people of the state of new jersey and the city of newark. with him, one stanford degree wasn't enough; he got two. and then if that wasn't enough, which it wasn't, he was chosen to be a rhodes scholar and then got another advanced degree at oxford. and if that wasn't enough, he went to yale law school. this is quite a record, madam president. now, he's been a sitting councilman and mayor for more than a decade. he's lived with his constituents and kept in touch with them like no mayor i've ever come in contact with. i mean, we're so fortunate to have him here. he stayed in touch with his constituents because he has been with them in the inner city of newark. i commend him for his dedicated service to the people of new jersey and the people of newark.

part of his job was to highlight the difficulties of working poor families, and did he that and did that very well. he's done everything he can to highlight to everyone that would listen to him and watch him to indicate that ne newark residen, many of them are struggling to know where their next meal will come from. he, in the time of this country where we have so many people who are needing so much, while the rich are guesting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is being squeezed, we're very, very fortunate to have this good man in the united states senate. i am a confident he will treasure his memories in this body and serve his nation and state with distinction. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminatedment the. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, before we have this dig

nighified ceremony, i want to say one thing about corey booker. i've talked about his great academic record, but for me a frustrated want-to-be athlete, his most impressive qualifications, as far as i'm concerned, he was a tight end for one of the stanford great football teams. the vice president: the chairs lays before the senate a certificate to fill a vacancy for. if there is no objection, the reading of the certificate will be waived and it will be prijtsed in full in the record. if the senator-elect will now present himself to the deck, the chair will administer the oath.

please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? mr. booker: i do. the vice president: congratulations, senator. welcome to the senate.

mr. reid: mr. president? the vice president: the majority leader. mr. reid: it is my understanding we're going to move to a matter -- if we're moving to the nomination of mr. watt, i yield back the time for the majority and the republicans. the vice president: without objection, the time is yielded back. under the previous order, the clerk the report the motion to

invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of melvin l. watt to be director of the federal housing agency signed by 18 senators. the vice president: by unanimous consent, the manned fishery quorum call has been waived. the question is, is there a sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of melvin l. watt of north carolina to be director of the federal housing finance agency for a term of five years shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays have been o ordered under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the vice president: anyone in the chamber wishing to change their vote?

the vote on this are 56 yeas, 42 nays. three-fifths of the senate duly chosen added sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. reid: mr. president? the vice president: the jarl. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent to invoke cloture on the watt nomination. the vice president: the motion is entered. there will be order in the senate. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask -- madam president? the presiding officer: is noter from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent that there be -- madam president, i'll wait until the nomination is reported, then i'll -- the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke

cloavmencloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of patricia millett of virginia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit signed by 17 senators. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent that there be two minutes equally divided in the usual foremalt. fore-- format. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: could we have order in the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: patricia millett is an outstanding nominee who served to be treated on her

merit. no argument has been lodged against that that drives to the level of an extraordinary circumstance. if the republican caucus finds that despite he had amazing commitment to our country that somehow a filibuster is warranted, i believe this body will have to consider whether a rules change should be in order. republican senators -- if republican senators are going to hold nominations hostage without consideration of individual merit, we will have drastic measures. i hope the same senators who came forward to broker a compromise when the republicans shut down the government would decide here to put politics aside and vote on merits. i hope the same senators who sent judicial nominees should not be filibustered by an extraordinary circumstances will stay true to their word. ten years ago for this thim seat john roberts, president bush's nominee, received a voice vote by the senate. today president obama's nominee

for the same seat -- the presiding officer: the senator has used one minute. mr. leahy: thank the chair. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i want to show you why this seat doesn't need to be filled. these are the other circuits. the average of those other circuits is 383 caseloads. this circuit, the d.c. circuit, has 149. so workload doesn't demand it. secondly, we're in a situation where this administration has said that if congress won't, i will. he's going to do by executive orders. this is the court that can rule for or against the executive orders of this administration. we need to maintain checks and balances of the government. secondly, each one of these seats costs $1 million, not just a year but every year for the rest of the life of those judges serving full-time. and so that's why i ask you to vote against this cloture

motion. mr. leahy: i ask unanimous consent that two more minutes be equally divided. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, i'm sure the senator is concerned about cost. the same senators were not concerned when it cost the taxpayers billions of dollars for an unnecessary shutdown of the government. i would note, under president bush, there were 11 judges on that court with a lower caseload. now there are eight judges with a higher caseload. the numbers are the numbers. president obama is being treated differently than president bush was. patricia millett is being treefted differently than john roberts was. it is an fair. iit is not an extraordinary circumstance much floss justification for it. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: what that doesn't take into consideration is that there are six senior status judges on this court.

the chief judge told us that their workload is the equivalent of 3-1.4 judges so presently there are enough judges this ato go around. eight judges now plus the 3.5 that have -- or 3.25 that have senior status. there's plenty of reason not to fill anymore seats on this court. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of patricia millett of virginia to be united states circuit judge for the district of columbia circuit shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators present voted or does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, on this vote the yeas are 55, the nays are 38, and three senators responded present. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: i have a motion to reconsider cloture with votes on the nomination of miss millett. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate recess until 2:00 p.m. and that at 2:00 p.m. the senate proceed to a period of morning business for debate only until 6:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senate stands in recess until 2:00 p.m.

>> the senate is in recess

subject to the call of the chair after earlier blocking the nomination of former representative mel watt of north carolina to head the federal finance agency. we will have live coverage when the return. >> author and astrophysicist neil degrasse tyson on america's call for scientists and engineers. >> as nasa's future goes, so, too, does that of america. and if nasa is healthy, then you don't need a program to convince people that science and engineering is good to do. they will see at writ large on the paper. there will be calls for engineers to help us go ice phishing on europa where there's an ocean of water has been liquid for billions of years. we are going to dig through the source of morris and look for life. that will get me the best biologists. look at the nasa portfolio today. it's got biology, chemistry, geology, planetary geology,

aerospace engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, all the s.t.e.m. fields, science, technology, engineering and math represented in the nasa portfolio. a healthy nasa pumps that. a healthy nasa is a flywheel that society casts for innovation. >> over the past 15 years of booktv has aired over 40,000 programs about nonfiction books and authors. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> had of the next round of talks, george washington university hosted regional experts were discussion monday. the former iranian presidential candidate and a former official at the american embassy in iran took part, coming on prospects for an agreement. the impact of presidential ronnie's election -- >> it's a pleasure to be here to talk the possibility of having a

normal, peaceful relationship with iran. and it seems to me, and i'll declare my opinion at the outset that this is the best chance we've had since the revolution. it's 34 years now. and that we should make every effort to see if they can work. and i'll go through what that effort would entail. first is the nuclear question. does iran have any nuclear weapons? the answer them all intelligence sources and from the iaea, and

from the expert community is that it has no nuclear weapons. does it have the capacity to build nuclear weapons? and the answer is yes, it does have the capacity. and that's the dilemma, having the capacity. can you trust monitoring and verification sufficiently to be able to take remedial action if the peaceful path is abandoned and iran goes down the path to acquiring its own nuclear weapons your country and. -- its own nuclear weapons. that was the task that was set before all nations in the npt,

and all the signatories to the npt are devoted to that task, to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and to encourage those nations that have nuclear weapons to reduce their stocks, hopefully to zero. and certainly the united states and russia, and the states of the former soviet union, have taken to heart the effort to reduce their weapons stocks. there are far too many in the world, and other nations have acquired nuclear weapons in the recent past. israel, pakistan, india. in a volatile middle east.

is very any belief, is there any reason to believe that iran would follow a peaceful path for the foreseeable future? there's quite a bit of evidence that that will be the case. starting with the joining of iran to the npt in the, shortly after the formation of the nonproliferation treaty regime under the shah continuation under the revolutionary government.

initially, there were questions about the use of weapons of mass destruction, which covered beyond nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, poison gas, biological weapons. that is, the use of natural and unnatural toxins. iran was faced with the dilemma in the first years of the iran-iraq war. saddam hussein, supported by many countries in the west, and including my own, used chemical weapons, poison gas, against the iranian forces. there were many casualties, tens

of thousands. many of whom are suffering today. those that survived the attacks. the question was raised by the iranian military would be ayatollah khamenei, should we retaliate in kind? may we have the authority to do so? they are killing us, and we have to retaliate. khamenei answered very directly, getting an order that chemical weapons could not be used, weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, nuclear and biological were

forbidden by islam. this was the first of eight outlaws that had been issued -- f.a.r. clause that have been issued in the iranian context. so that very early on, a context was established where i run would have no weapons of mass destruction, relying upon its conventional forces for defense of the realm, and where it was able to work out a stalemate with the invading forces from iraq under saddam hussein. after eight years of disastrous, costly in treasure and lives,

war. so the record from the outset has been against the use of weapons of mass destruction. however, there's the capability, and i know a little bit about the capability. i've studied it. for much of my adult life. it happens that when i was assigned to iran as the junior diplomat in 1959, one of my first tasks was to accompany david lilienthal, the former head of the atomic energy commission, on his trip around iran. he was in retirement. he was head of an energy company

that worked with the plan organization of iran on its energy needs for the coming centuries. and he developed a plan of hydra gas fired, coal-fired, and nuclear power plants that would supply the energy needs of iran. and that original plan had a proposal of 22 reactors, nuclear reactors. to for each host. of course, that was a grand plan not feasible in the immediate circumstances. but certainly over the long

term. it was a part of the vision of the united states government, atoms for peace, where we fostered the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, including mining, the version of rivers, and, of course, power plants for the production of energy and the desalination of seawater for agricultural purposes. lilienthal's argument, as i recall it, was that iran should use its oil and gas resources not for its own energy, but for sale abroad, export, and that

they should develop their own infrastructure from the proceeds from the sale of oil and gas, and use the valued resources which were finite in nature to develop a sound infrastructure of energy production. so that was the american vision in 1960. of course, the world learned of the dangers of nuclear power plants, three mile island, chernobyl, and i know quite a bit about chernobyl having served quite near there.

and have seen the effects of runaway reactors, and the dangers inherent, and the costs, the long-term costs. and, of course, we've learned, to. our nuclear programs have been cut back, and we are looking desperately for safe nuclear reactors and new technologies that will make the vision of the '50s and the '60s a reality. i dwell on this because the shah embraced this, and the presence

-- president revolutionary government has embraced this as well. and we are the authors. we are the authors in many ways. most of the nuclear scientists and iran, both physicists and engineers, chemists, people who put things together, build power plants, were educated and trained in the west, particularly in the united states. and that's the case now. hollyhock bar so hockey he was presently -- on akbar, was head of the atomic energy for iran is an mit graduate, ph.d, and his

subject is the physics of nuclear power plants. the present leadership under president rouhani is very familiar with the issues that i just related. and including the detailed knowledge of the programs that iran has embarked on over the 50 years that may have -- that they have pursued nuclear energy research and development. and their position, their declaratory position is that we have no interest in nuclear

weapons, although we are surrounded by nuclear weapons, although we can build a nuclear weapons but we can only build a few, and if we built them, strategically we would become even more vulnerable as a target for retaliation. so this is the declaratory policy. this is the a strategic policy. and this is buttressed by an ethical and religious view that many iranians hold, that the use of weapons of mass destruction is forbidden by the teachings of islam. and i would hasten to add that the three great monotheistic religions, christianity, islam and judaism, all hold the same

position on the use of for indiscriminately against innocent civilians. so this is the background, and what is the reality that we face now? we have a government that has come to power by election, by popular election that he sees and. they have been -- that is seasoned. they had been involved in negotiations on the nuclear question, and negotiations with the united states before. in fact, for much of their adult life. they're very good, and i can say that having spent the last month

in new york meeting with them, listening to them, and watching the reaction of our government to their behavior and proposal. they are very good. they are as good diplomats as you'll find anywhere in the world. and i say that as a person who has been involved in policy -- diplomacy all of my life. they are very good, and they know what they're talking about. and it seems to me that for the first time in 34 years, we have a congruence of national leadership in iran, popularly elected, supported by the

supreme leader, experienced, and that we should make every effort to test the proposition of whether we can come to terms with them. the terms are very clear. no nuclear weapons. the ability to monitor all of the peaceful activities of iran with full transparency and access, particularly through the iaea, the monitoring arm of the nonproliferation treaty. i am very optimistic that there's a chance of success, but it will require an active will on the part of our leadership

and their leadership. and a testing ground is, began in new york last month. it was continued in geneva, and it will be continued in 10 days or so again in geneva, and throughout the coming year. i think they could reach agreement very quickly on technical grounds, particularly gaining national approval is a much harder task. we know what the strengths of our lobbies are. we know what past attitudes have been. the sting of humiliation that

took place when the hostages were taken remains in our psyche, our national psyche. and we have much political work to do. when i say we, it is we the people, but it's mainly a test of the obama administration to make the case to congress that has to agree in large measure. a similar case pertains in iran. whether the great satan can be removed as a bogeyman is a pertinent question. we'll see. we'll see, and i'm one of those who believes that not only are

agreements possible, but i think that our president and the leaders of our country are wise enough and experienced enough to seize the opportunity. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much, ambassador miller. our next speaker to answer the question is going to be doctor patrick clawson from washington institute for near east policy. please welcome him. [applause] >> thanks to ambassador miller spoke eloquently about reasons for some optimism that nuclear impasse can be resolved. and i hope he is quite correct. what i thought i would do, discuss a different topic, and that is some of the barriers that may remain to a close working relationship between the iranians and the american

governments. in the event that there is a nuclear agreement. and it's useful for us to recall that the our a wide range of other issues on which the two governments differ. and to take one very obvious example, the united states government has now for some 30 years listed the iranian government as the leading state supporter of terrorism in the world. i have testified that in some 30 federal court cases as an expert witness about, these are court cases brought by victims of iranian sponsored terrorism or by their heirs, and i remember one of the early cases the judge asked me, excuse me, mr. clawson, but what evidence do you have that iran supports hezbollah? i said, well, hezbollah says iran supports them. iran says iran supports the. u.s. government says iran supports them. the government of lebanon says

iran supports the. the judge said it seems not a difficult thing to testify about. and i cannot see him the iranian government breaking off relationship with hezbollah. and given hezbollah's activities these days in syria, hezbollah gave one of his speeches today which was quite eloquent, i cannot see the united states government for that matter, the european government, taking hezbollah off the list of terrorist organizations. it's going to be a barrier. for instance, quite a number of the sanctions that the united states has place on iran are listed as being either because of iran supported terrorism, or for a variety of reasons. the nuclear impasse, iran's support of terrorism, human rights reasons. and it's going to be quite difficult to disentangle all of

that. so this is a real problem that we have. and then you also have the problem that not only do we know relatively little about iran, but, frankly, iranian leaders know relatively little about us. rouhani and his team are in many ways last remnants of the generations that new the united states very well, and were trained in the united states. there's a large group of leadership, disturbingly, including many of the younger leaders who do not have that kind of close, intimate contact with the outside world at all. much less with the west and much less with the united states. this is a problem. in fact, their lack of experience leads them to take some rather remarkable positions, and to misunderstand washington and to misunderstand u.s. politics.

so i frankly think that there are a lot of barriers to having close relationships between the two governments. but what about correct relations? all during the years of calm -- almost all the years to the cold war, the united states and the soviet union had correct relations. not good relations, but correct relations. and that kind of correct relations can be very useful for defusing tensions and also for allowing people to people contact, even if the two governments disagree. and so let us ask, what is the possibility that we can achieve at least that level of rapprochement where we can have some easier people to people contact with iran? i hope i'm wrong, but i have to

tell you that i am a pessimist because of the attitude of iran's supreme leader and many of those who support him. the supreme leader is famously said, the negotiations between the united states and iran are like negotiations between the land and the wolf. not encouraging analogy. but here i'm not referring to his suspicions about the united states government as i'm referring to his attitude that the gravest danger to the islamic culture influence on the list. is than one of the most important themes of his 20 years, the last 20 years he's been in office. and he has warned that the cultural invasion from the west perverts iranian life, and

especially religious sensibilities. very nice little brochure out from the carnegie endowment for international peace called weeding khamenei, which has lots of examples from this viewpoint of khamenei. one of my favorites is a theme he has come back to several times, explaining that many skirts are much more dangerous to iran's national security and tanks. because many skirts and confuse young soldiers it would not be able to fight, and that this is the very danger the islamic republic faces. and furthermore his view about the risk of invasion is is concerned about what has often been called a soft overthrow,

velvet revolution, events of former czechoslovakia. olution, events of former czechoslovakia. and khamenei's favorite expression for this is postmodern imperialism. where he says that what the great power to do these days is they don't seek, usually, to invade and rule another country. they seek to overthrow its government by promoting people to people contact, non-governmental organizations, and the use of radio, satellite television, and the like. and so his vision of what threatens iran with well captured by that moment of michelle obama presenting the academy award for our ago this last year. and that is this cultural invasion of western ideas, which

he thinks is organized and supported by the united states government. and he is firmly convinced that what hollywood does is something that is closely worked out witih washington. not all of us in washington see those kind of relationships, but a few years ago the iranian government imprisoned the director of the woodrow wilson center's abilities program, and she went to iran to visit her ailing mother of well up into her 80s. and she's a very respected person who has done, there were many around the world, 22 governments, that asked the iranian government to release her. under some pressure to explain why they were still holding her, the iranian state television put on a program in which they explained that she was part of this velvet revolution plan.

and they had as an illustration of how this plan proceeds, they showed in animated form these for iranian agents who were receiving their instructions from the weekly meeting with george bush was having with george soros and the white house to discuss how to promote revolution with iran. not all of us knew they were so close. as i say, their son and iran whose knowledge -- it was difficult to explain to these young people who are interrogating her how washington works. they just didn't have a clue. but this attitude on the part of the supreme leader is what makes him so suspicious of people to people contact. and why he thinks that people to people contact, which we see -- [inaudible]

governments can differ, people may have political differences but surely we can have ordinary people to people contact. as far as the supreme leader is concerned, his great concern is that this leads to cultural invasion and the this is organized at the level of the u.s. government in order to promote velvet revolution. so i hope we can overcome that. i certainly would say that almost all of mr. rouhani's new appointments of people who don't have much time for this viewpoint because they understand that while certainly the united states government assistance vice to iran, a detail the that, we're spending $30 billion or more for an intelligence agency that doesn't spent -- doesn't since much iran, something's wrong. but they understand our more benefits for iran if they have contact with the outside world and they're not going to do these kind of silly things telling university professors that it's suspicious when a foreign professor writes you an

e-mail. so i would hope that we can get more people to people contacts with this new crowd, but i would note there are certainly some in iran who are opposed to it. the u.s. government is also, shall we say, cumbersome, slow and suspicious. and that this can create a great many barriers to a normal commerce and for normal people to people relations. and our bureaucracies can be impressively bad about dealing with these situations. but we also think they are squanders. we got a very nice study of shepard about iranian students in the united states and identifying the problems they face. the deep dark secret, but when we're done of iranian students in the united states is that 92%

of them want to stay. well, it may be worthwhile to bring a rain students here to the united states, but let's be honest, this is more an immigration policy been primarily a people to people exchange. and so we have some reason, including we don't have reasons for our suspicions, we didn't act very slow. and so in particular because of the mutual suspicion between iran and the united states i should think any progress towards were approachment is likely to come at a labored pace. so i am -- i'm an optimist in life and help much can happen both from the nuclear impasse and on these people to people talks but folks, we're pushing a very heavy rock up a very steep hill. [applause] >> thank you, doctor clawson to our speaker will be doctor

hooshang amirahmadi, rutgers university press and founder and president of the american iranian council. [applause] >> first, welcome and good afternoon. i want to first take this opportunity to thank all of you, and john, the people have done this. i'm very honored to say i'm very fortunate to have these young division behind its activities. and that we move forward, i'm hoping at one point they take the leadership up against -- and i'm sure they will. you don't hear this? >> shout. >> okay. i'm sorry. i was just saying i was ready honored to have this young

people, trayvon, john and then well -- men well a behind this and hopefully i will be here in the future, they will be leading organizations like aic, and as we move forward with u.s.-iran relations. after years of noncommunication, or miscommunication, the united states and iran are in direct dialogue over iran's nuclear program, of course, at this point. this is a great statement. we know what has already happened or what has been achieved so far. but the question is, will be engagement lead to a settlement? that's the real question. will this engagement lead to a settlement? the are the idealists who see

that they are all but done. those who see no chance for a breakthrough, and the realists who see the development as a historic opportunity that is constrained by serious challenges on both sides. more significantly, there are the supporters and the detractors. why the latter remain dominant in both sides, they are increasingly becoming defensive, given their lack of better alternative to a diplomatic solution to this protracted confidence. the fact is, more western sanctions and threats of force

have resulted in more iranian centrifuges and uranium at progressively higher rates. the detractors have indeed disserved themselves by standing against diplomacy. true, sanctions have made iran offer p5+1 group of nations a more reasonable deal than in the past, but continuation of the existing sanctions, or adding more to them, will not make iran capitulate more. serious nations have red lines. on the contrary, more sanctions will surely make iran continue

on the current nuclear path, resulting in more likely than not to an american military attack, and/or an iranian nuclear bomb. for over two decades i have consistently been on the side of the realists and the supporters, knowing well that for traversing the bumpy road, washington and tehran needed, needed as much realism and support as possible. indeed, i never wavered in my belief that one day, sooner or later, the two governments would arrive at the mutually beneficial destination.

that time might have come. that time might have come, and be more than ever before prepared to support the current engagement with a sense of, of course, realism here evidence suggest that both governments see it in their best interests to settle the nuclear dispute at the intersection of iran's rights to peaceful nuclear technology, and america's requirement that iran never build a nuclear bomb. more significantly, after years of mutual mistrust, the two sides seem to think that a very viable deal is possible, and

within reach. they are not wrong in this assessment. while the details remain confidential from the media leaks, we know the key parameters of the emerging deal. iran is expected to significantly slow the pace, narrow the scope, limit the amount, and reduce the great level of its nuclear enrichment. that country is also expected to allow access and intrusive inspections of its nuclear sites by accepting the iaea's additional protocol. while iran may not be left given this deal with a practical

nuclear program, it can, nevertheless, claim to have gained its quote and quote nuclear right. in return for such a symbolic end of state for iran's nuclear program, president rouhani expects to receive, and, indeed, must receive significant, if not total, belief or on crippling, multilateral and unilateral sanctions. as otherwise he would not be able to deliver the deal. this is where i believe the challenge lies. how will the two sides reciprocate relieving sanctions for limiting enrichment?

logically, they should be able to devise an incremental approach of give and take. practically, however, the approach requires a level of mutual trust and confidence that, unfortunately, they still lack. complicating the situation is the pressure from the detractors. and iran, the fundamentalists want president rouhani to first take and then give. that is sanctions believed to proceed and enrichment limits. meanwhile, in the u.s. the hope on president obama to first take and then give. that is enrichment limits to

proceed sanctions limit, sanctions relief. and, of course, how detractors beyond the two countries who do not want a give-and-take deal to begin with. they want to take it all. can the two governments overcome the challenge of mistrust and devise a fair and criminal procedure? why president rouhani can why president rouhani can currently -- president rouhani currently has support from the supreme leader who does not have trust in the u.s. to begin with. that's backing remains conditional on him, that is, president rouhani, being able to significantly reduce sanctions

and free iranian frozen assets. notwithstanding the supreme leaders support, wuhan these nations government faces a suit challenged from its conservative, religious rivals. who lost the election but remain strong. they are not dead, my friends. that conservatives do not trust the u.s., viewed as weak and did not think that iran needs to make serious compromises to settle the nuclear dispute. they consistently remind president rouhani of the american economic problem, and it's difficult as in afghanistan, iraq, syria, libya and egypt, among other nations. at the same time they choose to ignore their own problems.

president rouhani's rivals are already accusing him of being quote unquote naïve and opposite is to the american, quote unquote, this honest game. they also seek the in thing surrender negotiation as an opportunity against their islamic system. and yet the main problem president rouhani faces is time, to maintain the leaders support and keep the rivals at bay, he must reach a reasonable deal with the u.s. and reduce sanctions significantly, all within a quick amount of time. there is another reason for president rouhani's often trumpeted desire to settle the

nuclear dispute within the shortest possible time. and that is the next iranian parliamentary elections in this coming february. not february 2015 i mean, per se. and less president rouhani demonstrates results, he could lose public support, and his rivals would use the opportunity to gain even more seats in the parliament, and then use it to cripple this administration. therefore, by opening to the u.s., president rouhani has taken a serious risk, making himself vulnerable to the american wins of his domestic opponents. no wonder that he seriously wants to make compromise as much

and as fast as possible, and gain a proportionate concession on sanctions. so unless president obama, and here's the case, unless president obama is willing and able to help president rouhani would have a short honeymoon. and a chance for a breakthrough with the islamic republic will be lost. but the challenges president obama faces are no less serious. though they are more manageable. while many of the sanctions are written in laws and are controlled by the congress, they also give the president maximum leeway, the power to weight.

but to use the power to weight or to waiver, the white house must certify that the full enforcement of the law will harm american national interest. the state department has used the waiver to allow a few countries -- eight countries i believe -- to continue buying iranian crude oil at a much reduced level. but will president obama used the waiver more boldly? i doubt that he will. obama has been a risk adverse president when it comes to public hated international matters. he also has many fights to settle with the congress. and will not want to add iran to

his fighting basket. but president obama has also a state in seeing the iranian nuclear conflict resolve through a reasonable deal. he could make history, legacy issue, and help his party, the democratic party, when the next presidential election. if the iranian nuclear deal goes, president clinton would be our next president. this conflicting tendencies between -- [laughter] these conflicting tendencies between risk of hurting and legacy making is at the heart of president obama's fakeness, double talks, and indecisiveness on opening to iran. while obama may not wish to challenge how his members of the

congress, israeli prime mr. netanyahu and the republican party, future wishes to strengthen president rouhani's hands into with his conservative rivals during the negotiation. to that end, the administration has been flirting with the idea idea of unfreezing iranian assets and allowing iran to purchase a spare part for its aging state. this approach will risk averse and hesitant president who does not wish to trust the unjust did mr. rouhani. while this half measures, somewhat could help mr. rouhani in the start. obama's lack of courage and clarity will ultimately hurt the

iranian president. in some, the historic window of opportunity has opened in u.s.-iran relations, and there is a real chance that a reasonable deal could be reached to the iranian nuclear program. however, many forces remain to be convinced, and many obstacles to be removed. if a bumpy road is to be traversed to a marginally beneficial destination, the time has, for the conflicting parties to listen to the voice of reason, and give peace a chance by putting aside their maximum demands and work cooperatively and courageously in the best interests of all involved. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, doctor.

are less speaker before moving on the panel discussion sessions will be doctor andrew parisaliti tparisaliti. he is the president and ceo of al-monitor.com. please welcome him. [applause] >> hi. excuse me, i'm going to sit while speaking. with regard to the question is this an opportunity or is this all cosmetic, i think i come down on the side that this is an opportunity. and the first group of remarks i'll make is i think always when you analyze good policy follows good analysis. and i think it helps to know what we know and what we don't know about iran, and declare as we proceed forward. ambassador miller said this succinct late, i'll be a little is a succinct but i'm -- i think it's worth bring down because we live in an age where we're driven by the opinions and

taking a stand and many times in the media world people say things that our assumptions and they are not necessarily fact. so it's a good idea, especially since we're at george washington university to push ourselves on the pedagogy, and this may seem basic but it think it's also fundamental. on iran'sthis may seem basic but it think it's also fundamental. on iran's nuclear program, it is worth recalling the collective wisdom of the u.s. intelligence community about iran's nuclear calculations, per the testimony of james clapper, the use director of national intelligence before the senate select committee on intelligence on march 12, 2013. and i'm quoting him. we assess iran is developing nuclear capabilities to enhance its security, to teach and regional influence, and give it the ability to develop nuclear weapons, should a decision be made to do so.

we do not know if iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons. the collective wisdom of our national intelligence community, and i'm not saying that's gospel, but it's important, we don't know if they are developing nuclear weapons. now i'm not a nuclear speciali specialist. you know, i tried to talk to people and we do things that are authoritative, and those of you who want to follow this and no what we all know, you should read the quarterly reports by the international atomic energy agency board of governors. you can get them online. the reports on the iranian program. and there are many questions about the program that iran has been asked to address in which they have not addressed to this point. this is at the core of the negotiations. the report, however, does not say that iran has a nuclear weapons capability, but they

raise many questions about the direction of the program. so this is what we know about what we don't know. now, again being at a university, and i'm not always in an academic context, i did go to school down the road a while back but i'll take the integer to say many people, i can make certain assumptions about iranians intentions and negotiations but i would make the case you're just a political science that we are dealing with a rational actor situation. iran is making a choice. it has a choice before it. and this seems supported by recent events. on the one hand, why would iran pursue a nuclear weapon? well, look at the region it lives in. it's got a nuclear power, pakistan, on its border with which they have not had fantastic relations over the

years. a hostile relationship with saudi arabia with them it's fighting a proxy war in syria. three decade hostile relationship with the united states, which has led a national effort of sanctions which has wrecked the iranian economy, for which iranian -- iran needs really. this is the key motivation for the diplomatic flurry by tehran. and the broadest context about israel which itself considers an iranian nuclear weapon and existential threat. those might be -- or perhaps that might not pursue a nuclear weapon if you are incentives that lifting the economic siege, providing economic relief to its people, and some assurances of a reduction in regional security which may be the motivations for the program in the first place. so i come back again when we think about iran, to a choice and a broader analytical appeal

with all due respect to iranian culture and history, and we should be informed by that and the ideology of the revolution and the government there which should not be dismissed, but from a process point, an american diplomatic point. there is every reason to test3 there is every reason to test these propositions in a rational way and not to dismiss them. iran is weighing its choices, and that assessment by dni clapper was before the election of hassan rouhani, which can be i think interpreted as a call for change in before the diplomatic glib by him and his foreign minister. and in a new approach, a more open and constructive approach that has been recognized by all the p5+1 partners. so in terms of whether it's cosmetic or israel in terms of the diplomatic process that's before us, i don't know how it plays out but the process, yeah, it's real because not seeing it

is denying a hand in front of your face, because this is what's happening before our eyes. now, there was a comment about some constraints we might deal with, and i will touch on that briefly stated we will leave this program at this point. you can see it in its entirety at our website. go to c-span.org. going live to capitol hill as the u.s. and its gaveling back in after being in recess for about an hour.