. >> i very serious obligation to brief the congress. again, i think this would be best left to make closed discussion. >> i appreciate that. with regard to iran when we went to the munich security conference the foreign minister not only talked about did we talk, the ride of enrichment but essentially what he said is the the hotel rooms are filled with business when waiting to do business with iran. what do you know what efforts being made right now to try to do business with iran and, in other words, how would you assess the strength of the sanctions and is there a concern that many are lining up to do business with iran? >> it is true that there are business interests that seek potential for business with iran

there have been efforts made through government-to-government contracts to try to forestall that. >> but there have been effort made to forestall, but is there a sense that the sanctions are unraveling? that is what we heard from many people we talk to. >> there may be a sense of. will we try to watch in the intelligence community is the actual performance and the performance of the iranian economy. so far we have not seen that but that is something we're watching. >> you have not seen sanctions unraveling? >> i would not characterize that would not say that no. >> i know my time is up but i would like to take those questions in a classified setting with regard to russian treaty violations.

>> thank you senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow up for stovall by thinking about the view and be very courageous men and women who serve with you and you often are unappreciated because of what they do in secret risking their lives putting there lives on the line every day. up with to say very often will we focus on is more of the failures rather than success because the successes are on scene and therefore unappreciated of unlike the baseball player who misses a pitch in the third inning it hits five home runs and its toll by is manager well, you miss that pitch in the third inning despite the fact that they've won the game.

obviously we need to keep our eye on the results of the game and not compare what you're doing in any way to the sporting events because it is the most serious business in the world that we need to appreciate the successful work you did and do. of that said with great appreciation of want to follow up on some of the questions that have been passed before regarding the techniques used by at redstone which reported recently in the new york times. a very rudimentary kind of software and the spider that enabled him to scrape data out of the system.

i found staggering the report of how relatively simple and easy is seems to be from the report for into compass tweeted. let me ask you do you take serious issue with any level was in that report since february february 8th, the new york times article written by david sanger and eric schmidt? >> no, don't. it is probably accurate. i think by way of explanation that thought is that once someone is inside the tent, so to speak they are considered trustworthy. that was not the case your fists and throughout the intelligence community of pressure put on us to insure that analysts are able

to talk to one another coming able to collaborate have access to information that they need to do their job. so we have created an environment where analysts and others at the nsa had ready access to the information that they need or can refer to to help him do a job. again, the place to the perfect storm the last book cover your where the birds known as a skilled technician was aware of that end aware of the safeguards such as they were built into the system and took advantage of them. >> would you agree that the focus has been on protecting against outside threats to infiltration or invasion and less so on the insider?

>> a lot of the measures that you mentioned here in response to previous questions were put in the future tense, what needs to be done will will be done. has been a year since the snowdon breach of trust, as you put it. perhaps with the tremendous damage. what has been done so far to protect against the inside. >> immediately what has been done is remedial action in terms of to make control access to databases much tighter control and monitoring of privileges' users. it -- the immediate aftermath. >> this morning to be done in your view? >> absolutely.

and to go to the system that we started a couple of years ago a project called eyesight which was the enterprise community taking revenge of the necessary security enhancements and the basic mantra is attack the data and the people so that you can monitor where the data is and who has access on a real-time basis. >> why hasn't that measure been adopted already. >> it is, this is a big undertaking because it involves a senior -- single enterprise. the whole intelligence community we have been looking at this for two years, but it takes time to do it. is laid out over four or five years. again, it's something we started before the snowden revelation. >> i'm speaking perhaps simplistically and unfairly, but i would, respectively that the

immense and imminent threat posed by this kind of insider breach of trust with warrants even quicker implementation of such measures if resources may certainly -- anything we can do to assist. >> i appreciate that. >> let me switch gears, if i may, a little bit to an issue that has not been mentioned all. that is the threat of increased naval strength on the part of china and in particular its naval capability in building additional submarines with ballistic capability. you mentioned it somewhat obliquely in your testimony. could you please give us an assessment of your view of the

threat of chinese naval capability and in particular submarine capability and a threat to the homeland and it may represent. >> across the board the chinese embarked on a very impressive military modernization program across all realms. much of this seems to be predicated on the assessment of our strength. there will strengths, bases the pacific c4is our capabilities. and so across the board whether it is their missiles, the missile systems to lobby of the intermediate range, medium-range or icbm going to more survivability which includes a summary component. and they have been committed and

serious and a happy to go into more detail. >> i was calling to suggest the facts ought to be explored we take the opportunity to do so. and and ask any questions of view but i appreciate you being here in thank you. >> regards anita class wed session and some foreign now needs questions the need to be answered. another colleague also earlier today as questions that needed a class by response. suraya and charter piecemeal is this would be somewhat of a change. we will just have your range later on this week or next some time you come over and notify everyone on the committee and tell them what the subjects of the classified mean our so that

everyone can come to a meeting if they choose. that is the only practical way to do it. >> thank you for joining us today. director you said in the intelligence committee in january that one of the extremist groups operating in syria has aspirations for attacks on the united states. i was wondering if you could elaborate on this and tell us whether or to what degree they have the capability or are close to developing a keen ability of attacking the united states? >> this has been a tenant ever since they formed. ultimately planning for in attempting to execute an attack on the homeland. right now this is more aspirational than operational.

rita seen evidence of the emergence of training camps. for example that have familiar signatures from afghanistan. of greater concern as i mentioned in my opening statements some al qaeda veterans from the afghanistan-pakistan area moving from syria which has served as a magnet for many of the extremists. they do harbor designs. and this is separate. >> so there are other groups. what proportion of the rebel fighters in the syrian conflict with you and others in the intelligence committee characters as extremist and what level of the fullest you think that they have on the entire group? >> the number is somewhere in the neighborhood of all the

other opposition fighters summer and a never read the low range of 75,000 to 110000. somewhere in the neighborhood of between 20 a top range of 26,000 every regard as extremists. they are disproportionately fighters on the battlefield. >> would you say that there is a significant relationship between between the front especially when you add and other extremist elements in what many people refer to as the more moderate rebel forces in syria? >> the question, is there a significant relationship between the extremist elements. >> well, they are there are

agreements. oftentimes these groups will apparently they're quite floyd, by the way they may disagree ideologically but as is convenient for them on a technical context we will agree to work together. of course we've had a falling and. they're fighting other opposition groups. >> if given this relationship as his private there is, i assume frequently sharing of affirmation, perhaps sharing of equipment that goes on between extremist and moderate elements. >> well, that is hard to say sir. this is very it fluid. there are some 151600 of these groups various fighting groups

and they align themselves and realign themselves constantly. it is hard to make a generalized statement. >> warehouses of items provided as assistants to modern rebels where, as you know wellness groups in december. were they involved in a seizure? psst -- >> i will have to research. i don't know off to my head. >> and to your knowledge is there anything that was seized in connection with pat in december and has subsequently been used by any of the other extremist groups? >> i cannot say.

>> iranian nuclear capabilities and beyond nuclear operations are obviously of tremendous importance. i would like to focus on a different aspect of that which has not received quite as much attention. the iranian development of a delivery system that would be capable of turning the united states or our forces abroad. if i could ask you what is the u.s. government assessment of the iranian icbm program development and its capability? >> as stated by the chairman in his opening statement we talked about 2015 time from given the development of we have seen

that's accurate. so by about 2015. >> the ability to test one. >> and so in order to you have to have someone that is potentially functioning. if they're receiving assistance from any of the country the development of their icbm. >> not currently, we don't believe. >> and when you say not currently, does that mean to you anticipate that they might be? >> i was alluding to the history , the on-again off-again relationship. >> last december afghanistan agreed to negotiate a cooperation pact for long-term political security economic and cultural cooperation. the treasury department recently designated for iranian members

to its list of global terrorists with their support of terrorism in intelligence activities against afghanistan. what is your assessment of the relationship between the government of afghanistan and iran, secondly the relationship between the taliban and iran. >> well, the iranians would clearly like to have as much influence as possible in afghanistan, particularly with the forthcoming changes. they have had not been particularly successful. they have had disagreements firings across the border. it is a less than one relationship but that does not say the pair of trying to reach out.

they have an astute diplomat to try to negotiate with the afghans, but i do not think long term there is suspicion and lack of trust behalf. >> thank you very much. >> senator nelson. >> drolen, thank you for your public service. you stated that 2015 is the time in which it is expected that iran would be ready to test an icbm. is it true that there's is additional time that would be needed for iran to achieve the integration of a nuclear weapon onto an icbm? >> that is quite. well we are speaking of this simply a missile system the potentially has ranged.

that is not to say anything about their needing a nuclear weapon. that's another problem. of. they're working on their space launch vehicle from the standpoint of the thrust in distance. hold it until the classified timing that it would take for the integration were they to have a nuclear weapon on to assume. we need to discuss this in a close session which of the bullet to the. it is to cut you tell me if this is correct, the administration

policy that they are exploring shifting the use of drones and unmanned aerial vehicles rights from the cra to media the is that an accurate statement? >> yes, it is. that would be best left to a closed session. i just want to state at the outset that my opinions the that is a mistake. i think fed what i consider to be a mistake and will ask with this question. one of the ballot of reasons, so stated is that by being the department of defense it would not be covered but over and therefore when the enemy says that we killed so many innocent

civilians which is usually not an accurate by any stretch of the imagination that we would be able to publicly state that. is that one of the justifications for the policy? >> yes, sir. it is awkward discussing this in public. i would not characterize that as the primary reason. >> and i will state the closing that the enemy is going to state that anyway. and i think that the that this government has said has been exceptionally precise and that all of these accusations by those that are opposed to the

interest of the united states but how many civilian casualties occur from the strikes. it is the senator's opinion that that is not accurate. >> let me ask you since you all testified earlier that the department of defense is sending out this defense on this time service tell me, do you worry about the clandestine services getting in each other's way? >> i do not. i think actually just the opposite. there will accrue from this that this will help to promote more integration between the two services. this has been held longstanding arrangements, and that they under the tenants, of what is intended with the defense fund distance service that will serve to promote greater integration

with the national clandestine service. >> okay. mr. chairman, i would like to explore the further. >> excuse me, i see the comment on classified meetings which we will schedule and will not come to day after this meeting. it will come at a later date. senator, thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. my thanks to those who work with you in the valuable mission that you have. director general would like to follow a little bit on my colleagues, various colleagues to a spoken about the nuclear capabilities of iran and the direction of this seem to be headed. i would like to put it in a little different flavor. can you tell me what the reaction was of our allies in

the gulf the monitoring and also the israeli government with regard to the november deal that we came about with the country of iran? >> well, it is fair to say that many of them were not comfortable with this. in fact what they were unhappy with it. >> general flow. >> in a region that already has enough tension. >> they believe that this interim deal is going to slow the progress in any way. >> these and other governments. >> exactly. >> they generally have concerns about whether you're willing not . >> which you agree with that?

>> yes, i do. >> what is your intelligence tell you and how do you believe these nations are going to react if they believe that iran is very, very close to obtaining and delivering a nuclear weapon? >> low, at that point they're not new that point as they sit here today. obviously that would be of great concern to all those. obviously the objective here is to forestall a. >> right, would you have any intelligence that would give you an inclination on how those countries would react? >> as i said if iran actually obtained a nuclear weapon they would go to general quarters.

>> also director of we are going to pick it to the chinese and the russians. in your testimony before the senate intelligence committee you highlighted the chinese military modernization. are they modernizing and and for your forces as well? >> yes they are. >> i understand the russians are investing heavily in modernizing their nuclear forces. is that correct? >> yes, it is. >> why? do you have any idea why these two countries are doing that? >> in the case of the russians this is their kaufhof foundation to power status. whenever other deficiencies they may have how they're going to sustain the modern intercontinental nuclear strike capability. in the case of the chinese it's

a much smaller capability which they view as more defensive. so since it is smaller they don't feel their players in the arms control of carmen. they profess no first use and so their perspective is different. it's just part of their overall campaign to modernize and military across the board. >> are you believing that these countries elevate the role of nuclear weapons would play within their total arsenal that they have? >> i don't think -- well in the case of the russians i actually think it's probably less predominant, if that is what your question is. it is a much, much smaller force than they had during the cold war, so in that sense and in the

case of russians given there chance to modernize their conventional forces that would say it's less prevalent than it was. >> i have an article here that says that reducing the role of nuclear weapons in the u.s. security strategy is a u.s. objective. russia pursuing new concepts and capabilities for expanding the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy. this is from the national intelligence council report on global trends for 2030. came out in 2012. do you disagree then with that report with regards to their assessment of what the russians are doing? >> no. >> so i thought i misunderstood you, known. >> i was just referring historically to the cold war. carol was going to emphasize

that there will be an ingredient of the aspect of their overall national power. >> and would you say they are expanding with regards to that nuclear power and are they changing the way that they would perhaps use those nuclear weapons in the future? >> probably that would be best left to close session. ..

i also raised it in the current context only in the -- to ask whether it would help from an optics standpoint to split nsa from cyber come. i think all the reasons that -- which i think are compelling for keeping them together are still germane, and the president, i think, the president came to that conclusion on his own. >> and not just the optics but the cost. would there be an increased cost in your estimation if the two were split? >> there could be. but the complication would be affecting such -- in the cyber domain there is so much integration and so much more e fresh sei that accrues from having them united as one.

only though, i think the decision is to whether to exploit or attack that i felt throw or four years ago and the best person to make the judgment is the director of nsa and cyber com is one. not to have them as competitive entities. >> thank you very much gentleman. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator manchin. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your service and to the men and women who serve with you to the families who sport both the military and civilian side. it's a tremendous undertaking you have. i appreciate very much. people in west virginia appreciate you. that being said what we're going through and since i've been here for three and a half years i've had briefings on cybersecurity what it can do 0 the water and grid system and food supply. as you know, we're going through a difficult time in west virginia with the water. it shows me what could happen.

we need some assistance to build confidence in. we can did have an alternative system or a backup system. we had to continue to run the water plant even though it ingested the chemical mchm. with that being said we lost the confidence of the people in west virginia to where they believe the water is safe to try. -- drink. we have no official in federal government or state government that say it is safe. they say it is appropriate. they use different words because of legal ramification flps are so many things to test it. with that being said i think ours is a wake-up call. thank gosh we had no deaths. it's a wake-up call. i would ask all of you to look very carefully how we best control this around the country and help other states avoid what we're going through now. hopefully assist us in getting baa to be normality, if you will. we're going to come back bigger

better stronger. we have to. we have people that are still much concerned and not using the water back to normal usage. especially expect assistant mothers, small children, and elderly. with that being said i agree with general alexander, the outgoing director of the u.s. cybercommand statement last year play huge role. the national guard play a huge role. they provide additional capacity and ability to work with the state much like active duty forces today. the guard consistent of homeland security. they are ideally suited for cyber warfare. as a former governor and chief of our national guard, i know the capability they have in the capacity. and the ability on the frontline defense for every one of our state. every government will tell you that. they're located in every state and not limited few military bases. i just want to know from both of

you what your -- what we can do assist that if you believe it is the direction we should go for cyber to help secure our state and vital necessities we depend on. >> well, sir first i'm going to comment about water. and your characterization of what happened in your state adds wake-up call. i couldn't agree with you more. this increasingly, i think we see as a national security issue overseas it can easily be the source of conflict between countries. case in point is the grand renaissance dam that ethiopia is building and the impact that can have on egypt is a case in point. on cyber, the guard reserveic this is another case where they can play a huge role as they do now with isr for example. so i know if admiral rogers is

confirmed for the position of director nsa and cyber com commander he'll continue the same etch sis and support that general alexander had. >> from the intelligence community director embrace the guard would you support that position that the gourd would play the frontline in defense on cyber on homeland here? >> yes sir. a little bit far removed from where i sit now, but from prior seats i can certainly agree. >> it makes all the sense in the world from us sitting here watching what we go on the frontline. it would be helpful. >> i would add, senator that the vital necessity for the guard and our reserve especially in the intelligence aspect of what they do especially as it relates to the critical infrastructure in many of our states. all of our states. you know, it's an understatement to say they're vital. >> sometimes we are thought

process at department of defense incorporating them in to a full active range they have been sometimes runs strong head wind if you will. i think we are getting past that now. we really need this. we look for your help also, in our state of west virginia on trying to get back to normal, if any. let me go if i may the "the wall street journal" reported an attack on the california station. unidentified individual cut the phone line. within 30 minutes 17 gibbet transformers were shot out. no one has been arrested or charged with this attack. i'm sure that we're pursuing that heavily, correct? >> the fbi and the state and local officials definitely are yes, sir. >> and of the three are you most concerned about our grid, our food supply or water supply?

>> that's a hard choice. sin potentially all of them are at risk. probably the thick we have the most impact quickly would be a substantial attack on our power grid. and the incident in california is also a wake-up call and very instructive. >> general, if i may. resir judges -- [inaudible] threaten attack on them which is currently under militant control, i believe. portions our iraq have been cordoned off with the iraqi army setting up security check point and blocking off the roads. iraq seems to be facing well-funded militant of al qaeda and the islamic state. how -- does the threat of resurgence of al-qaeda-affiliat pose for the recent stability there? >> i think it is a increasingly

concern that we're going have to pay close attention to. not only inside of iraq but the whole region. the scale of the what they are involved in now. particularly the al qaeda element in iraq and the level of direction they're having. the level of killing they're doing inside that country is terrible. >> thank you. my time is up. senator man chain senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director clapper general flynn i want to thank you for being here. and thank you for your service helping protect our nation and i want to thank the men and women military and civilian that serve with you both. there are a number of topics i would like to discuss. i would like to start by focusing on al qaeda. and you said previously quote,

sustained counterterrorism pressure key organizational setback, and the emergence of other power centers of the global violent extremist movement have put core al qaeda on a downward trajectory since 2008. i want to ask you what, if your view, is the definition of core al qaeda. >> my definition of core al qaeda is the leadership group that has been essentially in the pakistan. that is precisely what is meant by that. and clearly they have been profoundly degraded not eliminated by any stretch. and so that area in my view, remains the ideological center for al qaeda. but not the operational center anymore. >> okay. what is the value of that distics are they any less

dangerous to american what the administration is defining core al qaeda? >> well, i think an organization like al qaeda and the arabian peninsula aqap poses a much greater sort of tactical near-term oarpgal threat to the homeland and does ideological center of core al qaeda and the fata pakistan. >>. >> given the recent revolution of the "washington post" that the leader of the branch in dour ma libya sb who is former detalk aboutee, as you know at guantanamo bay and trained in bin laden camp in yemen. and was in fact on al qaeda's payroll. shouldn't his group also be considered part of core al qaeda? >> well, they're not.

and of course core al qaeda the central leadership picks and chooses who is among the wannabes or actually nighted or if you will so designated as an al qaeda organization. so there are a lot of these organizations that profess extremism have in some cases the same goal with but are not a part of al qaeda. soot jamaal organization in egypt. a violent organization but not yet a part of al qaeda formally to the extent it has meaning. >> so the determination of core al qaeda -- who is making that? it would seem to me that characteristic of al qaeda being on the payroll and -- >> it is ideological leader is

probably pick somebody in charge of that. of course, he recently essentially excommunicated al qaeda in iraq or isio as known. so he is the does knee for deciding who is al qaeda. martin dempsey gave to the house armed services committee when general dempsey was asked about the ability of the military to target the terrorist who attacked us in benghazi. general dempsey's response was that those individuals were not therefore not under the authorization for for use of

military force. so the military didn't have the ability to target those individuals. i don't know about the leeltty i can actually shoot at them. >> given that these terrorists are professing allegiance to al qaeda. at least portions of them are lead by others who with dies directly to bin laden and give they murdered four americans

does it make sense in we should be restrained after going after them and bringing them for just science. >> we can go after in term of capturing or killed not -- our view is if they are terrorists of any stripe we are going to coour best to collect as intelligence on them as we possibly can. the only thing i would add for questioning is that we also have to look at the ideology that exists within the groups. they share ideology. i add that to the definition of core. it's not the senior leadership in al qaeda. it's in pakistan. it's also this shared ideology that many of these extremist groups have. it's something we we have to consider. would you consider the branch

sharing that ideology? >> i would. >> one final topic i wanted to address, which is iran and some discussion recently by relaxes the sanction against north korea we allow the funds to fly to north korea in turn allowed them to develop nuclear weapons. is there any reason we should expect different results in iran than the same policy achieved in north korea? >> well, i want to critique u.s. policy and i will just say that i don't know how come out in

iran we monitor the compliance. i would note you said you didn't want to critique u.s. policy. is there any reason to be believed that the outcome in iran would be any different from north korea? st a completely different country than north korea. yes, the outcome could be different. but the differences make it more or less likely than they would comply phrase differently. i'm at the end of my time. this will be my last question. phrase differently in your view if iran were to succeed in acquiring a nuclear weapon? what do you have a as likelihood they would use that nuclear weapon to murder innocent people? >> that is -- first of all they're not near acquiring a nuclear weapon and

even farther from it assuming these negotiations pan out. i can't answer your question. >> i will say i think the odds are unacceptably high and this current path is exceedingly dangerous. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you both for your service. and director clapper, i want to followup on some of the same issues regarding iran and specifically our capability of knowing for sure if they're cheating. if they're not living by any obligations. you testified here today on the negative impacts of sequester on the intelligence community. and in addition we have a lot of examples before those budget circumstances, before sequester

of not knowing what was going on in other countries' real time. of not fully appreciating what north korea was doing in the past. of not knowing that gadhafi had chemical weapons before his downfall and we got in there. i think you testified specifically about that. not knowing today. russian violating some of the agreement with them.

in a closed session. if if they are -- not knowing precisely what is going on in those places until well after the fact how can you state we're certain dededucting if iran doesn't meet the agreement and start moving forward on a nuclear weapon? >> well under the provision

they have intrusive insight in to iran. that would be have that. i would make a major difference. but for that to be full proof you have know exactly where to look and exactly what questions to ask. is that correct? i prefer to -- let me underscore my concern given history in north korea

syria, russia right now libya, plenty of other places. final question on iran. i think you have testified today that cyber is your single biggest concern. is that equation changed if iran gets a nuclear weapon? >> i said -- >> cyber. >> oh cyber. and the question is? >> does that statement, does that rank as your most serious concern. does that change if iran gets a nuclear weapon? >>. >> have to rethink that i guess. if that were to happen. >> thank you. >> thank you. let's have three question. second round for starters. if we need more than that we'll have a third round. just first on iran, what is the

intelligence community's assessment of the nature and extend of iranian influence within the mall lackey government in iraq? >> well, there is some influence. there's also some standoffishness, i guess i call it. but clearly it is in iran's best interest to have friendly cooperative shiite-lead government in iran. the iranians will exert the influence in any number of ways. >> has it been growing would you say? >> i think it is a level to what it has been for a couple of years. >> now there's been a number of articles written about business people from various countries knocking on the door in iran.

and the administration made it pretty clear the other day we're going to enforce our current sanctions. we said they would during the negotiation period. providing that they're knocking on the door but the door is locked tight so there is no leakage during this negotiation period, would the fact there's a lot of interest in the outside business community to come in to iran put additional pressure on iran and negotiate a settlement which we find acceptable? >>. >> absolutely. i think it would be an attraction and i think probably supports the are han -- ron han any camp if you will. those interested in trying to change the economy and improve it and iran. that would i think be an

argument debate point for them again the hard liners. i want to switch you to the pakistan. this has to do with the financial network that is supports the network. i assume that the intelligence community tracks the financial network and the other -- the banks and the businesses which support that network. why haven't we been able to shut down financial support? i'll does it in closed session. >> thank you. you served a tour of duty;

correct? >> three. >> three. okay. >> i'm sorry. >> absolutely. thank you. mr. clapper, i appreciate your candor and service to our country. the president tweeted out 117 delegations visited iran seeking to do business in the future. do you know if that is accurate or not? >> i do not. could do you -- as to whether or not european allies and other countries throughout the world where engaging more aggressively in term of business opportunity? yes, we will. >> okay. i take a different view than my good friend senator levin. i believe it is over and everybody is trying to get in line to do business in iran.

and we're losing our leverage. but that's just my opinion. i would ask you this question. if the iranians are allowed to enrich uranium as a final deal could you please let us know in whatever appropriate form the effect it might have on the mideast in term of spreading proliferation of nuclear weapons capability and whether or not the arab countries will follow suit. could you get that pretty quickly? >> we'll try to provide written assessment of that. i think would be classified. >> in one minute. if in fact enrichment of uranium spread throughout the northeast

would you agree it would be a very bad scenario for the national security of the united states and israel if nations throughout the mideast turned to enriching uranium? >> yes. particularly for other peaceful purposes obviously. >> well, the disappoint do you think the iranians are trying to build bomb before we got involved? >> they approached from a threshold capability. the delivery capability but for them the uranium is -- they certainly have the expertise down. they so chose. they have the expertise if they so chose. how long would it take? >> it depends on a lot of factors best discussed in closed session. >> thank you senator graham.

>> we appreciate your testimony your service and join in a number of for their service and the families of the support all of you. we will stand adjourned. someone will be in touch about a closed meeting. >> yes, sir. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> now to london for prime minister's question time live from the british house of commons. every wednesday while parliament is in session prime minister david cameron takes questions from the house of commons. prior to question time the house is wrapping up other business. this is live coverage on c-span2. >> some funding for those questions. those include -- >> enough. the prime minister. >> shouldn't reassure -- let me reassure the hon. lady i listened carefully to my experts in the met office and the environment agency. every cobra meeting starts with the briefing from the met office. i think it is clear we are seeing more extreme weather events and i suspect we will go on seeing more extreme weather events and we need to do

everything we can to improve the resilience of our country. let me repeat when it comes to this relief effort money is no object. we will spend what is necessary to help families, to help people, to help communities get through this difficult time. i have to say things are likely to get worse before they get better because of the very high levels of rainfall we have seen and we see very serious high winds as we speak in this house today. whatever can be done to help will be done. >> last year my constituents and george williams was brutally murdered. at a subsequent trial it was revealed her attacker previously attacked another young girl five years earlier and unbelievably, that attacker got off with just a priest's caution, a written warning. will the prime minister join me in calling on the police to publish all relevant materials relating to that earlier case in order that any lessons that can be learned will be learned?

>> he is absolutely right to take up his constituent's case in this way and he has written to me about the specific case and my sympathy goes to the family and friends of georgia williams. as he asked i understand the independent police complain commissioner are currently considering its response to a referral from the university police into than managing of this case and what needs to be published. on the issue of conscience let me say we announced last year we are banning the use of simple conscience for all of the most serious offenses including manslaughter rape and robbery as well as arrange another offenses the devastate lives and tear apart communities. this is a tragic case. we must get to the bottom of what went wrong. >> i join the prime minister in expressing my sympathy for the people affected by the floods have been driven from their homes and are facing disruption to their lives. i join him in paying tribute to all of those helping with relief efforts and extraordinary

resilience we have seen the last few weeks of the people of our country. the people in affected communities are believed that the armed forces and emergency services have arrived but many feel they were sent in too late. with further flooding expected in coming hours and days, the prime minister's assurance that people will be getting help in time not after the event. >> i can give that assurance. let me repeat it is important to praise our emergency services and volunteers and all those working for the environment agency who worked night and day round-the-clock to help our communities. they have done amazing work and we should thank them. in terms of engagement to the military this is important. it has always been possible for gold commanders in these emergency situations to call on military assets. a military liaison officer is supposed to sit with those gold commanders with what we have done in recent days is state clearly to all the local

authorities that we contacted them individually. if you want military assistance don't think twice about it. think once then ask and they will be there. we have thousands of military at a state of readiness to help out, a huge number of already been deployed and as we see the levels potentially rising again coming in to this weekend and we should do everything we can to get extra help in to those communities that could be affected and make sure they are held. all military assistance required is there. people have to ask. >> i welcome that promise of proactive help from the prime minister. given the forecast of extreme weather and the levels rising one of the keys that concern people is not just their homes but continuing gas and electricity supplies. we learned from previous experience in 2007 that protecting electricity, responsible for power to hundreds of thousands of homes is particular importance.

can he reassure the house about the steps being taken to protect these vital services? >> i can give him that assurance. my right hon. friend and minister for government policy carried out review to the resilience of our infrastructure. a lot of steps were taken following that. that has made a difference. in the cobra system we are monitoring every day those particular bits of infrastructure that could be under threat. in recent days it has more been about water treatment works than electricity works. i spoke to the minister responsible for energy policy at this morning's cobra to make sure everything is done to contact the energy companies to stand up for people that will be necessary if there further supply interruptions over coming days. the experience there were problems after christmas since then the energy companies and network companies have done a better job connecting people more quickly. >> i thank the prime minister for that answer. what reassurances he provided

yesterday in an earlier answer was money was no object but this morning the transport secretary said it is not a blank check. tell the house exactly what areas of spending yesterday's promise covers? >> i was clear last night, money is no object in this relief effort. i want communities who are suffering and people who see more suffering at their doors to know that when it comes to the military sandbags, emergency services, restoring broken fled defenses, all those things money is no object and to be fair to the transportation this is what he said this morning. money is not the issue while we are in this relief job. he is absolutely right. >> absolutely right about the relief effort. we will spend whatever it takes to recover from this end to make sure we had a resilient country in the future. that me give an example in that

context. yesterday he creates the environment agency stock. they are in the process this year of making 550 people dealing with flooding redundant. they put in place and maintain flood defenses and deal with clean up. if money is no object as he says, is he committed now to reconsider these redundancies? >> let me tell you what we're doing with the environment agency and the flood defense budget. less spending $2.4 billion over the four year period from 2010-2014 and that compares to just 2.2 billion in the previous four year period. what i can say to the house, this is important. as the waters recede it will be important for the environment agency and local authorities all to look again at the flood patterns we have seen the models they have, and work out what fresh flood defenses will be necessary. in addition to that i can tell the house that we will be introducing ground for all

affected homeowners and businesses to build in better flood protection as they repair their properties. that will be up to 5,000 pounds per house and curb business. on top of that, we are announcing a 10 million fund to help farmers who have seen their land waterlogs day after day, week after week and i can also announced today we will be deferring the tax payments businesses have to pay and all of the businesses affected by floods will get 100% business rate relief. >> mr. speaker, these are welcome. they will be welcomed across the house. intent to the specific question i asked which is about a 550 people that the entire agency are planning to make redundant work on flood defenses. they are people currently

helping with the cleanup. similarity, spending and flood defenses the commission on climate change says we are spending less on flood defense than we should. my question is a simple one. given yesterday's promised to make sure we have a resilient country for the future and spend whatever it takes, is he committing to reconsider these redundancies and reconsider the amount of money we invest in flood protection? >> let me tell you what we are doing with the flood agency into the future. the environment agency budget, capital spending we set out the figures all the way up to 2020. we have only made capital spending in areas like transports and in terms of the lead defenses, no one else is able to match particularly not if the committee is to zero based budget review for pharmacies we are happy to make so people can see how much money we spend on flood defenses.

2019, 2020. we are only able to make those pledges because we manage our economy particularly and the budget. >> i do thank the prime minister he came to this press conference and made what sound like a grand promise to spend whatever it takes and make sure we have a brazilian country for the future. there are real doubts when it comes to making members of the environment agency to deal with flooding redundant and lack of investment for the committee on climate change, an expert body is charged with the investment flood defense which is not happening. needs to reconsider those things. in the coming days the government needs to speak with one voice on this issue. the response needs to be immediate than it has in the past and everyone affected needs to feel they are getting the

help they need. >> that is what i said today. when it comes to this relief effort money will be no object. i don't want people to worry about penny pinching as they see the final words needed to help with their houses to help them deal with the floods. that is what this government is doing, deploying the military when we were asked for the military, raising compensation to local government to 100% because that is what local communities should have. i am on lease are he seems to divide the house when we should be coming together for the nation. >> thank you mr. speaker. can i thank my right hon. friend for discussing our broken rail link? will he commit our government to finding long-term solutions to rail resilience? will he join me today in sending a clear signal to the rest of the country in spite of our

current problems, devon and cornwall is open for business? >> my hon. friend is absolutely right. and message needs to go out loud and clear. businesses including them need to see customers and no, want people to know the peninsula of devon and cornwall are open for business. in terms of the specific question he asks we are finding a 31 million pounds to fund 10 real resilience projects in the southwest to improve resilience for flooding. this will include work at county bridge junction, white wall tunnel and a number of other places. the rail link which i saw myself yesterday, the intense damage done to that track and of the few destruction that was rocked that will take six weeks. they're working as hard as they can and i said any help they need they only need to ask.

>> question 3, closed question to andy sorbert. >> to name and change employers which failed to pay the minimum wage the name of the first company was published in 2011, we revised the scheme to make publication easier not satisfied that this has been going fast enough and the identity of those companies found to have broken the law will be made public very soon. >> can i thank the prime minister and say to him, two agencies in my constituency have recently been found to have not paid the minimum wage to their workers and had to pay penalties but the government said they got to protect the confidentiality of these companies. my constituents think the government stand up for the wrong people, the rip-off agencies, not the workers. >> we will be publishing the names of these companies, something that never happens under the party opposite. we are taking action and when it comes to -- when it comes to penalties for not paying the

minimum wage when we look at the penalties last year over 700 employers received penalties for failing to comply with minimum wage law and the value of those penalties was almost seven times higher than in the final year of the last labor government. we hear a lot of talk about enforcing minimum wage from the party opposite and you see a lot of action from the government right here. stated roughly. >> thank you mr. speaker. crime is down 10% and the police reforms are allowing offices to do more with less. will the prime minister immediately implement the reforms of the police federation so that police culture can be further improved? we are working with the police federation on this issue. >> the peace federation is clearly an organization in need of reform.

to be fair the new head of the police federation recognizes it and wants to act and i think we should support him in sorting out his organization to better represent his members. >> two weeks ago the two secretaries of the treasury to rule out any further tax cuts for millionaires. last week he said that would be over his dead body. can the prime minister calculate by ruling out any tax cuts for the top, with the secretary be looking to up the licensor? >> i saw this morning cobra looked alive and well side of thing she has any worries on that front. i said this is not our priority. our priority is to cut taxes for low and middle learners. that is what we have done. when it comes to people this year her constituents will be able to earn 10,000 pounds without paying any income tax at all. that is equivalent to a 10% increase in the minimum-wage.

it means income-tax bill is down 2 thirds of this government. of the tax cuts we are interested in. >> could i thank the prime minister and deputy prime minister for their personal engagement with our issues. can i ask the prime minister a question which i don't think the secretary of state for local governments grasps which is this. when the emergency, the crisis phase of this problem is over we have to have sustainable plans to protect people on the somerset level. that will require a revenue stream which comes through local government which means changes to the way that is administered. will the prime minister meet with me and others to ensure we have a sustainable future? >> i am happy to meet with him and others. i have been to visit twice myself to see for myself but the problem at the moment is simply

the pumping capacity, taking 3 million pounds, 5 million pounds of water off of the summer some level. because there are 65 million pounds of water on the levels it is going to take time. what we need to do once the water level starts to come down is that the dredging going and work out a long-term program for making sure this man-made environment is properly looked after by man so it is sustainable for the future. i am happy to meet with him. >> commissioner skop outside, the military sector, emergency services, individuals have been amazing that people and businesses are angry. in the southwest my region because of excessive cost base going through where we have the west country without overseeing the network and the money we announced today is not enough. the medium term to insuring support, growth, in the region.

a transport network and it should be. >> three quick points and i totally understand her concern and the concern of her as the issuance. i don't 21 and to be under the misapprehension that age as 2 is built at the expense of the west country. isn't. in the next parliament we will spend three times more on other road and rail schemes as we spend on h s 2 and some of those will benefit people in the west country. second point while we are working as fast as we can to restore repealing, we need to look at logger term alternatives and i discussed this with network rail and first great western to see what can be done. third point in the meantime wild boar nash is as if is we need to boost the air services to the peninsula where i met in new key and a double the flight and would five pounds of of the cost of those but we need to make

sure replacement the services are as good as they can. >> for businesses in westchester, more to my constituency associated with the risk warnings to agree with me. and counsel has been helpful and can he reassure my constituents that that will continue to invest defenses? >> given that assurance he is right to mention the difficulties on the river's 7 because the river's 7 and the river why are expected to respond to recent rainfall and levels are likely to go up. in terms of the thames i should tell the house a second peek is expected on sunday and monday and that could put 800 properties at risk but we will go on doing whatever we can

getting people to communities before they are flooded but it is worth making the point and the point to be fair to the last government as well as this one that if you take the 2007 floods 55,000 homes are flooded. since that time if you look all the schemes that have been built they are protecting over a million properties that would have been flooded this time around were at not for the important work that has been done. >> thank you, mr. speaker. house prices have been rising faster than wages in most parts of the country. does the prime minister not agree the lack of affordable housing is making cost-of-living crisis worse for millions of people across our country. let me confirm this government presided over the number of new homes built since the 1920s? >> up from the dreadful situation from the last government and we are now investing huge amounts in affordable housing but i make no policy to deal with the demand

side of housing as well as the supply side. builders building. >> the house and the council and a volunteer level. what they are doing, i welcome the team, the individuals and the details of this team everyone is effective and make uses. >> it is an important point and i know he is working to bring

people together in his own constituency. they are concerned about the rise and publish details and the major banks going forward. and close to financial support which will mean repayment holidays, reduce waive fees, and released flexibility of terms, and the ploy on the ground. and farmers desperately need health. and insurance companies and banks to demonstrate social responsibility and they're beginning to do that and encourage them to do so. >> after months with energy companies, and people across this country that the energy secretary -- secretary at letter to the editor was too little too

late. and what we have announced, and rolling back the cost of the green levees, rather than promising a freeze that means fighting will go. >> the successful coalition policies. in order to get sustained growth we need businesses to invest more. will he do all he can to support my right hon. friend the secretary, more first -- more business investment. >> the next stage of the recovery and increase in business investment that we need to see. there are positive signs to the last gdp numbers. they're being more jobs than forecast, it is worth remembering the leader of the

opposition told the cbi in october of 2010 they have a program that will lead to the disappearance of 1 million jobs. we have seen 1.6 million new private-sector jobs and 1.3 million more people, more forecasts. >> thank you, mr. speaker. with a million young people unemployed and work programs underperforming will the prime minister think again and introduce the guarantee? >> the work program, an excellent job getting people into work. if you look at the job creation record under this government as i just said, 1.3 million poor people in work, a reduction in youth unemployment, reduction in long-term unemployment, more people in our work force than ever before, more to do to get young people in to work. the best schemes we had our schemes like the work experience

scheme that seem to be providing real open jobs for our young people. >> mr. speaker, can i thank my right hon. friend for coming on monday to see for himself how hard first grade westerners are working to get trains back on track. one thing would be incredibly helpful, make sure we actually have a timetable for these actions so we can deliver a brazilian railway line as well. >> i understand his concern. the gap in the real provision created by the born-disaster is going to take time to deal with. above and beyond that what people in plymouth want is a time table getting to a service to plymouth to see more trains arriving earlier in the morning. we have a longer-term program and looking at rail at the same time as restoring the borderline. >> with economic growth delayed for three years after the

election, we are blessed with more young people. blessed with more young people out of work long term than at any time in 20 years. surely we must do more so we don't waste the potential of a generation. >> i think the hon. gentleman is suffering from a form of memory loss. of the treasury minister when we lost 7% of our gdp. when you unemployment doubled. when people were being thrown out of work. what happened under this government the economy is growing, 1.3 million poor people in work, young people getting back to work while countries elsewhere are struggling our economy is growing and that is partly because we took difficult decisions to get the budget deficit which he and his henchman left us under control. >> adrian sanders.

unfortunately concerns from my constituency partly as a result of oversensationalizing the crisis that we have. when the crisis is over will the prime minister talk to the treasury about advocating on the sum of money to mark hensby far southwest to potential visitors and businesses to get the message across the we are open to business? >> this was a point made by number of businesses 5 visited in cornwall and devon over the last couple days all wanting to see much more advertising and publicity about how they're open for business. i take every opportunity to help with that issue, when the door-line is restored that will be a big moment where i have the honor myself. >> recall the day that he asked the country to imagine the tory

government in a place that would be the most family friendly in europe. whether you reflect on that they will reconsider the more recent report from economic and business research which shows that the cost of getting a child through university is written by 5,000 pounds in one year. does he think for most families money is no object. >> many families faced a tough time in this country, not least because of the appalling recession we had under the party opposite would the government introduced is we have taken steps to encourage flexible working. we are introducing tax free child care we supported more child care than the last government did helping 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds and above all we have many families that now have someone at work.

the economy is losing businesses are employing people and 1.3 extra jobs, 1.3 extra families security and peace of mind and regular paycheck coming in and that is the best way to help our families. >> mr. speaker can i remind the prime minister in 1998, there were serious floods killing two people and 2,000 houses. since that time i noticed we haven't bothered. will the prime minister ask about any time that is more easily available and to ensure, to continue in this way? >> what my hon. friend says, this suggests in terms of applications for properties being built on floodplains the

official advice that includes advice from the environment agency in 99% of occasions it is worth remembering that areas like london are part of a flood plain so i don't think it is possible to say no house can ever be built on a flood plain, what we need to do is look at the rules, listen to the experts and make sure we only build where we can protect. >> thanks to labor and the scottish parliament scotts may soon be free of the -- will he today give an assurance to the house and the scottish people that he will work with the scottish government to help bring this about, or better still, strap it for everyone in dresden. if he won't, we will. >> different parts of the united kingdom can make different decisions to spend money as they choose.

my view is it is not fair to say to someone in private accommodations that you don't get money for extra bedrooms when you taste -- say to someone in social accommodation that you do. it is the basic issue of fairness and has overwhelming public support. >> it took a 1-1/2 hour walk organized by guide dogs for the blind to experience firsthand the real difficulties that blind them to people's experience as pedestrians. it was very tricky. will my right hon. friend look carefully at the recommendations of that organization, the shared street surfaces? >> i will look carefully at what my hon. friend says. everyone has noticed how a huge amount of improvements have been made to the way streets and traffic lights and pavements are arranged for particularly -- i am happy to look at what he says and see what needs to be done.

>> thank you. the prime minister believes what the defense is so important to cut the budget. >> spending 2.4 billion in this four year period compared to 2.2 billion under labor. i think you'll find 2.4 is more than 2.2 and also by stepping out the spending figures all the way up in 2020, the shadow chancellor is back in the gesticulations game. if he is going to have a zero based budget review doesn't he have to admit to his colleagues that he cannot guarantee to match any of the spending we have announced? >> silence. >> prime minister is aware of a cross party group, some 80 m ps campaigning for the tax benefits. given that the u.k. has called

into how other countries treat their veterans and high incidents of el health suffered by their defendants, will the prime minister meet with those given we hit a brick wall and given this government have good track record recognizing wrongs? >> i know my hon. friend has consistently campaigned on this issue and i have discussed it with him before and i wrote him a month ago setting out the government's view of this. they frequently stated the position there is no published, peer reviewed evidence of mortality but it is right to go on looking at this issue as i know he will and we will discuss it with him. >> statement. secretary of state. >> here on c-span2 we will leave the british house of commons as they move onto other legislative business. you have been watching prime minister's question time aired

live wednesdays at 7:00 a.m. eastern when parliament is in session. you can see the question time again sunday night at 9:00 eastern and pacific on c-span. for more information would go to c-span.org and click on c-spanseries for prime minister's questions plus links to international news media and legislatures around the world. you can watch recent video including programs dealing with other international issues. >> at any event hosted by the partnership for secure america two for u.s. diplomats commented on negotiations around iran's nuclear program. they're scheduled to resume talks next week in vienna. this is an hour. >> let me start from the beginning. good morning. thanks to sandy for the kind introduction. i want to support the partition for secure america trying to do and that is to build a better

sense of bipartisanship in washington on capitol hill in particular. both bob and i have worked for republican and democratic administrations. i was career foreign service officer so i started as an intern in a jimmy carter administration and went through the george w. bush administration and i believe while politics is important when it comes to the national security of the united states we americans have to unite and there is no reason why the two political parties can't be in support of each other and our country on the most important issues can be ran nuclear issue is the number-1 priority of american foreign policy in 2014 because we are in -- the administration is at a critical juncture. let me start by saying i support what president obama and secretary of state john kerry cartwright to do. when i served in the george w. bush administration working for condoleezza rice we tried to negotiate with iran. we offered negotiations of the p

5 plus 1 group, germany being the one, britain france, united states, russia and china we offered in 2006-7 publicly for the iranians to negotiate and they turned to staff, we formed this group of the security council member in germany because we thought was important to have a global conversation with iranians and when they turned us down we turned toward sanctions and the bush administration helped to pass at the security council, three chapters 7 sanctions resolutions and the obama administration read by people like bob einhorn took the baton from the bush administration and carried it forward. i have always seen this policy to be highly bipartisan. i don't discern any differences at all between president obama and president bush on this particular issue. we can take comfort in that because it is a key issue for our country but i support what the president is trying to do. andy mentioned until the negotiations over the last six months that have been so ably

handled by undersecretary of state wendy sherman for secretary john kerry we have not had a consistent sustained strategic dialogue with the iranian government since the jimmy carter administration. if there is a probability that the united states at some point could theoretically have to consider the use of force against iran it does make sense to exhaust diplomacy first and to enter into the type of negotiations the president has committed himself to so i support the idea of negotiations entirely consistent in my view with what the bush administration was trying to do. i also believe the president was right to negotiate the interim deal and bob can speak with greater authority than i can because he was part of the team that led the obama administration's efforts in the first four years but that deal essentially freeze us in place as you know the major elements of your and at nuclear program so it provides the time for

diplomacy to act and operate. this will not be overcome simply or quickly. you need the time the president has given us to negotiate. i think the next round of talks with the agreement that began in geneva will be infinitely more difficult because now the pressure is going to be on iran and the spotlight will be on the iranian government because they have to agree in my judgment to a significant role back of their current civil nuclear program nuclear enrichment uranium enrichment program the ideas that they would have 19,000 centrifuges spinning, something i don't think the united states can tolerate. we will see dismantlement of that program. i would think the negotiators from our side and the european side would see some significant

transformation of the iraq heavy water reactor. jeter dismantlement of that facility altogether or some kind of transition to that facility so the we can be assured that it doesn't open up another route through plutonium to nuclear-weapons and so i know for in ministers at the munich security conference that he had not committed to dismantlement. and for domestic purposes in iran and a great complicated political scene in tehran. i hope he understands the iranian government understands dismantlement has to be part of this. the iranian government is seated before the international community and is being judged because they misrepresented or lied about their program in the past. because they have gone far beyond what the international community wants them to do they have to prove to was not just

through inspections but dismantlement that they are ready to become a peaceful country with civil nuclear power and not a country intent on developing nuclear weapons. that is the test for them so the pressure has shifted to them in these negotiations. i strongly support the president and what he is trying to do. i think he brought us skillfully to the present day but negotiations will now be much tougher. we wanted to speak very quickly to get to your questions. i know that congress has been considering merits of additional sanctions on iran. my own view on that is the president has to decide, execute american foreign policy. we elected him to do that. the constitution gives him authority on foreign policy. i don't think it is a reasonable proposition to think we can have 535 people negotiating with iran. the president has to represent

the united states and he clearly said that further sanctions at this time would not be helpful and that is what the negotiators things, i would think which honor the wishes of a negotiator and support him on a bipartisan basis. there may come a time should negotiations break down where further sanctions by congress would be helpful but we would want to see in my judgment and integration between the executive and legislative branches on this issue, this is not a trivial matter. this is the number one issue facing our country overseas. i hope the reports of congress will likely stand down on the current sanctions. i hope those reports are accurate. that congress will give the president the time and space and room needs to be our chief diplomat. our key negotiator with john kerry in this important matter. finally i think it is important we have leverage on our side. diplomacy often cannot succeed

unless it is helped by leverage. what i mean by that is i hope the european countries and the other countries that used to trade with iran will not rush as they are appearing to do to open up business as usual with iranians. we have seen delegations from european and asian countries to set the scene for a reopening of commercial sanctions lifted. it is the wrong message to the iranians to make them think that they are 90% of the way they are not. they have not made the fundamental compromises. john kerry was absolutely right the other day criticized this. we have got or maintain unity internationally and send the iranians one message and that is there's not going to be business as usual commercially until they earn it and they haven't yet turned it. if uss probability the president

has done that, called a 50/50, whether or not the united states shall be successful. it would be complicated politics of iran at some point are going to be a major part of the story. i don't doubt the sincerity of president rouhani seem to be genuinely interested in a new relationship with the united states and europe and reform in general. if they do negotiate an agreement they bring it back to tehran it is an open question how the revolutionary guard, national security council and the supreme leader of going to react. and so our job of the job of our government is to defend our country at the negotiating table and negotiate the best possible and toughest minded deal. it is going to be up to the iranian government to make sure they are on board in tehran and that is an open question. we have yet to hear more

reactionary elements in the iranian government but i support the president and which the administration success and happy to be here with my friend bob einhorn. >> i think the partnership for secure america, for inviting me. is a special pleasure to be here with nick burns who is one of the best foreign service officers, one of the best diplomats i had privileged to work with over these past decades. since the geneva joint plan of action is agreed in november, there's a kind of dynamic at work between tehran and washington and it goes like this. critics in each capital attack their own administration for

having gotten the short end of the stick in negotiations. what happens then is the administrations defend themselves. they stress the benefits to their country of the interim deal and they reassure their critics that in the final negotiations they are going to be very tough and then these defenses in turn become ammunition for critics on the other side to attack the deal. for example, u.s. critics point out that the interim deal doesn't dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. that is correct. it doesn't do that so the administration, the obama administration naturally feels compelled to say that in the

final deal it will be a major dismantlement and major reduction of nuclear infrastructure and the iranian critics say you see, we told you the americans are only interested in getting our enrichment program. hand rouhani to defend himself against that charge says we are not going to reduce any centrifuges in a final deal land you are off and running. another example, the iranian critics of the deal say that the sanctions relief in the interim agreement are in significant. and so the rouhani administration feels compelled to say this interim deal was the first big crack in wall of sanctions and sanctions inevitably are going to unravel.

u.s. critics read that and say look what is happening to our sanctions regime. it is falling apart. the administration then has to say it is not falling apart. the main sanctions remain in place which is absolutely true, we will enforce the existing sanctions. in fact we are going to impose additional sanctions measures from the existing sanctions regime as they did yesterday. iran, iranian critics look at that and say the at american administration is not serious about the negotiations under lining of the talks, they are only after regime change, operating in bad faith. i was and i remain a supporter of the two step approach to this negotiation, getting an interim deal and buying time and space

for negotiations on a comprehensive deal. there are good reasons for that. it gives us six months to test iran's willingness to implement the deal conscientiously. and it halts further progress in iran's programs. so you are not in a situation where iran is making major progress in its program while you are negotiating. that would be politically and strategically and acceptable. one of the downside of this two step approach is you open yourself up to early criticism and you make it more difficult to get to the end game. i agree with nick that this first step deal, the joint plan of action is a very good deal. but the test of the diplomatic track will be what happens in the comprehensive agreement and that is six months down the

road. the joint plan of action does fall further progress in iran's nuclear program and in some small respect reverses progress the requirement that iran neutralized its stocks near 20% enriched uranium and it is important to remember that in the absence of this interim agreement iran could make major progress over the last 6 months in its program. and the breakout timeline to decision of nuclear weapons for sufficient material, to produce a single nuclear weapon. substantially if iran to continue the program. the interim deal doesn't

dismantle a single centrifuge, at and research and development, these are items for the comprehensive deal. un sanctions relief, there's a wide appreciation that the specific measures of sanctions relief are in fact quite modest. and a psychological shift in expectations. this will open the floodgates to new business activities, and the unraveling of the sanctions regime. and the government was skillful in pursuing a public diplomacy campaign. and feed davos economic forum

open for business. and to come to iran and cut new deals. and the succession of trade delegations and french delegation, turkish delegation led by prime minister, reports of russian/iran oil for a good deal. and hasn't materialized, the administration strongly opposed at the highest levels. and that activity raises concerns whether the sanctions are really in evaporating. there's no evidence of fire. governments are very cautious about engaging at this point. they know the major sanctions on banking, and the energy area.

still in place. and new sanctions under existing authorities, and invasion the detected. the sanctions regime will remain intact to at six months period. and there will be benefits for iran, the existing sanctions will provide plenty of incentives for iran to negotiate a final deal. the concern has been there will be so much sanctions that there will be no incentives left. i don't think that is the case,

and devises understand that if their economy is to get on track a lifting of sanctions, not just easing of appeal measures. on the final deal they begin february 18th coming up very soon and as nick pointed out there are very big differences between the size -- a few of them, the biggest is about the size of the enrichment, uranium enrichment program that iran will be able to retain. the u.s. goal is to lincoln this break out timeline, the time it would take to have enough enriched uranium for a single nuclear bomb and to lengthen the time line, the u.s. and its partners in negotiation will press for a significant

reduction in the number of centrifuges, constraints on the types of centrifuges that can be used, a type constraints on the amount of enriched uranium. at various levels that iran will be able to keep on its territory and so forth. iran has given every indication that it is going to resist deep cuts in its infrastructure. it will want to retain as much of what it already has installed and even expand what it has already deployed. some robust nuclear energy program and it needs to expand its enrichment capacity in order to support that program. perhaps a way forward is to focus on the practical needs of

that iranian civil nuclear program. in fact the joint plan of action indicates the final agreement will provide a mutually defined in richmond program based on practical needs. iran has a small research reactor, already produced enough fuel to fuel the reactor for a long period of time. it has a reactor supplied by russia but russia is supplying fuel for that reactor. it wants to build some small research reactors to produce medical isotopes. we support that, but those small reactors don't take much enriched uranium as fuel so in fact iran's real needs, practical needs are very limited and i think that can be a basis for agreement on the enrichment

question. nick also talked about the heavy water reactor in iraq. i have no doubt that this reactor was designed to produce plutonium for a nuclear weapons program. it is precisely the kind of reactor, the size reactor, the number of countries use to embark a nuclear weapons program. i am sure that was the initial intention of the iranians. they say it is to produce medical isotopes but it is not the best type of reactor for the production of medical isotopes. much better for that purpose and much corporate user of plutonium would be a reactor model dated by heavy water, light water research reactor. the head of the atomic energy organization of iran a few days

ago gave some hints that they would be prepared to accept some design modifications of that reactor in order to reduce the plutonium production threat. it is not clear what he means by that. one way to modify it is for it to be fuelled by lightly enriched uranium rather than natural uranium which would be somewhat better than fuelling it with natural uranium. that would be fine but not nearly as useful a step as converting it to light water research reactor and that is the solution that would solve this difficult issue. there is also the question of underground enrichment facility the secret facility, it was outbid by western intelligence agencies in 2009. my guess is it was designed as a

covert component of a nuclear weapons program at a facility previously used as a military base buried deep underground, less vulnerable to pre-emptive attack. it has no logical role to play in the future iranian civil program. it could be dismantled altogether, but if that is too difficult, too much of a loss of face, then perhaps it can be repurchased, converted into a research and development facility with all of it centrifuge cascades removed. monitoring and verification will be difficult. it is positive that the iranians have agreed to ratify the additional protocol under a comprehensive deal. that is a good step but the

additional protocol isn't enough given iran's track record which is a very poor track record of compliance with its safeguards, obligations, it is important that they agreed to go well beyond the additional protocol. in a number of areas the joint plan of action is a good step in that direction. with access to centrifuge production facilities, uranium mines, these are things that can give us some confidence of pursuing a covert nuclear program but in a comprehensive agreement they have to go even further. a very hard issue will be one called the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program. november of 2011 the director-general came out with a report itemizing areas in which

the i a key aide believes iran engage in research activities related to nuclear-weapons development. for two years they tried to get to the bottom of this, stonewalling by iran made it possible to clear up the i e a's concerns. ..remains and without a full understanding of these past activities come is just not going to be possible to resolve this issue in any fundamental way. it's made harder by the fact that president rouhani keeps saying, not only does iran is it not pursuing nuclear weapons but it never pursued nuclear weapons. besides that the supreme leader talks about i thought law saying that nuclear weapons would be against islam. so becomes very di