there is a lot of people like me that don't say it but believe it. i don't know why but there is a lot that feel this way i wish more people would be i am now one side or the other. honestly i want leadership the best leaders leading this country. period. i don't care about issues to a degree. anyway. . . >> as a retired u.s. customs agents i hope to prosecute back in '94 i was puzzled to find $100 million of trade

with iran and who facilitated that but with the timeline u.s. destabilized the democratic leadership of iran was said a mistake? under reagan retreaded missiles with iran for i am puzzled by that in retrospect. the issue of whale and did our obligations under brennan was its agreement to back the dollar with opec oil. there is a the real issue for iran to sell oil that undermines the dollar is up from the floor we invaded iraq with israel? and to protect the dollar if oil is inherently scarce. >> i probably will not answer all that because of

time but each was very thoughtful. the first thing is where the united states basically staged a coup in support to overthrow the iranian government in the early 53 timeframe we basically put the shot into powers it is a great book all the shots and then it is fascinating because yes they do refuse to hold the a grudge because of that but many people forget at that exact same time we were involved in the korean war so a lot of things were going on at that time the price of the of beryl of whale with the dollar is the currency of choice on the planet the

historic timeline for currency is 25 or 30 years the british sterling was the currency of choice around the world after reports to a was the u.s. dollar and still is that is a good thing. but undercutting by using other currency just to talk about that economic trend which have been all the time with a great and the black market we do have to make her that we want the united states dollar to be the currency of choice for ever and the english to read the language of choice for a river that is a long time but those are challenged all

the time but i will stop there because i don't have time to get into the other stuff. >> what is the role of u.s. military with what is happening in the middle east? you said when you take part there seems to be ambivalent feelings with this administration about what is the role in the conflict of the middle east if there is one? >> bay have become we are all well organized bureaucracy to plan will and do different things strategically personally the role is not decisive

absolutely we have to support our friends there is a lot of killing and capturing that will have been and still needs to happen and i would say that our military is doing with their ass to do under very much constrained and are not allowed to use the tools that they have because the tools are designed to be used for. that is a fact. redo have a role but we are late because it has been going on for many years thinking it will get better next summer something will change or we will kill another member of the al qaeda leader or head devices and they will go away. but they are not county

leaders have we killed or captured and now are released. it is crazy there has to be a religious reformation with the islamic world. >> we have time for one more question. >> i.m. the student of politics and you said iran does not contribute to humanity and does not deserve to set the table but they are openly fighting isis even though the iraqi government of last them blood dash ask them to sit at the anti-isis coalition and discussion although it is the iraqi and syrian problem but we refuse them

to do so? >> yesterday there were fbi agents in long island that went to do research of an individual's home this is yesterday in this country another incident after he tried to stab the fbi agent they found out he and his associate had plans to do further damage in this country so don't think this is just the air rapport syria problem. it is not. it is not. but what you talk about with iran but be very careful when you see a headline in the major media outlet go

find out what they're doing those that are led by the minister of the iraqi government go see their behavior on the battlefield if it is within the rule of law or warfare. so this is tit-for-tat and don't think because they fight to i says there is a civil war between the shia and to a degree we have to decide how we will participate we said let's take a step back. i said that recently. why should i rand be

involved why should it be so deeply involved then let iraq deal with it to get all the players back out including the united states but them burn out the fire themselves it will be brutal and ugly when you see truckloads of with ben and children dumped into the euphrates river that will change your mind to tell you what we're dealing with and this isn't 2006 but the last couple of months this is what it is about the war side is really ugly it is sent pretty but it has to be

dealt with and pay very close attention to the details as you can make a judgment of what we're facing thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> before our we let you go talk about the iran deal if the president turns you to sarah you in favor of this deal or not how do you vote? >> i am not in favor of it i have given my $0.2. i have offered solutions and i think we will see the deal i think we will have one so now we have to think about

the implications and what we do in the future. that is rusty and right now and i am serious there are solutions it won't be solved in this administration but and apportion we will deal with this situation where a generation or more but that is what the president has to stay. he has to say here is the issue. tell the public look at this conversation you will see this klay out in the republican primary about foreign policy and national-security about economics and education and all that but then you'll get into the national debate you will have more because the problem will not go away just because of the republican primary.

thank you. [applause] >> from god slips to no traffic for you. good luck. dell i will be introduced from the american enterprise institute that knows a lot about nuclear weapons and we will ask clerc to give opening remarks then i will interview both of them then it is your turn. thank you. >> it is an honor to be here her cry want to address very briefly some of the problems that our inherent in the current field as it tries to a conclusion first of all, there has been absolutely no

bias from the revolutionary guard corps is problematic because when it comes to issues with command-and-control with the nuclear program the islamic revolutionary guard corps would have that control and custody so we're dealing with the foreign ministry that is un able to show they can bring the of core into compliance. number two the president is about style the leader is about substance he has not firmly committed to the nuclear program talk about her awake flexibility the office has suggested it means the change of tactics but not policy he is happy

to get more than $100 billion of sanctions relief with unfrozen assets but that does not mean with basic policy with regard to nuclear weaponry also looking at the term flexibility the state department prides itself on cultural understanding and doesn't understand the religious connotation of the term to alternately suggested our own good will when it comes due president rouhani he has been known as mr. fix it his campaign commercials put forward his legitimacy he was the first to bestow with the messianic figure upon the ayatollah

khamenei. the a year before we began then negotiations by rand said economy shrank 5.4% now it is in the black and arguably the goal has ben to come to the table but not for the same motivation that we do and as the father of two young kids is like giving the toddler deserve first and asking them to please please please eat your spinach it does not work but what about through monday we can moderate? between 2000 and 2005 there is a hard currency windfall and as european reunion abrasives that philosophy it is moderate and according to many estimates approximately

70% of that windfall went into the ballistic and covert nuclear programs and by the way this is during the time that iran was engaged with a dialogue that some of those negotiators said it is the strategy to import what ever we need if the goal of the above if frustration to give sanctions relief and then assume that many will trickle-down it under estimates the of role of the revolutionary guard with the name of the conglomeration up to 40 percent of gdp it would control import/export

talking money into the wallet of that unit when it comes to voluntary compliance this is that the foreign minister has with additional protocol but back in 2005 rouhani was a nuclear negotiator he said we didn't voluntarily then said so we ted remove that suspension anytime we wanted as long as we've voluntarily do it so that always raises a red flag so at the time he was stepping down as the supreme national security council chief gave a speech to assemble a deal the eight

iranian officials to defend his negotiations at this point and translated by the open source center that he calls a doctor in a surprise to give the overview of u.s. iranian history at every critical point in time we have triumphed to lethal the adversaries into complacency then to deliver the knockout blow have things changed and if so what evidence do we have to support that? another new she -- negotiator suggested also in persia that north korea was a model to emulate rather than condemn that also raises red flags so before i enter a the floor over to

talk about the dimensions of the regime i'm a historian by training so i get paid to predict the past and i write half the time but we have a situation when it came to a nuclear program south africa in 1991 and in order to drust certify it had come clean and mandated it had no longer anything to hide that they had come clean on 20 years of previous nuclear work so everything could be accounted for at present we are letting them off the hook that the atomic energy agency said no go. i never would have thought

they would play three-dimensional chess while we play solitaire but that is what has become of our strategy in comparison what iran every use nuclear weapons i do not believe iran is suicidal but what if they are terminally ill if you have a situation like romania where you have an uprising but instead of putting them down day joining and and we don't have insight with the revolutionary guard? if the regime is collapsing in 24 hours it will be:so then what would stop them for those from using it? would anybody really

retaliate against those that have regime change reno mutually assured destruction the you cannot assume that will buy stability with the ideological regime when it comes to the 1953 coup, i the shah was ahead of iran but if you agree with him then it you could get lynched but at the same time the over all were co-conspirators? the allies concluded that makes of the leadership they

do like it to but if you want to be accurate to apologize to the co-conspirators again and again read we come to the antipathy but the guys with the guns that control. to have very good relations into the revolution looking in 1953 as the breaking point so with that i will turn it over. [applause] >> thank-you very much for

sponsoring this fantastic event to talk about a critical topic. but michael schaede such a great foundation about what the regime is about so to talk about the components of iran nuclear weapons program and where we are with the negotiations. so i would start with the iranian constitution one version available online it says the iranian regime is she hottest dedicated to revolution that is what the

constitution says. . .

to instill terrorism. that's in the motivation and intent of this regime, i think we have to discuss it further. if we look at their behavior that's the ideology. the place i would like to start first of all a ran is something with the oic. this is the largest international organization after the united states itself. oic members sign something called the cairo declaration.

it was a withdrawal from the declaration on human rights. did you know that? they almost withdrew. they said instead that the only human rights that they would observe. imputation, beheading crucifixion, that's all part of islamic law. getting to the nature of the regime. the first victims of that

horrific ideology is imposed inside of a iran. they are executing another iranian every two hours. one iranian gets executed inside the country every two hours. they have executed well over 500 people since january of this year. the beginning of this year. women are second-class citizens. they are literally unequal to

men. they roam the streets looking for people who are not wearing the right apparel or the right clothing. that's inside the country. now for 36 years the iranian regime has been outward with the united states. i don't think there's any other way to put it. six american presidents have shied from confronting iran. from jimmy carter to the current president. death to america that they chant every friday after prayer is a staple of this regime. they also chant death to israel. the former president used to say a world without america was not only desirable, he held a conference on this by the way a world without america is not only desirable, but achievable. what does that mean in the

context of a regime a regime that is driving for a deliverable nuclear weapons capacity question mark. >> over these past 36 years iranians and their proxies have held hostage killed, tortured americans. they are currently holding for american citizens hostage and i want to say their names. pastor alba dini was arrested because he was christian. a former fbi agent christian. a former fbi agent was taken in 2007. a former u.s. marine was arrested in 2011 and the white house tehran bureau chief was arrested about a year ago. the other part of the ideology and the nature of this regime is jew hatred. june hatred is intrinsic to the

koran but the genocidal threats have been nonstop. there is no way that israel can look at this regime and listen to its daily threats of genocide, it's dehumanization of jewish people, calling them bacteria and cockroaches and other insects. that is how they talk about them. talk about cartoons? you've seen the cartoons that appear on a daily basis in the arabic newspapers. jew hatred. just in march, three months ago, the commander of the forces said, and this is while our negotiations are going on with iran.

the annihilation of israel is non- negotiable. that is our number one ally and partner in the middle east standing between the barbarism of regimes and western civilization. why are we talking to these people? state sponsorship of terror. terror. since the beginning of the regime you heard michael talking about this, the regime in chiron and i want to make i'm talking about the regime. they have sponsored a whole host of terrorists organizations. at latest count well over 100 iraqi shiite terror militias. the ones who tour our troops apart.

they are now kind of sort of our eye lies in iraq. the taliban. the regime is running guns and training for the taliban. they have been first quite some time. the alliance between this regime and al qaeda over two decades long. it has gone long. it has gone on since the beginning of the 1990s when the iranian regime and al qaeda formed an alliance. the attacks have been a result the attacks against us american citizens since that point in time have been unceasing. beginning with the 1983 bombing in peru. also the embassy bombing the same year. the kidnapping and murder of richard higgins and others. 1992 the bombing in argentina.

including some of the same figures currently holding senior regime administrative positions to the state. 1990 for the attack on the jewish cultural center. 1998 the east africa embassy bombing carried out by those trained by iran by hezbollah. al qaeda learned how to do big building suicide truck bombings from hezbollah. that's who taught them how to do that. the u.s. call in 2000 the attacks on 911 themselves. southern district of new york, a ran co- responsible with legally responsibility.

iran was co-responsible for co- responsible for the acts of 911. it didn't get much flip listed he did it? that was all prelude to what were doing with and while we are so concerned with a ran going nuclear. iran. if sweden tried this we would say oh no another failure of the npt, it's sweden. i don't lose sleep because britain has nukes or france has nukes. a regime like i just described to you, if they have a livable nuclear weapons, that's worrisome. alright, so what do you need to get a nuclear a nuclear weapon? you need three things, three components. enriched geranium and you need to know how to make a warhead out of that enriched geranium

and you need a a delivery system to send it to your target. as we know, from iaea reporting and the international science and, i always get this wrong because the acronym is isis unfortunately. in any case david albright's fantastic group does reporting on this. according to their reporting as long as eight years ago they had blueprints for a nuclear warhead and was working on the trigger testing to set off an imposing sequence to detonate a bomb. general flynn mentioned that the pentagon had estimated that the iranians would have the range to reach continental u.s. from iran this year.

missiles are not even on the table for discussion in the current negotiations. okay, so those are the things you need to make a deliverable nuclear weapon capability. what are we doing? p5 plus one. britain france russia china and oz plus germany is the plus one part. we are in these negotiations that began in secret in 2013. there is the raleys had a find out about them from the saudi's. the saudi's let them know that they were dealing with the u.s. in secret. the united nations security council has passed six resolutions demanding that a ran halt all nuclear.

they can't have such a high percentage or whatever. they can keep their stockpiles of low enriched geranium. that used to be something there was was to give up and shipped out of the country. while they don't have to anymore. the dilution process has also gotten completely stalled and nobody really says anything about it so it's still in the form that's more quickly turned into a bomb. 20% is the cutoff where you begin to cut talk about high enriched geranium. they have stockpiles of low enriched uranium and that's not even up to discussion.

they get to keep them all. they're supposed to unplug some of the centrifuges and put them into storage but were not sure about that. advanced centrifuge r&d. we can keep talking about what the output might be that assumes you're talking about the first generation, most primitive centrifuges that they have developed. newsflash, they have developed centrifuges up to the eighth generation beyond what were talking about that are superfast by comparison. ten or 20 times as fast in enriching geranium, the kind that were talking about. they get to keep on doing that r&d in those centrifuges. they're not going to be stopped from doing the r&d. investigation or inspection of military facilities, iranians

tell us that's off the table. you're not a allowed to go look at those. where would you go hide your military nuclear program? where did the soviets hide there's question mark who taught the iranians how to do programs and hide them? the kgb did. even some that we know about, off-limits. past bomb work we thought that was a redline to that the iranians were going to have to come clean about their whole past work just as michael said the south africans did and were certified given up their program. while now secretary of state carey says while we don't really have to have them explain all that because we already have absolute knowledge of everything they every did.

that's his quote his words. we know for a fact that ever since the iranians nuclear weapons program began in the late 1980s, there has been a clandestine dying program. there has never been a year since 1988 when the iranians did not have a clandestine nuclear program. the one they are negotiating in geneva is the overt part of the program. we don't know what we don't know about the covert part. but we are pretty confident there is one. i'll just wrap up here quickly so we can get your questions. i don't want to take up all the rest of the time but let's quote a couple people. former director of the cia said such perfect knowledge about a rounds pass program does not exist. they said we don't know what they did in the past.

the only reason we know about the iranian nuclear program is because the opposition intelligence services, satellite imagery services, satellite imagery and other intelligence work found it out. they never volunteered any of that. they didn't even know they had a program until they blew the lid off it with press conferences and showed pictures of imagery. the iranians have never volunteered anything and the only reason we know about the program at all is from sources that were not iranian. finally, i'll conclude with this the longtime, i call it a joint venture agreement with north korea is not even up for discussion. north koreans have helped

iranians since the beginning of their program with nuclear specifications, with centrifuges assent distance with missile assistance their scientists north korean scientists are in iran all time. they are attending at the launch pads. the north koreans he appeared before congress in 2015 and open testimony and said the north koreans, this is open testimony, the north koreans have the ability to miniaturize warheads and put them on the top of missiles. the north koreans can do this in the iranians can't? that's not even up for discussion.

maybe we can get into electro magnetic pulse capability. north korea has it iran doesn't? let me stop there and open it up for your questions. >> in the interest of time why don't we just take questions from the audience. i'll call on you and you can direct you want. speak to them i can tell us you are. >> hi i'm an independent consultant. one area we haven't discussed consultant. one area we haven't discussed yet and i have two specific questions. assuming that the president does make a deal with iran, what role should the congress play and what will they do? >> congress has the

responsibility when they passed the bill to take about on any ultimate agreement between us and the iranians. i am not 100% confident that we a hundred% confident that we are going to get to that point. i do think it is a tremendous benefit to the regime to spreading things out. they get the sanctions relief as michael said they get all the dessert upfront and they don't have to either spinach. the congress has responsibility and has taken it upon themselves to vote. unfortunately the way they passed a law is that the bill goes before the president and if the congress time turns down the agreement and the president predictably vetoes it, they must then have a two thirds majority

vote to overturn the veto. it will be a very high hurdle they set for themselves but they have the responsibility. this is a bad deal no matter how you look at it. from what you were hearing, it is a bad deal and a bad a bad deal is much worse than no deal. we need to let our congressional representatives know to vote down this deal. [applause]. >> right over here, is the mike still there? to i'm from. >> i'm from the institute of world politics. i was wondering how these sort of concessions on nuclear proliferation's will affect saudi arabia's potential acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> very good basically we have a bad habit of assuming it's just us and a specific adversary or state of concern at any point time. the second order effects on this are incredible. it's not the issue of

concessions it's the fact that this is an incredibly bad deal and if we would listen to any of our allies in the region, israel or any of the arab countries, for whom this is brought up a great deal of unanimity, i'm told look we don't oppose the idea of diplomacy but have enough self confidence to share with us the draft. were draft. were so used to working with the iranians who can point out the loopholes. they don't need to cheat because they can drive a tank through these loopholes. i would point out that in 1994, as framework negotiations were concluded, south korean concluded, south korean president at the time gave an interview to the new york times in which he said this is an incredibly bad deal. you should listen to us because we have decades of working with the north koreans and the white house, when they read this went ballistic.

they got the bb treatment. that only convinces everyone in the region that we need that they need to go it alone. i'm not one to defend saudi arabia, not at all. when we have given them the three am phone call, because of the nature of the alliance they've answered the call. i would expect to be put on permanent call waiting from here on inches the in. the last point i would make is when the president of the united states loses credibility, it's automatically restored to the oval office every four to eight years when a new president comes in. there is no matter magic wand to restore the credibility that united states is losing.

north korea's calculation and throughout the world, we are hemorrhaging our credibility and that's only gonna lead to bloodshed. >> i'm a a member of the acu board and a former member of congress. we have been hearing for what seems like forever that iran is three months, a year away from having a nuclear weapon. we fiddle around with whether we get a deal or don't get a deal. i wonder frankly it matters or if we wake up one morning before or after we got a a deal and we find out iran does in fact have a nuclear weapon. when we get to that point and iran has a nuclear weapon it feels to me that the obama administration which has a little time left, has already made the decision that will you with it after they have one.

what do we do then? what do we do then and what's the balance of how it will look like in the middle east but in the world and what are americans options to defend america in our allies interest? >> if i can jump in on this quickly before turning the floor over. if i could rephrase the question a bit, too often we focus on what will we do when they get a nuclear weapon. we have to wake up to the reality that five years after they have a nuclear weapon, what we can do after they have 100 of them? we treat containment and deterrence as rhetorical strategies rather than military strategies. they are loosely defined containment is all the states in the region to wage war independently until the caverly can comment. it's a multibillion-dollar strategy and were trying to do

it. deterrence, loosely put is the willingness to kill millions of people and that's not a road i want to go down if there are policies which we can apply now to never have to get to that point. >> agreed. i would just add that the united states intelligence community does not have a great record on predicting or knowing ahead of time when a country is going nuclear. i can mention the soviet union and its time china, pakistan et cetera. so given all of the input that iran has had in the regime has had for all of these years from north korea, pakistan, russia china in the technical assistance and all kinds of expert assistance and so forth it's inconceivable to me that they do not already have at least warheads. again go back to the joint venture with north korea and the

exchange in the presence of their officials in each other's country at test sites and so forth. north korea is as far advanced as we do know that it is another failure of deterrence or containment and that iran does not have or is using north korea to test nuclear components or warheads for it. when iran finally decides to demonstrate its nuclear capability, whether it's out in the desert like the pakistanis and the indians did underground just a demonstration of we have this, or a mushroom cloud over tel aviv or something over kansas, it's a game changer and it's too kansas, it's a game changer and it's too late by that point. michael is absolutely right, we have to be ready now. we have to be ready to take steps that ensure this regime in

iran never has the most dangerous weapons. the only way to do that is to change the regime. currently we do not at the senior national leadership, no we do not. >> can i just throw my 2 cents in? if you come to the conclusion that we are where we are when i can stop this deal and iran is getting nukes and other countries are getting nukes, you have to think about it in a different way. i think about economic warfare. we have the ability to conduct economic warfare with these countries especially with energy independence. if you have have, throughout the middle east, all those countries have populations were 75 or 80% is under 30 years old 30 years old and doesn't have jobs. that's a revolution. if you could get those countries to the point where there

economies are so stretched that they have to worry more about their own people, keeping their own, though be less worried about the others. if you others. if you look at adversaries in the region, if they are going to get ballistic missiles that could reach the united states we need to have an adequate and central role best defense system. we need intelligence. if this is a world where they're going to be nuclear weapons in the middle east, we need to have a robust intelligence. we need to know who's doing what and who's coming here and we've been so by political corrections in this and we've been scared to do that. regime change does not mean war. the best means when you move things around when the people in that country decide they've had

enough and they change the regime. any other regime change doesn't work. i think there are options that we have but we would have to count on the national leadership to do that and hopefully it happens before summary set something off. >> placing things in a broader historic context, jfk and the joint chiefs of staff staff recommended an attack and he walked out of the room and said and we call ourselves the human race. shouldn't be working toward global nuclear disarmament against everyone. >> were going the other direction. i vote that iran goes first. >> if iran gets weapons but were going in a different direction.

>> first of all i'd like to strongly commend the most beautiful description of what this nation is facing and how little the american public appreciate what she does said and how little the american public really understands the nature of the threat. throughout all of this is one thing just touched upon that should be explored even more and that's the islamic ideology that is motivating what iran is doing. not only the history of iran as a persian nation and some concept to reestablish it, the battle with ices, the attempt to take over a rock and to expand this ideology regarding the

return. i think we make a huge mistake if we really think that once they do get one and it looks like they will, they will not use it. if we think containment will work at that point, forget it. they have said they would welcome death and destruction. yet we don't pay enough attention to the motivating factors of islamic ideology. above all of this we are in tremendous danger because of this. >> i think we all agree. you said it best. thank you. >> very well said. >> are there any women in this group who want to ask questions?

>> i'm john from the retired air force. why do we keep hiding behind the nuclear delivery system as being one of the components of our ability to protect ourselves right now. given the fact that we have tons of illegal drugs coming across the border every day and i can drive them all the way to des moines with no trouble or inspection, why wouldn't i put it in a container. fifty years ago we had gis driving around our country of west germany with a nuke called the davy crockett and they treated it like a hand grenade. the delivery system is not necessarily going to be a missile but containers, cars trucks etc. >> if i may just ask and answer, i answer, i agree with you. one of the problems we have in counterterrorism at-large's were always trying to defend against the last attack rather than recognizing that new attacks come in different ways that exploit different vulnerabilities.

>> i wanted to ask you about cyber warfare. i think that is a primary element of the future. it seems so disparately distributed through our national defense establishment at this point in time. there are pieces all over. what strategies would you recommend with regard to aligning and organizing ourselves more effectively in that regard? you are absolutely right that the cyber threats and cyber warfare is one of the most serious threats facing this country. as you may know, just last year in november 2014, an american company published a report called operation cleaver.

they had been investigation investigating the iranian capability through cyber warfare to access and manipulate and attack critical infrastructure in 16 countries including our own canada, australia western european countries, israel, et cetera. they prematurely publish the report because they were so alarmed by what they found that they thought they couldn't sit on the results any longer and they put out most of the report devoted to the code to show people so they could take defensive measures but the iranians have the capability already to be inside of our critical infrastructure and to manipulate and attack that. it's an extremely serious threat. i talk about the threat that could take down our electric

grid, lack of cyber cystic security is another big part of that. that could also take down our electric grid and send us back overnight to little house on the prairie days minus the farm, the cow the chicken and any idea farm, the cow the chicken and any idea with what to do with what we have. when we think of cyber anything, the iranians were there too. >> if you want to look more in the english iranian news with regard to what they are planning to cyber and how they are exercising the capability, the unit that they guard for which is in charge of this capability is called the passive defense organization. if you google cyber warfare unit, you won't get it. if you google passive defense organization you will get it and you need to note the obvious there's already a unit within the islamic organization that is dedicated to this. >> the gentleman whose hand is

up. >> i'm johnny long. we need to get our relationship back for this country is in for a fall. i believe that with all my heart. i think i've been communicating with you in e-mail. >> the question was about israel and are we abandoning israel and what should we do? >> i would just point out, i agree with you. when we go back to the korean war, one of the reasons why north korea decided and believed

they could get away with invading south korea is within the truman administration there was an outline of what our defense perimeter would be. we excluded south korea from that and that only brought aggression. in the big picture i worry about israel but i also worry around the lope with regards to this. one of the other issues and going to throw out just very briefly, briefly, since i have the floor, when it comes to the snow deal versus bad deal dichotomy with which so often we hear in the news, one of the problems is it seems increasingly that the obama administration is really playing russian roulette with congress. you have to accept this or else it's going to be even worse. the key to successful diplomacy and successful plum policy is leverage. hillary clinton when she became secretary of state said if you don't talk to you to your

enemies, who will you talk to. she pointed out that ronald reagan's sat down with gorbachev but what she admitted to say was that came after five years of leverage so you could get a victory at the diplomatic table. unfortunately we've taken our eyes off the prize with regard to that and ultimately the chickens are coming home to roost. >> the lady with the bangs. >> then i think we have two more questions after that and we need to sum up. >> i'm with the heritage foundation as an intern. i have a question. looking forward at the relation ship, what new threats are we looking at should these nuclear capabilities be passed along to these types of organizations and how is the u.s. foreign-policy going to have to adapt to those

changes? >> the question is would ran past the lawn if it got these weapons to terrorist organizations. iran's preferred method is to operate via proxies, in particular has below which has an extensive network of operation all over the americas, the porter of north central and south. in terms of a nuclear capability, i do not think the iranians would pass that capability to hezbollah. they've passed an awful lot of everything else, missile capabilities and chemical biological capabilities to hezbollah. i think this is a nationstate capability and rather iran would

use it if they didn't launch upon acquisition essentially, if they did not do that, they would use their nuclear capability for blackmail and insurance purposes. in other words to blackmail the region around them into kowtowing to their agenda so they could more aggressively deploy their proxies or their partners, terrorist partners like al qaeda, into activities around the world with the umbrella of the insurance policy of a nuclear capability. a nuclear capability. i see it kind of that way that they would be more aggressive to deploying, feeling free to deploy and send out there terror proxies because they would feel protected by this nuclear umbrella. >> we have time for two more questions. the gentleman in the blue shirt.

>> robert whelen, is there anything congress can do to either stay or contain the lifting of sanctions,. >> congress ultimately if they're willing to put their next out on the line control the purse strings and that gives them a great deal of leverage. when it comes to the existing sanctions, sanctions, there's two problems. i'm saying this as an analyst, not as an advocate. number one, some of the most biting sanctions going back to the clinton administration in 1995 and 1996 were executive orders. that's number one. executive orders can be changed and can be waived. number two, it's been traditional in congress to provide waivers to the white house so that the president would be able to waive certain elements of sanctions.

i'm not sure they ever expected that they would have a commander-in-chief who would become so disassociated from the national security protection of the united states that he would waive those willy-nilly. ultimately that is willy-nilly. ultimately that is what we are seeing. ultimately the question is what lessons learned will congress have so when new sanctions are put in place at such waivers aren't there. the last quick point i would mate is just the irony that the sanctions which president obama and the statehouse now praise and now seek to take credit for they opposed and the congress had passed 100 to zero over their opposition. >> we have time for one more question. the gentleman the back. >> hi my name is constantin and

i study political science. i think one of the key questions that i'm interested in is what is the iranian state right now? are they had a crossroads? are crossroads? are they republic trying to go onto the world stage and into legitimate talks? connected to that i think both of you said you're open to diplomacy with iran and this deal. what specific criteria would have to be in a a deal for it to be a good deal? >> number one, and this also picked up on what he said, there is a naïve belief in the iranian system. if you wanna analyze the power structure with greater decision, you're not going to have a regime change led by the iranian people until the islamic guard fractures. one of our big intelligence holds as we do not have good insight into the factional station within the islamic

group. 75% of iranians may not care for the rule that was ushered in but again it's the guys with the guns that matter and so that's where our our focus needs to be. any regime change be. any regime change isn't going to be us-led. the way i would put it is instead of the intelligence community spending $20 billion trying to figure out ahead of time who that chinese guy was in the square standing in front of the line of tanks, what's more important is to enable a template so someone feels they can stand up and step in front of the line of tanks. when it comes to what would be in the deal when you teach military strategy, and this is the waves taught in the u.s. military academies they talk about a diamond paradigm where every strategy should have a diplomatic, and informational

military and economic strategy to it. the whole is actually greater than the sum of the parts. after the last five years ago we have started sequencing are strategies where we tried diplomacy first, if that doesn't work then economic stations, stations, if that doesn't work then military strategies which by the way, don't simply mean bombing as a last resort. it's important to go back and see what has worked with regard to leverage and for this we can look at 2003 with qaddafi coming in from the pole or we can look at the ronald reagan era. this is a whole history center if you want to have it and it's a cheap advertisement that we talk a great deal about with american diplomacy going back 60 years of terrorist groups. >> would like to recommend to you a series of nine points drawn up by my colleague at the

center for security policy. he drafted a set of nine points that should be our redline absolutely, must be included for any deal to be considered a good deal. no enrichment. all sites open to inspection. i'm not going to remember all on nine of them but let's see how many i can remember. the enrichment must be a halted completely and the stockpiles must be destroyed or verifiably destroyed or taken out of the country's. missiles have to be on the table. american hostages have to be released. iran must give up their support for terrorism. i forgotten at least one but center for security nine points.

>> i like to take the opportunity to make my concluding remarks. i remarks. i think from what everybody said, there are couple of things. when these negotiations started out a a year and a half ago, it sounded pretty good. we would lift sanctions and return they would dismantle or rollback its nuclear program. as a result of that rolling back there nuclear program, nuclear arms race would be averted. this deal doesn't do that. we have not gotten to the point where the president has said no deal is better than a bad a bad deal and he is now to the point where any deal would be fine. the way they presented is this is a a strong argument, it's either this deal or war. one who wants war?

so everyone is then forced into the position of saying okay, not a perfect deal and maybe this okay, not a perfect deal and maybe this isn't okay but it's a deal. what everybody seems to be saying, if i can summarize is that there is another option. it's not no deal or war. there is a third option and that war. there is a third option and that is regime change, after economic pressure and all the other things we have used previously in our history with great effects particularly in the reagan administration. the other point to make is what's being perceived in the region is that the united states is choosing side. there is a growing conflict between the shiite and the sunnis. they said it would burn itself out ultimately but it will be very bloody in between. looks like the between. looks like the united states is playing sides in the cyber choosing is a ron. the deal with iran, iran is not dismantling its nuclear weapons. as not being asked to stop support for terrorism. it is being rewarded with a signing bonus of a hundred or hundred and $20 billion on day

one as assets are unfrozen. it means the islamic economy will boom. it will be like the california gold rush as companies and companies rush to do business in iran. they are getting nuclear weapons, they will have an economic boom in the region and the other countries in the region aren't buying this. they will embark on their own nuclear program. it is program. it is a region where money will be no object. they can buy the programs. when that starts happening which we fill will be in the next several years, you will see nuclear weapons introduced into the most dangerous and unstable part of the world. a part of the world where people shouldn't even be allowed to play with matches and i'll now have nuclear weapons. it we've also seen in the last 18 months governments long time

governments can fall overnight. overnight. what takes their place is not freedom and democracy and human rights. what takes their place is g heidi chaos. we could potentially be looking at the nightmare scenario that people like me have studied and written about and dealt with nuclear weapons my hope career. it's a nightmare of nuclear weapons in the hands of crazy people who want to use them. throughout the cold war, the soviet union did not want to die in nuclear compensation. we are now up against an adversary who has pointed out is happy happy, willing and eager to destroy themselves as long as they can take others with them. our conclusion in all of this and i think this, and i think i can speak for everyone, is we find this agreement to be unverifiable unenforceable, and probably, to your point, unconstitutional. the argument that no deal is

better than a bad deal, a bad deal, we have now gotten to a point where this is a very bad deal. we all would encourage members of congress, members of the international community in the united states intelligence to stand up and stop this. this is a deal were not only iran gets nuclear weapons but other countries in the region gets nuclear weapons. once that starts happening is not a matter of nuclear weapons being in the hands of people who overthrow their government. i've been impressed by the quality of this audience. we've all listen to a lot audience. we've all listen to a lot of congressional hearings and the questions to the congressmen and the aides to the congressman, the questions that you've asked are really profound. you've gone to all aspects of this issue and i think they

speak to the great common sense and intelligence of the american people or at least people who come to theing trade, broadband

access and climate change. this is one hour 30 minutes. >> good morning to the atlantic council. i am peter the director of the latin american center here at the latin american center. i want to thank you for joining us today for this important discussion with the upcoming

visit of the president to washington on the 30th. this visit is potentially a big inflection point for our relations. the two countries actually need each other's friendship partnership, mutual political help and economic relations. we are honored that assistant secretary roberta jacobson and want to take moment to congratulate you on the president's very decisive decision to nominate you as the ambassador. were also lucky to have a friend of our atlantic council and all of our efforts and steve long from intel corporation has come up from roselle. when we in washington talk about innovation, steve long briefs

innovation innovation, steve long breathes innovation everything all day. i want to extend a warm welcome to my dear friend on the atlantic council fellow on brazil. he is the author of this great report which we are launching today. he is someone who is brazil david letterman is the most optimistic and handsome economists. we are very pleased to be quite operating with the brazil u.s. business council on this event who works to create a constructive dialogue between important and critical stakeholders in the bilateral relationship. thank you for that. she will give closing remarks at the that. she will give closing remarks at the end of the meeting. because we don't always have this pressure, i particularly want to recognize and i'm particularly delighted to have our founder here. adrian artist is someone who's

vision has infected the center and without whom we would have never done what we have done so far. a great word of thanks. our work on brazil at the center has been a priority since we began in 2013. because this is a promising and fantastically important, but yet especially complicated relationship. the dna of brazil in the united states are surprisingly similar. these two profoundly western and atlantic countries both have roots in the pride. were both melting pots of culture, our governments are both built around accounts constitution and a federal system that distributes power to disperse states and we both have very strong congresses.

some will probably say to strong :

>> >> to achieve the success of the term and his key to her ability to move brazil to a more agile position. yes both countries are at a turning point and perhaps we will get beyond modest working groups with lowball expectations here in latin america we are optimistic about this new debate -- the beginning for three reasons.

lead is about trade policy with the u.s. and brazil the minority in both countries there are private sector representatives and civil society groups and political leaders with the certitude of protection but the new technologies that compete and innovate and disrupt they want the opportunity for greater engagement. we also see cooperation with research and development transitioning to services as driver of economic growth did states and brazil are more engaged in issues of international importance of global warming and human rights. that is why we in partnership are launching this report that includes recommendations of only how to prove that a bilateral relation but how to structure and revitalize the

relationships for years to come in the future part of that surrounds one person who is your to speak to us today. secretary early -- years of service have been extraordinary. you are helping to excite us that are far too accustomed to being on the back burner. most recently we watched with admiration how and our losses in mexico city's gain. with insight into the visit so thank you for coming to speak and is my pleasure to

introduce secretary jacobson who will deliver the keynote address. [applause] i am tempted to say what he said. [laughter] thanks to the atlantic council for having me here today and for the year but in particular to echo these remarks. i think the center made its presence felt in washington and around the hemisphere remarkably quickly with a very high quality events my own presence accepted but what really added to the debate in the presence to

put this region on the front burner in a way that is extraordinarily helpful for all of us so thank you for your support to woodgrains this dialogue and policy recommendations. i also want to say a word about the report being launched we have far too little time to read reports that they are essentials because we have so little time to think out beyond 3:00 this afternoon or tomorrow we rely upon the people who can step back from the day-to-day relationships to help stimulate our possibilities in the bigger picture isn't -- vision. there is a world of wonderful ideas and i hope you will take it and read it as well.

for the united states and brazil this is critical but i think of the entire year as the year of the u.s. and brazil. this is the beginning of a new chapter in our relationship. we are a country with so many similarities that in many ways it is much more artificial for us to be intentioned man working together. we do share the democratic values and the commitment to diversity and in the current world whether it is religious or cultural difficulties our boundaries boundaries, these are things we have not necessarily experience recently or committed to overcoming

together but our relationship has been tested over the last 88 months and no doubt because of that we looked you june 30th as a way to relaunch the relationship. but the recent drumbeat allows us to ram things up to prepare for this presidential engaged met without the usual sense of maybe we will not meet expectations we have agreements harmonizing standards with trade facilitation and in april the president met at the seven of the americas to address some of the hemisphere's more pressing problems that i should have started that with the president -- vice president's attendance i was present at both meetings in

january and april reconvened u.s. brazil joint commission meeting on science and technology beginning cooperation on science and technology and innovation this week this deal for brought together private sector leaders for relating recommendations how we strengthen the commercial relationships a you can see there is a steady real engagement which was very clearly set down on january january 1st when she took office again. you alvarado statistics on two-way trade is significant to look what it is made up of within 1500 products and services estimated $109 billion the figures that we look at with a two-way investment are large that we know there is a lot

of head room so we looked at as big ideas as we can to boost this relationship we will sign an agreement in incredibly boring name. we have 22 or 23 agreements and nobody really thinks the title means much but it is important to live in a duel social security coverage or contributions when workers go from one country to another and this is important because more folks are working with other countries because if you have workers from the united states you need to make sure people are made whole when they retire or are not contributing twice with investment growing we estimate this will save more

than $900 million over the first six years. where also working together on the small business network can do both countries despite all the talk about the big companies , small business is a job generator so we are connecting thousands of small business development centers in the two countries one example of a company that provides promotional display boosts for companies at 90 now has 16 employees and serves hundreds of clients. we'll then recognize the panic -- potential to promote community change to organize the event for the first south american hub so now he facilitates

entreprenuership trading to advocate for public policy so he did not stop justic creating his own company but to be an advocate for the public policy. we move onto climate change and sustainable energy that is important with the upcoming visit we have joint field experiments in the amazon with cutting edge technology and working to loom sustain sustainable energy with biofuels we know conservation must me part of the solution so we are promoting industrial energy efficiency so we know is extremely promising with the economies decide they can cooperate together with clean energy cooperation but as somebody wise recently

said we also know when climate agreements have been reached it is always with the u.s. and brazilian government's work together and may not be causality but isn't just coincidence the final thing one to mention is education where the 100,000 strong and the mobility program tens of thousands of seize the opportunity to study in the west to bring their knowledge back to the u.s. and vice versa of one individual was elected to a study through the scientific program and in turn that daughters and was chosen among 128,000 applicants to travel into space with space expeditions and will be the first brazilian civilian to go into space italy this

second ever we are now exploring how we can build on those types of successes to extend cooperation into technical and vocational education it is critical for both countries remove into areas like science and technology and health by education and technical training so we know the estimated 374 million internet users combined rate among the top users of social media and you to plan to we intend to continue forming the next generation of innovators like a young innovator from brazil who participated in the launch program founded by nasa usaid and the department of state that supports networking for government

leaders and is now working to commercialize that innovation using chemical enlarges to clean up oil spills all of those examples are just a few among hundreds that we need to expand to thousands and millions this is about taking those examples to make laverty so the relationship produces those kind of exchanges and human beings every day of the year. this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship and we are very optimistic of the future of the bilateral relationship. thank you very much. [applause]

>>. >> 84 that excellent overview rand for your for word think canework leading efforts with brazil but across the entire hemisphere your remarks showed again why the united states is lucky to have u.s. assistant secretary of state and miami will be sorely missed when you go '02 mexico city i am from the latin american center and we have three other leaders to give a preview of many anti-strategic issues we are

incredibly bullish and the many possibilities this moment brings to a france the bilateral agenda. i have a full bios i'm sure you don't want me to do that but we have the deputy chief at the embassy of brazil's new brings over 20 years of experience working from algiers to plan azeris on that bilateral relations steve is a vice president and general manager of latin america and has worked across the region and is

incredibly foreign the thinking -- for rethinking business leader with a very handsome with the introduction. he is joining us today in his free time when not working with the atlantic council he has to other jobs the managing partner at a consulting firm in brazil as well as a general coordinator and i would say if he could give out a black belt to understand the complexities of the u.s. brazil a relationship and policy overall we would give that to ricardo. we will begin the conversation by booking at the state of u.s. brazil of relations and what the future may hold for

cooperation on a number of issues. from working level cooperation the high will conduct this panel na free range conversation as much as possible in dealing with questions from the audience and it is also broadcast if you want to bring out your phones phot to tweet you can #brazil if you think you're in the right spot is the couple cabana powless. [laughter]

so start of the conversation and there is much talk about the visit to be about relations after the brazilian president in the wake of the snowden affair that there was no coincidence with that but the visits and exchanges that have continued as you move forward mentioning education and science and innovation where would you say that was strongest or has the most opportunity to build on that strength that we already have? >> people will be surprised by how many areas we can move forward with. may be some of that is because things slowdown

although i would make the point they did not ever stop there was a lot of work not just at the highest level the two countries do too much every day to stop but there will be a focus on education and science and technology as areas that both presidents are committed to but there will be movement on defense opera -- operations and a lot of discussion:climate change in how we can work together in that area. you will see a conversations about regional issues things going on in the hemisphere

weather continued cooperation and africa or peacekeeping cooperation where obviously brazil has been so important with its role with haiti. there are a lot of different areas you see cooperation as well as the b prospect for a do cooperation in trade. >> soties areas that we could move forward but from your perspective where do see the relationship is strongest? >> they give for your nice introduction and invitation especially peter and natalie it is nice to meet the

person who brought this and i was reading from here then a title that you mentioned the new era of the less brazil relations i don't think we need a new era but i like the new chapter it isn't an introduction but an additional chapter in a long and exciting book about friendshfriendsh ips starting in the early 19th century with both world wars.

and with the ties of trade investment over the last 30 years. it is very solid. so to be divided into three baskets of economic trade investments with science and technology and innovation the third is about international and coble issues. -- global issues to give you a list right now that we will have a very good outcome.

>> to play into context of a new chapter to focus what has happened over the last two years with the history that is incredibly strong but the paper we are releasing today the u.s. brazil relations a new beginning with a question mark. because of the investment trade innovation with the brief 20 page report i ask you to do with into minutes with those top issues. >> i think she said the key for the opportunity for that new chapter with the second

part of the book with a new chapter but i tried to put this into perspective but the potential for collaboration the way we move with all those elements with the integration. is amazing. we have a structural opportunity for the first part of the government. the second is you have a service potential for cooperation not just opposition the lack of deep understanding. is strange to say that to

have they lack of knowledge but with apolitical issue we don't like that for the agenda. but why are you not moving along? of course, we do have the opportunity to start the next day after the meeting that top-level but sophie follow-up with the agreements next week to implement and the key element is in terms of

continuing to implement those opportunities. >> we will get into these questions what happened july 1st. mentioning innovation, of course, you agreed and we're excited to have you on the panel that how would you express this level of cooperation and innovation with the business and university ties we mentioned a couple of examples but also what is possible. >> first and foremost, thanks for allowing me to be that private sector view and also i have the smallest tiles a you can tell i am from the private sector.

[laughter] so i will be biased azide represent a corporation at history working over 30 years almost in brazil. we believe fakery technology transforms society in the lives. and that makes it even more possible but in brazil specifically, i'd use an analogy we have our toe in the water. because technology transforms lives of policies up until now what he tries to attract investment with activities that they would have ripple effects across the country. with their more focus to:the private sector than have it

solved a problem. but anything that comes out of the visit to use the over what will we do on july 1st? to set a player and and what are the metrics? with information and technology then every one of the sectors they have mentioned technology can transform to make things faster and more efficient but what are the signals to keep your eye out for from the private sector sampling? it is designed the visit is happening with the stability

of the relationship we have a strong message of stability. to be around tangible cooperation in areas with those metrics on what will happen. . .

>> i think there are a couple of things. i do think that presidential business they do two things frankly. they are both public this -- public demonstrations of a relationship and where it stands. in this particular relationship a public demonstration of the relationship being healthy

is important. the relationship can be incredibly busy and dynamic underneath, but underneath but if there is not an ask our perception that is healthy at the top that is a problem. unfortunately it has not been that way despite the fact that i think it has been getting better for months now. this visit we will solidify that in the public mind. this is a healthy relationship moving forward. but i also think as bureaucrats no that presidential meetings are action forcing events. you get things you get things done and you move forward on things thereafter to get at the question had

the reflection that we are back. it is certainly a review for the public to what has been happening as we accelerated a dialogue. the leaders, etc. and i hope a way of stimulating movement in both

our political lives to this relationship where it may be stuck. you know, there was a mention mention by peter, i think, the legislative branches which are lively and robust and means that each of us has to take account of what we can do without congressman, and we each have very engaged congresses. which means that we have to be able to go to our legislative branches and explain why this is good for our country and how we're going to be able to solve this. so presidential politics is incredibly important because they are part of the emotional pitch, if you we will, to our own

legislatures as to why this is in the interest of our countries to move ahead on things that may be politically risky. will we talk about ideas or movements i do not think that we should underestimate the importance of the business or the individual agreement on the political statements made as being critical to each leader when they then go to their legislators, interest legislators, interest groups, stakeholders whatever you want to call them to say is time to move forward on something but i realize you may not be 100 percent comfortable because i have a commitment to do x. what we are looking for is an affirmation to move ahead quickly on very important areas of cooperation and the other thing is an affirmation of the two of us

working together on global issues. but with so many difficulties around the world's we need the capabilities that brazil brings to the table and to be working with them. >> the idea i think i still agree with the idea. in terms of to follow up this meeting very important the connection is important but this can't bring those two ideas the foundation that i mentioned should include the bureaucracies. and the political side. i would say this coalition should involve the business

communities the bureaucracy and some areas of the political establishment. i think this challenge for us right now i would say all the stakeholders, how we can connect these dots. the top-level meetings' trying to put together this kind of business community other bureaucracies that are very much engaged with a positive agenda to check if we have a knew chapter. >> one thing that has been lacking's having a coalition amongst multiple and a lot of other countries that are incredibly important. >> it is important to stress that role.