other issues the congress would like to address with regard to updating the nation's communications laws. so if we could, if we could seize the initiative where there is consensus get congress to pass a narrow bill, i think it would allow the nation to move forward understanding that the open internet has been protected by those elected to represent the people of the united states and it would also allow us to engage in the other public policy debates that i think are important updating the laws. >> guest: i think it's clear that the real struggle and the conflict is over broader authority at the fcc not the net neutrality rules. we have real consensus that the rules are good. so it just shows that it's important that we have these rules in place while congress and policymakers and the fcc start to look at these more challenging topics. this is why you're getting pushback from the broadband providers, because they're

worried about how title ii impacts their broad or services, not -- broader services, not any potential violations of net neutrality which, by and large with a few exceptions, they've lived under for the past decade. so it's really important that we have that discussion about broader broadband policy and that we have it soon. let's not get rid of protections in order to have it. >> host: christopher lewis walter mccormick, julian hattem is with "the hill" newspaper. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> today the united states institute of peace and the woodrow wilson center hold a

discussion on the politics of a nuclear deal with iran. participants include former congressman jim slatly of kansas and howard berman of california former national security adviser stephen hadley, and a former member of iran's parliament. live coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> u.n. secretary general ban ki-moon is calling for an immediate cease fire to the violence in yemen. he made this announcement thursday during remarks to the national press club discussing global challenges and the role of the united nations. the secretary-general also addressed iran's nuclear program, combating isis, the syrian civil war and u.n. efforts with climate change. this is just over an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good evening and welcome. my name is john hughes, i'm an editor for bloomberg first word

which is our breaking news desk here in washington, and i am the president of the national press club. we are the world's leading professional organization for journalists. we are committed to our profession's future through programs just like this and we fight for a free press world wiewd. for more information visit our web site press.org. to donate to programs offered new our club's journalism institute, visit press.org/institute. on behalf of members worldwide, i want to welcome you all here in our live audience to today's newsmaker dinner. i'd also like to welcome our c-span and pluck radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter by using the hashtag npcdinner. remember, the pluck attends our

dinners -- the public attends our dinners applause is not evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. [laughter] after our guest's speech, we'll have a question and answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. our head table includes guests of our speaker and also working journalists who are club members. let me introduce them to you now. i'd ask each person to stand briefly as names are announced. from the audience's right washington correspondent for egypt's on tv network. kathy banc executive director of communications consortium media center and a member of the npc journalism institute board. rachel oswald, foreign affairs writer for cq roll call and vice chair of the npc press freedom

committee. u.n. undersecretary general for economic and social affairs and a guest of our speaker. jeff ballou, news editor for al-jazeera media network and vice chairman of the npc board of governors. donna line wan he jay, breaking news reporter for "usa today," vice chair of the speakers' committee and a former npc president. skipping over our speaker for a moment cassia -- treasury reporter for bloomberg news and the speakers' committee member who organized today's dinner. thank you. herve -- [inaudible] u.n. undersecretary general for

peacekeeping measures. the washington bureau chief for kyoto news. dena fine-marin associate editor and journalist for scientific american. mark -- [inaudible] senior associate editor at kiplinger's personal finance and treasurer of the national press club. [applause] the united nations celebrates its 70th birthday later this year. that's seven decades of international peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, assistance with economic development and support of human rightings. while -- rightings. while particulars of the u.n. agenda change from time to time, the underlying goal has remained constant; to prevent another conflict like world war ii.

ban ki-moon the former foreign minister of south korea is serving his second term as u.n. secretary-general. he has been on the job since 2007, and he is the eighth person to hold this post. during ban's ten your, the u.n. has -- tenure, the u.n. has responded to crisis in darfur, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction the effects of global warming and terrorism. ban also faces challenges such as water shortages world wild, the ebola outbreak in western africa and civil conflict in ukraine and syria. despite these immediate challenges he has focused on long-term goals as well such as ending violence against women and improving education for the largest generation of young

people the world has ever known. one of ban's predecessors said the position of secretary-general is, quote the most impossible job on earth, end quote. we look forward to hearing the secret of how to handle a job such as this. [laughter] please join me in giving a warm national press club welcome to united nations secretary-general ban ki-moon. [applause] >> thank you for your very kind introduction mr. john hughes, president of the national press club. distinguished members of the npc, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen it's a great honor and pleasure to meet with you, and thank you for your

kind ini havation -- invitation, and thank you for your taking time today. i know that you are eager to have tonight's main course. i know that you have finished your main course, but you must be more entered in main course, this question and answer session. [laughter] i look forward to that. but before that i'd like to say a few words as some food for thought. recently, i asked one of our very senior advisers who has been working longer than deputy 40 years long-serving advisers. i asked him because i have been so much troubled by what is happening in this world, have you ever seen during your

0-year-plus -- 40-year-plus life such a time when we are having so many fires taking place all around the world at once at a time like this? i can name a list of ten hot spots immediately in addition to a continuing economic tuftties around the world. -- difficulties around the world. he said he has never experienced such time. it is mostly one or two crisis happening here and there. but now we have a list of ten headline news, headline crisis. in addition to these headline crisis you follow on a daily basis, we have many forgotten crisis or frozen crisis. i will not name them, you will know better than i do because you have been following all the

times. we face really many crisis headwinds. there are minimum saw 15 million refugees around the world. that's our job, to provide daily food sanitation, water, education. it's a huge, huge burden. many people who are sick many people who are out of school, many children. united nations' responsibility is getting more and more tougher and tougher. the united nations has appealed $16 billion to cover human talk about relief for this year. humanitarian relief for this year. almost five times what we needed a decade ago. that's a huge increase,

exponential increase. billions of people face hatred and prosecution. billions suffer from hunger and exploitation. billions of dollars continue to be squandered on nuclear weapons and other arsenals. beyond news -- beyond these numbers we see several transformative trends. first, new economic powers have emerged. second, more people are migrating than there were before seeking better opportunities. now more people live in better cities. people are coming to the cities making lot of problems for good governance. extremism and terrorism and crimes have taken on more violet

forms. -- violet forms. extreme weather patterns are hitting our world and destroying and killing many people and infrastructures. states alone cannot solve these problems. not a single country, however powerful or resourceful one may be, for example, we are living in the united states. people often immediately think that the united states is the most powerful, most resourceful country. cannot do it alone. they look to the united nations. united nations cannot handle this alone. we need collective power, solidarity. otherwise our world will get more and more troubles. ladies and gentlemen billions of people continue to suffer from the devastating

consequences of governance failures injustice inequality, violations of human rights and unbearable poverty. now let me just to mention several cases. but what i'm going to say is not all, but they are some of very serious situations. let us think about syria. this is the fifth year the syrian people have been abandoned, killed and displaced and refugees. meanwhile, the parties continue to show little or almost no willingness to solve this through dialogue. this is why i have asked my special envoy to do maximum

efforts to relaunch a political dialogue as a way to implement geneva communique. if anyone is truly serious about engaging in meaningful negotiations to end this nightmare, he has to work on this matter. i would like to make a special plea on behalf of palestinians in the refugee camps in damascus. they are caught between the military machine of the syrian government and the brutality of extremist group dash and isil. they have little way out. and the aid can find little way in. and discipline is largely out of the spotlight. i have been working very hard recently to protect all these 18,000 people who have been

trapped in between government forces and dash terrorists. there are a lust of 3,500 children who need our immediate protection. yemen is also in flames. ladies and gentlemen, we have amos who is now taking care of all human talk about -- welcome. even before the latest escalations, two out of three yemenis relied on humanitarian assistance. levels of food insecurity were higher than in the poorest stretches of africa. the recent fighting has only multiplied the sufferings and security. hundreds are dead. humanitarian supplies are being

blocked. and unicef has reported that an astounding one-third of the fighters are children. that is why i'm calling for an immediate ceasefire in yemen by all the parties. it is time to support corridors of life-saving aid and the passage to real peace. [applause] the saudis have assured me that they understand that there must be a political process. i call on all yemenis to participate in good faith. the united nations-supported diplomatic process remains the best way out of a drawn-out war

with terrifying implications for regional stability. in nigeria our hope is that the new government can promote a return to normalcy and a return home for the school children who have been kidnapped and mistreated during last one year. in south sudan more than 115,000 people are now being accommodated within united nations camp. united nations camp have never been designed to accommodate that many refugees. but the situation is very fragile. and the framework of p5+1 and iran to limit iran's nuclear program and remove sanctions. once a comprehensive agreement

is finalized by the end of june the united nations will do our best to help implementation process including through stringent monetary and veryification -- verification by the international atomic energy agency iaea. this breakthrough can also create space for efforts to address the many other serious security challenges in the region. we have all been horrified by the terrorist attacks and violence committed by group cans such -- groups such as dash al-shabaab and boko haram and others. your colleagues in the media have been among the victims and i continue to stress a need for journalists to have the security that they need to do their vital work.

[applause] the united nations is working to present a comprehensive plan of action to address this extremism, violet extremism and terrorism. i'm going to summit it to the general assembly this year. next week in the united nations i, together with the president of the general assembly, are going to convene a high level thematic debate on the conciliation and and tolerance how we can address this violent extremism by leveling up enhancing mutual respect and reconciliation. all these are very important issues. without addressing these issues,

we will not be able to have sustainable peace and sustainable development of our society. we are working very closely with -- [inaudible] and i have invited many world's renowned religious leaders. i believe that there are very important roles to be played by religious leaders and educators to teach their follow ors and their students what are the correct meaning of mutual respect and civilization and understandings and reconciliations and harmonious living together. this is very important issues. that's why as i said, i'm going to present the come prehelpsive plan of -- comprehensive plan of action. we must insure that counterterrorism efforts respect human rights and international humanitarian law. as we have seen time and again,.

[inaudible] is the extremists' best recruiting tool. ladies and gentlemen, we must not let the smoke from these fires obscure longer term opportunities. we must not be detracted by all this so-called headline news. there are many more important issues to make our world better for in a longer term visions for development, sustainable development and how to address this climate change issuings. for the 15 years, the world has been pursuing the millenium development goals on eight-point blueprint for reducing poverty. there has been remarkable progress. the world has lifted at least 700 million people from out of poverty.

we have avoided millions of death from malaria tuberculosis and aids. millions of children, including girls, they have better access to education. our target was to have all the school-aged children have a primary education but, unfortunately, we still have 50 million school children out of school. we have to bring them back to school through a new vision. our challenge is now to finish this job. that is why united nations member states are working very hard to shape the 2015 development agenda with a set of sustainable development goals. we have identified the 17 goals which may -- which will be able to address the oldest spectrums of our world, people-centered

and planet-sensitive. economically, socially and environmentally. beyond the focus on shared prosperity and harmony with the planet, a new agenda will also emphasize the crucial role of justice, institutionings and fundamental -- institutions and fundamental freedoms. and for the first time, the goals will apply to all countries, even the richest are witnessing rising inequality, and no country has ended violence and discrimination against women. tackling climate change is an urgent part of the picture. this climate change is a defining issue of our times. but international community has a study late while they've been

talking, they have not been taking action now. we have to take action now. it is too late it may be too late, but it may not be too late if we take action now. when i first became secretary-general in 2007, i first met president bush. at that time we were talking about what kind of agenda i should discuss with the president bush. a lot of security and peace issues were raised. i wanted to raise this climate change issues, but i also advised by many senior advisers you better not discuss this with president bush. [laughter] but i raised this issue. at that time the words of press carried only one single line that i also discussed climate change with president bush. but later that year later that year in 2007 when the

negotiators were working to adapt road map, the first one which we adopted that i was able to have that agreement with the help of president bush american government i really appreciate that was an important step at that time. there are still some people who do not want to acknowledge there is a climate change. but there is a climate change. by any standard, the scientific evidences clearly tell us that the climate change is happening, it's approaching much much faster than when they expect. no one can deny the phenomenal shift that are already underway. investment in renewable energy are growing rapidly. the cost of solar and wind

energy are promising and are often less expensive than fossil fuel alternatives. not only is the signs of sound -- the science of sound, so are the economics. climate action pays. the markets of the future will be sustainable solutionings. over the next 15 years the world will make massive investment in energy and other infrastructures. we can do this sustainably, or we can lock ourselves into the path that a raises the global thermostat higher still. the choice is quite clear. scientists say we may be stepping at a tipping point. depending upon how you put your

feet that we may be able to work toward a sustainable path or we may be regretting, we may have to regret for our succeeding generations. therefore, we must act now. united states has just submitted its intended climate action. i commend president obama for his leadership and visions. in announcing u.s./china joint statement november last year. that was a major impact. and i also commend the european union for their very solid visionary plans towards climate change. all this u.s./china and european union's championing role are putting all of us in the right

path. i think all the countries, every country has a role to play. they have a commitment. i have been emphasizing that china has made important commitment. government and people everywhere are more intent than ever on finding a common way forward. the world is now recognizing a basic truth of our times. we need to buy insurance for the planet. we must all be ambitious as we look to conclude our agreement at the climate change conference in paris in december. there's a strong moral dimension to this effort. today i'd like to announce that i will visit vatican later this month and meet with his holiness pope francis, to

discuss common concern including the -- [inaudible] on the environment that he plans to issue in the month ahead. i think this will be the first time of any secretary-general to be invited by pope. [applause] for my part i have invited pope francis to the united nations and also president obama and all the leaders of the world to a special summit meeting in september at the united nations asking them to adopt this visionary and ambitiousen sustainable -- ambitious sustainable development agenda, and i'm sure that all the leaders will come and declare their vigilance to the world as the way of celebrating 70th

anniversary of the united nations. .. this is a fact and we must act now. by the year 2015 the year for global action, the ambitious

next in for sustainability, the united nations relies on the active engagement of the united states. i know from my own experience growing up in war-torn korea but a transformation and the united states, with united nations can make possible. i have seen in just the past years the remarkable solidarity of the united states with the people of guinea, liberia and sierra leone with the out break of the ebola crisis. the coordinated a wide-ranging response and we are now reading zero case.

our goal is to get these countries to zero cases and remain at zero cases said that we will be able to see clear that these countries than this worries a bullet for you. -- ebola free. [applause] i'm going to me going to meet with the presidents of three countries in washington tomorrow and will discuss again how we can help those countries to be able to declare an ebola free as soon as possible and we have a very important mission to do. this month i have launched another high level independent export to have a lessons learned process. what has gone wrong and in case

unfortunately if we have to experience another epidemic crisis, then how we can mobilize our air force providing logistical support to those countries. ladies and gentlemen, i try to finish by saying our account of the united states to continue to support the world organizations. as i said, when i was young, our country was very poor. i was just six years old when it broke out and wasting the united nations reflect in these united nations have brought not only security support the social and economic assistance. the united nations was a beacon of hope for us. now i am humbled around the

world. i still see many people who look to the united nations as a beacon of hope. now without your help the united nations cannot deliver. in the middle of this united states, they have played a very important role and that is why is taking to the people of the united states and you may represent all different organizations but i believe the people of the united states government to provide generous support for humanitarian issues and also shows the strong political leadership role. it is the seventh year anniversary at the united nations at a time when we face a major decision that shapes lives

for generations to come. this is the time of test far more tremendous opportunities. as distinctions between the national and international continue to fall away, we can and must come together towards a safer and more sustainable future for all of us. ladies and gentlemen you have an important role as internalized. you are connect to and from the united nations and the world that people should be enlightened by your use and educated man. what is happening now, but more importantly how we should work together to make this world better.

we have everybody's human dignity and human rights and i count on your strong engagement. thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you mr. secretary-general. this year marks the anniversary is. this year marks the anniversary is included in the the end of world war ii, the 40th anniversary of the end of the vietnam war, yet we still see so many conflicts flare enough around the world. and you mentioned some of them in your speech. has the world's ability to resolve conflict diplomatically improved since the end of the world war ii in vietnam or to these ongoing troubles showed that diplomacy has not lived up to its promise?

>> i think we have many different views and tools to resolve conflict issues. we have first evolved a peacekeeping operation. we maintain now 120000 military police and civil servants by walking in 16 different hotspot. at the same time we have a very dedicated team. preventive diplomacy is much more important, which we are using to prevent when we see some symptoms, we immediately send our export our teams.

where we can send 72 hours to the place where we see the symptoms. sometimes despite our diplomatic effort, the pirates may have been in there has been such a way where we are living in a situation. what is necessary at this time is how to resolve all of these issues through dialogue in a peaceful way and that is our most important priorities. through this we have been saving a lot of lives and marginalized the people particularly women of course you have been physically abused by

their human rights. we will continue to implore our capacity of these issues. >> on the issue of yemen, you call for a cease-fire, yet the country remains fractured. do you truly expect your calls to be respect it and can there be the envoy when it's no longer a place? >> i myself visited yemen a couple years ago when there was a heightened political environment where and when we were about to help them establish government for the national dialogue. as you are well aware there is

no sad six and former president saleh. we're about to see the erroneous resolution of this government. in regard to what the coalition and the council members at the behest of the yemeni government and president. when this all gets into military operations, we have seen many civilians and many people wounded and destruction of infrastructures. yemen is one of the poorest countries. they are destroying their

future. therefore as a secretary-general, i have been urging all the time to religion and the cessation of violence and we talked to political to lie. -- dialogue. the dialogue is the best option. as you authority read i am now in the process of finding some other advisor who can immediately be deployed for political solutions. thank you. >> we received several questions about syria, including one saying the security council has received a video the details alleged chemical weapons in syria and will the u.n. take any

specific reaction in response? but also, questions about disarray in syria and the war what it will take to get to a solution in syria -- president bishara al-assad have to go? >> you have vast -- [inaudible] >> i have been trained to address it during the last four years, since the beginning of this crisis, since march 2007. when it comes to weapons, this is a weapon of mass destruction, which is completely prohibited. using chemical weapons is a crime against humanity.

that is why for the first time, the security council who has divided the treaty and the last four years was able to show their unity of power. the secretary council has adopted upon my request a strong resolution. and that is rare. we were able to see the destruction of chemical weapons. now all the possibilities are now being destroyed, dismantled. we are very much concerned to see her in government has been using chlorine and some other chemical weapons. the security council has taken this very seriously and the pc debut dispatches their expert to investigate this one.

when an issuer the chemical weapons have to take a very decisive action to eliminate all the days. it is absolutely unacceptable that chemical weapons are use to anybody. but then the syrian situation has not been resolved this way. for years, 220,000 people -- 12 million people have been displaced and refugee. so more than half of the population that have been mobilizing all possible humanitarian these providing humanitarian assistance to the 4 million refugees and also

trying to provide the humanitarian assistance inside syria. there are many people with recognitions were not able to have access because of fighting inside. this is quite a difficult situation. why the situation has been made this way. first of all, it is completely divided society. a disarray. divided among syrian people. they are fighting between the syrian regime and opposition. opposition is there a word. the region of power is divided. the united nations security

council is divided. therefore, the three most important parties are divided. they render so many divisions then there is no way for us to address this issue. that is why recently i have instructed my special on the way to do all the possible relaunch of political dialogue to implement as soon as possible. now he's in the process of contacting the key partners. i sincerely hope we will be able to have resumption of political dialogue as soon as possible. when i was asked about president

assad, what to do about him. whether he should go out whether he should be part of the solutions. we will have to see how to address the decision. it is a matter of how possible a matter to be decided by the people of syria but how to address this issue. >> you discuss climate change and the importance pressing forward and the challenge of pressing forward. does there need to be more leverage applied to get countries and companies to move forward on this issue should there be a consideration of civil penalties by respect of governments for people who don't adopt policies in this area.

if i say anything there will be reputation. the last point of your question, within the country for an individual or community will not be participating in our common global efforts. i'm afraid that they will be punished by nature. we publish any sanction and that is why we asked the leaders to show a mobilizing the political will. they must have a firm conviction that this climate change is a top prayer at the.

whenever you have vast for climate change is separate from the economic development. investing in climate change. if you invest wisely in addressing climate change will help push your national economy and it will be beneficial. it is a wise wise investment. the ministers in washington d.c. to participate in imf and the board conference, that they have to have a corrective vision. that is not only the government leaders. it is communities and civil society leaders.

one of the big experiences which i have learned is that bout tripartite nothing can be done. we need the community's strong support. they speak voluntarily themselves. let's do this. we are ready to do that. when i convince that meeting on climate change last year there were many leaders who committed $20,000,000,000.1. i am asking for the leaders to have a treasure. for $100 billion by 2020 and thereafter it annually $100 billion. i was able to have

$10 billion -- $10 billion in december with the initial capitalization of green climate fund happened to be located in my country, soul of korea. the climate fund should be fully operational alliance. we have to have $100 billion by 2020. that is the way of gaining many developing works so that they should be supported and the mitigation and adaptation. most of the developing countries do not have capacity to mitigate and adapt to the changing situation. therefore it is only mentioned in the member states. they are ready to provide

technological and financial support. at the same time the south corporation is very important. there are many emerging economies in south africa. those countries should be commensurable role and working together with the developed work. i am asking that the leadership show their political leadership so that the community and civil society to follow. the united states should lead this campaign. thank you. >> received some questions about journalists being held captive in some conflict zones. how could the u.n. better implement the u.n. security

council resolution 1738 on the protection of journalists covering conflicts. we got a specific question by jason resigned at the "washington post." there are others being held as well. is there anything the u.n. can do in these situations? >> unfortunately, in the course of covering we have sent many journalists who had detained and arrested. this is not except the bowl. this is a violation of the freedom of expression. therefore it is important, fundamentally important that their freedom and access should be fully protect did. as for a specific case this

case that has been detained by the iranian government. i am asking again that they should be a full protection and access to the legal humanitarian access. it is important wherever the charges have been for any reporters and journalists and their freedom of expression and their right to the legal assistant should be fully protect did. i am again urging the authorities to take necessary actions. [applause] >> several questions related to the u.n. effort to create a new set of sustainable development goals to be considered by the

u.n. in september. how is the world going to pay for these goals one questioner wants to know. and how will the u.n. to ensure that these goals are well financed and successfully implemented? >> there is a sustainable development roles which are now being negotiated in the united nations is two of the most important priorities. i call them twin priorities for the united nations. as i said in my remarks the mpg they have an basic during the last 15 years. we know that not all have been watching. therefore, whatever has been unrealized will have to be carried over.

but this time, this vision should be much broader and more comprehensive. addressing other spectrums of our life. economically, socially and environmentally. this vision should be people centered and climate sensitive and friendly. so we have to address our human living. if i may add the way we are using all energy and resources seems to suggest people believe -- people may think we have only one. we have to really care are nature. the nature does not wait for us. they just impact test. that way any human being who has to adjust ourselves and be

more sensitive to our nature. that is one of the important things. sustainable development, which has been identified as the many targets, how to address the most important thing is how to support these wars, we should have a mechanism of support so that these goals can be implemented as we have envisioned. that is why the united nations is going to have a high-level conference in july. this will be the international conference for financing for development. this is going to be very important. if we are not successful in this

meeting, all of the sustainable development goals for climate change, maybe just something in what we say pie in the sky. something nice flyers in the pictures. we have to have a implementable framework. therefore, this international conference on financing for development. i am asking the leaders to meet their delegations and show their political ability. [applause] >> we're almost out of time. before as the last question i want to remind our audience about upcoming speakers.

navy secretary ray mavis will address the club april 30th. then chief internet evangelist for google and father of the internet will speak may 4th. but in the general michelle johnson, the first woman to be superintendent of the air force academy will speak may 8th. i would now like to present our guest with the traditional national press club mug. we are sure you have plenty of coffee pots around you and that might be able to put it to good use. [applause] before we let you go, we often end on a lighter note. four years ago you made a humorous and fictional video then yet showing yourself skateboarding on new york city's first avenue and having a wild night on the town. while we know that was just made up fun when you do eventually get a break from trying to solve

the worlds problems, this may be a ways in the future, the one or two or three things you plan to do to relax and not think about the world's problems? >> well, i saw that video. that was quite something very funny and skateboarding. when i danced in the style at the time. that may skateboarding was a private one. but i think somebody must have had very good because all of the private privacy has been leaked. i do not have much free time to be frank. the last eight and a half years

i have been extremely busy as you may. sometimes i try to see action movie, the best way through get some tension free. [applause] two days ago i welcomed a very special guest double 07 it didn't know craig. i appointed him as the united nations global advocate for elimination of mine. he gladly accepted and very much grateful for his using global stock power. i told him while you are 007 i am the secretary general of the

united nations, therefore i am 008. [applause] he said instantly, i will talk to my producers you can do 008. when i retire for my job, i will become 008. i told him that you have a license to kill. now i am giving you something very important humanitarian. i am giving you a license to save. [applause] lastly i have been married 45 years with my wife. [applause]

my wife has been extremely patient, very much cooperative and understanding my visual. when i retire first of all it may be a good idea if i bring my wife to a nice restaurant and enjoy some income of the most important leg i am looking for the days when i will be able to have more time with my grandchildren. when you have your own kids, it is responsibility. you have to be tough and disciplined. for grandchildren, you have only the right to spoil them. whenever i wanted to restrict that does not work in my case. all of the strict rules go out the window.

therefore i am looking for the days when i will be a tension free and spending more time with my family, particularly grandchildren. i thank you very much for this opportunity. [applause] >> thank you so much mr. secretary-general. i'd like to ask our live audience to stay in yours needs when i bring down the gavel. please stay seated until the secretary general leaves the room. thank you very much. i'd like to thank the national press club staff including its journalism institute broadcast center for organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of this program or to learn more about the national press club go to

our website. that is press.org. thank you very much. we are adjourned. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> we are live at the u.s. institute of peace in washington d.c. for a discussion with former iranian and u.s. officials on the iran nuclear

negotiations. iran, the u.s. permanent members of the u.n. security council and germany agreed to a framework to limit iran's nuclear activities in exchange for an end to economic sanctions. negotiators no-space at june 30th deadline for coming to a final deal. we will hear about the status of the negotiation and opposition from israel as well as what a final deal could mean for the u.s. and iran's relations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> and we have live here at the u.s. institute of peace, washington d.c., waiting for discussion to begin with iranian officials and u.s. officials talking about the iran nuclear negotiations. also let you know is that it will at 2:00 eastern time. live coverage from the senate floor. we could see work on the anti-human trafficking bill. the house coming in for a brief pro forma session. they will gavel in tomorrow at 2:00 eastern. today coverage of the house and senate conference committee meeting on the budget will be today at 3:00 p.m. eastern. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. i want to welcome you to the united states institute of peace. and steve hadley, chairman of the board of the institute. we are going to get started. the intelligence we have received is that there are power outages that power outages that much of slowdowns and all kinds of chaos, which somewhat they made it a typical rush-hour in the washington morning but we

are going to pass that. people are joining us as they are able to get here. we are glad that you are all here. this is the fourth event in the iran foreign, which is a series that is cosponsored by eight washington think tanks. they are the institute of peace woodrow wilson center, the rand corporation, the arms control association the center for new american security the stimson center, power shares find and the partnership for a secure america, which is an unprecedented collaboration and i want to pay special thanks in tribute to rob and tribute to rob and write to us the consortium together. the event is also brought to you by the iran primer, which is usip's comprehensive website with resources on every iran related subject you can think of and analysis from almost any

angle. i would urge you to take a look at the site. we have provided a copy of the iran primer homepage on every seat. if you don't have one you can get one in the back. we are delighted to host the original form involving former american and iranian officials who understand firsthand the challenges of foreign policy and particularly u.s. iranian relations. i'm april 2nd, the world's six major powers that iran announced the framework for what could be a historical nuclear deal. the terms remain controversial and somewhat disputed in both capitals. our goal today is to explore challenges ahead. but they quickly introduce our panelists. you should have the full bios of these candidates at your seat. but let me introduce them briefly starting from my right.

ollie off barbosa v. former member of the ukrainian parliament from 2000 "imus in the morning" 2004. he was arrested while demonstrating to support equal rights between men and women in june of 2006 and release 130 days later. he moved to the united states in 2009 and is a visiting fellow at urging the attack in a human rights and digital you do not care. welcome. nice to have you with us. next is jim slattery, former congressman from congress in 1983 to 1995. currently a partner at wiley bryant llp. he is the first former congressman to visit iran is the revolution. and attended the world against violent extremism conference in tehran in december of last year. he has been involved in interfaith dialogue for about 10

years. jim, while club. next is michael singh former director for middle east affairs at the national security council from 2005-2008 in senior fellow at the washington institute. during his tenure at the white house, michael was responsible for coordinating u.s. policy towards the middle east, including an emphasis on iran nuclear and regional activities and his national security adviser i did whatever he told me to do on the subject of which he worked. >> not how i remember it. >> will come michael. x is howard berman congressman from california from 1983-2013 and currently senior western covington and berlin llp. as chairman of the house foreign affairs committee congressman berman was one of the leading experts on international relations.

great to have you with us today. so with that we are going to begin. we will probably go until about 10:30, maybe 10:35 given the late start, with a conversation among us up here. at that point we'll open it up to questions. there will be microphones. wait for a microphone to come to you. identify yourself and you can direct your question too many panelists or all of the panelists as cc -- seeks it. so let me begin. as i mentioned in the opening remarks, there seemed to be various version about what has been agreed so far in the negotiations. we have also heard her iran's supreme leader about some of the objectives he hasn't negotiations about pomp sanctions and no access to military side and a couple other

details which are not fully can test it with what the u.s. side has said. in light of the somewhat disarray about what has been agreed so far, but they ask the panel to questions. first, how close are we to an agreement and how likely are we to get a final find document by june 30? if i might ali-akbar, let me begin with you. >> thank you for having me here. thank you for convening this timely event and also i would like to emphasize that i am presenting here is and the organization -- the group of people. i am just talking on my behalf.

it is my personal opinion here and former member of iran's parliament. i think we are very very close to an historic moment, historic achievement in solving big international crisis fiscally and diplomatically. i couldn't even imagine two years ago to see such a product. they have seven former members of parliament. president obama can propose this

bill january 2013. we had lots of difficulties to even initiate and talk about in washington. i remember woodrow wilson invited us, my colleague and i and i sat in such a panel discussion to convince some skeptics, some friends in washington to even imagine we could initiate this deal. finally, we try to convince the exact letter. it was five months almost before the election. we didn't know mr. tran 11 and

some tension going on between talking between the two administrations the obama administration and iran's supreme leaders he is a friend. then be proposed this proposal and at that time we had lots of difficulties to even talk about that. right now i sat here continue not for having me here again. we want to convince very few skeptics in washington d.c. that we can help to finalize a comprehensive deal. it is very, very different moment in two years ago. i am very optimistic and i hope

the united states especially well lose this opportunity because i named the u.s. has lost the first opportunity in 2003 when they got the same agreement after adding the name of iran axis of evil i think it damaged the deal. i think this moment we shall hope that you won't lose this opportunity. it would leave this bill iran and the region to a pcp stability in the very near future. >> what are the prospects of getting this done at all and what are the prospects of getting it done by june 30th? >> i'm a little more nervous than you are about the agreement

being reached. it seems pretty clear to me that this american administration wants to reach an agreement. i think there are some limitations beyond which it won't go, but he certainly wants to reach the agreement. the question raised more recently assessed supreme leader want to reach the agreement? he's made some statements in recent days regarding the timing of sanctions regarding the sanctity as security and military side on which no inspectors can never go. the other statements, which look like he's speaking at a very, very different agreement then i think the p5 could ever signed. and the question comes up, why is he talking like this?

the fact is he has made statements like that before. he talked about 190000 centrifuges at one point. he talked about a large number of reactors and enrichment facilities and in the end the one area of the administrations release parameters that they haven't really challenged as a reference to the numbers of centrifuges the numbers of enrichment facilities. they don't seem to be arguing about his assertions in the ministration parameters. so in the end a lot of this depends and we've heard for a long time and i believe there is a tension inside iran between elements of the higher gc end quote, hard-liners and the

current president and foreign minister and we always thought where does the supreme leader down from that conflict and back to me will be a big part of answering the question of whether there is a likelihood of reaching the agreement by june 30th. >> let me ask you if you want to comment, i think one of the questions we all have is how should we read the supreme leader's statements? do you have any advice for us and them i will turn it over to my goal. >> i would say that i don't agree with your comments about iran situation. i have a lot of concern mostly about the u.s. side. in iran we have a consensus between the supreme leader, the administration, the parliament and the vast majority of people

is unprecedented in iran about one very, very important issue. but here i don't think so. the administration, yes, i agree with that. how about the congress and how about the many and pressures towards the congress. i have some doubts, but i am not really concerned. as i said before, i am optimistic even about the congress after april 14 that they got an agreement with the legislation. but still, i think it is really great because it makes more in congress the past incentive. it makes more sustainable to

implement in this long-term agreement. but still, we have lots of problems. i cannot predict what would be the decision of congress after the final negotiation, final comprehensive agreement. >> this is just for those. this is a bill that was passed last week that gives the congress 30 days to consider a nuclear deal. the option of legislation at the end of that time and suspends any suspension of sanctions during the period of that consideration. there is now some agreement of a process for consideration between the white house and the congress. don't let me ask michael and

jim. there seems to be less agreement on what the substance of the agreement should be. everyone seems to agree about agreement is worse than no agreement but there seems to be no real consensus of what a bad agreement would look like. secretary of state baker in an op-ed last friday suggested one of the steps we have to do is get our own house in order and identify three or four things that really makes a reasonable agreement from the u.s. standpoint and be clear about them in the same way some would say the supreme leader has been clear about what he means. has had a good course of action? >> when you asked the question is a good deal or bad deal, it is two questions in a sense. the first is does the deal do what we need to do? is it valuable to advance the objectives we set out with

non-proliferation having to do with the threat we perceive posed in the middle east. there is a second question highlighted that the president especially, which is what are the alternatives in comparison to what alternative course of action that would render it and our interests. both of these questions are tremendously controversial. secretary of state aker in his op-ed in "the wall street journal" he basically said this is the right track, but it needs to be improved. here are three or four ways in which he was a jazz not just improving it but saying we have to assess and get other p5+1 partners to insist on them. trying to make the deal more valuable to american interests and make you think of the suggestions at the right suggestion of getting iran to sort of lay out its past weaponization work of the

individuals involved in that. getting to this question of military side which military sites can be nuclear as well as this question of sanctions which may be a bit of a myth in a sense but that is a separate question. it is important that we look not as a question of the substance of the deal which is addressing, but also the alternatives. we need to focus on improving our own alternatives that there is no deal because it is highly possible that we would get no do you even if we want one. it is important that you let pass the point of failure and say where will we be that we would be well-positioned if that happens and also iran's alternatives. we are not the only party looking at this deal. ..

sort of privately that try to project and publicly will ultimate backfire as in the case of syria. so we should have bottom lines. we need to figure out for ourselves what those bottom lines are and then figure out how to best project of those tactically as part of a negotiation.

i will just say additionally this all presumes that the deal can be fixed. secretary of state baker's piece is essentially that the deal isn't what it needs to be but it's the right track and we need to fix it essentially. i worry that the deal can't be fixed, that the design of the to seal is conceptually flawed. and several different ways. you know, one what is for example, even if we get this deal it will require probably any president not just president obama but his successor and maybe that person successor to be waiting sanctions every six months. it's a very unstable process because anything can intervene in the process. some of the hardest decisions are left until the future. negotiators want to do that because they say the hard stuff for when they're not around anymore but it doesn't mean it'll come to pass windows date come. second, without regard iran to dismantle anything. essentially its entire nuclear program remained intact and i think that even if you have positive change in iran, even if

iran sort of changes its regional strategy, becomes friendlier to the united states come what of the base -- best case outcome come out of that impact will only be a net negative for the security of the region. nuclear programs tend to grow in groups or pairs as many here know. and i think that even a sort of different sort of iran will be perceived as a threat by for example, regional neighbors and, frankly, any future iranian government may have any -- may have hard time getting any of that. and finally the other conceptual flaw is we have separated between the nuclear issues and regional issues. the problem is our instruments of power sanctions for example they are blunt instruments. those are things related. he gets to the question of how will we deter iranian support for terrorism or iran's activities in the region following a deal without these tools being available? if i delete you do less

effective tools or more direct action which actually lead you into more direct involvement in the conflicts of the region. so i worry that yes secretary baker's ideas are good red lines to have come to the bottom line positions to have, but ultimate the deal has conceived can't be successful even if we reach it. >> jim what is your view from the standpoint? what do we do to get our own house in order in terms of proceeding with these negotiations? >> one of the things i want to share in december when i was in tehran i had an opportunity to visit with members, key people in the rouhani government, leading clerics, friends of the supreme leader khamenei replaced i went especially there, i heard one question, and that was 10 president obama implement the deal. they really wanted to know this and this was of course after our elections, after the fact that didn't have been taken over by

republicans and, of course, the house continue to be in republican hands. so they were raising this question because they wanted me to understand that if we expected them to put their best offer on the table they wanted to know that at best deal could be accepted. it would not be scuttled by our congress. and i think we need to be mindful that as all of these questions arise from the congress, it undermines our negotiators capacity to get the best deal at the negotiating table. and that's a part of this that hasn't been adequately focused on. and the iranians are very fearful, those without a really aggressively committing to a deal, in many cases i believe they have bet their political futures and their political careers on getting a deal with the united states. their worst nightmare is that they go out on a limb so to

speak, put the best deal on the table that they can possibly get another united states congress scuttled the deal. that politically destroys them and it may be even more to that them. i don't think we have as americans fully understood that dimension of what's going on in the negotiations. you know, i'm a kansas democrat so kansas is the most republican state imaging and probably, for optimism is sort hardwired into my enda, but, you know -- my dna. i think where this historic moment and the great tragedy would be at our domestic political forces prevented us from really getting a historic breakthrough in this relationship with iran. so all americans really need to be in this debate and we really need to focus on some of these very tough details. and as far as i'm concerned verification is going to be the

key in all of the dimension of verification. so, for example, i am troubled by the statements that the supreme leader has made about deny access to certain military sites. i can understand sort of the military need for that from the iranian side, but we are going to have to have access unquestioned access, to all of the sites that have anything to do with the nuclear operation. and that is a red line. and i think that that's going to be tough to get you. >> i want to follow up on that and frame this question and then go really out of line, howard, starting with you then going right down the line. in light of this conversation there's two ways to frame it. what are the principal obstacles that could prevent the parties from getting agreement for flipping it around? what are the two or three things

that are really required if an agreement is going to be reached? and howard, let me start with you if i could. >> well, i think the answer to that has changed. i can certainly understand why one could look at washington and think the administration is trying to do one thing the congress is instinctively and adamantly against what it's trying to do how do we count on an agreement with the administration. the equation changed tremendously in the context of this agreement was worked out between senator corker and senator cardin and the white house. because it turned everything around. one, the congress will not act on the agreement before there is an agreement. secondly while the congress

won't, there's no way in the world that congress will ever approve this agreement, the only way to prevent doesn't go into effect, and by that i mean the president loses his ability to waive the sanctions that he will need to wave, to the american part of the deal is if two-thirds of both houses disapprove of the agreement and then vote to override the president's veto. so to me that debate has changed from instinctively not wanting to do any deal with iran particularly a deal that didn't dismantle their entire nuclear infrastructure, and michael is right about that. this deal doesn't do that. it changed from that debate to a debate about issues like, is

this a good deal? and more than that is it a good deal on the issue of getting significant comfort for a significant period of time that iran will not get a nuclear weapon? because michael raised other issues, which are very legitimate issues you raise, by don't think iran's support for terrorism, iran's hegemonic -- the sanctions effort that brought the international community together was about iran's nuclear program. and if we try to bring every issue into this, we will lose the support of the international community. so i actually think we now are of a test of business a bad agreement in the context that michael asked? is it is the least worst option?

there is no and i will be the question -- that will be the question about 34 senators if they think it is the least worst option, the deal goes into effect divide one-third into 435 congressmen same equation. that's very much changed the balance of power here now, and so i think the parts that i don't know about this agreement the level of verification, what is just exactly what is going to be the centrifuges that are pulled out of -- what are the consequences when iran says no to a particular desired by the inspectors to go to a certain site? those things that hopefully will get filled out as part of in the next two, two and a half months. those will decide how the

congressmen asked excited it's a much less like situation than it was last december in terms of talking with the folks you talk to him tehran. >> i agree with you, howard, that the congressional action last week has fundamental change the equation here and i think that if i my range look at this, the bottom line is with a white is be able to hold one-third plus one in the house. >> not for a bad agreement. >> probably not for a bad agreement come you're absolutely correct. and i think the bad agreement will be defined by the issues of verification. in other words nobody trust anybody in this deal at all the stuff about you can't trust the iranians, the iranians don't trust us we don't trust them that's a a given. effective than it is right to adequate verification, of procedures. that's what i think the congress is going to ultimately be

looking at. when you look at the context of this agreement and bret michael and i will disagree, i think given the status quo compared to this outline as described by the state department, and i underline that because there's clearly a disparity between what the state department has outlined and what others have outlined the given state department outlined, compared to the status quo and given the fact when you start going through this that the number of centrifuges being dropped from 19,000 to 5600 operational, the volume of low-enriched uranium being dropped from 10000 kilos to 300 kilos, and the other provisions in this and basically fundamentally changing arak and the plutonium operation and fundamental change in what's going on at for now me, these are significant concessions made by the other side -- fordow.

given the status quo is a major step forward. i didn't come it all depends on verification. >> michael, let me go to you and put you on the spot. is this a deal as outlined in the state department fact sheet the least bad outcome? and if it isn't, what is required to make it in your view of the least bad outcome? and didn't want to ask you to comment briefly on what you have heard. >> some answer to the first one is no. i don't think it is the least bad outcome. i do worry that the deal as outlined in the u.s. fact sheet first of all it's not a deal. and are clearly unresolved issues so it's hard to evaluate that% because of those unresolved issues. i do think there are some big holes in what we have agreed to. and i think some of those are what secretary baker at one. i think it's critical, for example, that those questions we called peabody, possible military dimension, what iran

has done that those the dan schliper because i don't see how you can have an efficient verification regime without those questions that have been as because it's not a matter of common people think what you need iran to confess? it's not about the confession. it's about the information and the inspectors detected what are the sites they need to check with the weather people do need to talk to? what progress has iran make a big? i do think there are other issues. the questions of how our sanctions released and when i think it's important we maintain leverage going forward in the event of iranian noncompliance because i think it will inevitably be questions about compliance but there always are with these types of regimes. is also this question about access that site so we talked about the. i don't think we can permit a distinction between civilian nuclear sites and military sites given a clear sort of military nature of the rent and past nuclear activities. so within the context of what's been outlined i think those things can be addressed to make this a deal worth supporting,

worth making really. but then, i can constantly be back to the question of alternatives. i think one thing we neglect in our debate is attended to just about what are the united states alternatives. what are iran's alternatives. i think this raises a question of time. because we could really afford to negotiate for another six months if we had to get it's great to set deadlines at the plums if you're committed to those deadlines and they are credible. i don't frankly deadline set at the state are credible. we can afford to negotiate another six or 12 month frankly there at the iranians can afford far less to supersede this, saving it to agreement extended another six or 12 months. i think we need to bear in mind iran's own alternatives are not fantastic. so we need to i think for the sake of having a sustainable deal, deal that survives past 21 months or 24 months, i get it's what we did what we need. we lived in be a great deal? i will still say it won't be a

good deal because these conceptual flaws and i would work a lot that the deal would not survive for 10 years even of the initial period but it's probably at this stage of the game the best we could hope for. >> i want to come back to the issue of what happens if by june 30 we don't have an agreement, but let me ask you this. given your hopes for this agreement as you expressed in your opening comments and given what you have heard here does it reassure you about some of the questions you have about the u.s. side? >> first, let me say at this point that we have more much more problem on u.s. side. please accept this idea that an advantage sometimes i am joking with iranian friends specially when you have the problems that congress had shut down the government. i wasn't joking to some americans saying that you don't

have supreme leader here. if you had supreme leader, order -- know, it's a bad idea. don't do that. but i'm just joking last. [laughter] i'm comparing political system in iran and in the united states, specially the current parliament. we don't have too much problem. they are already agreements, and the supreme leader, if the supreme leader decides something, specially this current government, i mean parliament would approve it differently. and right now the supreme leader has created a new term which was very, very new for us. and here i think also for you the so-called heroic flexibility

flexibility. so that's finished. and all on the same page but any we don't have such a system, more democratic system. we have between administration and the congress come with lots of difficult. so let me ask you please accept from the battle ideas about comprehensive view. we have much more problem in here that iran. but secondly, i don't agree let me express my ideas about your idea that we can expand six months or 12 months again to negotiate a negotiate and negotiate. because two important elections is coming and it's going to be escalated. into the next presidential election, and in iran two important elections at the same day and same time, in

february 2016 election for parliament and assembly which is very very important this moment, that second one. so i think if you extend the negotiations six months or 12 months especially domestic policy would affect much more than negotiations and you cannot get out of this negotiation when you extend for too long. maybe you can imagine 10 days or 20 days one month, like you did the last deal got an agreement between the administration and congress it's fine. but more than that i can imagine that it would certainly put this agreement, i mean, the comprehensive deal in jeopardy. so this is a second point.

and my last point about what you mentioned previously is that i don't think the verification would be major problem because we had the same issue in the past when president rouhani was secretary of the national security council, and president how many come i mean was in power. i was in parliament. i remember. you had the situation and problem and iran voluntarily gave you to access combining the iaea the access many many places, including some like military places like parchin. but it has lots of it has its own process technical problem not my expertise. and iaea when they want to ask

to have access to military places, but when they accept to execute additional protocol, i think it would assure you and everybody if they had any problem complicated problem, for example, israel security come if they have concern about.com it would assure you, it should assure you and everybody, saying that it won't have, you know problem about that. but about the second problem that right now both sides are talking each other, iran especially come about sanctions it's much more tougher than the first one i think. because the first one about implementation of additional

protocol voluntarily has already accepted in geneva. i believe that i heard. but about sanctions, i think we have two different idea toward each other and i think it's also practical and resolvable and you can resolve it as well in two months or so. >> what i did is i think it's going to come down to these two issues this education and monitoring issued which has a number of things we talked about and the relaxation of sanctions. though seems to be thank you issues. we've heard now michael suggests that we have more time. weaver ali-akbar suggest that not much more time because it gets politically complicated. so let me bring you jim in and howard and come and see if that june 30 we have not bridged the

apparent differences on these two issues, to critical issues, what do we do? and what is plan b or what is the plan for a soft landing so that this does not badly damaged the situation in the region? >> well, first of all i feel very strongly that we shouldn't be budget on this june 30 deadline because i think that we have to dig in on this trick both sides have to recognize that the clock is running out for both of us and for different reasons but let me just observe that if this gets kicked down the road for months, we are into heavy political campaign season. we will soon be into the iowa caucuses, and i think it's important for all of us to understand that the political pressure domestically, is going to be so intense especially on the republican side to let me explain why. in the republican primary the

christian fundamentalists vote is vitally important to all these candidates on the republican side. they are appealing to christian fundamentalists. and on the east coast i don't think we have come it's just not the awareness of the rising influence of christian zionism in this country. so we have this really emerging in the heartland where the strongest supporters of israel are christian zionists who are not in the christian fundamentalist camp basically, these are voters who are vitally important to these republicans running for president. and so what this is going to do coupled with the fact that we literally hundreds of millions of dollars moving in the american legal process based on this issue. it's a staggering amount of money, and all of this is going to put enormous pressure especially on the republican candidates for president. it is going to solidify

republican opposition to any deal and it's going to make this whole process much more political than it otherwise would be. this deadline of june 30 has to be hard for both sides. if i was in iran if i was looking at this from the iranian perspective, i would say my goodness come with got to get that deal and with got to get it now. we better be flexible in how we get there. because the clock is not on our side of the table. and i think that the iranians that i've had an opportunity to visit with, they understand the historic moment. for the first time in maybe 35 years we have high ranking leadership in tehran and high ranking leadership in the united states that are together wanting a deal. and i think this makes this a historic moment. and i think we better not come we better be smart enough to take advantage of it. >> howard, how do you see a if we get to june 30 and don't have

a deal? >> i share jim's nervousness perhaps for some different reasons. the whole threat of this is the pressure that came from international sanctions on the iranian economy -- >> and the election of rouhani. we can do blow by that. >> but everything is wrapped together spent yes, it's related. >> yes. for the first administration has been sanctioned to u.s. government has been sanctioning iran since 1979, with the exception for a brief period of time of some pistachios and carpets, an american company could not do business with iran. in the late '90s we decided to go extraterritorial and imposed sanctions on investment in iran's energy sector of more

than $20 million. neither the clinton administration nor the bush administration ever imposed a sanction on their because of the international pushback that they feared would come. from extraterritorial sanctions on foreign companies that made those investments. but if you think of the president of the united states he undertook a strategy that developed an international coalition. i don't think ahmadinejad presidency with the supreme leader was going to extend its hand in the first year of the obama administration and unclench their fans. but i thought it was necessary for the administration of the president to going to do that to build up the international coalition that would come down. i remember oil for food. i watched on iraq consensus on

sanctions that started to wither, and whether a way. and i fear the same thing happens here. all i am saying is i think we should get a good deal done by june 30. the extension of the gpo a come it's interesting because there were people who thought that was a terrible mistake and it provides a limited sanctions released it is likely to take the pressure off the iranian economy. it's a good debate the people of iran and again it's more time for the unity of the p5 to suffer. this is a very different time than 2009 and 2010 when this coalition was put together. russia is taking a very different approach. generally on issues, and all

kinds of potential kinks here that i'm concerned about. so i would like to see it done now. >> let me ask one question that they would go to the audience for questions, and that is it. we've talked lived about what happens if we don't get a deal. if we do get a deal and ali-akbar, i would like to start with you on this if i could, what are the likelihood that a nuclear agreement would lead to some kind of breakthrough in relations between iran and united states, between iran and its sunni neighbors, and what impact might it have on iranian behavior on other issues of concern, like syria and yemen and the like? i would like to hear from you come and quickly go down the line and then go to the audience for questions. >> first of all, i would like to emphasize on that point that

president obama mentioned and finally got an agreement with congress, that it's a big fault to type in any other issues other than nuclear this negotiation, i'll bring inside this comprehensive deal that makes almost impossible the deal. but other than that if you take a look at the last speech of the supreme leader in iran before yesterday i mean, the last one i think almost 10 days ago he mentioned something that i think it was for the first time, that mention that if we got an agreement with the united states and the western countries and we could implement it, i mean, we got this deal, we might allow the negotiators to ne