have supreme leader here. if you had supreme leader it's a bad idea don't do that but i'm just joking, but -- so now i'm just comparing the current two systems political system in iran. the current parliament don't have problems. they are already agreement and the supreme leader if the supreme leader decides something, especially this current government -- the parliament would approve it definitely and right now, they approve. the supreme leader has created a new term which was very very new for us at least in here also for you. the term is called -- so-called

flexibility. so, that is finished. and all in the same page. but in here we don't have such a system. more democratic system. we have here within here, and between administration and the congress, we have lots lots of difficulties. so let me ask you, please accept from the panel, accept this idea that about the comprehensive deal. we have much more problem in here than iran. but the secondly, i don't agree -- let me express my idea about your idea that we can extent six months or 12 months again to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate. because two important elections is coming and there's going to be escalated in here, the next presidential election, and in iran, two important elections at

the same day and same time in february 2016. election for parliament and expert assembly, which is very important this important, second one. so i think if you extend the negotiations, six months or 12 months especially, the domestic policy would affect much more the negotiations and you cannot get out of the negotiations when you extend for too long. maybe you can imagine for ten days or 20 days, one month, like you in the last bill 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 the second opinion

and my last point about the -- 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, then president rouhani was of the national security council and president -- was in power i was in parliament. i remember you had the situation, the problem and iran voluntarily gave you to access the iaea to access many places, including some -- like on some military places and so it has a lot of -- it has its own process, technical problem, not my expertise. and iaea when they want to ask

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

implementation about the protocol is already accepted in geneva. i believe i heard and -- but about sanctions i think we have two different idea and the opposing each other, and i think it's also practical and resolvable and you can resolve it as well during this two months or so. >> what i hear is i think it's going to come down to these two issues, this verification and monitoring issue, which has a number of aspect wes talked about, and the relaxation of sanctions. those seem to be the two crunch issues. we have heard now michael suggest that we have more time. we have heard the suggestion not much more time because it gets politically complicated. let me bring you, jim and howard in, saying if at june 30

we have not bridged the apparent differences on these two issues, two critical issues, what do we do? what's plan b or what is the plan for a soft landing so that this does not badly damage the situation in the region. >> well, first of all, i feel very strongly that we shouldn't be budging on this june 30th june 30th deadline. >> interesting. >> i think we have to dig in on this. both sides have to recognize the clock is running out for both of us for different reasons. let me just observe if this gets kicked down the road for months, we're into heavy political campaign season 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.

let let me explain why. in the republican primary the christian fundamentalist vote is vitally important to the republicans. they're appeals to the christian fundamentalists. on the east coast it's not the awareness of the rising influence of christian zionism in this country. so we have a reality in the heartland where the strongest supports over israel are christian zionists who are now in the christian fundamental list camp basically, and these are voters that are vitally important to these republicans running for president. and so what this is going to do coupled with the fact that we have literally hundreds of millions of dollars moving in the american political 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. why am i saying this? it's 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. and so this deadline of june 30th 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, we have to get a deal and get it now, and 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-ranging leadership in the united states that are together wanting a deal. and i think this makes this a historic moment, and think we better be smart enough to take advantage of it. >> howard, how too you see 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 -- thread of this is the pressure that came from international sanctions. on the iranian economy. >> and the election of rouhani. we tend to blow by that. >> but everything is wrapped together. it's related. >> agreed. >> for the first administration -- the administration has been sanctioned -- 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 extra territorial and impose 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 there because of the international pushback that they feared would come. from extra-territorial sanctions on foreign companies that made investments. whatever you think of the president of the united states he undertook a strategy that developed an international coalition. i don't think the ahmadinejad presidency, the supreme lead we're extend its hand in the first year of the obama administration and unclench their fist but i thought it was necessary for the administration and the president to be willing to do that to build up the international coalition that would come down. i remember oil for food, and i

watched on iraq consensus on sanctions that started to wither and wither away, and i fear the same thing happens here. all i'm saying is i think we should get a good deal done by june 30th. the extension of the jpoa is -- it's interesting because people thought it was terrible mistake and provides limited sanctions relief. not going to take the pressure off the iranian economy, not going to make the people of iran -- again, it's more time for the unity of the p-5 to sever, and 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 -- all kinds of potential chinks here that i'm concerned about. so, i'd like to see it done now. >> let me ask one more question and then we'll go to audience for questions and that is this. if we -- we talked about what happens if we don't get a deal. if we do get a deal, and -- i'd like to start with you on this -- what are the likelihood that a nuclear agreement would lead to some kind of breakthrough in relations between iran and the 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, and i'd like to hear from you and then just go down quickly down the line and then go to the audience for questions. >> first of all, would like to emphasize on that point that

president obama mentioned, and they finally got an agreement with congress that it's a big fault to tie any other issues other than nuclear in this negotiation, or bring inside this comprehensive deal that is mixed, 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, the last one almost ten days ago, he mentioned something that i think it was for the first time. that mentioned that if we got an agreement with the united states and the western countries and we could implement it and -- i mean the -- we got this deal, we may allow the negotiators to

negotiate about other problems that we have maybe with the international community, especially in the united states. so, it was for the first time that he mentioned. so right after that i would imagine that this deal would lead negotiators to talk about especially at first regional issues, like isis, yemen, iraq afghanistan, many regional problem that we have right now, and the war combat and getting agreement like now like the agreement that we are close to get about the nuclear issue, and lastly i think it may lead to even broad conversation and negotiation to normalize the

relationship between the united states and iran and after that maybe even it may lead to negotiate about some internal problem that we have about human rights and many other issues. so i'm pretty optimistic about that is going to happen very soon if we got this agreement and put it away from the face between the international community and iran. >> bottom line based on ten years of interaction with iranians from the business community, from the religious communities, from the political communities in iran, i am totally convinced that iran wants a reset with the united states, with some limitations, and i think that this nuclear agreement from the standpoint of

just u.s. national security interests, is extremely important to get this nuclear issue solved and it's extremely important, obviously, for israel as well. if we can do this, and make progress there, it is a platform from which we can move to a lot of other discussions, and we can do so focusing on those areas where there is common interest. there are issues in the region that the united states and iran share and need to address. isis. isis hates iranians as much as it does jews and christians and americans. we can work together iran and the united states dealing with isis itch also believe there's an opportunity to deal with the issue of hezbollah in lebanon. all of this stuff can be on the table, and the first step is to get this terrible nuclear question resolved and use the confidence maybe a little bit of trust we can build in dealing

with this to build a better future together. >> i michael? >> prospects? >> i think it's deem to get a deal. we have already talked to the iranians many times over the years about regional issues. we have talked them to about iraq, about afghanistan, some well before we had serious nuclear negotiations we were doing these things. and i think that we should maintain -- i think one thing that is critical for us to maintain is flexibility on our tactics. i think when we are conducting foreign policy we need -- we can't be dog mat tick when it comes to tactics. we shouldn't regard it as terrible to use, tactic of engagement, for example. we need to be quite unrelenting when it comes to our objectives in defending our interest. here's where the difficult at the between the u.s. and iran lies elm think it's far more divergent between american some iranian interests and strategies

importantly, too, because we may share, for example, a view that isis is bad for the region, but the way that iran goes about dealing with that problem is itself -- to american interests. we have seen it playing out in tikrit. i think it's important to bear that in mind. i don't think we're ripe for that type of breakthrough but don't think we have seen the broader shift by iran we have been looking for. if the agreement, if we get it will be very narrow and technical. it's not going to deliver the what we have so long talked about. so whether iran actually wants that think is very much in question. the supreme leader hasn't moderated his language about the united states. we're still accused daily of having created isis, just yesterday the iranian general said that isis were american proteges and soing for. so we're far away from -- that.

on american side this undertone that democracy is a liability. certainly not. it's a tremendous source of strength diplomatically in the world and it's soft power. it's true as an american leader you can't decide your own policy and forming ahead. you have to have your people behind you. you have to have constituencies behind you. one danger is the president needs to make sure he has people behind him he has public opinionband him. one thing you see is that americans would like to see a negotiated agreement. polls are clear about that. they're also very uncomfortable with this broader set of issues. they're very suspicious about whether in fact the agreement will be successful in delivering. so in a democracy you have to deliver other a deal which has buy-in of your own people. you have to deliver a deal which is therefore, sustainable over the course of election cycles, and i think we just can't see that as a bad thing. we have to see that as a source of strength for our country. >> howard?

>> i won wonder in at least assuming there is a deal and it is from american perspective a good deal, and does not get disapproved by the congress i think there's a potential for going in the other direction, because it's not just evan gel -- evan gel -- evangelicals, but there's concern in the gulf there's concern in israel and my own sense, a little bit of the message i heard when the president announced what he was going to -- the framework agreement and -- a very strength announcement. he announced one thing and the and the p-5 plus one and iranians announced another. but he made a point of

emphasizing the efforts, both with israel and with our traditional arab allies to demonstrate that we are going to be there for them. in many ways. and yesterday morning's "new york times" had an article about the level of weaponry we are in the process of sending to our traditional allies, the saudis, the uea and our once in a while, sometimes traditional ally, qatar. maybe not a traditional. nothing traditional there. but mutual defense agreements things to deal with the belief that iran has hegemonic interests. and america's willingness to stand with these allies in the region against those interests. to what extent does that -- i guess what i'm saying is i think

there be an embassy in havana before there's one in tehran. >> let me go to the audience and you'll have a chance to jump in. two final comments from you and jim and then the audience. i was overruled by my panel. >> i think that that's -- we already have negotiations with iran about many, many other issues other than nuclear. my question is that which negotiation, can you please tell me that was the outcome? i think you just invited iran and walked just behind the scenes. when i was in parliament to talk about the afghanistan issue that you have. iran completely cooperated with the united states but right after that, president bush mentioned and had this famous statement saying that iran is the -- one of the i think

countries, axis of evil. so it damaged. when other than this time when did you have negotiation -- serious negotiation? when did you -- i mean the u.s. -- recognize iran as a partner, as a stakeholder. iran is a regional power. no doubt. i think you agree with me. you didn't invite -- even about syria, you one time unites nations had the geneva meeting, and ban ki-moon invited iran right after that because of the pressure of the united states. they cancelled the invitation. so but behind this thing you have other cooperation recently about isis. iran already incorporated about tikrit. but you didn't have coordination or officially saying that iran is at least one stakeholder in the region and invite them and respect them, talk to them like

now you are talking with iran. i think it's almost two years -- about just nuclear. you didn't have this opportunity. we didn't have this opportunity to invite and recognize iran as a partner not as enemy. i think you should answer this question. >> i will answer that. i want to come back to something howard mentioned which i think is very important and that is that i know that our sunni allies in the region particularly saudi arabia and jordan, are very fearful of a reproachment between the united states and iran and they see them as losing influence and israel has similar concerns and you're absolutely spot on in the need for us to make sure our sunni allies and israel understand that just because we have an improved relationship between the united states and iran does not dim minimum --

diminish our obligation to defense of israel and our friends and ally thursday the region and there's going to need to be tremendous diplomatic effort made to re-affirm those historic obligations and commitments. >> we'll go to questions. i need to say one thing. one of the things that seems to be lost in history is that there was an agreement with iran on the nuclear issue in 2003 and 2004 between the eu-3, britain, uk -- uk, france germany, and iran and it involved the suspension of enrichment and a negotiation to eliminate that program. that agreement broke down in the implementation, heavily because of the election of ahmadinejad as president of iran in 2005. spring of 2005. on a very different agenda, and he walked away from the agreement and restarted the nuclear program. i raise that because the implementation and execution of

these kinds of agreements is very difficult and it's going to require a lot of commitment on both sides which is why it is so important that if there is an agreement, it has bipartisan support in the congress of the united states and bipartisan support of the american people so that there can be the sustained implementation of that agreement, because we have seen on the north korean agreement in 1994 and in the 2003-2004 agreement with iran, and the eu-3, that if you -- that young lose these agreements if you cannot have a sustained and successful implementation. questions from audience. let start right here. mic coming to you. please identify yourself. >> i am a fellow at georgetown and managing editor of iran poll i.com. my question for mr. singh. if you could expand on something, does a final nuclear deal take sanctions off the

table as a major foreign policy tool on iran? the assumption being that sanks have been so tied to the nuclear issue that if the u.s. tries to do a major sanction push on another issue, that iran can re-escalate on the nuclear issue because sanctions are the whole reason it came -- constrained its number cheer program in the first place. >> it's a complicated issue. when we talk in these agreements -- it's in the text of the agreement -- about a nuclear related sanction it's important to bear in mind there is no such thing as a nuclear related sanction in american law. so the first question is, what sanctions exactly do we have in mind? and does it match with what the iranians have in mine? i guess is the answer to that right now is no and that will be one of the things which negotiators are talking about. if you look at sanctions on the national iranian oil company, these sanctions for their association with the revolutionary guard force, which i not nuclear related. if you look at the sanctions on

iran's arms experts, contained in u.n. security council resolution 1929, that is a cool which has nothing in a sense to do with the nuclear program but is nuclear related in its implementation. then you look at sanks on iran's nuclear imports and exports. clearly nuclear related but we want to keep those in place and the question is procourage. this sanctions question is actually very complicated, far more complicated than often it's given credit for. i think what is clear is that what iran is looking for out of this agreement is to get substantial relief from sanctions, especially those which prohibit it access to the international financial system and the sanctions on its oil experts. to the stepped you think those are the only sanctions, that have really gotten iran to budge -- you can have debate about that itself -- it's obvious therefore why they want those lifted. if we lift them we're lifting them. right? we're not saying we're going to lift them on the nuclear issue

and then re-impose them for some other reason. that doesn't seen sustainable. the question is what tools that are effective are you then lift with to influence iran's behavior? when we say we're going maintain sanctions on other things the question is should be holiday will that it be effect enough the environment of slackening pressure on the most important point, giving iran tremendous amounts of revenue, "the wall street journal" suggested $15 billion -- getting to the point about not only will iran not be -- not only do we not negotiate on regional issues but iran will have much more revenue if the wish to pursue regional activities we're concerned about. so my concern is that --ous need to demonstrate your commitment to countering iran and the sanction tools are no longer available, it leads you to more involvement in the region against iranian activities than you had to begin with. unless you deliver this sort of, i think very unlikely at this

stage, reproachment and there's a sense people have that this comforts them that this agreement, built on a gamble that will happen. >> yes, sir, right here. >> daniel lincoln research consultant at the savannah initiative mitchell question is for any panelist who feels like they should answer. assuming that a deal is reached and assuming that the various timelines outwill bed -- that were outlined in the press releasees, ten years on limits in centrifuges are adhered to. there have been critics of the deal that says after ten years that part is null and void and iran can do whatever it likes. so my mind the challenge becomes, what can the u.s. and iran do in that time to change the calculus or what can the u.s. do to change the iran's calculus so that is no longer such an alarming prospect once

the ten years go by? do any of you agree with that way of looking at things and what can the u.s. do towards that end? thank you. >> anyone want to -- i'll just answer briefly. the agreement does provide that a number of provisions dealing with supply chain and inspection go beyond ten years, and in any event, even after the agreement expires, iran will be subject to the kinds of inspection provisions that come with the nonproliferation treaty and the iaea safeguards agreement and the additional protocol and the like. so there will be some things that are designed under the npt rubric to ensure that a country that is signed up to the npt to be a nonnuclear state, is not moving towards a nuclear weapon. the question that is raised is if you leave iran with a

substantial nuclear infrastructure, how confident can you be that those will be adequate? the other thing i would say is those can be reinforced by a declaration that the president has made many times, and many -- several presidents have said which is if iran moves towards a nuclear weapon, that is a line that raises the military issue. so it isn't that everything is over. the question will be, is the post agreement inspection regime and verification regime, adequate to ensure that with the nuclear infrastructure, iran is not able to covertly moved towards a nuclear weapon. >> the additional protocol continues for 15 years doesn't it? and then at least 15 years. >> additional protocol is forever. >> that's correct. >> forever. >> the problem is -- >> our version. >> there is a distinction.

there's something beyond the additional protocol. the additional protocol is not quite anytime anywhere, at the moment, we get to see something that concerns us. and that will be one of the issues on this verification issue. are there additional measures applicable to iran that would be in addition to the additional protocolses that would last in per e perpetuity for a longer period of time and how will iran respond to that? the supreme leader said that is off the table. iran is not going to be treated differently than other nonnuclear weapon states. yes, ma'am? back there. >> thank you very much. my name is pat burg and i'm the former public diplomacy and public affairs adviser at the state department for iraq, but i've spent time in iran, and the

question that i keep hearing people ask is what is actually driving the u.s. foreign policy today? we have partnered with people lime sad saddam, we have partnered with bin laden, and the question that i hear is, is it the lobbyists? the plate cat consultants? political careers? and are we going to have a balance in terms of treating all countries basically with the same -- same rules. that would be the best way to say it. >> anyone want to take that one on? >> when i look at the middle east right now over the next few years, i think isis is going to be a very very serious threat to many countries in the region and i find it very interesting and important that iran and the united states have a common interest in confronting and

dealing with isis. and just think about world war 2 -- world war ii. if we had failed to realize we needed to deal withjoe stalin would we have been able to win the war? the short answer is probably not. so, there are times when the facts on the ground demand that you deal with people you may not necessarily like to deal with. because there is a greater evil that must be confronted. i see an opportunity here for the united states and iran to cooperate in dealing with a horrible threat to the region right now in the form of isis. i am mindful that if that is not done properly the sunni friends in the region will be very fearful and will see iranian influence growing. >> let me just make a quick observation. iran is a country of 80 million

people. it is three times the size overrank. it is three times the saws of saudi arabia. has the worths' fourth largest supply of oil second largest supply of natural gas. it eggs a regional super power when its comes to energy. and the people 90% literaries rate. everybody under 45. the median age in iran is 28. people don't realize this, but 60% of the university students are female 65% of the graduate students are female. and the biggest problem i think iran is going to have in the future is what are we going to do with all these educated women? and i just think that we have to recognize that whether we like it or not, a country of that size, with that level of education and sophistication with their history, they are going to be a powerful influence in the region. whether we like it or not. it's a little bit like pretend like china isn't going have to

growing influence in asia. they're going to have growing influence, and we have to deal with the new realities in these areas. >> i guess from my point of view issue think that american foreign policy needs to be guided by a sense our national interests and a sense of our objectives. i i think if you look at american foreign policy in the mideast over the years we have not had actually that different a stance from one administration to the next of what are our interests in the region, our objectives, that we have had very significant disagreements over the strategies we should pursue and the tactics we should employ in support of those strategies. that's absolutely appropriate. this is the foreign policy debate in washington. if you look at probe's iran policy compared to president bush's iran policy, which i helped work on, when i was in the national security council the distinctions are not stark. they are distinctions that are significant to be sure.

but not massive. so we have the same basie objective. prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons, preserve nonproliferation preserve peace in the middle east to the extent we can. to do that use sanctions and diplomacy. president bush's charge was to find a way to keep iran from going to war. so we have great debates in washington and we should and it's what i think a lot of us enjoy doing in a sense but it's important not to exaggerate the fundamental differences in the foreign policy of the united states from one to the next in terms of the regimes and should i they be applied equally. the fact is you can't take a cookie cutter approach to different countries. japan has a significant nuclear weapons program -- >> i misspoke. japan has a significant nuclear program which is civilian and has abidessed by its obligation. iran violated the

nonproliferation treaty, not just in 2002 but within that subsequent facility by refusing to answer iaea ininspectors' questions. iran is in the situation it's in because its has violated the commitments which it volunteer terribly signed up to. and so i think it's -- voluntarily signed up to. so it's appropriate it is treated differently than other countries. >> one last thing. there's no doubt that special interests, lobbies, groups of people, have influence on american foreign policy. that is called democracy. and -- but in the end, i think it is that role in decisions made is quite overblown. my guess is that cold war and people's perceptions of the cold war had a lot nor do with what we did in iran in 1954 than a

particular oil company. maybe i'm wrong. maybe i'm not. but that -- there is some sense of people trying to find the national interests. pressure groups, influence? yes. but i don't think there is decisive as people want to think. >> we're running to the end of our time. i'd like to take three questions and then give the panelists a chance to respond to those questions and see how much time we have. let's take the trifecta three people right up there. ma'am, you in the back and the two gentlemen in front, this triangle right here. >> my question is for mr. michael singh. the obama administration will be hosting the gulf states in camp david next month. do you see this an as an

opportunity to bridge the gap between the administration's position on the deal since we fundamentally see it differently than our gulf partners? we see it as a way to curtail and limit the threat of iran and they see it as a way continue crease the threat of iran. second, on the sanctions they argue that a deal would not adjust iran's attitude in the region, and they don't want the sanctions to be lifted because of that. we have the sanctions now and iran did not adjust its attitude anyway. thanks. >> yes sir. >> yes i'm a research with daniel morgan example in d.c. mr. madley, what do you think the iranian missile capability says about iranian intentions?

>> yes sir. >> i should -- question to the doctor. you mentioned the supreme leader. his health, we understand is it deteriorating, and there done seem to be in the clarity as to who would come after him. i would flip the question you had brought about the consensus internally in iran and if the supreme leader were not be with us anymore, how would that change the verification and the credibility of the deal that iran would be signing? and very quickly, also to congressman burman, i'm wondering if a deal with iran would actually help with our arab allies and those within our arab allies that are still isis fan boys and whether a deal with iran would actually help stability in the region. >> let me ask if someone has a question for jim, if we do we'll

take that one ask then everyone will have an opportunity to answer a question. any questions for mr. slattery? yes, ma'am. down here in the second row. >> hi. i just wondering when you raise the issue of me the political -- the christian zionists movement as a factor in shaping the prospective success of this deal or not, do you think that if it's settled by june 30th that there might not be more efforts to derail it even after the deal goes through? >> let me take all of this and

go right down the line if we can. start with you. >> i say that both sides of the united states and the iran, we are suffering from lack of understanding each other. the culture of iran, many many proverbs and many cultural -- we have in our culture issue don't think 80% of that we understand in the united states, and vice versa. here, many politics is going on inside the united states and in iran. we don't have enough knowledge. so, i think either -- also about the supreme leader's speech and other people. i think i just heard -- i'm

hearing always mr. allen here is working on iran's culture and talking with iranians and can communicate, because i think daily he has access to some literature or talking to iranians. so we need this kind of exchange right now. we should not wait until finalized even this deal. you asked me that on u.s. what can u.s. do to help to bridge this gap. i think we should start right now expanding this sort of exchange educational tourism, many things. you are not allowing iran -- u.n. ambassador exceptionally to come here and talk directly to you to the politicians. you should allow them right away to come here and daily, talk to you and also -- and you have

lots of restrictions to travel to iran. you can cancel -- obama can cancel direct flights to iran from tomorrow mr. singh, and you can go and talk directly with iranians vice versa i talk to some members of parliament when they come here, like now. besides the -- i mean the world bank meeting last year. he was just criticizing the u.s. -- u.s. is here. you are in the united states. you should go to talk to the congress, and finally fortunately he had some kind of tour and besides that had some discussion and right after that i heard lots of words and sentence from him about new understanding about what is going on in the united states. we need both. mr. slattery, fortunately has

this chance for the first time after 35 years to go to iran. we need that. and you have lots of restrictions. i think and also -- but thick obama himself has enough courage to initiate something. what he did to call mr. rouhani. we have lots of problem in iran. even when mr. rouhani went to iran after answering his call, many people threw the shoes against him in front of him in airport. we have many problems but we have in our culture, for example, in muslim communities, just one example -- if you said salam, i have to answer you. obama call mrs. rouhani and he answer to answer. my previous boss he came here he didn't have any plans meeting

with congressmen, met many american officials but some american offered him in u.n. can you talk directly to this congressman, this senator? and they want to say to you hello. he mentioned, yes, we have in our culture -- we should -- we have to respond if somebody says salam you should respond, and after that the congressmen ask, can we talk more and sit? they didn't have plans to talk to each other, and somebody dropped some chair and talked. so this is very, very tactical problem. very -- we have -- also the sanctions you have. right now many, many people know that i am advocating since 2009 to release the sanctions on

the internet freedom and this kind of -- and we had lot of activity. rights now we have much more difficulties to convince the administration to release the sanction to expand on internet in iran. right now mr. rouhani has the big tender is going to have -- i think it's revolutionary project called -- one of his slogans, to expand backbone of internet in iran. we couldn't even until today convince mr. cohen to release sanction and allow all u.s. company to sell this equipment to iranians, to have access to information. so, communication and this -- would be very very important and i hope that u.s. can start and initiate this initiative, and you can see what happened

after that i think. >> thank you. jim? >> ignorance and fear are the enemies of peace. and president eisenhower was a big believer in people-to-people diplomacy, i am too. we should have exchanges mealsly between members of the iran and members of the united states congress and get to know each other and tear down these walls of fear and ignorance that exist between these two countries, and the way to do that is for people to talk to each other. one thing that has been stunning to me, frankly, is that in dealing with this administration and talking to the people that are involved in these negotiations, they don't know any iranians. they don't have any acquaintances across the table. and this is for goodness sakes, 2015 and this is the fruit of isolation. and it's just ridiculous in this modern era. to your question let me just clarify that when i talked about christian zionism and the rising

influence of it within the christian fundmentammist community, i'm just pointing out that this is a very significant factor and force in republican primary politics, and i am only pointing that out because as we get deeper into the election process, these forces become more powerful and more influential, and that is why i'm suggesting it is so important for us not to move this june 30th deadline. focus on getting the job done on both sites by june 30th. >> michael. >> i just will respond to these two questions. on the last point to congressman slatyiery made the concerns people have about iran are widespread. polls suggest that 67%. i just don't thing it's a matter of a small sort of special interest which is trying to skew things. >> i'm not suggesting that. >> think frankly the christian

community that those vai views they're widely shared. on the missile question, it has been a police stake on our part not to insist that the missile question, that iran's icbm development and space launch activitieses be addressed in these negotiations. if you just recently i think the head of strategic command, u.s. strategic command, talked about north korea potentially now having the able to hit the western coast of the united states with mobile icbm launchers one of the most serious types of threats our country can face and obviously a long-range missile program is part of any nuclear weapons program. so keeping it off the table, which we did because the supreme leader refused to talk about it, was not the right strategy to take. the gcc leaders summit, which is supposed to happen at camp david, now there's a date set. if we were in the nsc, we're not

premeds for submit. when you get leader together it's very important that you have -- that the meetings be successful. and i just worry we haven't done the spade work. number one to really understand and address the concerns that our allies in the region have. in fact you have seen some statements which have gone the opposite direction, which have done the opposite sort of reassuring our allies we are on the same page when it comes to interests. second i don't think we know what our program is for countering and deterring iranian behavior after deales signed. i don't know we know what we're going to put on the table. i think it's dangerous when you have this kind of summit without doing that diplomatic and staff spadework at the lower levels to understand what ooh she's leaders be talking about and what can they come out of the summit having agreed upon? because the worst thing you can have is a submit that is considered -- a summit that is considered a failure. we need to do more work at the

working level before we do it at the leader level and i don't see that yet. >> howard? last words. >> i think the question was, if there is a deal are there opportunities for a larger u.s.-iranian area of cooperation? >> yes, specifically against isis because it seems that within our arab allies, although officially they're against it, as we have read, there's significant support, and others by the way north just isis, but -- those groups -- because they're against iranian interests, may be tolerated. >> well, i could see a situation -- it's not that could i see it -- i can conceive of it -- it would be nice so see it -- the iranian leadership decide that we should try a different approach in syria to

deal with these threats than the one of simply propping up and arming asad. is there room -- assad. there is room for an iranian role in a successor leadership that represents the elements of syrian society and that works to isolate those forces? there could be opportunities. the one thing i remember we have had this period of incredible tension with the regime in iran for many many decades. every information i've seen about polling to the extent you can do polling in iran, the iranian people are more pro west and pro american than many of the people in other countries in the middle east. i came up with a theory that more estranged we are from the government, the better the people like us. the closer we for the government the more they hate us.

so i think we should always be willing to look at new opportunities, but not naively. and i think that would be a make sense for any administration. >> i want to bring this to a close. i want to thank you all for coming. i want to say we look forward to seeing you at our next iran forum event which will focus on iran's role in the region. please join me in thank ought panelists this morning. [applause]

>> welcome, ladies and gentlemen. i'm a vice president for studies here at the carnegie endowment for international peace. i want to thank you for joining us for this important afternoon and the opportunity to hear the remarks from the foreign minister of turkey. he will be talking about

absolutely vital issues today of the middle east, turkey's relationship with nato, iranian nuclear negotiations, all super important issues in the united states in europe, middle east, and the global implications. we are honored to have foreign minister cavusoglu here from ankara. he will be making his remarks as we spoke and then -- then we'll be taking questions and offering a discussion before he has to depart. there's no challenge, difficult issues confronting turkey, its allies and other states in the region. he will be addressing those. one of them that we have worked on here at carnegie in

particular is the challenge posed by iran's nuclear program and the diplomatic effort to deal with that. we have just published a book here with a colleague and it's available outside. if anyone is interested. turkey's nuclear future, looking forward. but as i say, the minister will speak and cover a whole range of these issues and then we'll have a discussion from thereafter. minister cavusoglu is minister since the last two years, but previously he was the minister of european union affairs and also is a dnr one of the founding leaders of the jk party in turkey. so, with no further adieu mr. minister, please. [applause]

>> thank you so much. for the introduction. distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, it's a real pleasure to be here with you all today. let me thank ambassador burns in has absence, and the carnegie endowment for the wonderful reception. i'm here in washington dc on an invitation from through good friend, sac kerry. i also -- secretary kerry i also meet with the counterpartses from the administration and have contacts on the hill. of course i value all those of meetings i'm going to have during my stay. but i'm equally pleased to address you at this centuries-old institution. over the years, carnegie endowment turn into a truly

global think tank and has contributed to international peace through creative ideas ideas and strategic thinking. i am sure you know the famous quote, every great dream begins with a dreamer. the institution has been home to the many dreamers of the peace. that eggs why i am very happy to have an opportunity to talk to you under this roof about the state of play in middle east, and turkey's role. and this is a topic on which there has been much debate here in this town. and i know that not all the comments are being -- so i appreciate the opportunity to speak about our dream our regional new and different middle east one that rises on peace, stability, and cooperation. ladies and gentlemen today the

middle east is largely in a state of turmoil. but the same middle east has contributed greatly to the cultural and scientific progress of humankind throughout history. president obama himself highlighted some of these contributions in his historic speech. and we believe that this region still has the potential toaóocj create great things. so the question is, how do we turn this potential into concrete? after decades oppression and war we witness our -- the people in the transformation process start to shake the very foundations of the century-old -- in the region. in this process we played a very

supportive role. we extended our $3 billion of financial assistance and tick income cal expert -- technical expertise too tunisia, and yemen and contributed to the efforts of the european union and the council of europe in all these countries. but the transformation process is currently characterized bay massive challenge. share my views for dealing with all these challenge. the conflict in syria affects turkey the most. the situation has become more complicated with the emergence of daesh, or isil you say in the united states. understand the situation in syria has become a serious nation national security concern for my country turkey. we have provided significant contributions to the

international coalition as an active member. we have mobilized our ministry and other resources in its support. so we agree on the existence of a major threat in our immediate neighborhood but the selective approach focusing just on terrorism will not remedy this situation in syria and in iraq. has the political vacuum in sear glass to by based on the aspirations of the syrian people. the only way to bring total stability in syria. the declaration identifies the necessary road map for achieve ing this kind of political solution. the parties in any negotiation to end the conflict are clear. these are the syrian nation of

coalition, and the regime. the coalition is recognized by 114 countries countries and 13 international organizations as the legitimate opposition. however, after geneva negotiations the regime thinks its has a free hand to continue its violence against its people. this has to stop. the international community must exert pressure on the regime that saw that it will sit down at the negotiation table. we have been working closely with the tattoos find a way to move forward to a political solution in syria. our efforts on implementing a program is clear testimony. this program aims to create area inside syria that are safe. also provide a foothold for syrians willing to fight daesh.

ladies and gentlemen, iraq has been in continuous crisis for many years. daesh is the latest episodes in the drama and maybe the most complicated one. the terrorist organization has occupied more than one-third of iraq, which is equal to the size of croatia in a short time. this is surprising for many. but we had been warning about this possibility for a long time. why was iraq faced with such a crisis? what is the reason behind? simply because of the sectarian and operative policies of the previous government after the departure of american troops. so, there is ad in for a policy that reaches -- reaches out to oppressed people and the regime and should regain their trust and their confidence. i mean the current administration. and new iraqi government under

abadi started well on getting international support, and turkey has been fully support this new inclusive government in iraq. but it our duty to remind the iraqi government it needs to do more for winning the others of the country. promises must turn into concrete action without further delay. in iraq, in a short term, there might be some military successes but lack of confidence between the people and the government is unfortunately continuing. successes will not be enough. there's a need for political and humanitarian steps taken at the same time. the other liberated cities should be held and run by the locals. people shouldn't feel that they

have come under another term of oppression in iraq. iraq cannot be governed as before daesh. it should evolve into the functioning federal state. this is not something new, obviously. it was also foreseen in the iraqi -- we know and we now -- know the task at hand is not easy. and we shouldn't put undue pressure on the government but the urgency is everything. that is why we are providing political, ministries and humanitarian support to iraq. and we are carrying out training program for the kurdish regional government and national guard units.

we have already trained more than 1600 peshmerga. and on the humanitarian side we are hosting nearly two million people from syria and iraq combined. our expenditure has reached almost $6 billion, whereas we receive only 300 million-dollars support from the international community. we are also doing our part to stand the flow of foreign terrorist fighters. we have taken all the necessary measures. we have -- involved more than 12,800 people, and we have captured and deported around 1,300 people in this context and about half of them we didn't have any information from the

source countries thanks to the sensitive work of our security and also intelligence we have captured and deported them to the source countries and we inform all those source countries of this foreign fighters. this is not an issue that we can -- turkey can solve on its own. we need improved information sharing and more international cooperation, particularly from the source country and the source countries should also start asking themselves the hardest questions. who is really the weakest link in this chain? in addition to syria and iraq we see sectarianism as a general set to the region in the middle east. that is a standard message we give to all actors and parties sectarian-based policies create

no-win situation. all lose in sectarian struggles including first and foremost those who favor these policies. yemen is the most recent example pointing out such dangers. in both iran and libya what we need is political dialogue, meaningful political dialogue. we anyone political solutions based on compromise and consensus in those two countries. ladies and gentlemen as a cornerstone of peace and stability, the middle east -- in the middle east egypt is another potential risk for the region. egypt is important country for the muslim world. egypt is important for middle east and egypt is very crucial country for another only northern africa but the whole continent.

egyptian leadership pushes to the people they say see opposition underground and towards radicalism. our concern is if this current trend is left unchecked a new and more violent social -- in egypt well be inevitable. egypts problems can only be solved in a liberal and efficient political environment. therefore we encourage all parties to advocate establishment of an inclusive political system in egypt, too. ladies and gentlemen, of course one cannot speak about the middle east without touching upon the palestinian issue because it remains a core challenge in this region. actually we all know of solutions. a state of israel living side-by-side with an independent

and sovereign state of palestine, on 1967 borders, with jerusalem as its capital. yet despise the evers evers of secretaries kerry, the two-state -- regarding u.n. court council resolution to initiate peace conf such a resolution would make the israelis sit down for serious negotiations, for two state solution. unfortunately, this initiative like other, trying to open the way to peace, failed at the united nations security council. the main body responsible for protecting international peace and security once again proved incapable of performing its task. i guess, ladies and gentlemen

yes, the general picture in the middle east is not very promising. but there are also reasons for being hopeful and to be optimistic as well. look at the possible process in few nearby sham this country shows us that the legitimate political solution is possible for the problems faced by the country in transition. the -- the political understanding between the p5 plus one and iran. we always advocated diplomacy as the only possible option for a solution to the issue of iran's nuclear program. that is why we hope that the ongoing negotiations result in a comprehensive agreement by the end of june this year. as always we are ready to offer our active support to the

process. we also hope that the -- finally, a constructive solution to the nuclear issue might motivate iranian neighbors and brothers to resolution of other regional problems. in short our approach in the middle east is based on finding comprehensive, political, and ininclusive solution. so let me put what we imagine into a picture. a secure and stable middle east where the energy and -- interconnected east meds -- headlines with cooperation project and success stories. doing its part to invest in a common creature in the region.

we are putting a lot of feathers increasing and liberalizing trade, lifting visas expanding investment in the region. on the humanitarian side, being the third largest in the world, we continue to extend our helping hand to our region. we are trying to ease the pains not only in syria but also in iraq and palestine. in iraq, we are among the first to come to the help by sending 750 trucks containing food kits bedding, blankets, medicine, and medical equipment. our official hugh humanitarian assistance in gaza is more than $19 million. and we will continue to work for better future for everyone in the middle east. ladies and gentlemen, dear guests, i know our topic is middle east, but speaking as the

turkish foreign minister, i will not be doing my job in full if i don't mention two other issues. two issues which have created mistrust and confrontation in our region for long time. first, cyprus. we have a window of opportunity to find the fulfillment to a problem that has been with us for more than 50 years and we believe 2015 will be an important year for the settlement of the cyprus issue. our commitment for a solution is as strong as ever. we expect negotiations to resume very soon after the elections in the north. and the turkish side is ready to go to the extra mile to make settlement possible've the end of this year but ultimately its takes two to tango and what is needed for a settlement is -- if

greek strong political will there is no reason why a settlement cannot be reached byes the of this year. as always the active involvement of the u.s. will be important in this political period ahead. second the turkish armenian relations. we have been working since 2009 to overcome the division between these two ancient peoples. two peoples who for centuries, coexisted in peace and harmony. let me underline this point. turkey shares the suffering of armenians. we try with patience and resolve to do establishment -- to establish empathy between two people. ...

and he also announced the ceremonies also held in the armenian patriarchy in his temple. another step of history.

and we will continue. and we will continue to work to address the history of problems and also the issue. ladies and gentlemen is destiny. and so today we stand at a crossroads for the region. we believe in the promise of a region and its people. we're willing and able to stand up to the existing challenge as far as the united states. the history of turkish american relations is full of working together. in the balkans and elsewhere, testimony to what we can do together. that is what gives me the confidence to say that turkey and the united states will continue to work as

partners. by working together with a better chance for the middle east. [applause] and i answer the questions. >> for technical reasons is better. >> okay. >> i want to thank the foreign minister. they are going to take questions and do it in the normal way. raise your hand. i'll call the questioners. kind enough.

please begin. make your question brief. and also producers of before you start. >> thanks. among. that is where your views with those of the saudi's particularly when it comes to an issue like human. mr. was recently in iran. your believing the saudi effort.

how do you bring people to the table? and if i may ask a question, is turkey taking the position on the direct part of weapons to the kurds? >> go you have to the next. >> michael gordon, new york times. the donation with iran. breakout time wall street after that. the facilities will be closed. iran will be a lot to do research and development on centrifuges. what is centrifuges. what is turkey's position on this agreement? other any circumstances in which turkey with feel that it should pursue the development of nuclear technology on its own as a precaution against an iranian breakout? >> okay.

well, unfortunately human is concerned. check the control the whole country. democratically elected president had to leave the country due to security concerns. of course, due to the legitimate president gcc countries after operation. these operations became legitimate. in principle we supported this. and he announced that weekend, can, if they need we can support we can give them logistics support and intelligence. so far we have not received a demand from the coalition.

but at the end turkey as a solution at immediate cease-fire humanitarian aid and political dialogue, meaningful political dialogue and possibly national unity. that is what we need. that is turkey's position. he was very straight with iranian counterpart that what there doing sectarian policies and issues in the region is not helpful and not helping their interest either. so we were very clear that they should be involved in the process that i mentioned

they should use the influence. they should withdraw, cease-fire meaningful dialogue and so on. regarding the basic principle between the p5 plus one and iraq we're fully supporting this process and fully supporting the achievements. we have not -- we should not underestimate the achievements made. they also spend together with brazil. iran is a brotherly country, our neighbor but it is not always easy to make a deal with iran. off we can find a solution.

we're supporting this process. not only in iran but turkey has no intention. [inaudible question] >> yes, here at the carnegie endowment. i would years. you yourself today and also the prime minister has gone much further is going to have acknowledging the suffering. but suffering. but the situation on the ground is bad the border is closed. very few working churches in

turkey, still in ruins. i wonder if you could share any concrete steps that your government will and can take for reconciliation with the armenians. >> first of all, regarding the armenians living in turkey we have 40000 armenian citizens. there are two candidates as well from different parties. one of them is from my party and they are also enjoying the rights of the turkish government and state giving back. this is not something not that the give it for free but it was their right taken but is not only then that all the religious entities are enjoying. they have been renovating the church and synagogues. we just immigrated recently.

and we restored armenian church. and armenians get together every year for worship in the church. we need to do more. raised in istanbul and also armenian foundations. our citizens plus another roughly 40,000 armenian migrants also enjoying. we know that they had to leave armenia. poor economies. they are irregular migrants. i don't like to use the word illegal. they are not illegal people but there are irregular migrants. in turkey. and regarding the turkey

armenian issue and re- consolation, we are for recount solution. we have been spending efforts since 2,009. of course, this year armenian dies poor focus to influence over public opinion on the events of 1915. not expecting any positive response from the armenian friends but we understood that we have to look forward and we need to overcome all these issues. in a statement of the prime minister a kind of turning.in turkey as well. so we have been taking steps

toward consolation. i hope they understand that we need a recount solution and we will not give turkey and shall continue. >> thank you, george. prime minister, i am wondering if you remember -- >> call me prime minister thank you. >> i was wondering if you remember turkey because i treated a single report on twitter. and your government a let them see that coverage. how do you reconcile this with democracy and media and freedom in turkey. thank you. >> this gentleman here. >> thank you. i don't have a question.

originally from somalia. i am a somalian american. i think the foreign minister. the successful turkey, everyone knows. thank you for your government, for your people. again in 2011. during that time no one was coming. it stands where we are because of that leadership. i went on the somali the turkish, istanbul conference. at that time i met with him when he was prime minister. i promised him at the time i don't know i don't know what to give you as a gift. it was very quick. today i'll give it to the embassy. it is a book. you know the word of allah.

and this is where our shabbat, the same book that is read by one point something million muslims that a a been hijacked by a bunch of criminals. thank you. [applause] >> should i? >> well, it is crucial for democratic societies. the former president of the parliamentary family the home rule of law, democracy, and fundamental rights. i am fully for free media and freedom of expression. however, in democratic societies in countries nobody is immune from prosecution because of his or her profession. and regarding the journals in turkey the latest committee to protect

journalists tennessee pj reported seven journalists imprisoned in turkey. and when you look at the list none of them are persecuted for their journalistic book. as a matter of fact, five of them charged with serious crimes such as homicide, causing injury with weapons bank robbery, forgery the security officers. and two of these journalists been released. similar cases and other democratic countries as well for instance, following the news of the hacking scandal in the uk the knew editor of the fed newspaper since to eight months. and also sentenced to 18

months in jail for conspiring in 2014. and there are other similar cases to give. in italy discount the united states. the 79 -year-old editor of the magazine but tito it means debate. and alexander editor-in-chief and criminal defamation. let me give you another example. there's there's an example increase. a good neighbor, i don't want to give this example. example from this country.

a us journalist sentenced to 63 months of imprisonment in january 2015 for involvement in an activist group. so for me even one journalist imprisoned because of his or her journalistic work is unacceptable. so is for turkey. turkey cannot celebrate any parallel stature in the state. and now democratic country thank you. >> gentleman in the back. >> thank you very much. i am with united for syria. i was hoping that you could examine -- we have been

hearing that turkey backs the idea of a no-fly zone or some sort of protective zone civilians along the turkish border. wonder if you could expand on the turkish policy and loss of explain any roadblocks are obstacles the united states may be presenting. >> can you repeat that? >> obstacles that the united states might present to turkey in implementing this type of protected area. >> embassy of armenia. given your extensive experience in the european affairs the council of europe's parliamentary assembly, i wonder if you can comment on the fact that

on april 152015 the european parliament adopted a resolution which officially recognizes the tragic events that face the armenians during the ottoman empire the genocide and what it calls upon the european council and the european commission to recognize the events of the genocide and account to terms. this paved this paved the way for genuine reconciliation between turkish and armenian people. >> thank you for your questions. before i answer this question the response. thank you for the gift 1st of all. we're doing our best to support the somalian people. just build the hospital with 200 beds, in turkey is running about. hopefully in five years time

they we will hand over to the somalian severe training right now the doctors and the spouse and hopefully there will be with one that hospital. we also build hospitals and other countries. to the people of those countries and citizens of other african countries. we're supporting the development projects for all african countries and will continue. thank you very much. regarding the proposal no-fly zone they know the realities of the region very well. and as i mentioned in my speech the war and our allies and other countries in the coalition right now about the possible development in syria and

iraq. unfortunately our recommendations were not taken into account. now including the united states the regret that did not. now we are proposing safe sound because it is a must. first of all, we need a safe area implementing the train and equip program. we we need safe sound in syria for the success of this program. secondly you know how many refugees living in the neighboring countries? syrian refugees including turkey? more than 4 million. you know how many idp's? with an 8 million. who is helping these vulnerable people? doing his best. they are supplying.

240,000 of them leaving. twenty-five that we built. the 8,000 living in the camps. and they are supplying education, healthcare, food, everything. the budget for food organization has run out. we have to support those vulnerable people living in turkey not only the camps but all over. these people deserve better. can we keep proper education for the children? there are 500000 syrians in turkey at the age of education, and we are able to give education to on the 140,000 of them. what will happen to be of the 360,000 syrian children? we have more than 100,000 babies in turkey.

what, i mean this pays attention to relocating refugees and also idp. our guest in turkey living in better conditions than the ones in other neighboring countries? am not blaming them because they are also doing best. they cannot afford particularly lebanon and jordan. seventy to relocate these people in the safe sound with all the infrastructure that they need. how is the coalition is going to enhance security focus. no-fly zone, air colors. obviously it's different.

you have different proposals were different ideas on the safe sound and no-fly zone. but if you agree we should do together, implement together. turkey is not insisting to enhance the safe sound on no-fly zone. unfortunately to coalition members. the other core countries, the core members of the coalition have different opinion on this. but we will continue to try to convince our allies. regarding the armenian issue

and the decision of the european parliament, a skeptic party, i think. it does not matter who it is solution is not legally binding. parliament and the european parliament. we shouldn't prophesies this issue. decide about this. a lot of report for the parliament. missing forces in the balkans and so on. and i we will this report.

1932. so it was not an easy job. i visited next on, russia ukraine also belarus. and that everybody. then president of ukraine. he arranged a group of scientists to meet me. during the meeting, at the end of the meeting a certain percent of the scientists informed me it was genocide. it was not genocide. they said we don't have an idea. as a politician have had decide whether it was or was not genocide?

in my report i said crime against humanity. well, is going to decide? obviously genocide is not a generic term. it is a legal term. that is why they propose armenia to set up a joint committee. and we should often propose. at this joint community should not be limited. from 3rd countries. in the 3rd countries of the archives. committed in a letter the letter prime minister

committed to accept let them study. let's open the archives and will accept the outcome. easy to convince parliamentarians. adopted resolution. it is not to solve the problem. parliament, some countries in europe, latin america adopted such a resolution, but it did not help. turkey and armenia and turkish and armenian people should pull this issue together. thanks. >> thank you very much. you have peace and stability in europe and chaos in the middle east. do you ever regret having

invested so much assets in your middle east policy? you have a concern that he's going to suck you back into middle eastern chaos? >> thank you very much. european societies have been facing. economic and financial crisis. migration issues immigration and also international crime climate change. defying all the challenges. the most stable continent. ..

>> >> but the shia militia they left all the heavy weapons behind even the missiles -- missiles. with their russian and american maid weapons in their hands with iraq to hold all this power but yesterday it was al qaeda

widow know if there lobate a terrorist organization. the rich davis is the perfect rows for radicalization and we cannot unite the people of syria anymore because it is killing. they will continue killing people to the chemical weapons and the bombings and there are 2 million civilians. but for that response for the middle east that the lot - - they it these are multi dimensional thank you

very much. >> on behalf of everybody here take you for taking the questions. [applause]