>> obviously we will go more into this in the q&a but ambassador wittig, 2013 rouhani comes in, a new team that speaks english does not insist on dredging through all past iranian grievances.

interim agreement -- >> they talked english in 2006 also your spoke very good english, i'm sorry. >> you got the interim agreement november 2013 we have the understanding or tell us what you can about that understanding and where we are right that the negotiations. we have about four weeks to go. >> yes. thank you, barbara for having me here. it's great to be here. at any council. on april 2 we concluded after lots of months of very intense negotiation a political agreement a basic political agreement on the parameters of a potential deal, final deal with iran.

the framework is a big and i would say potentially hopeful step forward but i have to add right at the beginning a notion of caution here. the most difficult path may lay ahead of us in the coming weeks. are we sure that we will get this a final deal? no we are not sure but we conduct those negotiations with a lot of determination in earnest. yet without any naïveté and very clear eyed. now, the task is to negotiate a comprehensive solution, and the challenge is to transform basically political statements into reliable, i would also say watertight waterproof provisions that leave no doubt about the duties of the parties

involved. and as you note in this kind of endeavor the double of course is in the detail and, therefore details matter. we have to come up with a comprehensive agreement with a lot of annexes so it's also not only a political but a very technical negotiation. so far since the second of april the negotiations have been proceeding at a rather slow pace on expert level. there are a lot of gaps gaps to be filled, brackets to be removed in the document. not surprising to you two issues are in the particular focus. first the timing of the sanctions relief for iran and

the details of the verification and monitoring mechanisms those are major topics. lausanne laid the groundwork believe for three major goals, vis-à-vis round. first, strict limitations on enrichment for the first 10 years. now iran agreed to reduce the centrifuge by two-thirds reduction from 19,000 to 6104. agreed to not enriched beyond three-point 67%, and reduce, for 15 years and reduce the stockpile of low-enriched uranium from roughly 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms for the next 15

years. and on top of that iran would have no other or no new enrichment facility for the duration of the agreement. second goal, the modernization of arak would effectively sealed the plutonium pak. lausanne provides the possibility to modernize the existing heavy water facility in arak rebuild the company decided so there could be no production of weapons grade plutonium. that was the second. third goal and key to an agreement is iran would be submitted to subjected to an unprecedented transparency and monitoring regime to make sure

that any program that iran might be engaging in our would be detected and strong procedures for intrusive inspections in accordance with the additional protocol of the npc the nonproliferation treaty and beyond would ensure that the international community knows what is going on in iran. what would be the duties for us in this agreement if it happens? in return for iran's compliance there would be sanctions relief of the u.n. sanctions or eu sanctions or u.s. sanctions gradual and that's very important it would happen gradually in the fields of economy, trade and finance. iran needs some time to start the implementation of this

agreement. so in the best case sanctions relief would not happen before the end of this year. in addition this agreement would provide guarantees that sections put back in -- sanctions be put back in place the program violates the agreement, the so-called snapback mechanisms. what are the prospects we see for this deal? for iran to be a significant shift. iran would be deprived of the possibility to produce a nuclear weapon. at the same time iran it would give the opportunity to adjust its relations to the international community. and we believe it could also prevent a nuclear arms race in the region. now, here again a note of caution. do we think that we can trust

iran with an agreement? i think the answer is no. and our motto would be this trust but verify. trust has been broken in the past and need to be restored. that's why we can only accept a regime with a long lasting monitoring mechanism. -- distrust. do we condone iran's behavior in the region? absolutely not. we maintain sanctions that are not immediately related to this agreement. let's give an example. the arms embargo and of course we would continue to urge iran to play a very constructive role on all its regional conflicts that are on our mind syria lebanon yemen. in concluding, we believe that

the alternatives to our diplomatic approach are not very attractive. if diplomacy fails then the sanctions regime might unravel. the universal sanctions regime. and we would probably see iran once again in reaching as it has done before negotiations started. it's clear that the problems we have with iran will not go away immediately with a deal. but it has the potential to engage in a phase of constructive conflict resolution with iran. so we believe it serves our security interest in europe. we believe it serves the u.s. security interest.

it serves the regional security interest, and believe me israel's security is always on our mind. so in a nutshell a negotiated satisfactory deal is our best option we have. >> ambassador westmacott come of it like you to look at the regional issue but i was surprised country they say sanctions which wouldn't come until the end of the year. and i wonder is that because it's going to take a rent that want to implement the key steps, or is it is still something be negotiated? iranian site sanctions with will be immediate upon its implementation, of the key steps steps. >> thank you, barbara, thank you atlantic council for giving us this opportunity to set up on stage. i would not say like three monkeys but we are three colleagues, pleased to be together.

when you're talking to a renewed, history is always an important part of it. but there is a sudden identified it was cyprus that great it was the cyrus -- they are very constant -- conscious of their history. the regional dimension and the point perhaps which barbara picked up i'd like to echo very much what peter wittig says on what we think we are now. the importance of the framework we have got the quality of that deal but i would have of course now and the end of june they're still a great deal of details work to be completed. it's not yet in the back and we're all very clear that we can't get the right deal there will not be a deal. this is significantly better the framework we've got at the moment in our judgment the

judgment of our government at any of the alternatives out there for preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. i think diplomacy is actually a port of which has taken a very long time to get this far. the regional dimension of course this was a big part of the g7 summit ration of which president obama hosted with leaders of the gcc just the other day, not least because it is clear a number of the sunni arab regional governments are concerned about the implications of this deal if it is finalized. i would say none of us are doing this on the basis of blind trust. as peter says we'll this trust but verify. this is the best of the options that are out there and this represents the best framework that we've been able to come up with for ensuring that for at least a decade they were not being a renewed breakout towards nuclear weapons and iran will be

subject to go to the provisions of the in pt but also to those additional protocol which iran we signed. we think this is something which gives us a chance for minimizing the risk of proliferation nuclear weapon and introducing a degree of regional stability which is important, at the same time we need to reassure the regionals come the others around other who are concerned by other aspects of bad behavior by iran which are quite separate from the nuclear issue we are negotiating on that they would not be if you like a carte blanche for the iranians to continue to destabilize the region for the use of proxies or through other areas of activity. it is our hope but we are not naïve on this that it were able to finalize this nuclear deal with the iranians that there will be spinoffs in terms of other areas of regional concern. we would like to see iran doing a great deal less in terms of supporting groups which

destabilize governments we regard as legitimate or indirectly supporting terrorist activity and i would be significant price. the fact we're working on the nuclear thing does not mean we are closing our eyes to the other aspects of what goes on in the region and which concerns us. that's going to be there importantly region reassurance on security issues and, of course, full implementation on the deal, if there is a deal which we conclude by the end of june. barbara, on the question of what about implementation, i think it's clear that sanctions left will take place when there is implementation of the agreement. that depends on how long it takes the iaea to satisfy that there is full compliance by iran of the agreements that it undertakes as part of this negotiation. we don't yet know exactly what they that would be. of course, each side is busy

explaining why what it is agree to so far is a good thing for its own public opinion. that's what negotiations are about. everybody has to return home something with you about that. no it is a lousy deal for my own constituents. that's not the way negotiations were. i think the important thing is to focus on what's going on in the negotiations themselves which by definition past remain largely confidential for the moment to try to ensure we get the right deal ending we ensure there is full compliance, and as a result of that then you can move toward suspension of sanctions and so when. of course, there are different elements of sanctions. there is a u.s. one european ones. the one thing i would add on this is that we need to keep in mind the reason why we have come this far is because there has been an extraordinary degree of trans-atlantic unity on the application of the sanctions the eu, the u.s. financial and oil and other elements has been

a think a great deal more effective than people would've predicted. we have gone this far on the basis of that. we now need to make success for diplomacy which sanctions have given us a chance to complete. >> let me ask more about unity not just with the united states but also among the e3. ambassador araud, your foreign minister as he certain pension for revealing details of the negotiations adversaries at times that france is not always been helpful. just the other day said the iranians are insisting on a 24 day waiting period before any allegations of cheating can be investigated. is this helpful to negotiations to repeal these? and our uis on the same page in terms of the negotiations speak was of course it's helpful since it's my minister. [laughter] you kn