i'm hoping some of the election law issues will be dealt with with the commission the president has set up. but we have a problem in this country and the country i triumph problem is the law by the supreme court is pretty sad and that means it is even more important right now for us to expand this network.

we look at the small dollar donors that come through emily's list at 2 million women and men who have joined together and thousands of dollars in giving their tips as a waitress and donating just a little bit of making this all possible. that is exactly how we have to counter the situation we are mad. this is not just for women. candidates in general are up against huge amounts of money. we had elections flashier are the candidates by name was the smallest piece of the election and the super pac spending was the bigger piece. so the conversation i have now with women taking about running is how much control do they have over my election? it's a tough question. we've got to figure out an ultimate way to engage the american people for that change. i have not seen it many times

to, which means it's more important to keep this network spending. sorry about the bad news on that. but we're getting there and president obama has led the way on that, which is the intent has it. it's about the power of individuals coming together and giving up $5, $50. i was the finance director for howard dean's presidential campaign and that was really the first major explosion of online fundraising and i made his presidential campaign viable. nobody knew who this guy was until folks around the country said wait a second, i believe in this. this governor from this tiny state of vermont and that was the beginning of it all. the american people can come

together. [inaudible] thank you so much. i feel uplifted. i was curious, you mentioned the role of women in this struggle. but i think you can tell from the audience as well there are man as well. i was wondering if you could speak to the role manhunt on the traditional influence. >> i would love to. one of the things i mentioned, at least last, all you guys, there's been supporting. in fact, we had a very big increase of men joining emily's list because there is such a clear recognition that when we have an equal number of women in an sitting at decision-making

tables, we're actually going to get the policy is best for and families. there is a growing understanding from everybody in the country that that is a big piece. another piece as other challenge the women to think about who is the best for that job, who's the person whose name i can put in their? i will ask the men to do the same. who are the women you work with that she went to law school with, that you were an associate with the should be thought of in that mix. part of it is getting those names in the mix of those jobs. i mean in everything across the board. it's really important for as to think about how we make our business, law firms and government more representative of our nation. and it is women and people of

color and we are very very far from having anything that looks like our communities. i think it's important for all of us to think about, who can i put in their? you're also going to have to ask because there's a lot of research. you should read sheryl sandberg both. it's a great part of this dialogue. but what you see is some of the research that she highlighted his women think i've got 60% of qualifications on the job description, therefore i'm not qualified. if i know how 100%, i'm not going to do it. the research shows that men look at that. i'll learn and get on-the-job training. we do need to think about it a little bit like that. we hire great, wonderful young

staff to learn on the job. how many of us have learned on the job quite that's how the world works, so we have to talk to her sisters about saying you can do this and give them encouragement. i think it's important. thank you. >> i have a question about my increased leadership conference. i know they're very focused on the democrats, but i was curious about the women from both parties. >> the question if he didn't hear it this lab will never put democrat and what's the strategy to change that? i'm going to answer two different directions.

the first is the reason emily's list is clear in its mission to elect democratic women to office as we believe the democratic party has and continues to support the policy that provide opportunities for women and families across the board and said that is our commitment to ensuring women advance across all sectors in my field of democrats have a better set of policies, particularly economic issues, but also important health care issues. but you're right. we are never going to get to 50% of congress with just the democrats. emily's list might be good, but that's not going to happen. the truth is we need the republican party to do more about this lack of women's leadership. there's a handful of women coming up with this proof is in the numbers in congress right

now. we are continuing to see the lack of discussion by the republicans on this issue, just like we are continuing to see the lack of discussion about policies that affect women's lives in the republican party. we cannot and they gave this big report about what happened in the election, an election by the way that had a gigantic gender gap in the democrats favor and they still haven't changed any of their policies related to women and families and what women care about. they're not moving that direction and i am concerned and i hope those republican women, particularly the pro-choice republican women who were involved in fighting for the era in seven days come back, find

their voice and start putting pressure on the republican party. it's really important. go push the party. >> hi, i was wondering what you saw -- you mention a lot of areas where women are typically represented. like in congress. and i are specialty is more of politics, but i was wondering what you think is the biggest challenge on whether it is politics are like how you overcome that? >> the challenges are equal everywhere. so when i talked about would have to grab each other's arms

and pushed, there's got to do it across the board. they are policies that need to be changed across the country that allows women and families. it's not just women. there have been desperately looking for better family-friendly policies in this country to be more involved in their children. we need to change some policies, definitely. but we also need to do is encourage our workplace is to look for opportunities to advance women's leadership and that is in corporations. that is their law firms, politics, across the board. i made the point we had to women ceos 40 years ago and now we have 21 of the fortune 500 companies. we are further behind on that from the mayor said that 20

women in the united states senate. we've got a long, long ways to go. as you look at the upcoming leaders and a lot of the states and corporations, there are good women and fairly senior roles that we need to encourage and put pressure on wherever we are, to give those women a chance to take the top job. it really does matter. we were looking at this on emily's list in the next few years and has one top job but a woman has never had in this country, the one of president of the united states in case you didn't get that. at least, how do we start talking about how important it is to have women's executive leadership in the united states? that's when throw these conversations in the corporate world have you got to talk about law firms and partnerships, but

also mayor ships across the country. we have great women running in new york city and chris quinn and allied and to women about to break ceilings because those cities have never elected women mayors. we've got to explain why this matters. and it does matter. they've got a whole bunch of governorships in the next two years. 38 that will be up for election in the next two years. we need to we are recruiting women to run because we need to make the case that women in executive spot, it's not unusual. we've never had a woman mayor of new york city. i don't want it to be unusual. just normal. we've got to break through barriers so when they get to

201516 and into the next presidential campaign, we can be prepared nationwide to say it is our time to see a woman executive in the white house. i will tell you, there will be a woman running in 2016. i will also tell you i don't know who that woman is. but they're also be women in 2020 and 2024 and 2028 because this is going to happen. we are going to elect a woman to the president of the united states. the other piece of that is when that happens for the first time in our history, what that will do to inspire women and girls across the united states and maybe even more so, the women and girls across the world, to see a woman president of the

united states. to me, that could change the dialogue on everything. it's really important we think about doing this ever going to have great women in line to do it. i will say we need your help on this because it's going to be a big feeling to crash through. so thank you. and it's time. it's time. >> hi, kerry stanger, executive editor -- [inaudible] >> nice to meet you. >> my question is if talks on today about socializing women to be more willing to put themselves out there, but it seems like there's this underlying problem that american culture really vilifies women. each i.t. initiatives as politicians with hillary clinton

and nancy pelosi. that's especially true for women of color. i was just wondering, how do we change that dialogue and be able to get past that? >> that is a huge question and i'm not going to suggest i have the answer. i've got little bits of suggestions that we can do. i think part of it is truly continuing to make and roads. but tell them that she's loud -- is too aggressive. they use other words, but i am going to use that word. now the third 20 women in the united states senate, i think there is a change about that.

first off, not all women are the same. we are 51% of the population. to think we are a special interest group is a little absurd. the kind of are the majority of the united states and other world. so part of it is getting more women in there because then it becomes more normal, like of course there's lots of women and act a little differently because they come from different places and represent different people. that is not not the answer. we do have a culture that keeps pushing out the same sort of thing. and we've got newspapers and tv journalists an entire new structure that likes the controversy story. the controversy story right away is that by so-and-so says she's too aggressive. let's put that out there.

we've got a 24 hour news system that we cannot change at the moment. again, we just have to keep doing what we're doing. what a taller candidates all the time whose you with this, you've got to ignore it because the truth is more and more voters in this country to see it like that. they just don't see it like that. the more women they see in leadership positions, the less likely they will see it the way is pushed out. i think were on the right path. this got to keep going on the road. not going to happen. >> ibm lack my question is there's been a lot of criticism in my generation -- ibm lack

[inaudible] >> now. first off, the premise is even wrong because i hear that all the time, too. i'm in the middle. in fact, i also grew up completely under roe v. wade. i remind kind of the mothers and grandmothers at the movement that he didn't want us to have to go through that. that's why you fought so hard to make sure we didn't have to go through it. we are under attack right now i'm particularly we project to write this i'm sure you've

talked about and read about in north dakota and arkansas and alabama and texas and virginia and this is very disconcerting, particularly for two generations who probably, i know i speak for you, but i always had hopes this is a fight we had wine and moving onto other site. we've got to figure out how we don't lose ground here. we actually have to open up some questions, we have. but as i look forward in getting women to run for office, the pure mission is to elect pro-choice democratic women. the platform is pro-choice, so we don't have too many issues if very many women who come to s. who are not. i think we've got so much energy, particularly amongst glendale's that i think were going to see a growth and it

won't be just based as previous generations on the issue of choice, but on the issue of women's leadership, that i am counting on a partnership with the millennial generation to really push a lot of his old thinking out the door, just as we are pushing out the door the question on whether or not marriage equality should exist. i really believe we can do that but the next phase and say let's move on. let's start talking about moving forward and not sending us women back to the 1950s. please do not put me in the kitchen. you do not want me in the kitchen. it not going to be a good thing. i think there's a huge opportunity to work together to get us through -- there's many

ways that the women's movement. whatever wave is coming next, let's make it about all of us moving forward and taking charge of our communities, of our state and country and together that the policies we want to move forward and not backward. i think were going to see a good time actually. i really do. >> hi, my name is peter -- [inaudible] i wanted to get sure that's -- i recently read an article you might have seen. his public views and the question i felt is where our the women and the legislature that

aren't hearing the voices because it must be women that don't feel the same way. i suppose just addressing these entities and whether these thoughts are as purpurea for the wrong reason. and how do you and silence those voices? [inaudible] >> that's a really good question. that may start with the fact that we're up against -- and going to go go to political answer because that's the politics of it. the republican party for the last couple of decades have anchored themselves within

anti-choice agenda driven much by the very conservative christian coalition. the elected republicans is the core of small dollar donors. so it's money and the cornerback to this, which you need. the problem right now of one of the site backwards movement in the last three years this is taking over the republican party of the far right, particularly on this issue. there are some others, but particularly this issue that are holding everybody to a place they cannot move. they can even talk about it. they seem to not be a lot of talk about it. if they could come in the republican national committee would address it right now because they lost the largest gender gap ever. they can even have a

conversation and i believe it's about grassroots donors and grassroots that do this. how we start changing that conversation is the many organizations have been one of those coming together and trying to energize all of those independent women and moderate republican women who aren't with us. the olympia snowe of the world who are with us to say enough already. we have to start voting on this issue. as part of the conversation. planned parenthood, center for reproductive rights is the cannot because it is really, really scary. we have to as political entities talk to women voters around the country and we did this with great success last year about what is at stake and what really

does have bid when the wrong people are making the laws. in north dakota right now, the wrong people are making the laws. anarchic, texas, virginia. those serving on legislative agency are incredibly important for women and families in those countries that we need to mobilize our membership and women across the country to get involved and support candidates who are going to support them. we are in a strange place. i started at emily's list three years ago. i had no idea the store and i was going come shortly after 2010. it has gotten so bad, without question the republican party, talk about reproductive rights and say there can be no exceptions coming.

i was understood as an exception and now it's the wine. the republican party has moved right on that and for democrats is an opportunity to talk to women across the country. then get back. this is their sisters, their girlfriend, their wives. this is something we are just not going to roll back. we've got to push forward. there's going to be more of our conversations about this. it will also be interesting to see what happens when one of these laws that went into effect becomes a case, which often is happening and will be slowly but surely making its way to the united states supreme court. i mean, they want to seat they can make a challenge here, but roe v. wade has been tested and

has stood the test many times over. they are in their last gap to figure out how to stop this movement. come on down. let's make one more in here. >> by name is bad and i'm a professor at the university of nebraska. [inaudible] >> just to talk about what happened not your last center raised. this is what we look at. it's all about resources and how

many resources do we have as an entity, emily's list or a party to focus and you start playing on the margins and you go after districts you can get any leave those districts behind that you have no chance of getting. the problem into a knot is there's no conversation about the issues, so it's really trying. we don't have the resources, we been either party to play and really safe state for districts. it's a little more complicated because if we did have a strong democratic party to run for the united states senate in nebraska or not we would take a look at look at the viability of the candidate and the campaign and what the numbers are and is

there an issue between independents and republicans? we had a race dominated 86% to vote for jon tester. so you've got to look at that map. the state races are more involved, although the big problem is here is a redistricting of congressional speech of legislators is a huge, huge problem because there have been seats that are so ms is gerrymandered that it would take a chicken takes scandal for whoever is in that district to lose their seat. so much so you can and when it.

and the problem is someone will run against you in the next election and users to see because we're talking about democratic performance index and we're talking about 30% democratic performance. those are almost impossible to win unless something does happen. we now have a lot of house seats in this country than on the democratic column that would have allowed in the republican column and that middle group, there's fewer and fewer. so you're not going to see a huge swings in the house of representatives in the next eight years. what an ipo to pick up 1718 and get the majority back. or in a tight situation.

the other problems at the same seats as no one has the resources to bend them. the voters in their are all republicans are all democrats. on top of it is a great way to protect incumbents. well, who are the comments? in most places they happen to be, some of them really good people, i will say that, but typically white man. and so how do you as an outsider, a woman or person of color get into those come even when they are safe republican seats? we are better off in this country and i'm a firm believer of this he was more competitive house seats. if we have more competitive house seats in mississippi and

alabama, where we talked about the issues every two years and i'm going to tell you we have a shot at a statewide race down the road after a couple campaigns because we've been talking about what the party stand for. we are not close to that now. as we tucked about the question on elections and campaign finance reform, one of the things we need to think about for the future of diversifying congress of legislators is this issue. how do we handle redistricting this country? to do something all of you should be involved in. it's getting worse and worse and it's not good for the country. with that, more questions?

ball that's great. thank you also match. i look forward to reading the journal of all of this because you have a fantastic set of panelists and speakers. stay involved and run for office, all of you. thank you.

>> the commission areas that i veterans who come home, work the system to try to get them to disability compensation and care that they need and somebody has come along and told them all they have to do is find this paper, stop your va benefit and you can get another tour to iraq and afghanistan. so the idea that the troops are not keeping up the needs of the troops that they're recycling because they don't meet their recruiting quotas, this is

something that will be coming home to roost and we have no idea what the far-reaching effects of these multiple deployment, not just on the military themselves, but the family. 1 million children in america have had one or both of their parents deployed since 9/11, 1 million. the air in your school system and teachers have to become aware also of some of the important parts of what a deployment and on the family. let me just say that america is in a good position right now. everybody is thinking about this than concerned about it and that's wonderful.

but the important thing is this is a game changing moment for health care, for veterans of america because the u.s. the private practitioners use the community people. you are going to be the first thing in identifying who folks are. unfortunately, the va does not take care of families when i say this, yet. but because when you have a health care system designed by congress for veterans, bringing in a family doesn't seem to be politically prudent at this time.

>> it is important to remember, a central banker, his tools have limited. they can't control everything in the economy. and so, riders like us it's very important what we do and they do shape the course of economies and of the world. that said, at the end of the day they have finite powers they can use. they have a dialogue they will put more money into the economy or less. it's a lot more complicated than that. as you and i know, they regulate banks, influenced things in other ways. but to think everything that's gone wrong is their fault is wrong, to think everything that's gone right -- alan greenspan probably got too much

credit for the great moderation, to many years of strong growth we had in mid-2000. it is easy to bring alan greenspan as federal reserve reserve referred to christ as. >> stuart eisenstadt come a government official who served under three administration warned of consequences for the u.s. if there ran as a nuclear weapon. he's chairman of the arent task force that released a report today. this is 90 minute. >> good morning. i'm fred tapp, president and ceo of the atlantic council. welcome to this important event. north korea notwithstanding

preventing iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state remains most significant immediate foreign-policy challenge of president barack obama second term. knowing the stakes and the perils of this sometime ago, more than two years ago the atlantic council launched an arent task force and we recently asked candidate in an effort to move america and its allies from a stand for something that's been overwhelmingly tacked six to something a little more strategic, taking a look of the broader context of the region, taken a look at iran's domestic politics, taking a look of abstract perspective lost in the heat of the arguments over iran would been trying to provide more light.

i want to thank at the outset of the atlantic council board member, stuart eisenstadt, who has served as cochair of the task force throughout and initially as cochair of senator chuck hagel, our chairman who has left to become secretary of defense as you know was not involved in the vetting or approval of this final report, but the report does apply what we've learned through two years of examination at the atlantic council p6 issue brief, 25 event. i want to thank plowshares for supporting this important project and joe piercy on each who's been part of the task force and has been a great believer in this effort from the beginning. i also want to tip my hat to her senior fellow, barbara slaven,

have been instrumental in pulling this report together another previous work together. in a short time, the south asia center has become a focal point for policymakers, legislators, experts on the issue of south asia and broader substation in the united states and europe and the world. i am very proud of the work we've done on india and pakistan. recall that we gps in the work we've done trying to improve relations between u.s. and pakistan, the work we've done in trying to create a next generation of south asian civil society leaders and making them think seriously about the future and how they work together to bring a better future for south asia with the u.s. and with others. these are three important projects at the south asia center.

without these projects have in common is we try to see things in a larger regional or global contacts understanding the global setting in order to reach solutions in a bipartisan way and the multilateral, multinational way. and that's what we've done with this project all along. i'll leave it to barbara slaven later on to line up the speakers in the front part of this report from strategy sonogram. i'd like to thank the board members who served on the task force, general james cartwright, general medical hidden and tom pickering, ambassador tom

pickering. the rest of the list is also incredibly progressive paper grateful to have task force members come associate diverse group whenever you have a former director of the cia and vice chair and former ambassador thomas pickering but saw his credentials as a powerful task force. let me turn over to stew eisenstadt to make some comments. the sites are being are being bought up the most important board members, he was president jimmy carter's chief domestic policy adviser and executive director of the policy staff. he was the deputy secretary of treasury and served as secretary of commerce for trade and international trade. we got to know each other better

when he served as ambassador to the european union grenade to 93 to 1996. return the board the board to you. >> thank you very much, fred and thank you for initiating this task force. i want to add my thanks to barbara slaven, chuck hagel for the work is done, members of the task force and plowshares fund to provide central support. for more than two years, the arent task force has been delving into iran in all its dimensions. we looked at the iranian nuclear program, quality of intelligence, the impact of sanctions, iran's regional role and their internal politics. it's taken the most comprehensive assessment of 21st century iran ever

undertaken. outside of government mwave posted 25 suffered a bad. it had experts extensively brief us on a whole range ever ran in policy and on the people ever ran. we've had six significant issue briefs as well and the report today summarizes many findings and recommend haitian and pulls them together and recommends a course of action to curb the program, to bolster our relationship in a strategic way with the radiant people. on the nuclear issue, restart for the proposition that it found a nuclear armed iran would have extraordinarily negative impacts on the united states, european allies, israel and the system and the market defeat for the west. our task force recommends the obama administration layout a step-by-step reciprocal and

proportional plan trading graduated sanctions for verifiable curbs on iran's nuclear program and verifiable assurances that iran does not have undeclared nuclear materials and facilities. iran should also explain past and possibly ongoing work on weaponization. our proposal would allow iran to continue to enrich uranium at a level provider confidence can be established that it's their nuclear program is exclusively peaceful. in a city or two u.n. security council resolutions, fully cooperate with iaea inspect various and nuclear site. if a deal cannot be reached or arranged expect more sanctions and covert action. it remains an option to deter iran from building nuclear weapons. indeed, the task force concluded, and i quote, the

obama had in frustration must assure the threat remains credible as it may be the only course that deters a rant from to build nuclear weapons. even as we try to solve the nuclear question, we must do what they can to alleviate the impact on iranians. we remain opec and treasury designate one third country iranian banks that could combat transactions solely on trade and food medicine and facilitate other humanitarian goals. in october last year, treasury to permit such a trade, but there's no financing mechanism to occur. this would not only build in the long-term goodwill of the ukrainian people, but make it hard for the reigning government to blame the united states for the pain of their own inability along with sanctions for cosby

such steps would make it easier for allies to continue to implement tough sanctions if they're needed over the long-term. we also recommend the obama administration remain deeply engaged in the middle east as there is a pity to asia, working to revive israeli palestinian negotiations with a coherent and responsible alternative and to shore up ties with turkey and cooperation states. president obama stripped of israel, west bank and jordan are good first steps in mediation of the turkish dispute is also important and welcome. while we do not advocate engaging over syria, indeed involved in negative ways, and may be possible to stabilize afghanistan as the u.s. and nato withdraw their forces. to support engagement with iranians, the u.s. needs some

bureaucratic retooling. our task force would like to see the state department restore the position of deputy assistant secretary and create a virtual public affairs section to augment a virtual embassy that's been in operation for about a year. we should also ask your ran to permit the stationing of american diplomat said a u.s. intersection in tehran as they do here, to process these as and to facilitate exchanges. iran may well reject this request, but if they do, it will be on them, not us. while the goal is eventual normalization, this will require the reigning government to accept limits on its nuclear program and fully cooperate with iaea inspect various to answer fully ieee eight questions about his past, present and continuing relations. it began some 50 years ago but

is now a genuine urgency. 2013 is a critical year because of the progress made. as the task force said, were now approaching the point where iran could break out in enrich weapons grade materials to build a nuclear weapon. this could be reached for this either, task force included. we hope recommendations provide a coherent structure to the ad hoc policies that have characterized it ministrations. the decision, will live up to its international obligations, move away from the international community of public dissent further into a pariah status? as the same conclusion, real progress can only be achieved if the government is generally going to live up to its

obligations and nuclear weapons ambition. i would now like to call barbara slaven who will be the moderator, but more broadly, barber has been the coup glue that held the task force together. she's been a principal of almost all the reporters in the production of this family. thank you for all your work. >> thank you very much. i'm so pleased to see her today. the report had a long gestation. and i feel like it's a second child in some ways. i want to thank the south asia center and all its members. i want to thank all the members of the task force here and also some who are not here come the others who helped contribute and give a lot of good suggestion to bring it to the shape it's in

today. i want to say not every member of the task force agrees with every single word in this document and there is plenty and it appears some people will focus on some issues, some on others. while they tried to do was create a pragmatic document that had a commonsense approach to iran and sees it not as a nuclear program, but as a country. i wanted to point out we started working on this right after coming back from a trip to iran in august of last year and it was a very important trip for me. very worrisome because the rain and have been pro-american. my kitten has told me the ukrainians for the pro-americanism population from marrakesh to bangladesh. that may not be the case

anymore. when i was iran, many people expressed a great deal of anger, not just their own government over sanctions and they do blame the government, but they played the united states is a and i worry very much be released in the goodwill of the iranian people. one of the purposes is to designate one or two iranian banks and u.s. financial institution that can be channeled for vetted authorize transactions between the two countries. we want to encourage academic changes, students coming here. their suggestions for perhaps a modified fulbright program between the u.s. and iran for 10 iranian universities and 10 american universities on mutual issues of mutual benefit, things like earthquake protection, water quality and we also

recommend bureaucratic changes. but they just see the deputy of state for ran restored. it has not been filled since the veteran diplomat passed away in the fall of 2011 and would like to see that bureaucratic heft restored. as ambassador eizenstat pointed out, one americans in tehran. it's been too long but american officials have been deprived of the experience of seeing iran for what it is. we don't know if government will agree, but we hope they will consider it. there have been some positive remarks about direct contacts made by the supreme leader. we don't know when or if the nuclear issue is resolved. i have my doubts that the

meetings that start tomorrow will bring some dramatic breakthrough. but we've done here is create a sense that if we solve the nuclear issue, but we will still not have resolved the issue. iran is too important a country and impacts of goes on in the area, lebanon, israel, across the persian gulf and afghanistan and central asia and we simply have to understand that we have to keep working this issue. it's not something that goes away and not something we can resolve simply through the auspices of the atomic energy agency. with that, then they turned her excellent panel. i want to thank him personally for his incredible dedication to the effort over the last couple of years and in recent months despite some personal tragedy. i'm very grateful for his

dedication. he's giving generously of his time. we have two other panelists who are going to speak. greg is a senior fellow at the arms control association before joining the association county spent more than three decades in the legislative branches of government. he specializes in military and intelligence issues. as a senior professional staff are in the committee on intelligence. he was also the u.s. foreign service officer who served as direct your a strategic proliferation and military affairs office and the department of state's bureau of intelligence and research and many of you may remember craig paid an important role in the run-up to the iraq war when that particular part of the state department is the only part of the u.s. government they challenged the conventional wisdom that iraq was toting weapons of mass destruction. we also have only raised the

matter from iran, a senior international policy analyst there focused on iran's political dynamics of the decision-making and iranian foreign policy. he has numerous publications including israel and iran, a dangerous rivalry. he's worked on a ran in israel. i believe you have a new publication coming out also. can we say with the name is? [inaudible] >> or ran after the bomb. very provocative. he is a pinch-hitter. i'm really pleased he's calm. i'm going to ask her to come say a few words and then we will take your questions. thank you. >> thank you, barbara. i'm very happy to help launch the latest publication of the

iran task force. i want to thank the council for this report as well as the issue presentational discussions, which preceded it. today's releases the latest in a number of reports on the nuclear issue published in the first quarter of 2013. the arms control association did a report in the year-end briefing book. i would also mention the prices groups spiderweb report on the iran sanctions, national council's report on how iranian stakeholders view and the cost and risk of the un's nuclear program. building on its own previous findings come in the iran task force recommends a long-term strategy to guide policies on iran. ..

with iran both sides have missed multiple opportunities over the years, some of iran's grievances toward the united predate any arguements over the nuclear program. they are still obstacles to a nuclear solution. if the historical baggage is heavy, contemporary concerns don't seem light either. we are constantly reminded by

the press of comment tasters they failed to change the policy and time is running out. every quarterly really on the international energy agency informs us how many more iran has installed, how much more uranium they have gotten and how uncooperative they have been about suspicious past activity. the political consensus around the notion that an iranian nuclear weapon would be quote, unacceptable, unquote. even as debate rages as how close they should be allowed to get. netanyahu seems to have extended the red line to next year, the wall street coauthored by david al bright to assemble sufficient

terrible for a -- material for one to two weeks. some of you may have heard of the brookings the low expectations the former white house official has for the next round of negotiations. he predicted there would be no agreement before iranian elections in june. commenting we have a long way to go before even a confidence building measure is possible. former e.u. foreign policy chief applying at the same event it would be difficult to resolve a nuclear issue at all with the syrian political crisis rages open. he did not rule out a narrowing of difference when the parties meet tomorrow. this is exactly what i would like to discuss next. where are we in negotiating necessary constraints on iran? by all accounts february 6

between the party technical ebbing perts were constructive. in a real sense these talks are beginning to resemble real negotiations. initial focus of the six powers is on halting the growth in iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium providing the fastest route to build nuclear weapon. iran's principle objective to establish the legitimate sei of -- and gain enough sanction as possible while keeping the future option open. with the presidential elections less than three months away it doesn't seem likely they'll be inclined to cut a deal even on the small step. nonetheless, it's reasonable to hope for a further narrowing of differencing that would bring the sides closer to taking that first step. and agreement that would build confidence and buy time for more comprehensive settlement. agreement on dates and venue for

continued talk, would be, i think a minimal acceptable outcome. i expect it to happen neither side has an interest in the giving the impression of the negotiating process has stalled. this brings us to the task identified with substance and procedural requirement for an interim agreement. i would suggest that conceding iran's conditional right to enrichment should happen. anyone interested in negotiating settlement of the iran nuclear issue knows we cannot successful lay chief exceptional transparent sei measures and exceptional limitations on iran's nuclear program without accepting the ability to enrich uranium for civilian power reactor fuel. it would be helpful to more clearlyily telegraph this willingness to accept the obvious. demanding a halt to all enrichment does not give the united states leverage when the iranians know it will be

withdrawn. it gives tehran an excuse for diverting attention from the real issue which is iran's noncompliance with the obligations to the iaea. we must continue to stress the conditionality of uranium enrichment rights. though inailble as the iranians frequently repeat the article iv rights u must be in conformity with article i and ii of the treaty. and whether or not iran has in conformance with article ii in particular is the question. i would cut trying to hard to separate the perfect from good. as an interim measure it's more important to quickly achieve a modest agreement than seeking a more extensive and permanent limitation. for example, there appears to be agreement and principle to stopping expansion. i would argue that this

immediate goal is more important than tehran agreeing to move the stockpile to another country. while imperfect convention of the existing stockpile of uranium gas to the solid form used for fuel in the tehran research reactor would be a step forward. similarly, it seems to me that ending the production of medium range e rain yum anywhere in iron is more important than an agreement to shut the deep underground facility. the key question is frequency and easy of iaea access to uranium enrichment facility not the location. we should draw the demand to shut down. it's not persuasive to argue for closure to negotiate table because israel would have a trouble destroying the facility. details are sketchy, the six powers are offering some relief to the ever expanding web of

sanctions, for example, relaxing restriction on gold trading and the self chemical products. perhaps implementation of e.u. sanctions could be suspended but core sanctions must be maintained until iran is ready to seal the deal. the key for an interim agreement will be to find a package of sanctions relief proportionate to the concession offered by tehran both in scale and in reversible. when an interim agreement has been achieved, negotiations can begin in earnest on issues to ensure transparency, resolve questions about past military activity, and unwinding the sanctions. we need to dwell not on what we most want, but on what we must have. maintaining six power cohesion remains a priority, and we need to spend at least a little time

worrying about how iran's negotiators will sell the negotiated agreement in tehran not just how it will go over in u.s. congress. and now for what i promised. the military options section include the thorough list of unhand grave implications for a nuclear iran and on the other hand the dire consequences for a premature military strike on the other. i'm sure i join everyone in our audience today in fervently wishing for neither rather than either. i personally think the consequences of a nuke are iron are somewhat overdrawn and the description of consequences a little too torrid. iranian success in violating u.n. security counsel resolution sled the when the north korean violations have not? why should we believe that iranian bomb would threaten the existence of israel when -- i'm

not sure what it means to quote ensure that the option of military strikes are made incredible, unquote given the ramifications of an attack that would delay not prevent iranian bomb. i doubt the u.s. hitting first with a unilateral attack can be critical. constantly repeating the military option on the table won't make it so. thank you. >> thank you, greg. as i said, everyone takes away from the report what they will, search contributed various things. i thank you for these candid comments. >> good morning, thank you for the for inviting me to speak. i also like to talk about the consequence the possible consequences of a iran armed with nuclear weapons. let's assume that iran manages

to go on nuclear weapons and assembles nuclear weapons. there's several reasons as to why we should prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. and that should be the primary u.s. goal. one of the reasons is that it would inflict a blow to the nonproliferation regime. i think to certain extent that's credible. as greg said, i think it's a question to some extent. another reason is preventing iran from a weaponizing the nuclear program is that it would create a very unstable situation in the middle east. we have israel with nuclear weapons and wiern nuclear weapons and there's no communication between the two countries they don't have formal relations. and so this creates a dangerous scenario especially in the case of any sort of conflict between israel and ion. i think that's -- iran. i think that's a credible scenario.

another reason is proliferation risk in the middle east. we can discuss that at length. i think that's also in to question. there are some reports questioning the whole notion of a cascade effect. i want to address in depth the question of whether iran would be em bolden by a nuclear weapons capability. this is -- if iran developed nuclear weapons it would lead to an expansion of iranian power not just in the middle east but globally. that nuclear weapons would em bolden iran to take a risk or action to behavior in a more aggressive manner in the persian gulf and toward israel. i don't anyless necessarily think that the evidence and the reasoning for this theory are very sound. fist of all, we have to ask why iran is possibly trying to build nuclear weapons. i think number one purpose

deterrence for iran to defend itself. you don't have to like the islamic republican to admit it has national security interests. the iran -- iraq war in particular shaped iran's view of the position in the middle east. it was a devastating war not just for the islamic republican but for the iranian people. and subsequent conflict in the region, the u.s. innovation of afghanistan, u.s. innovation of iraq proved it had to develop the means to defend itself. can do so through conventional means alone. i think deterrence is the primary reason as to why iran may be developing nuclear weapons capability. of course, iran would like to also project power and influence in the middle east, and nuclear weapons can be used to that

affect. second question we have to ask what kind of a state is the islam republican. i would argue it's a revisionist state meaning they seek to overturn the american order in the region. they want u.s. forces out of the persian gulf, the islammic republican is -- in ideological terms. it's not agree owe political competition. twn tehran and the ruling elite, ease spermly the top layer of conservative there's a hatred for israel. i think that's apparent. the islamic republican is opposed to the gulf operation counsel. especially saudi arabia to be the foundation for u.s. power in the region and so iran has had tense relations with the gcc countries. they afraid of iran with nuclear weapons. but iran also had no territorial

ambition. they have not invaded a lot country since 1789. it does not seek to conquer territory to hold territory, it has some dispute with surrounding countries, but again, it's intention is not occupy bahrain or the uae or saudi arabia. rather the islamic republican goals revisionist in nature. you can make the argument that nuclear weapons would -- they have to say these are visionist goals have been for a certain extent since the revolution. we can discuss that at length. there's a, you know, variety of what foreign policy should be in tehran. but my argument is that u.s. policy is effectively containing iran's ambitions even if it develops nuclear weapons. the policy of sanctions has undoubtly lead to a declining economy as barbara said.

it is in danger -- effecting iranian's good will toward the united states. but it's also having some practical effect in term of u.s. objective. as iran's economy gets weaker, it impacts tehran's ability to project power in the region. tehran will have less money to fund terrorist groups like hezbollah and ha mas and maintain the influence in the wake of the arab spring. it's really the arab spring the region nam dynamic within the middle east that are containing iran's ambition along with u.s. policy. let's look at what is going on primarily in syria. it's the gate way of influence to the arab world. iran is a persian majority country. that's faced difficulties in expanding and enforcing the influence of the region. if bashar al-assad falls it will

severely iran's impact to project power. and the iranian government knows this. they are trying as hard as possible to keep assad in power or keep some sort of proiranian force in power when assad falls. if the syrian regime falls and iran has no influence in syria, it would dramatic affect iran's key ally in the region and that's hezbollah. iran would not be able to militarily physically supply hezbollah in the event of a conflict with israel. it would be difficult for iran to maintain the relationship with he hezbollah. the route to hezbollah could be cut off. the air routes could be potentially cut off. it would present a severe crisis for the islamic republicans foreign policy. and hezbollah right now is feeling a lot of pressure because of a support of the

syrian regime. it's losing a lot of credibility on the arab street, if you will. the arab spring has also fundamentally shake the islamic republican foreign policy narrative. for years they are saying they support the average man and woman on the street in terms of what is -- support for autocratic arab regime. the regimes are falling apart. so what is the islamic republican resisting exactly in the region? mubarak has gone a sheem in yemen is gone. so broadly the arab spring is weakening iran's position toward -- in general. and also, iran 'own behavior

that has lead to a decline in the reputation in the middle east. in 2009, the iranian regime reacted very violently toward demonstration that the occurred after the presidential election, and this damage iran's credibility. it had a lot of people in the region tell me that they viewed the iranian regime a very different manner after 2009. so i think that could be actually fundamentally one of the reasons islamic republican is in decline. lastly, internal division within the islamic republican should not be underestimated. it's a regime facing a severe internal crisis. the notion of the rule of the supreme injuries prudence, the role of the supreme leader is being questioned like ahmadinejad who challenged the position in the system.

and there are a lot of elite in iran that are unhappy with the rule. it's not always public. we see indications that the regime's position within iran is very shaky. as we face a coming elections, in mid june, we have to keep in mind that this is a system that if it's not crumbbling -- crumbling could be on the verge of major changes. i argue that all autocratic regimes eventually crack. and we could be witnessing the crack in the islamic republican today. what does it mean in terms of u.s. public policy. barbara said it well, i think, we shouldn't look at iran as being a nuclear problem. rather a country facing critical vulnerability in the region, critical vulnerability at all. the atlanta counsel stated before strategic impatience is

important in the position toward iran. i think there's a tendency to focus on how many -- iran is installing. what is status -- what we look at the bigger pinture when we look at the rivalry between the united states and the islamic republican. when we look at islamic republican's historical in the region. it is moving. thank you. [inaudible] to say how profoundly i disagree with the statement that he had to extent. first, with respect to the nuclear issue, i think that there is an underestimation of

the massive defeat for the united states if we, in a sense, allow iran to slide to a nuclear -- and it's contrary to what the president of the united states has said repeatedly. it would be seen as weakness by our allies in the region. if the united states, after all of the effort we have made, after all of the u.n. resolutions, after all the sanctions, after all the effort to marble a coalition with the europeans to have the most comprehensive set of sanctions ever imease pooed in peacetime. i say from the experience of having worked and lead the sanctions effort in the clinton administration. it would be taken as absolute massive defeat. in addition, it would mean that a country could simply thumb its nose at five u.n. security counsel resolution with

impugntive. what conceivable incentive would any country have to take either the u.s. or the u.n. security counsel seriously? like wise, the notion of sort of underplaying the notion that this would lead to a nuclear arms race, are the saudis going allow iran to have a nuclear weapon without having one themselves. i think it's absolutely clear that they would not so. nor would they rely on a nuclear umbrella protection from the u.s. after the u.s. would have in effect conceded iran's nuclear program. an on the issue of no territorial ambition, they have used surrogates for the extension of their territorial ambitions. hezbollah, ha mas, the

unfortunate position they have in iraq. it's true they may have not marched across borders. they have used surrogate in a effective way to destablize the region. i also don't think that these conclusions mirror the full consensus of the task force. thank you. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] can you hear me now? [inaudible conversations] >> okay. i think -- [inaudible] and you still can't hear me? do you want to give me the mic? okay. now you can hear me. all right. i think you can see how much of a challenge it was to put together this report given the very, very deep seated views that a lot of people have. i wanted to point out that greg, a member of the task force was speaking in a personal capacity, and he was not a member of the task force.

i want to give them a each a chance to respond what the ambassador had to say before we turn to other questions. -- i think i identified my view as minority view as against the view of the majority of the task force. that indeed is the case. i would also express some agreement about the negative consequences of iran actually acquiring nuclear weapon. it would be a defeat. it would be a defeat for the major objective the united states has had. there's no pretending otherwise. i would say that what is happened in north korea is also a very significant defeat for the united states, for the nuclear nonproliferation. we are talking about how bad it would be and not whether it would be bad.

and i would also say that my assumption would be if the iranians actually a move toward acquiring a nuclear weapon, whether or not we launched a military attack or not, there would be a very extreme reaction not just by the united states by the entire international community. you would have more sanctions and penalty against iran. i can't see that as being the same thing of letting iran having nuclear weapons with impunity. you can't argue at the same time it's the most serious sanctions regime we are have ever imposed and assuming there would be even more serious sanctions and call that impunity. iran would -- already in a very unfavorable situation as a result of the sanction. it would become more so. it hardly looks for a reward for nuclear weapons. >> if you want to comment on the notion, of course, iran using

proxy rather than sending the own troops. >> i would like to depress all points -- address all points briefly. you made excellent points, ambassador. it would be a defeat for the npt. not necessarily the end of the npt. that's why the u.s. will be to desuede the iran from the nuclear -- when we talk about containment it doesn't mean we allow iron -- iran to develop nuclear weapons. we are containing iran's regional ambition. it's possible to dissuade them. in fact the united states has been containing iran since the 1979 revolution. it does not mean that we give up on the goal of the dissuading iran from weaponizing, which i still think based on sageses -- sanctions and diplomacy is a possibility. iran will never develop nuclear weapons.

my study is hypothetical. i want to exam what happened if iran nuclear weapons. how we should treat iran and what policy we should adopt. in term of iran using the proxy that's correct. it uses the proxy not to control territory, of course, but to project power to deter some of the so-called proxy. i have to add, i discussed at length in the report. i think the term proxy is a misnomer. when you look at the groups allied with iran, he hezbollah, and the other smaller groups they each have their own independent objective and interest. even hezbollah's interests do not align with the iranian interest. hezbollah has a different set of interests. i wouldn't use the term proxy, actually. i do not in my report. in term of the other groups. hezbollah has close relations

with tehran. some of the palestinian world are distancing themselves -- [inaudible] really due to the arab spring, the muslim brotherhood in egypt, hah mas receives military training and weapons from iran. indications are gravitating toward egypt and the muslim brotherhood rather than iran and syria, and those are my main points. >> okay. thank you. obviously we can debate among ourselves for the rest of the session. we have a distinguished audience. i would like to turn to the audience to see if perhaps we have some comment from some of our task force members or --. >> i add that i too took a mental footnote to the section that greg pointed out. i was actually at -- [inaudible] it is the one mechanical

discrimination of the number of casualties that are well organized strike would create. i thought it was high. i take no questions -- no doubt that it's a very difficult and bad option. we discussed this. the bush administration, bob gates was very common from the point out if we do this, we will create which we're trying to prevent and iran will develop it in secret to develop a weapon. i must admit, it spiraled down over the last four years. that option is not becoming more attractive looks least worst in my eye. >> i proficient that -- i appreciate that. the back. wait for the mic.

-- [inaudible] versus the grand deal. and because also said that we must wait until iran seals the deal. can you explain? thank you. >> i was trying to differentiate the demand for the agreement would be a comprehensive package of transparency measures at least additional protocol more than that the countries that are merely member of the additional property call. it would people belie settle a number of issues on the military dimension of past iran and nuclear activity. there would be a lot of things that the ultimate agreement would need to settle and address. what i'm saying there's urgent interim matters to attend to and one of them obviously is the accumulation of 20% enriched uranium. that allows the option of a dash

to getting a nuclear weapon. even if you handle that, there are obviously other problems when iran has a large infrastructure of nuclear center fiewjs that even at low level, if you get enough accumulation of low and enriched uranium and you have center fugues more -- you can come up with scenario where iran can assemble a fairly large amount of the terrible for at least a limited number of nuclear weapons. those are all problems that have to be addressed over the long-term. i say first things first, and in order to stop this race to a right lane -- red line we need get a grip on the most alarming thing of the status quo. i think the current negotiators are looking at to build find interim measure and one in which

each sides is living up to what it said it will agree to. it will build confidence. >> if i can add to what greg said. one of the recommendations in the report is ultimately there has to be an agreement on how much low enriched uranium should have. it has to be reasonable and some relation to the number of nuclear reactors iran has. [inaudible] right now iron has one. -- iran and it's not even functioning well. the fuel comes from russia. iran needs to explain why they need the enriched u uranium. >> the -- what we're looking at with the 20% enriched uranium. there's a serious concern. we don't want to find other in a situation as with north korea we took care of the plutonium problem we thought and left the uranium enrichment route open.

we don't want to do the opposite in the indication of iran. it has to be addressed in the long-term solution as well. i don't think it necessarily has to be on the table if a confidence building package. >> the percentage we say certainly nothing above 5%. t necessary for iran. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] i whole heartedly agree with your suggestion to explore the possibility an official american presence in iran through an intersection or variety of other bureaucratic possibilities that might exist. i want to ask you whether you see the large iranian american community many of whom have iranian passports many of whom who have property and relatives there that go back and forth as

an asset in making the case to the iranian government for the necessity of such an office. that's the first question, the second question similarly is about bureaucracy. don't you think that the position of essential envoy would be more appropriate somebody based a the the white house as opposed to exclusively within the large state department bureaucracy? thank you. >> maybe i'll take that. and maybe you want to -- want to add on to it. one of the key forces behind the report, frankly, was our desire to engage in the iranian-american community. i have spoken to many members of the community, certainly over the years, but especially in preparing this report. the way that iran ultimately will change will become easier for itself neighbors and the

united states to live with perhaps and also change in a way that will really make a difference in the lives of the people of iran will be if question relax the tensions and intensify fill the bridges that already exist i think between the united states and iran. that's one of the reasons why we suggest having an intersection there. as you may know, if an iranian wants a visa to come to the united. they have to go to dubai or are mania or turkey. it's expensive. it can open them up to unwanted scrutiny from the security services iran. it's not easy for them to do. if you have iranian students in the cub, there was an example repeatedly. i think they were in minnesota where twenty of them couldn't get access to bank accounts the local bank shut down the account because it saw the word iran and freaked out and thought we're going get on the wrong side of the treasury department or the justice department. we want to make things easy and transparent. you can even have an account at

the federal reserve. how transparency can that be? linked to a particular bank in iran and that can be exclusively used for food, medicine, remittance, a lot send money home and sell property and get the money back here. right now they have to go through money changers within it's expensive. it's not transparency. it's subject to abuse by all sorts of reactors. that's one of the main goals of the report is to set up a channel or two that will really be transparent and will promote the kinds of things we want to promote and that will help iran over time. >> if i may add a couple of points. going back to the clinton administration when i was undersecretary for comeek affairs and madeline all bright was -- we a set of steps permitting iranian pistachio to come in.

there was some reciprocity on the iranian site when then president talked about it exchange of civilizations, and there was a beginning of some student exchanges in culture exchanges. i think those are certainly worth trying and they're worth expanding. second, although i think the president -- president obama was criticized in 2009 for his efforts to reach out to iran, i think far from criticism, the fact it was rejengted enabled the president to have the moral tbokd -- to put together the set of extraordinary sanctions. all of the areas we're talking about here including intersections and so forth it would build on that and test whether or not the iranian regime is willing to reciprocate

in any way. if they're not, it's underscores regitty of the regime and would reinforce the fact that sanctions and other measures the only legitimate way ultimately. so i think these are certainly worth trying. and if they're rejected, then the ownous on tehran. >> let me point out the exchanges have been going up again. they went down for a period after 2009. there has been now scientific exchanges. a number of them some in iran some in europe, and there was 7,000 -- nearly 7,000 iranian students scoiding in the united states -- sphoiding in the united states. iranians and the iranian government have a tremendous respect for the technological process of the country. there's been a long tradition of iranians studying here. it's something i think the iranian government doesn't want

to lose if possible. they know it's important to their future and to the future of their people. >> i think that is in they are try sounds good. in term of having a diplomatic presence in iran and increasing people to people exchange in the united states. can ask if it and the it doesn't iranians to engage without -- a lot of iranians are afraid to go to america -- and traveling to the country, it's that iranian regime doesn't want a certain set of people to reside in iran and be part of that country's future. so i think in theory, yes,

ideally one day iran and the united states will have normal relations and the united states will have a diplomatic presence in iran. i don't see it under the lone republican. >> jim? >> first of all, excellent report. i -- barbara tremendous. i lived for iran in a year. so i keep track as best i can. if we do the things that indicated or suggested, how will that possibly affect u.s.-israel relations. i know, many parts of the middle east think that -- locked together point for point. it may not necessarily be true if implemented. i travel extensively to israel several times a year and i certainly can't speak for the israeli leadership. i think, jim, one of the thing

that was achieved by the president's visit and by the extraordinary -- together have aligned at least on a time table the u.s. and israel and have given some breathing space for sanctions and certainly deferred any military action. at the same time, there are potentially different end games. for example, it's quite clear as greg was indicating and i think it's obvious from the negotiations that from the european and u.s. and p5+1 standpoint, quote, unquote, acceptable interim agreement, if not permanent would be to permit

some degree of uranium enrichment. i think they would look at it in a suspect way. i think they recognize, and again the very healthy internal debate that the some extend the military options are more limited. the asset they have compared to the united states and that the threat of israeli military action has induced but comprehensive sanction to some degree. and that's an asset that can be only used so many times. my sense there's more alignment between the two, but that at the end of the day, if indeed somehow we suffer a defeat and we found that iran is willing to

take the heat from the sanctions, willing to take the economic trauma that is clearly happened with it, you know, over 50% depressuruation of the currency inflation over 25%, a lot of oil transactions have to be done by barder. 70% of the government revenue. they are only able to export half. if they are willing to suffer that, i think you would see public opinion and military intelligence opinion in israel shift back to where it was. we're not there yet. and that's another reason i feel strongly about the fact that we need to really keep the sanctions up, we need to have a credible military threat, because i think prospect of unilateral israel reaction will have all sorts of -- including to israel. if they are left with no other choice, that's something that

would have to come back on the table. right now, i think our policies are better aligned than they have been for a good while. [inaudible conversations] >> let me ask a not entirely hypothetical question. -- [inaudible] suppose -- i think there is some reason to think it's possible, suppose israel were persuaded, speaking broadly, to join the npt. would it not change the . >> greg, maybe you want to take that? >> that certainly a hypothetical. [laughter]

that strains my brain to imagine. let me move in a direction i think it would hep. obviously it's something we thought in connection with with the e wpm weapons of mass destruction free zone. that seems like a complete stretch that you would even have israelis in iranian at the same table. but there are things like comprehensive treaty. there's not a -- this should not be a deal breaker for iran or israel. both have signaled an interest in this solution.

it's going to keep various options including the nuclear forces there until it sees a different. i think it's not productive at this point to imagine israel as a member of the npt. it's more productive to think about israel taking steps in that direction. >> let me give two quick additional thoughts. the first is if israel were to -- inthey see the nuclear program as enhancing its balance power and helping to change the balance power. they're not going to join the npt. it's not worth addressing. i think those are my two

comments. >> gentleman behind there. >>. given the instability in the region, growing instability of the region, israel sees the nuclear ability as ultimate card to defend itself in extraordinarily turbulent region. i would bring you back to a remarking -- [inaudible] and that's the notion of graduated relief of sanctions in turn of their curves. i would ask you to address

difficult differentuate and act in a timely way to give sanctions relief in exchange for -- [inaudible] and two, and i think probably closely related. how would you differentuate that sanction relief from what i suspect would be the chorus of public criticism of a approach which is to say that well, we have been down the route before since the 1994 framework with north carolina north korea. they say they're going to giver back. we give a benefit, we give a -- how would you differentiate being called for in the report from what is largely seen as unhelpful . >> that's a good question. one in effect is what legal

flexibility there are waivers i think is enough elbow room -- not the core sanction but those at the margin so the president can do it. [inaudible] and the russians to some extend

it certainly hasn't been reflected in their public attitude or in their support for broader sanctions. it's been aggravated by the fact they offer to reprocess along with the 20% -- internationally verified i think the president has a new frobility make the offer. clearly that's the key issue. the iranians want to know how much we're able and willing to put on the table. and in return for what. it would have to be carefully call debated. -- calibrated. >> can i add the agreed framework worked reasonably well until the bush administration came in. the iranians didn't build bombs

during that time. they didn't out more plew tone yab. neither side kept to the bargain. the u.s. was supposed to build civilian nuclear reactors for north korea and it never , i mean, it started but it was a very, very slow process. never really concluded. there was delays in the heavy fuel oil shipments supposed to go to north korea. it was an agreement that sort of worked for a time and when george w. bush came in he refused to let colin powell pick up.

>> the refusal to ensure iranian tankers. those sanctions have resulted in iran's ability to export the oil for other countries to pressure as well. that's relaxed and doable, i think. once ion shows it's willing to -- [inaudible] then there is a chance for sanctions to be relaxed. i don't personally buy the theory that iranian government is afraid we can't lift sanction. they know there's a path out of the current crisis. >> the recent arab summit should be understood with the context of iran-arab rivalry. it concludes the summer of 2013,

surely will be extremely hot for oil in the region. we haven't discussed the arab-iran rivalry. they had an iranian intelligence operation. which presumably was meant to provoke some sort of subversion, i would guess. in bahrain -- i see -- [inaudible] does it --ed saudis are saying two can play the game. minority to which will be an additional new dimension? >> because the iranian nuclear issue is framed by the tensions between tehran on one hand and the allies and saudi arabia and the allies. and i think the arab spring has to come much more of a sectarian fight -- [inaudible]

and cannot shape always to the best of its interests. there is definitely a rivalry between iran and saudi arabia, the saudis regularly accuse iran of spying on them and vice versa. iran regularly accuses saudi arabia of helping ethic and opposition groups. it's nothing new. it goes back to the 1979 revolution, the creation of the islamic republican. what is happen right now with the syrian civil war and before that the -- in iraq the events have heated up the rivalry between iran and saudi arabia and so that certainly extend shapes u.s. foreign policy. having said that, too, although the dcc countries are valued u.s. allies you have keep in

mind they are some of the most authoritarian government in the middle east. when we look at the iranian nuclear issue, i think there are a series of tradeoff. if we sanction iran we're hurting the iranian people. if we rely on the gcc states in saudi arabia, to contain contain and deter iran we could be hindering the ridge. when we talk about grand strategy i want to say given the interest at stake it's different to come up with a grand strategy to solve the issues. the sun any sunni shied -- the consequence of the nuclear iran are overdrawn is just the point that you're making.

we already have diminished influence in significant part of the arab middle east as a result of the arab revolution. we see that obviously in egypt which was primary arab ally. if we are perceived as losing on the iranian nuclear issue, from a standoff, then those allies that we do have particularly in the gulf and saudi arabia. that's why i think the nuclear issue has .

>> and i glee iran developing nuclear weapons would damage influence. there's also a host of factors. between the united states and grrks cc countries include saudi arabia, over u.s. with the perceived at the mubarak regime. the u.s. policy toward the arab spring in general. so i -- my point is we shouldn't look at the nuclear isolation. there are a hose of other tensions between the united states and arab allies. that potentially super seeds. >> if i can add they are petrified of a an iranian bomb. they are pet try fied of the american. they have no solution.

of the g, correct c and the strain between the gcc and the united states. where iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon. with all due respect, where would the countries go? they would need us even more, it would seem to me to extend a nuclear umbrella over them to protect them against a nuclear iran. it certainly would be a terrible blow to american press teeing. it would be a blow to the npt. for better or worse, the united states is still the only ally important ally that these countries have. there are a lot of efforts to improve the missile -- to get them to coordinate among each other with missile defense with limited success under the u.s. umbrella. >> dianne school for conflict

analysis. it seems that the primary emphasis is on pressure and sanctions. -- to feel like they need a detefort from us and actions we take for our own security make them feel more insecure and more dangerous when they are afraid. we have some positive inducement in relationships. .. ..

so we're not been the position we were during the run-up to the iraq war, where the government manipulated the sanctions in such a way for the oil for food program was siphoned off to corruption. iraqi children starved. it was a horrible experience that we don't want that to happen again if possible. we want to at least make sure the radiant government to -- that it's hard for them to blame the united states if there are

consequences for the radiant people. >> is the recommendation of creating a financing documents and so the central food and humanitarian medicines can get it as a way of trying to prepare for broader strategy if we could get over the nuclear issue. >> hi, i'm glad schweizer for the national academy of science. a day to react to these skeptic changes on the recommendations of the report. having just come back from regular meetings with the radiant scientists, i'm not quite as negative as you are. first with regard to the role of radiant americans. in the field we feel into it not whether iranian-american qualifications cal. they were widely applauded for her.

lose with a nod was we tolerated it because he was bored in iran. second, with regard to the intersection interbrand, that's been around for 10 years. too much spells of spying frankly and i don't think it's got a chance. with regard to the specific recommendations of virtual cultural sections who match the virtual honesty, it's a terrific idea. were always cautious of what we say on television when we're interviewing for voice of america and so forth. i think you avoid getting iranian colleagues into trouble. finally, the proposal for 10 universities in iran and 10 in the united states, that's doable and i am just pleased this is

the first discussion i heard about area and the last three years in washington that's talked about something positive. every meeting i go to is dominated by the bad things are going to do to each other. but every poll that's been taken in iran for the next 10 years has given low marks to the u.s. in everything except air in education. science and education. we hate you, but how can my son get a green card? >> thank you so much, glad for those remarks. glenn has written an athlon book on the exchanges that have gone on and you would be surprised there are noble laureates that have gone to iran and people couldn't get into hear them speak. there's a tremendous amount of respect that remain between our two countries, between our two people that we really want to preserve for the future, so

thank you for your remarks. on the remark about the intersection, you're right. the bush administration came very close on two occasions to asking for an intersection. one time in the fall of 2005 it was written about on the front page of "the wall street journal" in an embarrassed the bush administration, so they stuffed it under the mattress. they were going to do it on their way out in the summer of 2008. bill burns was poised and ready to ask for this and the georgia war broke out and decided it would look soft on a rogue state, so the bush administration once again put this idea away. i'd are frankly whether the obama administration has ever thought about it seriously, but i don't see the problem in trying. yes of course ukrainians would think americans are fine, but they think all americans,

whether they're journalists, tourists, whatever. if you have american diplomats there and people they can talk to an irregular basis without going through the swiss or pass messages and some other convoluted way, it was very purpose and sheltering and supplying for visas. >> i would have some problems with the rating intersection of the united states. having diplomats in washington, for example. >> with green card holders. >> that's what i'm talking about. there's always that concern. damasus biases the arabian expression, but i would not give up on the idea of official government representation. the argument is so persuasive in terms of getting information in the normal course of events in

the diplomats right cables back talking about the conversation with nongovernmental people. it's extremely important and sort of shocking given the importance of iran do we have such little contact between government. i can understand how would it be pessimistic about aaron and dad. >> i think we have pushed. if you want an american intersection in tehran, you have to go to the ayatollah harmony. good luck having had agreed to an american intersection right >> in downtown tehran. >> we could put up with the swiss in the north may be. >> we talk about not having positive obsessions about iran. it's a great country, a great culture, great culture. the issue is the negative of the

regime that had a choke hold on the country, so we can push as much as they want, have been engaged with iran at the intersection. but they must be a rain americium is going to concede you serious changes, that's not going to happen. but the reformists in power, there was some opening. and the last 10 years since ahmadinejad came to power, things have gotten much worse in iran, so we have to recognize why that will happen. and the regime has been tightness chokehold out of its own fears and that fundamentally changes, we're not going to witness the normal u.s. arabian relationship. >> that's a perfect ending point. thank you all for coming and i hope you enjoy the report. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> the fear of the career when you have the chief of the army, general odierno get up and say i had posttraumatic stress, it's okay. if you think of posttraumatic stress as a natural reaction to an abnormal situation, a natural reaction to an abnormal situation, the va and secretary she sat here trying to get rid of that at the end. it is posttraumatic stress and manifests itself in any race, does not prevent you from getting help and help for your family to deal with symptoms you are having.

>> they had a very political merits, much like john and abigail. so she would lobby in the halls of congress. she was always very careful to say, my husband believes that it advocates that. but she herself was doing a pitch and one of her husband's opponent said he hoped the changes were ever elected president, she would take up housekeeping like a normal woman. she said if james and i are ever elect it, i will never keep haussler make better.

>> now, frank rose, deputy assistant secretary of state for space and defense policy discusses the need for an international code of conduct for outer space activity. he says the obama administration is working with the international community in such a measure, but any agreement would not create a legal obligation for the u.s. this is about 45 minutes. >> thank you all for joining us this morning. at the international institute for strategic studies u.s. a senior fellow for russia and

eurasia and we are pleased to welcome frank rose, deputy secretary of state for defense policies speak about u.s. priorities for outer space diplomacy in prison upon the second term. for those of you who don't know us well as a global think tank, including our membership in one, but also by rain, singapore and washington. the program in singapore offices grew out of the regional dialect the judas pioneered over the past decade. the middle east commissioned by the dialect of asia-pacific. survival, quarterly journal affairs, the annual military balance in the 2013 edition of which was launched last week and the adelphi book series, some of which are on display in the back. this office is a critical part of that broader network to a

sometimes skeptical international audience. i should mention the double i-aa is an organization and for those who aren't members to find information on our website iiss.org. we are here today to hear from frank. the arms control verification hero is responsible for key issues to military space policy. prior to joining the department 2009, he held positions of the u.s. house of representatives and select committee on intelligence and in the office of the secretary of defense. he received his m.a. in war studies at kings college university of london and ended ba in history from american university. having worked with frank at the state department for a year, i can tell you one more thing

about him. he takes diplomatic engagement seriously and appear where the leadership that does travel, frank must have the most miles flown on further u.s. interests in space and around the world. i wanted to use washington to that frank is something of an extended report on this engagement over the past few years. so what.com alternative franco speak for 20 minutes and then we'll open it up to questions and answers. i should remind everyone we are on the record. thank you. >> thank you for that kind introduction. it's great to be back at iiss. as a student in london i spent many, many hours of library at the iiss's old headquarters on 10th street. so i'm dating myself. i am pleased to be here today to

talk about outer space diplomacy and present upon the second term. this morning i'd like to focus on three issues. first effect about on the challenges to the space environment, including the space debris and anti-satellite capabilities. second, i'll explain how president obama strikes a national space policy seeks to respond to these challenges and third, i'll describe the specific diplomatic initiatives with the state department are working on to implement the president's vision. when they start by discussing the challenges to the space environment. the benefits of space permeate almost every aspect of our daily lives. for example, information derived from space systems helps us with natural disasters, facilitate navigation and transportation

globally, provide global access to financial operation and scores of other cities worldwide. however, the space environment has changed in fundamental ways since the beginning of the space age 50 years ago. back then, your two powers, the united states in the soviet union, operating space systems. today, over 60 nations and governments in operate as well as numerous commercial and academic operators created an environment increasingly congested. for example, the u.s. department of defense tracks over 22,000 objects in space larger than 10 centimeters of which about 1100 practice satellites. there are also hundreds of thousand of additional objects too small to track, but still capable of damaging satellites that are bit in the international space station.

over the past five years he seen a dramatic increase in the amount of debris as a result of two events. the first is china's 2007 satellite test against some weather satellite and second wives collision between a russian cosmos satellite and a commercially operated satellite. these two events are responsible for 36% of all trackable debris in low earth orbit. the threats to the space environment will increase as more nations and nonstate terrorist develop and deploy counter space systems. therefore it's clear space is also becoming increasingly contested. today, space systems and infrastructure with range of man-made or destroy asset. as director of national intelligence james testified to

congress, space systems and their supporting infrastructures enable a wide range of services. other nations recognize these benefits to the united states and seek to counter the u.s. strategic advantage by pursuing capabilities to deny or destroy access to space services. pressed about a u.s. based services will increase during the next decade as disruptive and destructive counter space capabilities are developed. irresponsible acts against systems will have implications be on the environment, disrupted roadways services upon civil, commercial and national security sectors depend. in particular, we continue to be concerned about the development of china's multifaceted satellite program. given the increasing threat to your irresponsible or

unintentional acts to the long-term sustainability, stability, safety, we must work with community space very nations to preserve the environment for all nations in future generations. noting the challenges to the space environment cannot be solved by one nation alone. president obama's 2010 space policy places a high priority on expanding international cooperation to maintain the long-term sustainability and security of the space environment. for example, introduction of the space policy states, irresponsible acts have damaging consequences for all of us. all nations have the right to use the next or space, but with irate becomes responsibilities. the united states calls on nations to work together to adopt approaches for responsible activity in space to preserve this right in benefits for future generations.

the national space policy directs u.s. government to pursue a couple key goals related to international affairs. these goals include expanding international cooperation on an official space activities to broaden and extend benefits of space and further the peaceful use of space and strength and stability for domestic and international measures to promote safe and responsible domain and sharing for space avoidance and strengthening measures to mitigate debris. pursuit of the national space policy's goal, the policy directs agencies of the u.s. government in consultation with the secretary of state to strengthen u.s. leadership in space related or entity such as the u.n. committee, identify cooperation, develop and pursue

bilateral and multilateral transparency and confidence building measures for actions and peaceful use of space to preserve the space environment for the development and adoption of international and industry standards and policies to minimize debris, such as the united nations to prelitigation guidelines. let me discuss the specific diplomatic initiatives working to implement the president's guidance. january 17, 2012, former secretary of state hillary clinton announced the united states worked with the european union and other very nations to develop international code of conduct. she said at the launch terms sustainability is at serious risk from space to breathe a response like yours. unless the international community addresses challenges, the space environment around our

planet will become increasingly hazardous to human spaceflight, which would create damaging consequences for all of ice. an international code of conduct would establish guidelines for responsible behavior to reduce the hazards of generating events and increase the transparency of operations in space to avoid dangers of collisions. the united states believes the european union struct's draft is a useful station and construct a starting point for developing the international code of conduct. we look forward to participating in the meeting that the e.u. will be convening with our host, the ukrainian government in ukraine this upcoming may. his consultations provide an opportunity to address all elements of the draft code along with partners in the e.u.,

united states remains to find agreement on a text that is acceptable to all interest in state and brings effective security benefits in a relatively short term. i'd like to discuss the work of the group of government experts, gge on outer space, and is building by the u.n. general assembly. the purpose of the gge has to examine options for bilateral and multilateral tcb arms -- tcbm including the united states serve on this gge and i serve as the u.s. representative to the group. the group held its first meeting in july 2013 the u.n. headquarters in new york city. the key object to is to develop a consensus report that outlines the list of pragmatic space tcbm

donation sign-up to on a voluntary basis. legally binding our control is outside the scope of the gge. the gge will hold its next meeting next week to consider the first draft of the report with the goal of finalizing the report by july this year. another area we are discussing sustainability and security is within the group of g8 which conducted its annual meeting at camp david last night. in this role as president of the g8 last year, the united states introduced long-term sustainability and security of the space environment within the group. in the non-proliferation statement, the g8 address security in great detail. in particular, the statement first noted outerspace that it is liberal on the social

economic, scientific and technological developments as well as maintaining international peace and security. express concern about the growth of orbital debris, which presents an increasing threat unwelcome occur in a first of a strong international consensus on your national code of conduct for outerspace at tvs. week fixed a security to remain on the group's agenda this year with the assent of the u.k. presidency. at the multilateral level, we have expanded our engagement within the united nations committee on the development and adoption of international standards to minimize debris. the united states is taking an active role in the working group of the scientific and technical subcommittee on long-term sustainability. this working group on

sustainability will be a key form for development of international best practice guidelines for dvds. the united states is serving as the cochair on space debris, space operations and situational awareness, demonstrating commitment to making progress to safety and preserving the use of space for the long-term. to finalize the report in guidelines by the end of 2014. let me also briefly discuss some ongoing bilateral dialogues on space security with key nations. over the past three years, we've establish a number of bilateral space security type of such key space very nations to discuss security issues. these include discussions with traditional allies, france, u.k., canada and japan as well

as discussions with new partners such as south africa, brazil and we have a very robust discussion with the russian federation on the security. we are also trying to engage china on space security. we think it is extremely important in the united states and china begin discussions. first, both the united states and china have an interest in maintaining the long-term sustainability of the space environment, especially limiting the creation of long the space debris. it is important to discuss issues bilaterally in order to prevent misperception and miscalculations. the united states plans to continue to improve our efforts to discuss these issues with china. let me conclude by saying his former secretary of state clinton said in her january 2012

statement, the long-term sustainability and security of iraq is at risk unless we take action to reverse these trends come it could have damaging consequences for all of us. the united states in conjunction with friends, allies and partners is pursuing an approach to respond to challenges to the space environment. this includes top-down political element that efforts to develop an international code of conduct and bottom-up technical elements that the work of the long-term sustainability group of you and hope u.s. however, the ultimate objective of various efforts is the same, to reverse a troubling trend damaging our space environment and preserve the list benefit and promise of space for all nations in future generations. thank you very much. i refer to your questions. >> i guess i will start out with

opening up. you discuss the copious work on a technical level in the code of conduct. where does the gge sedan and how much to the gge encoder conduct negotiations overlap program for us on another? >> a couple points on that. i would say gge is focused on the political side of the house. it established by the u.n. general assembly number one and we will officially present our report and our guess is he will likely cement the u.n. general assembly for their approval. second point, our view them as i

noted in my closing we see these always mutual reinforcement. the work will reinforce the work of the code of conduct. however going to ensure that happens? another trip thing is you have generally the same groups of people working these issues across the foreign. for example, in the u.s. representative, but am also the lead u.s. representative for discussions with the e.u. on the code of con it. my staff is working closely with the state bureau of oceans and environment and science which has the lead for you and copious to ensure everything we do is consistent. kind of a long answer, but we believe different passwords, but we have one object is coming

maintaining long-term sustainability of the state department. >> i'd ask you to give her name and affiliation before you ask your question. right here. the microphone coming to you. [inaudible] >> that the next one question. the national space policy directs the u.s. government to look at issues associated with that debris removal. that is removing large pieces of debris in space. i always like to point out there are serious political, technical, financial and legal issues associate it with that.

for example, one person super removal system could be in a fierce anti. it is being led by the national security council in the science and technology policy to implement the direction we receive from the president to examine this debris removal issue. we are early in that process, but we have some limited engagements. there's a lot of issues here, but we're looking at it pretty closely. i [inaudible] >> i know this was for example have proposed this thing like a vacuum cleaner. there's a number of other technology he is peeved by looking at. i'm not a real expert on the specific technologies.

i'm our focus on the policy, but there's a number of other companies in the united states beginning to look at this too. given

let me tell you a story. many of you have heard his story. many of you know our joint space operations center, located at brandenburg air force base in

california provides conjunction notification to numerous government operatives around the world. including china. so what that means if two satellites come close to each other a piece of debris comes close, we will notify the operator said the operator can to prevent collisions. about three years ago when i first took this job, one of the conjunction notifications is brought to me to sign up in beijing. a piece of debris from the 2007 test is coming close to their own operational satellites. my first inclination is why report bad behavior? i came to the conclusion that piece of debris hit china

satellite, that could create more and endanger our satellite. i am sincere that the united states wants to have an active dialogue with china on this. i have seen over the last six or seven months, and much more approach with china on engaging the united states on security issues. i've had top-level discussions with senior officials. china is coming to get the result salt but it's important to engage on these issues. the proof will be in the pudding as i said before the united states says it's fido we have the dialogue not to maintain long-term sustainability, but also to prevent misperception that miscalculations. throughout the war, they did not agree on many issues, but there

was an active dialogue on these types of issues, which helped manage misperceptions. this is an important area where we think we can have discussion with china. [inaudible] >> very sincere gratitude for notifications and it wasn't the usual propaganda. they seemed grateful. >> let's take to write backs to one another if there. >> how much buy-in there is from brazil and india and some of the other mentioned bilateral discussions. >> greg gillman, arms control

association. i want to raise the subject of the announcement that the u.s. is going to apply interceptors. you mentioned efforts to engage the chinese given the inherent capabilities of illicit missile intercept bears and the fact all of these intercept druse will be right on the true trek to rate as any chinese second-strike attack on the united states. business going to complicate our efforts to engage china? >> answer both of those questions. even yours, craig. let me start with yours and then i get to craig's question. here is what we hear from people around the world and i've been to just about every consonant with the exception of antarctica. generally when you look at the code of conduct, most major

nations say it looks pretty good. there's some additional changes we would like to see as a colleague from russia, that even our colleagues from russia say this is basically the u.n. general assembly resolution in many ways they russia proposed on tcbm. there is a general agreement. the real challenge at the e.u. process has been a lack of outreach and the need to get the process together. that's a result of a couple of things. the action service has just stood up. the good news is this, they have just appointed a new special representatives for non-proliferation in poland. he is the former director study as well as the former head of

the nato wmd setnor, has a lot of expertise and multilateral diplomacy. he and i have had consultations and he has had consultations for key nations around the world. he understands the challenge here is that the process and he is determined to get the process right. i think that's the real key challenge with the code. with regards to your question, secretary hagel said the decision was driven by the increasing threat from north korea. we have a strategic dialogue that my boss, acting undersecretary runs with her chinese counterpart. missile defense and space is on the agenda. a couple points about missile defense and china. the ballistic missile defense review clearly states who do not seek to undermine strategic stability with russia or china.

our missile defenses are not directed against china, but we are going to continue to engage china on strategic issues. it's not just space, but it's going to be nuclear issues because we want to prevent misperceptions that miscalculations. i know the chinese have concerns. we don't think those concerns are warranted, but will continue to discuss and engage with them on the issue and not the space, the missile defense and other issues in the bilateral agenda. >> two in the back right there. >> frank, i really appreciate --

[inaudible] >> take one more. can we take one more for right behind her? >> steve klineberg from oic. mines a little bit longer. the first question is about remediation. what do you see as the top one or two opportunities to prevent more debris. i can see strengthening the u.n. guidelines either legally, technically are trying to get more people to sign up for them are by strength to name our u.s. government practices were simply been making more of an effort domestically to adhere to those practices that perhaps something else. your best hopes for increasing medication top one or two.

>> two points. first question about the budget, we'll have to see. right now i will continue to do what i've been doing it so they say there's no money. we will have to see. with regards to medication, let me start by saying the u.s. domestically is one of the best records with regard to debris mitigation, but this is one of the issues at the international level that we are looking under the u.n. committee and peaceful use of outer space. we have a working group on debris mitigation. i don't have anything specific, because i'm not a technical expert here. i know they are looking at that in detail and when they finalize their report in 2014, there'll be a couple recommendations. at this point, i don't know ballista technologies will be there, but i can say we are

looking at a pretty actively internationally in the u.s. has a good track record here domestically. >> any other questions? let me ask frank, about the code particularly, can you talk a little more about what you expect from the may meeting? is an open-ended fashion and or do we expect particular outcome if not admit, is there a schedule of regular multilateral meetings to get their? a broader philosophical question. it's implicit in your remarks, seemingly an assertion for assumption that space is not amenable to legally binding arms control measures. can you give us an explanation as to why some more mercenary of international engagement of

non-legally binding tcbm as opposed to the treaty? >> two very good questions. i see why rose hired you. let me talk about the multilateral process. as a mention in responding to jennifer's question, that has been a real weak point of the e.u. process in the european union to their credit understand that. what they are going to do as they've set up a series of open-ended confrontations. the first meeting will be dismayed. what i understand a semi-discussion, the object it is to discuss the key issues within the code. i understand they will probably produce another draft based on those discussions and then there will be a series of additional

open-ended consultations. i don't exactly how many. it will depend how long it takes to get critical mass with key nations. with regards to your question on legally binding, the president national space policy does talk about legally binding arms control. the previous administration's policy in 2006 says the united states does not do that. this policy goes back to the long-standing principle with regard to space arms control for the united states senate says the united states will consider arms control proposals and cons that that arafat is a verifiable , i put a bullet in the the united states and its allies. the challenge space with arms control is verified billing.

how do you verify these capabilities, which is very difficult to do. the other issue has been how you define a weapon in outer space. that has been an issue people up and going back and forth. my general view, called politics of space security. one of the things he argues in this book that when there have been major agreements with space security, it has occurred when there is an intersection between security and preserving space environment. for example, in the late 50s and early 60s, the united states and the soviet union

tested weapons in outer space. they did it and severely damage their own satellites. we have the limited test ban treaty in 63. the limited test ban treaty is both an environmental treaty, but also security treaty. do you have debris mitigation guidelines is another example. so what we are trying to do in the obama administration's approach is to focus on that intersection between security and sustainability. [inaudible] >> marked route at princeton university. [inaudible]

two salient issues with the policy that we are perceiving has been counseled officially still scheduled to be deployed. these are ready to shoot a set. they're fully capable of engaging satellites as employed and i'm sure if china were to deploy these weapons, we really wouldn't have a whole lot of doubt about that. we would now say are people using satellites and it's not uncertain at all. meanwhile, the code of conduct language is proposed by the e.u. has developed and more and more in the direction of not putting any impediment to the testing and developments use of anti-satellite weapons, but

actually been affirmatively permissive of their possession and their use under the inherent inherent right of self-defense although no one would say anything that a non-abiding code of conduct to supersede the u.n. charters. i don't know why we mention the fact you have specifically setting a precedent, providing affirmative permission to use self defense and it to develop them and possessed banned and even fully tested against objects that create debris. it seems to me is that we've abandoned any hope of not having a future in which many nations will follow the united states example to possess at least anti-satellite weapons if not other weapons. >> that's a good question.

as you rightly notes, many of these systems are dual capable systems and that was one of the real reasons the united states has been so critical of the russian chinese bp wt. you cannot verify the systems. what i would say is the focus needs to be at one of the key elements is 4.2 or 4.3 that basically said nations to the greatest extent possible will refrain from actions that create long-lived debris in outer space. so the problem with arms control we have and that i mention this verification. maybe in the future we will be able to get around the issue of verification and solve that problem, but right now we have not seen any arms control treaties are proposals that meet the criteria laid out by

president obama and the national space strategy. [inaudible] >> what i would say is that on nuclear arms control agreement, a key element is that they're viable. i would argue the s.t.a.r.t. treaty are effectively verifiable. i would argue very clearly that space arms control with current technologies is not effectively verifiable. >> we had a little bit of a discussion about this before, but i wonder if in the realm it used to be somewhat under self, though i suppose missile defense and nuclear weapons certainly impede on space, has sybron cybersecurity comes during and/or cybertcbm, how do they

play given satellite are used for these transitions? >> i think there is a big one, sam. you don't necessarily have to attack a satellite in space to disable a satellite. fiber is another way to go after these issues. so there is a definite link in our discussions with the department of defense and other key elements of the u.s. government. for example, in addition to this basic gge, there's a separate information security and i'm in close contact with my colleague who sits on that as well. >> will that come to be reflected in these international documents were talking about or are they going to be kept separate? >> for the time being, they will be kept separate. as things evolve in the future,

that could change. >> versus another question. we have time for some more. >> bruce mcdonald again. we found last year on the code of conduct some voices emerge in the congress that were opposed and not just in congress, but outside as well, giving arguments such as though this is really a treaty. this short circuits the senate roll, so on and so forth. then of course we got in election mode and not discussions focused on that. now here we are in the new year. i wanted to ask if you could give your sense of any readings you've taken and your sense that the attitude in the senate, on the, tours the possibility of a

space code of conduct this here and how you might respond to this argument you've heard. >> good question, bruce. sunday by saying we're consulting closely with congress on the code of conduct. i spent a lot of my time briefing the relevant committees. as you mentioned, there's some concerns among members with regards to the code, but in closed court nation, we are outlining many concerns that some had. with regard to senate advice and consent, it is important to note the code of conduct would not create a legally binding obligation on the united states, so it's really not an international agreement. it's also important to note there are a number of types of political agreements.

for example, the bush administration concluded the u.n. debris mitigation guidelines in 2007. and 2002, the code of conduct. the vienna document concluded in 1999 unmilitary transparency in europe. so there's a long precedent for this. another question we get on the international side of the house is why we need to do this within the u.n. one of the challenges is the code just to security issues, but also deals with sustainability issues. there is no one quorum within the u.n. that deals with these issues in a comprehensive manner. for example, the conference on disarmament chose the security issues will u.n. cope u.s. deals with sustainability issues.

so this is really the reason you start to the e.u. on this as well. you need to address this issue in a comprehensive manner because i think it's very difficult to draw clear distinctions between security and sustainability. for example, conducting tests in space is a security issue, but also sustainability issue as well. back to the first part of your question is for consulting closely with the congress on this. we are addressing concerns that have been raised and i want to kind of come to the final point that this does not create a legal obligation and that is really the key point and that is the threshold between the executive branch and congress on these kinds of issues. >> if i could just follow-up on

that. there are a number of legally binding agreements into the executive agreements that don't require the case of the code. >> is going to be a politically binding agreement. >> i guess we have time for a follow-up question here. i do know mac >> what is special about the space environment that makes arms control not verifiable varus compared with space -- as compared with c., air or land? >> let me ask you this question. how can you verify from a tech elegy point of view that was on the top of a satellite we just don't know. the technology is not there.

all of the verification experts i've spoken to his base with the current technology we have would be very difficult to be able to tell the senate where we negotiate an arms control treaty that was submitted to the advice and consent of the senate. we have to say this is effectively verifiable and what the experts tell me, i'm not a verifiable expert, not a technical expert, but they cannot effectively say this is effectively verifiable with the current technologies we have. >> on that now come i would like to thank frank for coming here today to the iiss ensuring views on the future of the engagement on the united states diplomacy in thank you all for coming. [applause] [inaudible