e director of the institute. i am delighted to host today's event, to welcome all of you to this very special gathering. i am hearing -- i see that the audio is a little bit low. we can raise the volume for the

back. let me try that again. is that better? all right. let me just first begin by asking everyone if you could please turn your cell phones to mute. today's event is being live streamed out. since our last major event with guests from curtis dan -- kurdistan was our most highly watched live streamed event in history, we expect this event to break that record. [laughter] perhaps there is a presidential directive in kurdistan.

we are here today because the topic of the future of kurdistan is at the top of the global agenda. it is one of the key issues that is swirling around the entire set of issues triggered by recent events in iraq. of course, the issues regarding the kurdish people are not new. they have been a subtext to politics in the middle east for many years. america's connection to the people of kurdistan is not new either. it is a story that has its ups and downs over the years. hopefully, our government and the government in northern iraq the government and the kurdish regional government, is now

entering a new era of cooperation and perhaps even alliance. we will hear more about that from our guests. i do want to it knowledge -- acknowledge the guidance here at the institute of all things iraq related offered by ambassador jim jeffrey. we are delighted to have jim offering his wisdom on all things connected to this issue. today's program will be moderated by my colleague dr. david pollack. david is a man of many hats. one of those hats is a kurdish at where -- hat where he spent quite a bit of time not just mastering the language, but understanding the intricacies of kurdish politics.

with that, i am delighted to be able to turn the podium over to him to introduce our very special guests. dave. >> thank you very much. thank all of you for attending. especially, thanks to our very distinguished guests who are coming here at a critical moment in the history of the region, as the whole of iraq and curtis dan --kurdistan and the kurdish people. i will be extremely brief in my remarks. i want to begin with a shameless plug for the blog that i write here at the institute. we have special pieces about the

situation in iraq. i commend those articles and the blog generally to your attention. we would be delighted to have contributors from kurdistan writing for us and we have had a number of kurdish contributors over the past number of years. it is bilingual. it is in arabic and english. someday, as your president said when he was here, someday perhaps, we will perhaps at a kurdish language version of the blog. >> it is time. >> it is time. i know. [laughter] rob was very generous and saying i had mounted -- mastered the kurdish language. that was generous. we have the national security

advisor to president barzani of the kurdistan regional government. chief of staff. we have the head of the external relations department of the herd is dan --kurdistan regional government. they are coming to us from a meeting with secretary kerry following on the heels of secretary kerry's recent visit to the capital of the kurdistan region in the wake of the current critical developments. i look forward very much to hearing what they have to say about the situation in their own region and in the region as a whole and about u.s. policy toward these developments. we have an understanding that

hussein will speak primarily to internal developments and that stuff up -- mustafa will speak about external relations. they have both graciously agreed to speak very briefly, probably only about 10 minutes each, and they even asked me to stop them if they have to -- if i have to, so that all of you will have more than enough time for questions and comments and discussion. i'm very grateful to them. they have been gracious and informative posts -- hosts to me on my roughly annual visits to kurdistan. with that, i will turn the floor over.

>> david, i would like to thank you. thank you very much for inviting us to be here on behalf of my colleague. it is really great and important to be with you. thank you for coming to this event. i think the situation in iraq and the change which happened the last 2-3 weeks in iraq invite all of us to think about the current situation and analyze it and also to think

about the development and the future of the country -- when i am talking about country, i am talking about iraq, but also kurdistan. i have been asked to talk about the internal situation in iraq. usually, nowadays, i am talking about the current events in iraq, i am talking about pre-and post-mosul event. before the events which started on the ninth of june, iraq was different. after mosul the 10th of june, we got a different country. what was before? we had officially one country.

we had an army. the terrorists were active in various places, but they did not announce themselves. there was so-called disputed area and there were joint checkpoints in some areas between the iraqi army and kurdish forces. what happened after mosul is the following. we have got a new state. a new state was born. we have got a terrorist organization which became a state now. it was groups acting here and there, but now they announce it and they became a state. 80% of iraqi army has collapsed.

there were six divisions of the iraqi army around the mosul army. all of them collapsed. we are talking about six. four belonged to the iraqi army and two belonged to the royal force. all weapons that they had are now controlled by isil. they control the weapons and they control the area. the sunni representatives were representing the sunni political parties in the parliament, now most of them they do not have basis in these areas.

they are representing the sunni community, but they do not have bases in these area because these are under control of the islamic state. and baghdad is different than before mosul event. we have got officially militias. when we are talking about militias, we are talking about units. they are officially active in baghdad and around baghdad. as far as disputed area because of the lapse of the iraqi army -- collapse of the iraqi army, there are vacuums. the disputed area, according to

the iraqi constitution, is completely under the control of the kurdish forces. this is a new reality. we have got three states within one. three states with different systems. one is islamist and internationalist because they do not recognize the border. they are targeting baghdad, they are targeting mosques, they are targeting beirut. there targeting jordan and kuwait, for the time being. i think they will target kurdistan and other areas. that is their program, that is their plan. we have got kurdistan, which is secure, which believes in democracy, tries to build a democratic process, believes in

multiethnic society, believes in multireligious society, believes in human rights, believes in women's rights. this is next to a so-called islamic state. our border now is with an islamic state and not anymore with iraq. we have got a border of about 1050 kilometers with islamic state, from 1050 kilometers only 15 kilometers is with iraq. there is a state between us and baghdad. then we have got nonfunctional government or a failure government in baghdad. you have the government in baghdad that is not functioning. you have got an islamic state that is against kurdistan and against baghdad. and you have got kurdistan.

this is a new reality. how are we going to deal with this? for the kurds, what are we going to do? the first target is to defend our borders. to defend the murderer of -- border of kurdistan. to defend kurdistan from any attack by islamic state's terrorist group. the second target is to protect our constitution -- population and to protect the population means the whole population, the muslims, the christians, because our society is multiethnic multicultural, multireligious. we are protecting those people.

this is our second target. the third one is to help those refugees and displaced people who are coming by the thousands to our area. thousands of people are running from mosul. thousands of people are coming to kurdistan. almost all christian. in mosul, they are trying to reach kurdistan. they are leaving their area, leaving their home, coming to kurdistan. we are trying to help. our capacity is limited. if we will add syrian refugees we have 250,000 refugees from syria in our area, then we are talking about one million people

displaced in our area. we now have got the population of the disputed area added to our population. we are talking around 7 million people. we are not responsible to take care of 7 million kurds and non-kurds in that area. some are refugees, summer displaced. this means managing the economics, managing the local government, but also managing the security. this is a new reality in kurdistan. there's also a new reality in baghdad that has to do with the new process, the new political process. are we going to give birth once again to a new political process in baghdad? is that possible? are we responsible to do that?

can we lead that because people abroad are asking us to lead that? because there is a lack of leadership in baghdad. if we lead the process, can we succeed? the last 10 years, we tried. we try to keep the energy of iraq. -- the unity of iraq. others were building unity -- destroying unity and democracy. we tried to tell everybody the solution for the country is to have a structure in iraq thomas of the sunnis can have their area, the she is can have their area, the kurds can have their area, and baghdad can be for all of us. they rejected that. instead of going in the direction of democracy, they were going in the democracy -- direction of dictatorship. instead of going in the direction of gradually

establishing and building a federal structure, they were going the direction of the dictatorship system. in the end, we ended up with three states and they are different from each other. with the new process, rebuilding the new political process, we are going to be part of it. yesterday, the iraqi parliament tried to have the first meeting, they failed. next week, they will come together. next week, they will come together to choose the speaker of the parliament, the president of the country, and the prime minister of the country. of course, the new government, then. it seems yesterday, they did not reach an ingredient -- agreement. the sunni community among

themselves, they did not reach an agreement about the speaker of the parliament. first, you must choose a speaker of the parliament. i hope that next week there will be an agreement about this. i guess the kurds will also nominate somebody to be president of the country because that is the kurdish position. president of the country for the kurds and the prime minister is for the shia bloc. when we are talking about the prime minister, we are talking about a new prime minister. there must be a new government. the policy has failed. the current government, the people now in power, they are responsible for the collapse of the army.

a big part of the country has been hijacked by terrorists. the question for the kurds, the future government of iraq, but also for neighboring countries for the united states, how are we going to deal with this threat? it is a threat for kurdistan. it is a threat for baghdad. it is a threat for syria. it is a threat for jordan, for middle eastern countries including kuwait. they are announcing that. how are we going to deal with this? it will be a threat for international peace if they will have their power there. they are busy establishing themselves in the area. they have weapons, they have money, they have ideology, they

have some international support. this new islamic state, it does not belong to the area, it belongs to an international terrorist organization. it means working together with various countries so that they will be defeated. but defeating the terrorists can start from iraq, from kurdistan, and baghdad. we are going to follow two paths. one path, helping the government to be established in baghdad. the other path is to establish ourselves, to have an independent economic life, to strengthen our forces.

to protect our area, to protect their people. these two paths will continue. this is our policy. we hope that people here in washington, that these two parts are not contradicting each other. at the end, the people of kurdistan has the right of self-determination and the right to decide about the future of kurdistan and the future of kurdish people there. we hope we can reach that understanding here, but also reach that understanding in baghdad. this is our policy. this is one of the reasons why we're here, to explain the situation, to talk about the current situation, to talk about the new reality. iraq is not one iraq anymore. if you want to bring it together, then it must be a new

structure. a different structure than i was. you cannot bring them together while you have the islamic state between kurdistan and baghdad. thank you very much. [applause] was it 10 minutes? >> a little more than 10 minutes, but well worth it. >> maybe the gentleman, it is a pleasure to be back here. i would like to focus on the situation here today and what has happened on the ground and how do we communicate that message to the outside world? we believe in interacting with the outside world. we have suffered from isolation in the past and we want to communicate our message. as a result of isolation sometimes we would be blamed and we would be accused of things that we have not done. there are some who are trying to

accuse the kurds of the failure for iraq. we're the ones who have only participated heavily for the health of iraq. there are people who are trying to cover their own failure by blaming the kurds and letting the kurds be the scapegoat. from isolation to interaction, that has been one of the principles of the foreign policy. the open-door policy. second we tried to benefit from the opportunity given to turn the confrontation that we had into cooperation. that has been the strategy to have understanding with the regional powers and the international community. if we make any comparison with what the krg has done and baghdad has done, we have been more successful in building relationships with the

international community at large and neighboring countries. although we have not been a state like iraq, but unfortunately they were not able to benefit from it. a new democratic experience, we have been able to benefit. there has been a clarity of mission and a clarity of vision. some of the problems that have happened in iraq, they go back to the constitution. not accepting the principles of power-sharing and partnership. we, the kurds, are not to be blamed for the failure in baghdad. why did it happen? it happened for a number of reasons. we have political challenges, we have security challenges, and we have economic challenges. these are the main three challenges we face today. we would like the international community to appreciate the situation we are in, whether we talk about kurdistan alone or

iraq as a whole. we have to continue on the two tracks. so that we will not lose whatever we have achieved so far. to strengthen it, consolidated. -- consolidate it. if we were able to help the rest of iraq to be like kurdistan it depends on their cooperation. at the same time, we want the international community to view kurdistan for what it stands for. we do not want to pay a price for the failure of baghdad. therefore, talking about baghdad and the political process, the international community has to recognize that there has been a big change in iraq. the post-mosul area is very different from the pre-mosul

iraq. the security -- the islamic state of the economic challenge -- the islamic state, the economic challenge -- all of the refugees. the federal government did not paid the budget -- pay the budget of the kurdistan region. it is the commitment to provide budget for the krg, which is a recognized, legitimate government for the people of kurdistan. could this participation in the political process be conditional? it has to be a might of the change that has taken place. also for us, we do not want to go back to the same stories of 10 years ago.

either we would be respected for who we are, because iraq is made up of two nationalities and then minorities. or we have to revisit the nature of the relationships that exist. i would call upon the united states, the international community, the neighboring countries to look at kurdistan and our government in the last decade or two. we have proven to everyone that we are effective for stability. we have proven that in spite of all of the challenges we have had internally and externally we succeeded in introducing a new democratic experience. the last cabinet that was formed recently is a broad-based cabinet in kurdistan region that we were expecting there would be challenges. that is why we have waited

longer than expected to be united. next to the that, we have formed a kurdish negotiation team, so that we are in baghdad -- when we are in baghdad, we will speak unitedly. what we want to see is we do not want to go back to a failed experience, and experience that has failed. we don't want to go back to unfulfilled promises. iraq has a constitution. it was a constitution the majority of the people in a rack for, but unfortunately it was not implemented. shall we go back and see that nonimplementation of the constitution? we also want to say these changes require a new track from

the international community. not only focusing on baghdad. baghdad has to be seen equally. today, there's public opinion encourages stan -- in kurdistan. they have not seen good intentions from baghdad. it's not only the kurdish leadership that has to be satisfied, as the curtis public -- the kurdish public opinion has to be satisfied. so far they have not seen that baghdad. going back to victory, iraqi is an artificial state. it was a state put together to keep the balance between the shiites and sunnis. anything built on the foundation will not survive. unless it is voluntary, unless it is through an understanding of the community. since the establishment of the iraqi state, we have never felt we are partners in this country. we have never been treated as partners.

the international community has to understand that we as kurds have paid a huge price in the past. time has come for the kurdish identity to be respected. we have not gone beyond what the limits of the constitution asked for, but we wanted for our characters to be respected so we can focus on rebuilding the kurdistan region, we have inherited 4500 villages destroyed by saddam hussein's regime. we expected baghdad would come forward to help us rebuild. 5000 people killed in a chemical gassing. we were expecting the federal government come forward to compensate them. the 182,000 people lost in a notorious operation. we were expect inc. baghdad would come forward.

these have not happened. indeed, we've seen the iraqi army move against kurdish people. that was a true reminder baghdad has not changed. that tragic history shapes our policies. it is a feeling of uncertainty we have in iraq that we would like the international community to understand. we had a tense relationship with turkey but we were hopeful and optimistic that we would be able , given the opportunity to communicate our message, that we would be able to establish a good relationship. we are very pleased to say that today we have a good relationship with turkey. we are optimistic about the future of this relationship and we see them as long-term and strategic. and they needed interaction. we just needed a platform to communicate the message.

likewise, we have good relations with our other neighbor, iran, and we have been able to reach out to arab countries, with jordan, kuwait and other countries and we enjoy very good relations all stop today, we have 31 diplomatic representation a treated to kurdistan. five of them are the common to members of the security council and five are from arab countries. others from europe, the united states and others will stop we do not want the progress to be put on hold. we have done everything we could to help the process in iraq, but at the same time we want to be helped so we continue building our democratic institution, the rule of law, the empowerment of women created by the civil society institution, etc..

we do not want to live isolated from the rest of the world. we have given enough to baghdad. we have contributed positively. to protect iraqi in terms of the political process. what we want to see is a new foundation, if iraq were to succeed, there has to be a new foundation, a new basis of this relationship. we cannot go back to pre-june 9, but certainly how we have aspirations. we want to have more economic autonomy, we want to have more political autonomy because this is the least we can do. as a people, we have the right to self-determination, but that does not stop where we have to live under the mercy of baghdad for baghdad to decide you have

to do this and you have to do that. it is over that time. in baghdad, we are ready to be good harder's to build a new and better iraq, but also to have a better kurdistan to enjoy good relations with the international community. with that, i would welcome any questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you both very much. i'm going to be looking for questions. i see a few people have expressed a lot of interest. i'm going to take the prerogative of the chair and ask the first question which picks up on a very interesting and important comment made about the new border between the kurdistan region and the islamic state especially in your newly expanded territory. you've got a border of over 1000 kilometers, not with iraq but a

new islamic state, terrorist state, as you put it. i want to ask you what in your view should the the next steps in defending yourself against that threat and confronting or defeating, if possible, this threat from the islamic state and what do you see as the desirable and realistic american role? thank you. >> the threat is real and it's not only a threat against kurdistan. it is a threat to baghdad, it's a threat to turkey because it's on the border with turkey, and they are trying to reach the border of the ran to be a threat to iran. in the statement which has been given by their leader yesterday, it is obvious they are threatening everybody.

so what can we do? we, the kurds, as i said, we try to protect our area. but of course this is not enough. if this threat is to stay, we need international cooperation from neighboring countries, but also help and support from the united states. because it is a threat to all of us. not just a threat to the territory, but threat to the values and interests, to every individual and every group. it is a threat to others, not just people who belong to the islamic state. the day before yesterday when irs released a statement, it divided the world into 2 -- a world of islam and the world of war, nonbelievers. and the only world that belongs

to him is his territory. the world of war, that means they will start with their neighbors and we are on the other side. turkey is on the north and baghdad south, and they are trying to reach iran. on the other side, they've got syria and jordan. in the first place they are a threat to us but better they would be a threat to everybody. when we talk about this threat, we are realistic. we need help and the united states can help us. we've got our forces. we do not need united states forces to be there, but we need equipment. they have the most sophisticated weapons in their hands and they are all american weapons. they are all american weapons that had been given to the iraqi army and now they are in the

hands of terrorists. this is another new reality. the iraq army is very weak or does not exist. the kurds are there but they can defend their territory but they cannot go to other -- they cannot liberate other areas. if we want to liberate those areas, we need international cooperation, helping the kurds to strengthen their military power, giving the kurds equipment, giving them weapons, but also allowing them to sell their oil because we can have our money, we are not receiving money from baghdad anymore since january, baghdad is not sending even the budget for the

employees of the government. we need financial resources. we must take care of 7 million people. how can we do that without having financial resources? we are not asking others to pay us money, we are asking others especially in the united states, to help us because they're putting some pressure on various governments so that our oil will not be sold on the international oil market. that is all. we believe in our cause. we can find those people because we have forces, because we are defending our country. but we need support and help especially from the united states. thank you.

>> i want to recognize our executive director. >> gentlemen, thank you. i don't want to cause differences between the two of you, but my ear heard something very interesting. first, we had to principled policies will stop we are going to stay in baghdad and we are going to build our nation and kurdistan. then we heard staying in baghdad is conditional. so if i could ask you what exactly triggers the end of that principle? or to put it differently, what triggers independents, a road neither of you use in your opening remarks? >> it may be a generational change. [laughter]

>> we believe our generation and we believe in democracy. we allow other generations to think a different way. but we are not on different paths. it is the same. there must be a baghdad which believes in these values. we must build a democratic iraq for a democratic system. if they don't believe in it and until now they did not do that is it possible for them to do that? when my colleague is talking about the conditions, it's not too have a person as prime minister and remove him and bring somebody else, it is about the culture, the ideology and the system they believe in.

if we are not going in the direction of restructuring iraqi radically, toward democracy that we cannot be part of that system. at the same time, the second part, we mention we were talking about self-determination, the right of self-determination, and when we are talking about that right, our people will decide which kind of rights they will exercise. we are talking about having a referendum. i don't know when. my representative will go to the kurdish parliament tomorrow and of course we're going to ask our people what do they want. that doesn't mean we will implement a result that will threaten them directly.

when are you going to implement let's say the result of the referendum? that depends on the situation in the process in baghdad. that depends on the negotiation with other countries but we are heading toward a different direction. the kurdish people have the right of self-determination and one day we will implement that right according to the desire of our people. >> on my list now, i have michael gordon and barbara slaton. i will get to that in just a moment.

>> i'm going to ask a question very similar to robs, but let me pursue it a bit more deeply. what are the specific things you have to have in the way of automatic payments or relative independence, autonomy, whatever you want to call it from baghdad in order to stay -- what do you think you could sell to the people of kurdistan to allow you to stay inside iraq? where are the red lines that would force you out? >> we are not going back to the old situation. going back before the ninth of june, that is impossible. it was difficult to have a common path with baghdad. they were getting everything

they were not implementing the constitution. they were violating the constitution. so that peace, we cannot go back. second, is the islamic state between us and i dad, we cannot reach baghdad. we don't have a border anymore. when they are coming nowadays, they are flying. it is as if we are going to another country. if baghdad wants us to stay, they must recognize the right of self-determination of the kurds. the kurds can have their own independent country. but when we will have a democratic government in baghdad

and they can have their territory, we can combine between two states. having said that, i'm talking about a state between us as they are in the same state. of course, we must cooperate. having a third state between us and a state which threatens everything, we cannot live easily. it would be a nightmare having as a neighbor next to you, and you don't feel secure. so we can cooperate. how are we going to give definition to this relationship? that's why we are talking about to pass.

we can negotiate with baghdad about the future at the end and about kurdistan, if we can cooperate, that is good, if not that means we can choose two different paths will stop >> we will not be gassing baghdad. the way they are treating us, it was as if we are guessing baghdad but we are more -- we are for economic and sovereign power. this is the least our people can expect. >> michael gordon? >> i would like to ask you to clarify the point you just made. when you say if kurdistan is to

remain part of a new iraq, there needs to be a new iraqi that acknowledges the new facts on the ground. the new geographic fact on the ground, are they negotiable or not negotiable for kurdistan? your cook and the disputed territories they have now moved into our forever to be part of kurdistan on the negotiating table if you are iraqi partners, and that has to be recognized if you are to remain part of iraq or would you negotiate a territory? lastly, you made the point there needs to be a new prime minister. early part of the process is to pick a new prime minister, but did you mean to say you are asked was really ruling out nouri al-maliki as the potential prime minister for a third term? >> as far as kirk cook -- as far as kirk cook another areas

covered in article 140 from the constitution of iraq, the same article is about implementation of the process, a legal process in this area, it's the duty of the iraqi government. the iraqi government didn't do that will stop date did not implement that article so we cannot implement that article. how are we going to implement that article now that the territories under the control of the kurdish? i think it's the right of the population to vote, so in that referendum, they can decide their future and we made it clear the other day that when we have a referendum in kurdistan it will be about something else, the referendum and this piece of territory which has been covered by the constitution, we can have

a referendum about their future and their relationship with kurdistan. so then the people will decide. it's not about negotiation with baghdad. it is about the roles and desires of the people in kirk cook -- the futures of these areas will be decided. as well as prime minister. it is not only me. i will go to the parliament and i will say i'm sorry. so i will leave but he does not recognize that it was a failure of management. so this is news do not want durian maliki. the kurds do not want durian maliki as prime minister but

the main two political parties among the shia, they do not want nouri al-maliki as prime minister. i think he is finished, so we must wait for another one to be in charge. >> thank you. barbara slaton, appear in the middle. and then dennis, in the back. >> tank you so much. good to see you back here again. i believe president barzani said there would be a referendum on independence, but he did not say when. >> he said there will be a referendum but he did not say about what, he did not say which question. there will be parliament to discuss these matters. >> you have it in talking about

independence for a long time certainly as long as i've done both of you gentlemen. are you getting a more receptive response from the obama as the -- obama administration for the idea of not just more autonomy but independence? are they telling you you can have more autonomy, but we don't want you to break away entirely from iraq? is it the same view one hears from the turks and iranians? they have a considerable kurdish population and it would seem many people can accept more power and sovereignty but not independence for kurdistan. can you have de facto independence without splitting from her rack and is the u.s. government ok with that? >> the right to self-determination and

independence is a given right. but the realities on the ground and the international circumstances and the regional powers are to be blamed. we have accepted that how about we want to live in peace and partnership. that was rejected. de facto independence, we had it from 1991 until 2003. we had our own trade. kurdistan was different from the rest of her rack. in 2003, there was an opportunity to secure a better future. we were in the front to support the liberation of united states. we have said publicly that there

is an opportunity for iraq to build a democracy for everyone. we incur to stand benefit from that but the rest of the rack did not. we here in the united states be it france, united states, as the neighboring countries, there is more and more understanding of the kurdish decision. it's not like there is no rejection. there is more understanding but the kurdish leader step -- kurdish leadership does not rush to a conclusion and does not jump over the situation. we want to secure a better future for her to stand and we will do everything we can for understanding and do it without the support of the neighboring countries. without the support of some of the main powers in the world, we

cannot have it survive. even if it goes down the road to independence, we want international recognition. we do not want our people to suffer more. we are trying to build the momentum and solidarity of support. everything in order to help the process, we can allow the kurds to be blamed and they should not be allowed to late part of the country. even if we decide to be independent, we will stay as neighbors to her rack. that's why we want to be an understanding neighbor as well. >> i want to follow up and be a little more precise. of until now, the administration has been rather cool to the idea of you selling your oil and

emphasizing the importance of maintaining the central government and its power. are you hearing a different message this time now that you are here? are you seeing an administration more receptive to the two paths you have laid out? let me ask one other question as long as i have the microphone. do you have -- do you see all curative candidates for a prime minister who might look at the kurds as being something other than a guest when they come to baghdad? >> first, we are not here to speak on behalf of the american administration. the secretary of state was in a week ago in baghdad.

everybody knows there's a new reality in iraq. the new policy will not reflect the new reality. so there is a movement to understand the new reality. in our discussion here in washington, we understand they are ready to listen and understand what is going on exactly. to listen to opinion about not only what is going on now, but what must be done and the rest of the country. we are still in discussion with them. we have a feeling that the understanding here is different.

comparing with the visits we had to washington in the past, now it is different. but it is up to them to announce that and within a short time let's say various pieces of policy as far as dealing with baghdad. the whole area has been changed. it will continue. the other one, the kurdish people is dealing with this crisis, but at the same time this crisis is offering

opportunities, which is not against the law which is not against the constitution but also not against the right of the kurds. this opportunity for the kurds is important and we are trying to deal with that and trying to convince others, including the united states that there must be a new policy and depending on iraq, on iraq policy, dealing only with baghdad i think, it is not the right policy. there is baghdad, there is era be a, eve got another state. all of us, we must work to deal with the new state.

>> could the recognition of this for the kurds to have a better future, there has been a change in thinking, so we have felt that from other members of the international community. it is not about the changing of personality. we have other parties in baghdad. behind closed doors, they tell us you have the right to receive your budget but we don't want that to be behind closed doors. we want that to be in the public in places like this to put pressure on baghdad. we would like the international community and united nations to put pressure on baghdad to provide the budget in a timely manner. therefore, there has been a change. six months ago, a month ago, the reality on the ground on june 9 the international community has

to adapt to that change. >> thank you. i'm a palestinian journalist and i had the honor of meeting both in and dad and my question follows on the same feed. it rack, for all practical purpose, there is a de facto partition today. what kind of mechanism could you employ to have a cream -- have a clean break? how could you alleviate what ever fears the city state might have in terms of being oil or or in exchange for whatever? how do you see this happening? >> the de facto partition where is -- where iraq is divided that is part of the reality we are talking about.

how are we going to deal with this effective partition? are we going to be united again? who is going to be united again? to unite iraqi again, that means you must wage a war and clean the area from terrorists. that's a good target, but who is going to do that? we do not have an iraqi army or we don't have an army which can fight now. the majority of the army units have collapsed. is the united states ready to send troops to iraq again? i guess the answer is no. is turkey ready to attack this neighboring state so we can be liberated or that the people there can be liberated?

i guess not because as we know, turkey supported the opposition in syria for the last three years. but the turkish government did not decide to send his army to syria. i don't think the turkish army is coming to liberate modal or any other areas. is not nato ready to do that? i don't think so. what about the iranians? are they ready to send their army to sunni areas to liberate cities? i don't think so. i think they are ready to defend baghdad. but further than that, i don't think the iranians will do that. we, the kurds, can we do that? we can defend our area, but we cannot go to deep in arab areas

and fight there. it will be difficult for us. this is the reality. the main question for many of us is how will this islamic state be and who is going to fight? if we are not going to fight this state, all of us together, then it will be stronger and it will reach many other places. that's we -- that is why we are saying there is a new reality and it needs new policy and need a new coordination on security military and economic.

we must deal with that until we finish this job will stop we cannot work without a united iraq, to be honest. we can talk about a good relationship between era be a and baghdad. it is in our interest to have a good relationship and it is in baghdad -- interest to have a good relationship with era be a -- with arabia. but in our contact with the outside world, so we can protect ourselves and for tech the area around baghdad, then to build our forces, otherwise this will stay there and iraq will be divided. not because of other bases of self are titian, not on the basis of self agreement, but on

the basis of security lines. >> trudy rubin from the "philadelphia inquirer." in talking about who is going to fight this new state, could you tell us whether you think it's possible to turn sunni tribes against isys and if so, would that be enough to make the difference, and where do the bath us to fit into this mix? -- where do the baathists fit in. do you want the u.s. to give you, the kurds, weapons to fight? and lastly, a ran. this is a threat to iran. do you believe at this point

that a ran want a new structure inside iraq or is still a money still clinging to the current structure andriy al-maliki? >> good question. just like iraq, many countries in one. this awaking movement or tribe which has been established in 2000 and six and 2007 -- 2005. as far as ease tribes, many of them now are either frightened they joined isys or are supporting isys. -- they joined isis, thousands

of people are leaving the area. there must be pressure from both sides. that means there must be resistance. resistance against terrorist groups, but who is going to resist? awaiting movements for all of those people who are engaged, that was not a success story. we know what happened and we know why it happened, we know who paid. who is going to pay? the tribal leader who was fighting terrorists he could depend on the american army. and they were being paid, but now, depending on who? these tribes will be able to organize or reorganize

themselves so they can create a resistance in these areas. who is going to support them? that means military, financially , that means leading them, it means sometimes getting them as a refugee in your area. who is going to do that? many tribal leaders now, there are refugees in kurdistan. not only that, but most of them are representing the sunni community in the parliament. they are in arabia or they are in oman. they cannot go back to their own area. to create the resistance is difficult, but that does not mean in this new state there are not people who are not against them. they don't have power.

if we analyze the political organizations which are working with isis, we see they all have islamist backgrounds. we are talking about al qaeda all of al qaeda strike just all of al qaeda structure. we are talking about isis and units that are mixed baathists and islamists. we are talking about mujahedin units will stop we are talking about revolution your -- revolution units. and we are talking about baath party. these are the organizations active in this area. but gradually, from the ninth of june until now, the information we receive is that these people

are almost controlling the field. they are stronger because they've got the weapons. they've got the organizations. their ideology is more clear than others. they've got money, they've got training, and they've got leadership. whereas the other side, there is lack of leadership. gradually it's going to be the biggest organizations and the others will follow. from within, it will be difficult to destroy this state from within. if there would be pressure from outside, then there is a possibility that some of these organizations which i mentioned they will be in conflict with is is, and there will be fights among themselves. but that is a big if. if there would be pressure from

the outside or an attack or an army from the outside, if there is a strong support from outside. it is difficult. it is not easy. >> the question of weapons -- [inaudible] >> the u.s. weapons, we don't know about that. we are talking about fighting. the u.s. weapons are now in the hands of terrorists unfortunately, instead of being in the hands of friends will stop all of us, not only u.s. able here, but we must rethink about these things. giving weapons to everybody and then at the end and up with the terrorists, that is a disaster. if those terrorist groups that were there as they were before the ninth of june, it was easier

to fight them. but after the ninth of june they became a large army with the most sophisticated weapons they got from the iraqi army. so to fight them, they need weapons, of course. what do you want from me? >> you guys know him. >> i'm talking about iraq. we are not talking about individual. iran is a neighboring country. we respect our relationship with iran and want to act in the relationship with iran but it also has interests in iraq. many other countries, they have interests in iraq. the iranian interest is also to fight those terrorist groups because it's not only a threat

for their national security, for the iranians, it's an ideology. they are depending on different theory and different interpretation of islam. it is a threat for us and a threat for baghdad, a threat for turkey and a threat for iran. that is why i think at the end, if we can work together, all of us plus support and help from the united states, then we can defeat this new phenomenon, political phenomenon which is a nightmare for all of us. >> there has to be progress on the political track. in order for the sunnis to vote against that. so there is some hope that they would have a better future that they would not do it because it is part of the shia-sunni power struggle. they would like to have defensive weapons to protect people.

we don't have the weapons to be on the offensive. even fighting outside the kurdistan area, this is not something welcome by our people or the leadership will stop -- or the leadership. the responsibility of those who failed to protect them and second, about the interference of the neighbors, if the united states does not come in, the door is open for these neighbors to step in and interfere. there is a lot of proxy war going on and a lot of contradicting interests there. therefore, either we have a win win situation for those who have interest in this or it will be a zero-sum game, which would not the in the interests of anyone. >> i'm going to have to make this last question. i apologize to other people, but our guests have another appointment coming up are you soon. can we have one more question here and we will bid you a fond

farewell. >> like others, i would like to thank both of you for your hospitality. i want to ask first, your judgment of the vulnerability of baghdad itself at this point to further advances by the islamic state. second i take from your remarks that, in response to the last question or several of the most recent questions, you post the question of whether the islamic state will be durable. it seems from what you say that you expect it to be fairly durable, whether or not the current or new caliph is in

charge. if it's going to remain on the scene for quite some time, do you think it will be therefore necessary for there to be a serious and long-term relationship between the kurdish regional government and the united states forces? as you point out the question is who is going to address a threat this large. >> baghdad is under threat. i think, i believe that the target of islamic state is to reach baghdad. they are not so far away from some areas, especially south of baghdad.

but they are there and one thing we must not forget, in the past we have seen terrorist attacks inside baghdad. sometimes 10 attacks in a day. that means they are also in baghdad, not outside. everyone is still under threat. there are some areas in baghdad which belong to their targets. but people in baghdad and the government, they are well-equipped and people in baghdad have a mind to defend baghdad. as far as this state, it will be

a threat for a long time for all of us. we must get together as soon as possible because not to allow it -- otherwise it would be a real threat for the whole area. the question for us is are we going to deal with this reality and accept it or are we going to reject this reality. this is not a reality that you can negotiate. this is not a riyadh he you can live with. this is a rheology that will kill you. it is dangerous. it needs cooperation. one of the reasons we are here trying to talk about this is this -- is dangerous for all of us. today, they are more targeting baghdad, today they are not

attacking the kurds, but tomorrow they will do that. today they have not reached the iranian border, but tomorrow they will reach the iranian border. >> we are for long-term engagement with the united eight and we have made it clear we are against terrorism and want to fight terrorism because now this is a threat and we want them to be there to provide stability and security in the long term. >> on that very sobering note, i want to say thank you very much. thank all of you and thank our guests very much for this very important discussion. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]