the embassy finally had to close last month because of the continued deterioration in security. both in advance for and continued his efforts until the embassy finally had to close last month because of the continued deterioration in security. both in advance for providing your insight and i look forward to your testimony. senator lugar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i join you in welcoming ambassador feltman ambassador for it. ambassador ford and his team on the ground in syria were especially courageous and they deserve great credit for documenting evidence that the steering government aggression against his people, despite substantial personal risk

themselves. the hearing today takes place amidst the deadly violence, the gross human rights violations and degradations at the assad regime continues to inflict on the syrian people. since i last hearing on syria in november, the death toll in its 11 month conflict has risen dramatically. we are confronted by horrific images of the depths to which assad would go to preserve his power, including targeting civilians, journalists, that yours and workers, women and children. i welcome a meeting last week of the friends of the syrian people that brought together 60 nations and international organizations. we should continue to focus attention on humanitarian needs in syria and the absence of russia and china was an abrogation of their responsibilities in my judgment as permanent members of the u.n.

security council. the events in syria will and patch the united states national security and the interest of our close ally, israel. the outcome in syria will have deep implications for the internal politics of neighboring countries, ethnic conflicts in the middle east and broadhurst or tg tissues. terrorist groups are likely to attempt to take advantage of political instability and inner sectarian violence could spill over serious porters as groups defend others from attacks. in the midst of this at people, when assyria has substantial start is the chemical and conventional weapons that could directly threaten peace and stability throughout the region. our government should be focusing intelligence and counter proliferation assets on containing the start. the development at the definable operation that speaks for most

syrians would improve chances at the damage to the syrian people and risk to regional stability could be contained. some constructive opposition voices are attempting to emerge. but at present, the syrian opposition? cohesion and is officially defined political agenda as a practical matter it also? the physical space and technical means to mature to overcome its internal differences and develop a plan for democratic transitions. deep sectarian divisions come outside influences from iran and elsewhere and the lack of a democratic local culture weigh heavily against the short-term emergence of a unified opposition in which to base its tolerant democracy. this presents the united states with a very limited option. certainly must oppose the assad regime's aggression against its own people and support international humanitarian

affairs. we should also work with willingness states to eliminate any spillover effect generated by events of syria. but we should not overestimate our influence to shape events in the country at this point. further attempts by the united states or the west to closely manage the opposition could backfire in an environment where the government thinks outside influences for serious troubles. over not take any options off the table, we should be extremely scott to go about options that could admit the united states for military intervention in syria. under the constitution, any decision place in us as a armed conflict in syria rests with the congress. as you and others in the administration consider way forward together with their international partners, i encourage you to work closely with congress as plans evolve, particularly if the situation

becomes more complex. i look forward to your testimony very much and we are honored you are with us today. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lugar. if you would lead off and then ambassador ford. thank you very much. your full testimony will be placed in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman. john kerry, recommender lucre, to establish members of the committee, thank you for holding this important hearing. i appeared before your regional set committee in november to discuss the crisis in syria. and since that time, our european friends have joined us in sanction the pennsylvania to syria and the financing of the regime's brutal crack down. the e.u. has completed its implementation of its embargo on oil purchases from syria to halting it aired at the shyest government revenues. the arab league serious membership with many arab states

downgrading diplomatic relations and freezing syrian ink accounts. the arab league called for the political transition plan for syria. over 137 countries supported the u.n. general assembly resolution can domain this hearing machines violent supporting the arab league transition plan. my than 60 countries and institutions that into nasa's friends of the syrian people to endorse the area transition plan to demand an immediate end to the violence and commit the practical steps to address the syrian crisis. the syrian opposition articulated a clear, credible transition plan and addressed minority fears directly and convincingly. we announced $10 million in immediate humanitarian assistance with millions more from other countries. the u.n. come arab league have appointed a joint high-profile envoy, with a mandate from the arab league initiative in the u.n. general assembly

resolution. and just this morning at the u.n. human rights council in geneva overwhelmingly passed the strong resolution essentially describing the situation in syria is a man-made humanitarian disaster and we all know the identity of the man responsible for that disaster. these are just some of the examples of regional and international resolve. but nevertheless, as both of you have described, with also seen the outside regime has intensified a vicious campaign of attacks against the syrian people. the situation is frankly horrific. including indiscriminate artillery fire against entire neighborhoods. today's reports from homs are alarming. large numbers this year and a every day under siege. deprived of basic necessities, including food, clean water and medical supplies. women and children are wounded

and dying for lack of treatment. innocent people are detained and tortured and their families left to fear the worst. yet despite the regime's brutality, the people of syria demonstrate enormous courage. their determination to continue protesting for their rights, mostly still peaceful protest is an inspiration and a testimony to the human spirit. now if assistant secretary of state watching the upheavals in the arab world, i am humble enough to say that we don't know for sure when the tipping point, the breaking point will come in syria. but it will come. the demise of the outside regime is inevitable. it is important that the tipping point for the regime be reached quickly because the longer the regime assaults the syrian people come the greater the chances of fallout for in a

failed state. all of the elements of u.s. policy towards syria are channeled towards accelerating the arrival of a fat tipping point. as i referred to at the start, through the friends of the syrian people group, we're translating international consensus into action. we are galvanizing international partners to implement more effective sanctions and to deepen the regime's isolation. we are supporting the arab league and now the u.n. general assembly's call for an immediate transition in syria. we are moving ahead with humanitarian assistance that the people, demanded that the taxi from access be granted a negation of the syrian opposition on their vision for serious future, a proud and democratic syria that upholds the rights and responsibilities of all of its citizens, regardless of their religion, their gender or their ethnicity. ..

and the will of the people with protection of minority rights. i would like to close my opening statement by echoing this committees praise of my fellow witness and friend ambassador robert ford. ambassador for his courageous actions on the ground in syria these past months have been a great credit to him, to the foreign service and the united states. he repeatedly put himself in harm's way to make it clear to the united states stand with the people of syria and their dream of a better future. i want to thank this committee

for its leadership in supporting this confirmation. >> thank you very much mr. secretary. we appreciate that again. ambassador ford, maybe you shouldn't say anything, just stop. [laughter] >> senator, mr. chairman and ranking member lugar, senator cardin, corker thank you very much for this invitation to come and speak to the committee about syria today. i don't want to do a long opening statement because i'm hoping we can open discussion about syria but i would just like to say how much i appreciate this committees support during my time in damascus. several times we got messages from members of the committee staff asking how we were doing and how my team was doing. i would just like to say that the team really appreciated

those messages especially during some of the tensor moments. it meant a great deal. i have a terrific team in damascus, and i really would like just to thank this committee for your support, for our effort. beyond that i think the statement that ambassador felton made is good and i will stop there. thank you. >> you can watch this hearing in its entirety on c-span.org and later tonight on our companion network c-span. >> to former high-ranking u.s. military officials say a strike against iran is not the option or will it produce the desired result. james cartwright and admiral william fallon took part in an event last week at tcu schaffer school of journalism. cbs news chief washington correspondent bob schieffer

moderated the conversation. >> welcome to the center for strategic international study. thank you all for being here. i am the senior vice president for internal relations. we have a traffic program and thank you for coming out on behalf of csis and the chief or school journalism. this week we lost a couple of great great journalist and i wanted to remember them, and particularly had a relationship with csis. anthony's cousin worked here, a young man who just left to go to business school. there is a great great essay at csis.org by our middle east program director john alterman who is a friend of anthony's for 20 years and i urge all of you to watch it. this will be tweeted life tonight. csis underscore or with the hash sign schieffer series and with that i will give it to bob

schieffer. 's schieffer. >> thank you very much and her unwelcome behalf on behalf of tcu in the journalism school with csis and boy have we got a good one today. we tried to stay on top of things and we are right on top of this because we are going to talk today about iran, what could be done about it and what should be done about and what is the future hold there? jim cartwright united states marine corps retired, holds the csis chair and defense policy studies and served as commander of u.s. strategic command before being nominated and appointed as the eighth vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, served a four-year tenure as the nation's second highest military officer across two presidential administrations. admiral william fallon on my right former commander of u.s. central command has served as commander in the u.s. pacific command, the u.s. elite forces command in the in and the u.s. atlantic command and down here

general david sanger. who knows a whole lot about everything. use the chief washington correspondent for "the new york times," one of the newspapers senior writers and for those who have tweeted he really is a general. [laughter] i forget in this day of the internet there are no jokes. [laughter] in more than 25 years he has reported from new york tokyo and washington and also has a book the inheritance, the world obama confronts and the challenges of american power. we haven't seen his byline a lot lately because in the process of writing another book. let's just start off, what is the new book going to be about? >> the new book is a look at obama administration's national security policies that deals a lot with afghanistan and

pakistan. deals a lot with iran as you would imagine and with arab spring and china but mostly as an effort to try to explore what is new and different about this administration versus the bush administration and how you prepare the promises that they came in with what with what is actually happening. the world has been a little busy in the years since the president has been on curated. it comes out in jan. >> we will all be waiting for it. let's start out. i would like to ask you gentlemen if president obama called you give us a little rundown on what the situation looks like they're. >> my concern with iran and if you were to get one of those

telephone calls, is that we have as a nation for several administrations now embarks on negotiating diplomatic approach along with the delayed strategy to try to stretch out the timelines and have the opportunity for a diplomatic solution. there are those around the world and certainly in the united states to believe that clock is ticking and starting to run out of time. so what are the logical nap -- next steps not necessarily because you would execute them but we want to have them there. so the thought process of several presidents now has said not on my watch, no way will we ever allow that to happen. what does that mean? we said that about korea too. what does that mean? how do you want to handle that? are you going to do something more provocative or overt to

slow this timeline down, which most people are thinking along the lines of a military strike. is that possibility if you are going to do that what would the implications be? what would the likely counter b. etc. and think your way through that. is is there more negotiating that can be done through sanctions and delaying strategies that might be successful and fruitful? and then because the iranians get a vote in this if they decide they want to go ahead and announce that they are moving in this way, what are the implications for something like that? in the context you have to worry about 10 years of war, the country's war weary, a world that is in financial discord so to speak and challenge. the likelihood of strategy that would tonight the iranians is probably a strategy that requires invasion and a change of administration in iran. the likelihood that is going to occur in the same year that he get a new chinese government and

a new french government and u.k. government and the united states, whatever, that stacks up pretty hard against some sort of a kinetic act on our part or an invasion i think. so those are the things that are on the table. the likelihood that something in the year of 2012 occurring that would challenge that i think is pretty high. >> admiral let me ask you, how close do you think iran is to achieving a meaningful new clear -- >> the short answer is i don't know and i don't know that many people outside of iran or whether the iranians really know. there is a lot of opinion out there and don't know exactly what their intentions are, how far they have gone, whether they would actually, if they had the means, weaponize some nuclear

capability. i think it remains to be seen. right now i've by then keeping things ambiguous, that is actually fairly clever particularly if their intention is to proceed. but what really strikes me now is again we are reaching this crescendo of talk, just constant war, war almost like the old movie in black and white, beating the drum and the chance goes on. certainly not very helpful at all. general cartwright certainly ticked off the better part of a couple of -- and all of these things make this extremely complex. the sound bite, the sound bites we see the media would simplify this thing or seemingly makes it simple and it's not at all. so when i think about this, go

back to a couple of fundamentals and one of them is that the iranian regime, which has been in place now for several decades, and the united states have had virtually no dialogue, just a talk. there have been a couple of starts and a few, let's go have a discussion but there really hasn't been any meaningful dialogue. and it's a pretty nasty history here, which a lot of people are aware of. so getting anything started in a way of the dialogue is a challenge. it is particularly with the regime basing a lot of it's pillars of longevity on the fact that the u.s. is generally galvanizing support to demonize the u.s. makes it all the more challenging. >> david, tell us where you think this is right now. what are your sources? i know you have done a tremendous amount of work on a.

>> you do a lot of work on this and the deeper you get into it, the more uncertain you become of exactly the question you have asked. how far away are the rantings? admiral fallon had it right when he said that ambiguity is really the iranians big friend here right now because in many ways, having either a capability or at a mere capability is as usual to them or perhaps more useful to them than actually having a weapon. if you think they actually had a weapon, they know what would happen if they used it in an explicit way against israel or the united states as a target so i think that is unlikely. i think if they are interested in a weapon they would be interested in influence in the region. and they would get that influence almost as much of that influence by having the world know that they have the capability to build a weapon in a matter of weeks or months, and it keeps them within the nuclear

non-proliferation treaty and it keeps the u.s. intelligence agency able to say as they have said as recently as this past week, but there is still no evidence that the iranians have made a political decision. the leaders have made a political decision to go ahead with a weapon. why would you make a political decision to go ahead with a weapon when you could get many of the same benefits and be just short of a weapon? i think all sides here have learned what general cartwright said and on the one hand one of the lessons of north korea was for the united states, you can keep saying we won't tolerate it but one day you conduct a test and you don't have a whole lot of choices and that is where we are. >> the iranians look at north korea and they say you know, maybe testing it is successful. >> the question about north korea. exactly what is the test? what do they have is an open issue, but the business of

drawing red lines is a challenge it seems to me. so you dry red line and then someone is perceived to have crossed it, now what are you going to do? this is a challenge for the flapping lips right now. >> leon panetta says there is a red line. when he says that, what do you all determined that to mean? what is the red line right now? >> aydala professed to get inside of his head but you know, i think that they are, and i agree with admiral fallon that it's very difficult to draw a red line here but the lack of knowledge that you have, inside knowledge and so in my mind right now i think what the administration is saying is that if there is any kind of evidence that there is weaponization going on, any external signature to that fact or if the iaea

inspectors are thrown out and not allowed to return, that those are steps that are overt and could be used as red lines. whether that is what we are going to use or not i don't know but those of the overt steps that you could actually see and draw a line against. >> this is not something i know a great deal about that but correct me if i'm wrong. is what iran seems to be moving towards something like the situation we had in japan where they don't have a nuclear weapon, but they could build one and very short order? >> that is what they are trying to do. >> you have a fuel cycle that takes you to an enrichment activities. that enrichment activity gets cut off at a low percentage. with the iranians have done now is go to the next higher percentage under the guise potentially realistically so for

using four a reactor to do research. that is a halfway step two enrichment levels. taking it to the next level make a take a little time but the basic technology is now -- >> so we have the sanctions and we have added new sanctions. iran says they now want to talk. does that mean that sanctions would work? >> i am not sure that those two statements get connected, but the sanctions are having an effect there is little doubt that they are having a significant effect on the country. >> what is the effect then? >> their ability to conduct business and i felt for sometime that one of -- if you are going to try to put somebody in irons, getting the

pocketbook is usually the way to make people pay attention. that appears to be the case now. i've seen a lot of evidence that in the economic sphere it's extremely, getting very difficult to do simple things like even get food and pay for it because nobody will deal with in dollars and their currency is not worth too much right now. >> you somebody said something and who knows? there is a history people saying things and think like a follow up or think -- so who knows? maybe there is an effect. at the end of the day the supreme leader is the guy who is most likely going to be taking the decisions and calling the shots here and i think one of the additional challenges we have in this country is understanding how they make

decisions. who has got influence in what areas and how do they go through whatever steps they might go through to actually reach a decision. >> you there have been sanctions in the u.s. and the united nations put on a iran for many years, but the sanctions we have seen happen in the past six months have been the first to have really gotten their attention and why is that? the first thing is, it's aimed at their central bank and that means, that is how they clear revenue for the oil but for the first time we are come even if indirectly going after their oil revenue, the result is that their currency has fallen in value against the dollar by that fact. that is panicking a lot of people who have been operating in the current itself and makes it very difficult for them to sell oil in dollars as they are beginning to think about trade agreements. barter agreements back-and-forth.

so then you have to ask a the question, can sanctions alone leave the array needs to come to the conclusion that the nuclear program just isn't working? and on this you get differing opinions. you get some people in the administration who have made the case to me that look the iranians always say we will never give in to pressure. until that magic day when they give in to pressure. you get others to say you know, the sanctions may weaken the regime and its hold on power. but in the end it's not likely to reverse the nuclear program because the nuclear program is pretty popular even among the opposition. so you have to ask the question, what are you really accomplishing? >> i think there are examples of sanctions around the world. we have had the embargo for many decades and north korea is not exactly enjoying the free trade agreements with folks. but i think in recent weeks and

months there have been a number of things that are beginning to add up here that are starting to be really getting to these people so countries that were flaunting the embargoes in the past and the sanctions are now beginning to come into line. i think it's very very difficult for these guys now to actually get things done. whether that is enough i don't know. >> my sense is all of that is accurate. what you don't know if the end is it really gets hard. which way is it going to go? is it going to convince them not to proceed or galvanize them? and that is the unknown here. >> is there anything that we could do short of military action to convince them it is not a good idea to build a nuclear weapon or is that just something that they have decided they have got to have it to have respect respect and so forth? >> i am not sure that they have decided yet or at leased the

leader has decided yet. the likelihood that there is something, a single act that will all of a sudden flip the switch is probably pretty low. it could be the stack up of several activities, the sanctions, their ability to do business globally now, the loss of their ability to work with both their airline and their shipping lines and get safe harbor and refueling rights and things like that. all of these things could stack up in a way that convinces them but you have the same problem if you decide to take kinetic action. are you actually going to steal their resolve to go ahead and do this, are you going to delay for a few years and get hack into the negotiations. the likelihood i think, my thought process is likely galvanizing their thought process. you have the libyan example sitting out there. this is a country that we have

got to agree to abandon their nuclear aspirations and then we replace the leadership. it's not a good president for the iranians to do it again. >> there has been a middle range option with the obama administration. the president came in saying he wanted to open up the broadcast on the iranian new year for the iranian people and i think there is a lot of debate among the iranians how secure this opening was. what you discover is they are working on the these stiffer sanctions right away assuming that the diplomacy would not work. and then there are other things happening to the iranians at increasing paces. you have what now, five scientists assassinated and it's widely believed but no one has proved that is the work of israeli intelligence. maybe it's not in some other cases. you have seen the big missile

plan low up somewhat spontaneously. we have had missile plants blow up here too so i could have been accidental but it sure raises a lot of suspicions. a computer worm that ended up hitting the iranians and for you while slowing down their ability to produce. so i think this all comes back to the question that general cartwright asked which is when the iranians see this, does it redouble their determination to move out ahead, or does it make them think that this is important? i haven't seen any evidence yet that it's really slow their program. just grasp of the amount of uranium enrichment activity that we know about. it has had some ups and downs with the computer worm system but fundamentally it is a pretty

steady at. >> let me just ask you whether it is the right thing to do are the or the wrong thing to do. israel seems to be drawing the line in the sand on this. how credible is their posture toward iran and i guess what i would say is, do they have the capability to take out iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon if they decided to do that? >> no. >> no. they can slow it down. they can delay it for two to five years, but that does not take away the intellectual capital. it does not take away the ability of the iranians to then proliferate the sites in which they do business and so, no. you are not running through that with a connecticut tack. it's a delay tactic but not a change tactic. >> we do agree with that admiral? >> yeah sure. one of the challenges here is

folks that have taken some historical event like the berger rack iraq strike and possibly striking syria here a couple of years ago and they acted, they had resolve and they took care of the problem and it went away. but a very different issue here. this is not pinpoint a single target one strike and it's over. they have been pretty clever about distributing stuff. in fact as was indicated in the opening statement, to really take care of the problem if somebody decides they want to do it kinetically or militarily it's going to require some people and quite a few of them probably in the country which is not likely to happen. you can do airstrikes that delay things, to cause them some havoc, and then what's going to happen? >> give me just an example. have begun to spread out over a wide area?

why is it such a hard thing to do? >> well i mean this is part of the calculus of the red lines, but for a long time most of their activity occurred at one site which was somewhat underground but certainly strike a bowl. but they have over the past two or three years talked about alternative sites. we know of one that is pretty well understood which is deep enough underground that there really aren't weapons to penetrate that kind of activity, and so when you get to the point where you start to franchise out the fuel cycle -- debated around the country and you have an understanding of enrichment process, the number of places you can put that far exceed our knowledge of that for discovering it and even if you could again, you are not going to kill the intellectual path to rebuild the centrifuges someplace else and continue on. so this is a will issue than at

that point and if they have the will to do it they will produce. >> what happens if israel does decide to do this? >> do what, bob? >> to take military action. my guess is the united states would advise against that, but israel doesn't always take advice. >> governments are going to do what they do and whether they perceive it to be in their best interest or if they feel they are backed into a corner. may be their least obnoxious choice is a palatable option, so they make a strike at some point. very difficult i think because of the level of effort that is likely to be required given what we think we understand and i'm not plugged in every day to intel anymore but there are a lot of targets. does not a one-time shot.

it's going to take a fair mug of work so if one decides to lash out and take a whack at something, they could probably inflict some damage, but then what happens? >> what do we do then? let's say we find out we get the call that the planes are in the air in this is what we are going to do and we just thought we would let you know about it, obviously you were in the government now but what would you think the u.s. reaction would be? >> that is a real conundrum. number one if they are in the air there is not likely much we are going to be able to do to get between them and whatever target they perceive they have. at that point that the government, our government is faced with, do you disavow it? do you say it's a bad idea? do you kind of passively watch it happen or do you aggressively join him? that is the range in the matrix of things that you might be able to do.

which one you do is probably going to be a decision that is more likely to occur in proximate with their launch. in other words, the situation will dictate fully with the possible is. being ready for that and having the force posture did such a way that you have choices probably is what we are most concerned about right now. >> kind of the extension, at least the iranian rhetoric would link the two of us, israel and the u.s. to no matter what happens so we would repair to protect our forces and our people through whatever might happen. a couple of thoughts here. one, we have an awful lot of things in common with israel. we are often portrayed as yes, no, yes, no but we share a lot the least of which is trying to get to some long term state of

better stability and some security. and so we will certainly cooperate i think to the maximum extent we can and we are certainly going to share intelligence because we think that any weaponization capability in iran is not in either of our best interest. that at the end of the day, you try to come up with ways to deal with this that might actually result in a better sunrise and something ugly and you never know where it's going to go. >> david. >> on the issue of how the united states would respond if the israelis moved ahead is one the bush administration took up in 2008 when the israelis came to the administration and asked for the bunker-busting law and the refueling capability that they would need to be able to do this more effectively. they were turned down by the bush administration and actually we go back into some of that memoirs you discover there were some pretty active debate inside of the the administration on that issue.

but one of the questions that came up was if they -- the most direct way in which at the time the united states controlled, with the u.s. try to stop them and the answer they came to us probably not. i think the bigger concern that i hear within the administration now is not just what happened that day but as admiral fallon said there will be an assumption by the iranians that the u.s. and israel worked together in sharing intelligence and then the question is, does the u.s. get sucked in to whatever happens? i have only seen the unclassified wargaming of this. there is one of brookings a few years ago in one done at harvard. in almost every i have seen, the u.s. does get sucked in sooner or later, because someone decides to close the straits of hormuz or someone takes a potshot at american ships and

then you are off to the race. that is a big concern right now. >> turkey's foreign minister spoke here at csis earlier this month and he said military action against iran would be a disaster that would complicate development in the middle east at a conclusion all juncture. as a nato ally, does turkey's stance complicated issues on iran? >> my sense is you are reflecting reality and certainlo take us back to the output of this equation versus the input so yes there is a strike and all of that happens. the economic side of this will be no matter how effective or ineffective the strike is, it will be significant both and the revenue side of the oil

activities but then globally in the instability that will cause in the markets. so that is a piece of it that i'm sure turkey is very concerned about it at a minimum and then they lie on an obvious path to and from israel to iran. and they have a neighbor in iran who is going to be effective and is probably going to want to lash out. there is a lot that is at stake here far beyond just the weaponization issue. >> would the like to add to that? >> no one that i'm aware of thanks there is any real positive out come of a military strike or some kind of conflict. no telling what the iranians think but one has a hard time conjuring up positives out of something like this. so what does that mean for us? it means to me that this is one of these, you never know what

instrument actually gets the job done in these situations and you never know how things stack up the cause you are not in their heads. so as we lurch down the road here, it seems to me that we ought to be doing a couple of things. one, making it very clear that we are trying to come up with some kind of a negotiating and to this weaponization drive if that is what they are about. and frankly it's bigger than that and there needs to be stability. but at the same time we are not going to just stand by and we are certainly not going to stand by if they decide to take a whack at us for some reason or try to close the strait so it's just not going to happen. these are not good outcome so therefore let's not precipitate them. >> it seems to me if you look

down the road and you what is this, so what if iran turns out to come out one day and say hey guess what? whether they do or not, where do we want to be in that situation? so there are other countries that have nuclear weapons right now it seems to me the one thing we might consider here is some kind of a declaratory policy by which we make very clear publicly that the use of a nuclear weapon against ourselves or certain specified allies would not only not be tolerated but would get a response in kind. we have certainly done this before when we have had these kinds of arrangements. they're not done lightly and of course this is a very touchy piece with lots of moving parts but that might be yet another thing we might want to consider in terms of policy options. >> you mentioned the strait of

hormuz. general dempsey told me on face the nation that in fact the iranians could close the strait of hormuz. he added, maybe not for very long but they could do it. how long do you think -- or do you think they have the ability to do that? >> certainly i have looked at this in the past. [laughter] >> i thought maybe you might have. >> i remember something about it. [laughter] what is our posture at the time? what is their posture? where are we? where of the forces? i think general dempsey has got it exactly right. they might, but probably not for long and again this is one of these things where better be careful if we instigate something like this because they may not like what it is sending. >> this is not a threat. that they have pretty limited capabilities when it's all it's all said and done.

>> there things we need to be concerned about. we would be very sensitive to the posture we put our forces in but there is not a whole lot of comparison between what they have there and what we could put there for need to. >> do they have the ability? we talk about iran posing a threat to the united states. do they in fact pose a threat to the united states or do they have the ability to deliver a weapon, a warhead to this country? >> not in a normal sense, a ballistic missile or something like that. they're working that direction are at least working on the technology and the fuel cycle to do that. the more worrisome activity, number one for them to deliver a nuclear weapon anyplace, having one or two isn't going to make a lot of sense. it's more worrisome that a weapon or the technology could the proliferated to somebody who is anonymous and bring something

like that someplace in the world. whether they actually take it there are just say it is sin city x, do the following, the so-called lack mail approach to this, that is more worrisome. the likelihood of iran trying to attack the united states at home is probably pretty low on their calculus. the closing of the straits, people argued that is equally detrimental to iran but you have got to remember what we just put them through with financial sanctions and everything else. the question is when do they come to the point where they say one way or the other here we have got to change the game? that is the worrisome sight of that activity and i think we generally average about 14 ships and about 17 million barrels a day to the strait so if that is the case, that is about 20% of what happens every day in oil so

just a few days is a pretty significant activity to deny us. so these are the things you have to sit down and work your way through and like admiral fallon said, we are not in their head. we don't know how they are looking at these problems. so it is difficult to say this is what i'm going to do in this is what they are going to do. >> this is a different situation where israel and that is why i am sure the thing is superheated or at least getting that way and the best intelligence i have seen, if they have weapons. >> in the past two weeks we have seen to israeli officials, one military official and one the finance ministry yesterday both make the claim that the ratings would have the ability to reach the united states with a missile within five years or so. maybe they are right, maybe they are not and usually these things take longer than one would think. but it was interesting the

israelis felt it necessary to say this publicly because i read that as trying to get iran moved to categories in the obama administration from a general threat to one specific to the united states perhaps in hopes that would change the way the u.s. dealt with the issue. i don't think that will succeed but it is interesting and i think general cartwright said one of the concerns is a weapon that comes here unconventionally. this is why we sought declaratory policy against north korea where president bush after the first nuclear test, admiral fallon said it wasn't the most successful tests we have ever seen come issued a declaratory policy that said we find your material anyplace around the world we are going to, we are going to treated as a direct attack. you have not seen that kind of policy yet with iran.

>> let's take some questions from the audience. right here. right there. the firsthand up. >> wouldn't a change of regime in syria sort of be a better policy because syria, if iran lost syria we would have to secure the wmd. there is wmd in syria. wouldn't that be a loss of face with where i'm i'm at in a job and a loss of conduit in the middle east? >> who would like to take that? >> i will start and let anybody jump in. it would have an effect to say that you can tell now what that effect would be and how quickly it would manifest itself is difficult. it is the stack above activities, how many things going together is the blind man at approaching the cliff. you don't know quite where that

cliff is and where will change. syria is clearly important to iran, clearly important to iran and that regime is clearly important to iran but what the effect would the overtime, how that would manifest itself is pretty hard to forecast. >> there are very few countries that are standing tall or short with syria these days. iran happens to be one of the few. john, did you have a question? >> john alterman. david's notion that maybe iran would use -- and could be very successful for a long time doing that versus the notion that ap there is an israeli attack and there is a whole series thing that could come from that which may involve us.

if those are two possible scenarios, what does the middle east look like in five years time if that is where we are? either the iranians move toward having some sort of ambiguous weapons capability in five years time or there isn't an israeli strike that somehow involves us and whatever secondary things come from that wears where is the middle east then? general cartwright's notion that you can slow down a bomb but you can't stop one forever. >> well, the first scenario which is that if they have an ambiguous capability, i think you already see a number of other states in the region thinking about an ambiguous capability of their own. a few years ago as the iranian capability rose, they announced they were interested in uranium enrichment as well.

of course this was for power production purposes but they wanted to make it clear that they would also get the capability going. it's not clear that they have made very much progress on that. most clearly is saudi arabia which is again from wikileaks, the saudi king who said cut off the head of the snake to the united states and bahrain had similarly subtle advice. presumably they could go out in by capability from some other place. whether or not they would want to risk buying a full capability or just try to assemble all the component parts so the iranians knew that they too were a screwdriver way i think that could be in all likelihood. it's hard to predict what the middle east would look like after an israeli strike six

months after much less five years after. i don't know how much they would readjust to normal if you could call anything normal five year so. but when you talk to israeli officials about this and say you are only delaying big capability is general cartwright said in their answer and maybe it's bravado is well, if we get two or three years, that is two or three years and we just go back and go do it again. a sort of mowing the lawn kind of rocha the issue. i am doubtful that they actually could do this over time. >> front row. >> thank you. if you could elaborate a little bit on something that was briefly touched upon, namely that even the iranian internal

opposition favors a nuclear weapon program or it least a nuclear program. is your sense gentleman that should there be one day a real regime change internally generated and iran and there is a more secular or whatever, anyway opposition force that comes than that we will be dealing exactly with the same situation? in other words still an iranian leadership, mullahs or no mullahs, that wants a weapons program or would they be more inclined to go back within the guidelines of the npt and compliance etc. etc.? >> good question. what you think? >> i'm not sure about some of the data here. what i have seen is some significant support within the population for their ability or of being able to have a domestic nuclear capability, not weapons,

not bombs. i can think again there is a lot of fuzziness here so let's be a little more precise. i haven't seen anything at all that would tell me that the general population thinks it's a great idea to have a nuclear weapon. i think the reality is that time may be running against the regime in tehran. so they can play this game of ambiguity and they drag it out and maybe they are stalling capability but if they get the capability, if they ever try to use this game over pretty quickly. so what did that get them? meanwhile, it plays out and the israelis will continue to be nervous and are going to do what they do but meanwhile what else is going on? there is a lot happening. so as the sanctions began and is the oil thickens and ends up

being closed as people are not buying, the other countries around the region are scrambling to figure out how they can take this park away from the iranians. we have something that is in the wings here in iraq for example, where they are their output is pretty much stagnating for years. there are a lot of oil experts working inside the country now that could change that around and the potential. the other countries, uae is working hard on a pipeline to bypass coming back the other way through the red sea and on and on. there a lot of things going on and meanwhile inside of iran times are getting tougher pretty clearly so it seems to me that in their understanding of kind of where they are, time is not on their side. so they are going to have to start doing something other than just yakking and that doesn't mean they are going to go blow something up.

if you think about the consequences, that's a pretty tough thing to do. >> just row quickly can't i can guess what's going to happen but i think the trend here is that the intellectual capital to create a nuclear weapon is out there, and this problem we are experiencing right now with north korea and with iran is not, even if you take those out of the equation is not going away from the world. with the proliferation of knowledge that is out there and engineering this is not doable. we think of this activity like we thought about it in the 50s in the eisenhower build up on all those things that they are going to make this exclusive weapon. there is no reason to do that. there is no reason to go to the icbm deliberation. there is no reason for that and that kind of knowledge is out there so this is not a problem that we will solve this by having iran change their mind.

it's more of her problem that we are going to have to handle as a global community. >> yes, maam. >> thank you. barbara slavin from the atlantic council. i'm trying to us understand the ramifications of iran. would it effect for affect for example the u.s. ability to keep a straight open to traffic? i mean admiral fallon is it even if they get one or two nukes it's not necessarily going to do anything for them and how do we convince israel that an iran with nuclear weapons is not an ax essential threat to israel and not a threat iran would use against israel? >> we or not, the israelis are going to convince themselves what they want to do and that will be based on their perception of how --

iran again with nuclear weapons, i would expect would make it very clear that if these things were used, that's probably one of the last things that the bidders get to do. so we have a lot of, and lot of national interest and so do other countries. one of these things in my view the tide running against these guys now is that there are a lot of other things going on the world. just stop for a second and roll the clock back nine months or so. it seems to me that there were six or nine months with very little heard about iran. via? of the things were going on. >> the arab spring. just in the region other people's attention when two other things. it must be slow. baseball season has not begun yet or something. >> let me pose this question and

you are both lifetime in the military and know what's going on and you know what military people are thinking. is there any school of thought amongst the military that we ought to take military action that they pose such a danger that if we find out they have a nuclear weapon we have to go in there and attack them and take it down? >> that is a difficult question because if the leadership tells us to go it doesn't matter. and i'm saying that and that is why i'm trying to get at the question. i'm trying to find out what the military thinking is before the political decision. >> is a former military person? [laughter] i don't see a lot of value in going in. >> do you know anybody who does? i guess that is what i'm trying to say. >> possibly come i, i don't know. [laughter] >> there is in inverse an inverse proportion to those who

have that experience and what really happens in wars and what happens to people with those that have an awful lot to say about it. so it's not certainly a preferred option and not anything that somebody would have any real sense of what happens or that we would wish to have happened. sometimes we get forced into situations. >> what about you? >> certainly, i have never interviewed any american current or former military individual that in fact what many of them say is that they believe that other methods whether it is sanctions or covert action or whatever would probably buy as much time and maybe even more time than a military action. that said, the israeli view of this at least from the israeli officials that i have talked to,

is that unless the iranians believe that there really is a significant military option out there than they have got no leverage on diplomacy and they have got no leverage elsewhere. so they are in this dilemma where they have to talk up the military option and have a real credible military option if they hope to gain the leverage. i think the american concern is that while they would happily build that up, this administration is quite clearly concerned there's a good chance the israelis actually would go off and use it if iran enters what defense minister barak calls immunity, point at which the program is spread out so far that they believe there is no way that the military action would happen. >> right there, you are up. go ahead.

>> camera and lucy. i'd like to come back to the rhetoric and the signals. history is full of examples of misreading signals particularly where there are cultural differences are radicalized political discourse. what can we do to ratchet the rhetoric down as admiral fox put it? >> shut up. [laughter] actually i think i read last week that comment was made by that and yahoo! in israel, exactly those words. just turn it off. how do we get people to understand our intention? is often a challenge when you have lots of notions and 34 years of bad history. but being consistent, getting support from friends and allies in the region is helpful.

having a demonstrated capability. i was never one to like to brag on people and what they can do, but we can sure demonstrate and we certainly have demonstrated our ability. we have plenty of capability. it shouldn't even be an issue. >> we have been talking about the capability to do this. do we have the capability? i guess if you use nuclear weapons we would, but to stop them? >> no, no. >> i mean if they had the intent all the weapons in the world are not going to change that. the knowledge is there. over here. >> my name is nathaniel markiewicz and my question is related to what mr. sanger was saying. my conundrum is, given that

force diplomacy requires incredible forces, the problem is on the one hand there is debate about policies but on the other hand it's a global opposition to an iranian strike may be passes a certain threshold that their winnings feel that threat is no longer credible and as a possible in even having this discussion publicly is actually limiting the option that might increase the likelihood of -- >> my 2 cents would be certainly it's possible that is the case but probably unlikely. they don't know exactly what is in our head anymore than we know what is in their head and that ambiguity tends to work in our favor. uis build your adversary up and they tend to be tall because you have to. you don't want to take the risk of underestimating an adversary so it's not likely that it's going to diminish the threat of

a strike. but i think following on the same thread is that while you want to tone down the rhetoric, you want to try to make sure and work hard and have an official channel that is really open for dialogue so that the ambiguity at least can be addressed whether you believe the guy on the other side of the table or not is another issue but at least there is a dialogue and official channel that is always available so when something goes awry, whether it's in the gulf between shipping or some other way, that is clearly a way to use it as quickly as possible. the iranians have apple -- actually demonstrated good ability to manage escalation. >> they really have stayed below a threshold that would precipitate a counterattack. >> just to add to what general cartwright said, think it's

really important that at the end of the day, these are people, 70 million of them, they have aspirations and desires and there needs to be, for demonstrated cooperation and a willingness to walk away from the things that are detrimental to the region, that there is something in this for them. so having some light at the end of the tunnel, not closing off all options. we are willing to play a role in the region. you have a lot of capability and a lot of smart people and a lot of things that could be really helpful if you decide to be cooperative with your neighbors. >> when you think about how the iranians think about this, their view is they have indicated in many moments over the last decade the capability to talk with united