biography i will read, but will probably look at simon history and grab one of those enumerated as low.

>> liam fox says he is liam fox said his concerns at the arraignment for the agreement. he outlined concerns at the heritage foundation for an hour. >> good morning. welcome to the heritage foundation. i am sad to hear of heritage. it is my pressure to introduce the right honorable liam fox, mp. liam has been a frequent visitor

to the foundation for the past two decades during which time his work to advance the relationship between the united states and great written. i can think of no stronger friend of the american people across the atlantic than liam fox. throughout his political career, doc or fox has been a staunch conservative and dedicated to the principles of limited government a strong national defense and a robust trans-atlantic alliance. then it's been a member of parliament since 1992 and served as defense secretary the united kingdom from 2010 to 2011. is also served as foreign secretary, shadow defense secretary and cochairman of the conservative party. his most recent book is rising tides facing the challenges of a new era. today, dr. fox will address the great threat posed to the united states and its allies iran's

nuclear ambitions. with tehran to act as the world's largest exporter of state-sponsored terrorism he will assess the implications for the free world following the recent agreements signed in bmi. and what the deal means for regional and global security. join me in welcoming our very good friend, liam fox. [applause] >> thank you rematch. it's a pleasure to be back at heritage and particularly to be talking about a subject which will dominate in american media is entirely absent from the u.k. media unless you have an interest of foreign affairs. for the sake of clarity, let me say at the outset that many view that genuinely could be acquisition beyond the reach of

iran be in good faith. it would be good for the region and global security because if iran were ever to achieve such object is, it would be the trigger to destabilizing arms race in the region with potentially catastrophic results. before i turn to the deal at dell, let's briefly look at the background of the negotiations. the election of islam -- was heralded by certain sections of a landmark move. here is a government that would ring iran in from the cold and seasoned observers were lost in the all-too-familiar wishful thinking and the superficial

obsession with media friendly projections. fast-forward to 2015 and it's now become clear the country has not changed direction. it was never going to in those who expect to change fundamentally misunderstood the structure of iranian power. president rouhani would only have a limited influence in a state dominated by the supreme leader and the revolutionary guard and homey me with an amazing ability for a consistent the western politicians can only dream of. never wavered in his detestation it can tempt for the existence of the state of israel or beliefs about the purity of the islamic revolution the cultural crud and critics are on the half joking when i say he's more afraid of donald's. nor has president rouhani's administration brought in his pipe or the people appeared iran

was the wrote leader in executions. we take for granted and their families continues her mindlessly and the western media seem curiously detached from or in different two the plight of their savagely rep last. iran remains a sponsor of state terrorism providing financial, logistical and material support to islamist terror groups across the region including those who targeted her addition american forces in afghanistan. it's just not possible, nor is it responsible to see iran's nuclear ambitions outside the context of his support for terror proxies. arguably the defining element of its foreign policy and anxieties

for the nuclear intentions are not in a round of paranoia or fantasy. they are well-placed. the nuclear program features many key components required to facilitate the domestic production of a nuclear weapon. possession of large quantities of enriched materials common knowledge to convert enriched materials and to let the nice warm and to develop a delivery mechanism in the form of lists of vessels. for those who say and i hear many of those in washington that iran should be given the benefit of the doubt. let me say this. the country has a long history of claimed assignment earlier work. two of the facilities which are at the center of the international community's concerns were constructed secretly and a clear breach of

the spirit of iran's obligations under four years with the facilities to enrich uranium to novels and quantities beyond those required for a budget amendment peaceful nuclear program. iran routinely neglects its obligation to cooperate with the iaea including repeatedly denying that there's too contentious of facilities such as the one approach and ms is previously undertaking triggers of nuclear weapons. it is logical to assume that iran's contention has been and are to develop a nuclear weapons capability at some point in the future and any claims intentions are exclusively peaceful should not be regarded as credible. let's turn to the deal that has

been agreed. let's measure it again timescales that the issue of sanctions and asset and must import verification. let's remember at the outset that the original eight of the international community would ensure iran but never had the ability to possess a nuclear weapon. now i find myself in position of somehow morphed into an agreement with iran but nearly put ambitions on hold in suspended animation for a period of 10 years. this all seems to be predicated on the belief in this timeframe internal change iran will produce a government that will ultimately be the nation's nuclear ambitions to rest. let me give you two reasons why i believe this is a dangerous

downfall. the first if there is no guarantee there'll be a change in iran internal political position that produces a government online with western liberal values or policies and second that amongst many reformers there is a belief that iran is not in title to the civil nuclear program but a nuclear deterrent. they are already a sunni in the shape of packets and nuclear capability. the reality is not going to change. let's look at the other issues. i'm verification, anything other than totally given unfettered access is unacceptable because in the light of the iranians behavior past how they manipulate weakness in the iaea

access in instead of a clear and unambiguous commitment to unfettered act this way of an raiment of a rather bizarre permitted structure and economic access to the committee when the iaea declares the site suspicious. this was for me all the elements of the deal the greatest surrender by the international community and the one i'm afraid i believe most likely to pay a high price in the longer term. then we come to the lifting of sanctions and the unfreezing of iranian assets. rather than roger rated lifting of sanctions as a reward for full cooperation on the implementation of the agreement the p5+1 has caved in completely to the supreme leader's demand that sanctions be lifted completely and immediately. likewise the immediate unfreezing of $150 billion every

day in assets is another surrender to the regime's demand. one of the more ridiculous argument is the money will not necessarily be available since a substantial proportion will be used to pay off the debt it has. it is not real money. if someone paid off my bank overdraft to assert they think it was real money, not least is another money on something other than the debt repayment. it's also told the money will not exacerbate the problem of hezbollah, hamas and iran's other proxies because they were able to find them both sanctions were in place. my interpretation would be exactly the opposite. if they regarded them as a priority for funding when they would take this quiz by financial sanctions you are

likely to see them as prime candidates for extra funding when this anon if i'm as an asset test them in the near future. next we come to the lifting of the arms embargo and the issue of ballistic missile technology. this wasn't even in the april agreement and iranian arms used against her own forces directly in afghanistan and against allies supported by iran to make such a confession without guarantees about any change of behavior in the region seems extraordinary to the point of being incomprehensible. likewise the change in policy towards ballistic missile development in terms of technology, why would she want to develop a capability when you claim you nothing you wish to deliver by such a system in the first place. all of these taken together seem

like the fulfillment of the iranians wish list rather than a hard head negotiation based upon the needs to improve security and it does rather beg the question to why it took so long to negotiate this all. so what rationale is given for this approach? we are told the measures will help iran become embedded in the international economic order and a way that will encourage reform in through economic interdependence become less of a threat to neighbors and ourselves. i would like to point out bringing russia into the g8 to not make it less aggressive or expansionist. if anything it's that the potential is. there is no guarantee that interdependence with a fundamentally different outlook will produce the desired.

and told after 1945, europe kmart economically independent and fled to a prolonged period. my reply to that is we are similar outlooks, similar democratic system and values and see very different things when playing with someone who is very different goals. russia has taught us an example of that and i would suggest iran is another. if any proof or required, the supreme leader has said while he supports the deal, the iranian government was 180 degrees different to us. we are told they still had to be accepted because there is no other approach available. i simply did not believe this to be true. iran came to the table because sanctions were an enormous

burden economically to the extent he was beginning to threaten political stability. maintaining sanctions until such time more suitable to the p5+1 was an option. it is simply not the option chosen. likewise we are told the snapback sanction is the solution to any flaws contained within the agreement against the merit and extreme skepticism. once iranian assets are frozen and sanctions lifted, i ran both make rapid progress in seeking the partners needed to repair and upgrade the aging infrastructure and civil and military fields not only affect goodness of any subsequent sanctions but western governments will face increased pressure from their own domestic industrial interest to what's

contract has been signed, projects targeting profits are at risk. we know that in the iranians know that. perhaps those of us who don't believe all of this by just being cynical. maybe there will be genuine political change in iran that attended tenure and much happens. maybe in a change from a koran into a constructive partner in the region and beyond. maybe iran will offer free and open access. maybe they will be completely honest and transparent. maybe they will follow their own religious scriptures they say developing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. maybe they will give some frozen assets to fund proxies in the way they have in the past and maybe they won't manipulate the ways they shoot their interest with the sale of oil and gas and

utilize the ability for breakout which might be as little as seven months of the greatest contributions of that to keep. but it's lots of navies. the hallmark of western security policy in recent years has been a triumph of wishful thinking over critical analysis. policymakers have a duty to make assessments based on how the world is, not how they would like a world to be. wishful thinking is a dangerous foreign policy and a potentially catastrophic security policy. let us hope that those of us who have these reservations and believe this is simply pushing a difficult problem down the line in order to gain today, let us hope we are wrong. but i wouldn't come the ladies and gentlemen, put much money on it. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you very much for your remarks. i would like to open the floor for questions i may take take the liberty of asking the first question regarding the perception of the iranian deal in the united kingdom. the obama admin is ration has given the impression that outside of israel there is some opposition to the iran deal. what is the situation on the ground? david cameron is a strong supporter but i understand there's a number of an he is opposed to the deal. is there any prospect of a parliamentary debate taking place in the iran agreement in

september? >> is rather extraordinary who's asking on the program and there is a great deal of anxiety in the united kingdom. it is quite portrayed as the full support across the political spec and before the deal is actually announced, there was a debate in parliament and a very large number of colleagues attended and spoke forcefully about the potential problems it might create. because of the parliamentary timetable we've had very little opportunity to discuss it that i would find it very unlikely there'd be no parliamentary debate on the sub to doesn't occur in government time and could happen in the back bench

time not entirely determined by the executive and it will be a high likelihood of such debate. again, i just make a point that i open with that it's extremely disappointing that the whole issue has had so little coverage in the british media. we are arriving in the u.s. if i'm virtually every political program it is absent in the u.k. and that is something i did. [inaudible] -- if you compare it to the

position in the european union, defined in a different? number one. number two, and this negotiation do you think in iran singularly outsmarted all the other five players and if you could say while for the other oppositions. >> there is discord over the agreements in europe. it is less partisan which brings a greater focus as an issue. let's put it this way. look at the agreement at valve, compare it to our initial

demands and iran's initial demands and see what it ends up being closer to. bathroom he says the iranians managed to get a great deal of what they wanted and i'm not sure we got what we wanted because i go back to the point original amos iran would never develop nuclear weapons. we've now got a suspended here to 10 years. nothing to ensure with the money we gain from the sale of oil and gas in the global economy and the freezing of assets, that is simply turn around and say now we are going to get the weapon and at that point we've left ourselves with no leaders and by that point we will be much less of a threat than they are today. that is what worries me. they have caught more than we have from this particular

negotiation. your third point. [inaudible] >> the other option was continuous sanctions until iran was willing to accept an agreement much more focused in terms of the aims to stop from nuclear weapons capability. the idea we had to somehow the summer of 2015 accept an agreement we thought was best below expectation, that we had to accept her right now rather than continue sanctions and see if we could get a better deal later on. why did it have to be right now? why did we accept a deal well below what we initially asked for. the answer is this is about

politics more than security and that is generally in the longer term not a good way to set priorities. >> sharon kovac, voice of the moderate. i want to compliment you on saying it's about politics. this included people talking about how the mainstream media has had information from the general public even more so in the u.k. it was classified that iran did play a role in the lockerbie bombing and if people knew that they might be against this deal. what i've heard is the mainstream media is embarrassed. i don't know if what i've heard is correct but i would like to know especially in the u.k. they are not having this dialogue. there's a 3.67% of the enrichment.

the ratio is who's monitoring the enrichment and this needs to be educated and people can understand it because of this. i believe like you said the mainstream media not educating the people and politics. thank you. >> now mentioned the book i wrote with a large section on iran and part of the problem is contemporary politics as he rightly said it often has little historical context around it. you would be hard pressed to hear anyone talking about iran pre-1979. it didn't have any history before that general and political circles. but i wanted to set up his fly it has a very sophisticated to romantic capability. it's been well known for running

rings round opponent over time. iran has a very long record of involvement in all sorts of terror groups and proxies in the region and beyond. i'm sure you've got a copy of it. i think we need to educate our public much more about these issues. i kind of like that when i was still practicing medicine, my wife would say but i have a real job, but you don't simply walk in, look at a blood test and make a diagnosis. not to ask about their past history and family history. too much politics is discussed in two dimensions rather than three and we need that is one of the duties of politicians to educate as well as make policies.

>> thank you so much in thank you for that excellent talk. here in the united states, some proponents of the deal have been making quite a lot at the 21st novak. get with lifting of sanctions upfront and essentially no gradual way to address iran's potential cheating, what is your take to flesh out a little more how the provision is not particularly effective in bringing iran back to compliance with the terms of the agreement. >> well, you put it very well because what happened in the agreement is iran gets all the rewards immediately and where i left with fewer and fewer potential sanctions should they not stick by the agreement.

he had freezing of the assets and lifting of sanctions early on in the process. after that, when they have access to money, access to western contracts and capabilities to bring their economy back to shaping and repair their damaged infrastructure, what sanctions are we going to apply and if we are able to apply them, how effective will they be? and the second problem i also mentioned which is once the sanctions are lifted, once you've got the western company going into iran in doing business there would be more and more difficult for democratic governments in the west to reapply if action even if they are justified. we are making this very difficult or ourselves. we are loading this deal very heavily on the iranian side, they've been ourselves with too

few levers should iran and i'm afraid go back to the soul behavior of trying to manipulate agreement and behaving in what i can most kindly describe as an utterly un- transparent way and we should have done something quite different which was iran gets rewarded for maintaining clear implementation of the deal and unfettered access and a graduated process of assets unfrozen in sanctions lifted. that seems to have been a much more sensible approach but it seems they've given everything away at the outset and it's all predicated on hope. we hope they will change. >> the gentleman here in front. if anyone could identify any institutional affiliation.

[inaudible] i think something they don't pay attention to much as the fact that 24 days the administration has enough time only start after the access to the facility. however, according to the amax and the agreement, first of all iran -- [inaudible] in other words, all you want us to do is to drag out the time and tell it answers the nonnuclear facility. 24 days unlimited. it declares the facility

reasonable. the second thing is nobody signed the agreement. the other day president rouhani said we should not read this agreement to the parliament -- [inaudible] >> thank you gate as they say this is a developing story and becomes more substantial, not about the big picture but about the details, i think there would be greater public anxiety about this deal which is why we need to start a genuine public debate, not about iran is bad, the west is good, but actually focus on what is sad and what the implications will be and how it will operate under the most accurate circumstances are not

the most optimal. that's the debate that is extremely valid. >> thank you for a next-line speech. i'm an associate of writing fellow at the middle east forum. america being saved as a very personal interest. so we do not have america. i am looking at the whole situation from the perspective that the iranian and from islamic tourist. but i had to study for 12 years because it was not because i adhere to it in any way. but according to islamic jurisprudence, this treaty satisfied every single role

which is the jurisprudence of treaty and according to the jurors heard and said the treaty, the so-called treaty is a thought not which is a temporary truth than the limitation is 10 years and after that 10 years a muslim ruler is obligated according to sharia law and limited to a violent attack in waging war against the nation that either the nation they have to treaty have to treaty would wear the hood no way or its allies is what it explicitly says russ the muslim ruler would not be legitimate anymore. i don't think the iranians satisfied every law. i don't think they would sacrifice their rules to satisfy the west. my question is this taken into

consideration of the political discourse in europe or the united states of america how the iranians are looking at this and that's the implications of that that iran was in fact act upon a death to america, death to israel and act upon it in every percussions or the consideration >> well, i will not attempt to get into issues of very dangerous persons. i might as well try to talks with healy. what is very clear is the mind that was iran, chances are iran will change in that time. chances are the young population will become much more liberal. chances are the regime at the moment would be fundamentally altered.

i don't know what guarantees anyone believes there are but that will happen and that the whole agreement is predicated on not facts but at the end of the 10 years iran will not be the same throughout regional air globally that we see it as being today to achieve the bases. i can see circumstances in which the successor to how mean he is actually more adventurous than he is. there's nothing at all to suggest any change will necessarily be liberal and pro-western been how many years of the present time. this is a dangerous gamble and to try to get the world to look like with any country or she will look like in a decades time and base your security policy on the israeli placing too much value on experience.

[inaudible] -- threat to israel because of this deal. >> well, clearly iran isn't it their state poses an existential threat that has to be taken as well. we need to understand and locations for regional security as a whole and global security implications as well. while it's extremely important and i'm a great supporter of the state of israel, it is of great importance to see the threat it posed to israel in particular we should understand implications far more widely of iran to getting it or weapon capability because it's not about iran getting a nuclear capability and the threat it poses to israel. in no time at all you can bet

your in an arms race where somebody once to get a nuclear weapon or egypt might want to get a nuclear weapon. in response to many iranian capability and after the end of the cold war to prevent her liberation and all the measures in place to try to stop that, we don't want to lead to the next generation a new nuclear arms race in the world's most unstable region. surely we want nothing more than that. and the first to say any agreement that stops iran genuine sampson to be welcomed. i don't believe in my heart the agreement gives anything like guarantees we need. i am almost done to not be supporting it. you have to be realistic and policy and wishful thinking is not a good basis for national

security or the security of our allies. >> and drew over 10. -- enter over 10. i appreciate your comments greatly. i want to push back on a couple points made about sanctions and that they'll be lifted immediately. they will only solicit after iaea verification with certain restrictions and non-snapback secretary has been very clear he would snapback sanctions if iran chooses to continue with that theme. imagine the alternative alternative would be more sanctions to presumably get iran back to the negotiating table. do you think china, and russia, the other p5 will sign up for

that? do you think they will return to the negotiating table? >> my point was we didn't have to have an agreement now. iran was becoming more compliant because of the impact of sanctions were already having. we have an option to continue sanctions until iran was willing to accept an agreement or to our liking but we decided not to do that. i leave that open for debate as to why that occurred. if you look at the difficulty that there often is when sanctions are being applied in the timescale ahead i think i need to point. one is will sanctions have equal impact once iran has had a lifting of the restrictions and the freezing of financial

assets. both sanctions affected in the future. secondly, will western another government be willing to reapply sanctions and they have large financial vested interest that they don't have at the present time and democratic government come under pressures of the chinese government and others don't come under when you have a large industrial interest able to make profit from it opened up iran, there will be a lot of pressure not to close it down again. that is the reality of what happens in western politics and we need to accept that and this idea to snap back could happen very quickly or very easily is a question because i don't actually believe it to be true. >> it's hard to imagine the russians and the cheney supporting the reimposition of

the vote not least with the russians supplying weapons to tehran and a very, very close relationship between moscow and tehran. >> i think it has been overplayed because there is a real danger that some of the players who are required to make sanctions would be a lot more unwilling in the future than they have been in the past and added to that the points i made to the gentleman from the british embassy is the western governments will have different pressures applied to them because of their industrial commitments. it is not as clear as it has been betrayed. [inaudible] >> thank you for your comments.

given the imminent of the weapon sales from russia to tehran, how do you think it is the israelis may strike in order to prevent the settlement of an aggressive nuclear program. >> at the moment i don't. i don't think it is likely that you can never rule anything out and you have instability in an unstable region, who knows what the implications will be. impossible to say but it would be unwise for anyone that there might yet by israel and the thinkers he doesn't present race to their national security. >> yes, sir. thank you for your speech.

recent polls from peel show americans don't approve. another recent poll shows that the warrant is the asked if i made towards trudy's. why is it that this disapproval for this trudy is not out in the media? >> well fortunately, one of the things i'm never responsible for its behavior in the media for which i'm eternally grateful. it is interesting the discrepancy between the two and american population are less inclined to support the deal than the british population. i have no reason than what you say. it's been more debate about it and that sounds like more people knew about it so isolated.

the conundrum in the united states was to open up the debate. trying to get articles into the british press is extremely difficult. the obsession in europe is very different and the migrant crisis and not iran but it's part of a continuum and it does need to be debated in greater detail. one of the reasons i am here today is to try their agencies such as heritage to get the debate opened up in the united kingdom. it has been a bit crowded out by other events in the middle east at the present time but it doesn't diminish its importance. just because people don't want to hear some indefinite politicians shouldn't they. >> could you comment on the migrant crisis in europe, the number one political issue across the atlantic related to

the middle east, specifically syria. could you address how europe is responding to this crisis is what needs to be done in the big picture to address it. >> first of all i differentiate between economic migrant coming from all over the region to try and get work and better living conditions by being in europe. that is understandable but we are not simply dared to be recipients for everybody. i draw a distinction between those people and those who are fleeing one of the most cool ambitious organizations of cases that we've seen for a very long time and it is pitiful to watch them try to bring their children not just a place where they can get more money to where they can be safe.

i think our failure to act in syria is coming home to roost. we need to set up a safe zone. they needs to be a secure zone where people can live without fear of beheading and crucifixion cruelty and the other things we've seen from providers. at some point if you want to stem the flow of people to escape this we need to have military action by an international coalition of a no-fly zone and protected element inside syria otherwise the flow will continue in the no point in saying we will not allow people to cross borders. we need to do with the cause of the problem and the longer we wait, the more the cost in terms of human suffering arise.

>> just let me add this one god. not that dean is a policy. and not acting brings its own consequences and you have the way the cost of action again the cost of inaction and for many people across the political spectrum, the cost of inaction is rising too high. >> house of commons is due to debate military action against isis in syria. could you comment on how you see that debate moving and also one the military action. >> first of all, for reasons i don't quite add commanders the

confusion between the response to chemical weapons by syria and military action against isis. it seems to me absurd that we accept that it's okay to carry out military strikes against isis in iraq but not against isis and syria. it's either a threat to national security are not. what is in effect a nonexistent it leaves me for once beach. what we require to do something else also and that is to recognize the battle against tb

five on the ground against a military force. this is an ideological battle. we need to understand the scale of the challenge we face. in the cold war we understood we had to utilize not just military capability and not even the economic ability to underpin, but our moral case for a superiority and i describe in my book a discussion i had and i said why was it in the cold war we were willing to use the word uttered by capitalism was better , that freedom was better, democracy was better than the alternatives. nowadays i happen to believe religious tolerance is better than enforce orthodoxy. it was treating women as equal citizens is better than treated them as second-class. i believe the values we hold our

better than the alternatives put forward by the islamists. when i made the argumentthat the answer with it. i don't think today we can say better, just different. if we only believe what we stand for is different and are not better than the alternatives, our sales will not have the moral courage to do what we believe is right i will not have the moral authority internationally to do so. it is time in the west that we stop using different and we have to start seeing the information not as a threat to security but as an opportunity to propagate those values that have made us what we are and it is time for us as they united kingdom, united states, australia, canada, we are not who we are by accident. we are who we are by design

because of the decisions taken and decisions of forebears and consequences they've had. it is time to get into the values argument in the value argument is just as you turn isis or al-shabaab and the all too easy military response. is as response. is as quiet as a society have just military. >> thank you for excellent speech. and bringing us to debate on what it is. this document to me is that peace at any price. the price we pay for a future and for our values.

we need a less than that in 1979 the hostages were released were very liberal going along. the iranian move when they got the best deal and they weren't sure if the way they let them go right at the inaugural when the former president took off and ronald reagan when they were sure what he would do as the cowboy and that is when we got peace through strength and that is what we need today. we need peace through strength. in addition to that, i have another concern. is this going to give them full diplomatic authority or are we going to have limitations? are we going to give back and, to which is a very crucial location especially the british

embassy and thought down massachusetts avenue and across the street. it has been thinking since 1979 except when it is used by the state department and rented out. that is a concern to me. it is also just across the bridge and ran across in the italian, brazilian and other embassies on embassy wrote and i would be a perfect center. i don't know whether anybody has ever brought that up. that is of great concern to me. >> the aim is to see a greater normalization in normalizations with iran. that itself is not a bad thing. my point is to give all these things at the beginning of the process before they have shown they been willing to implement the agreement at south seems

just a touch naïve. [inaudible] >> the last as i describe the policy were wishful thinking trumps critical analysis is in space-bar was done with russia. russia launched a cyberattack on estonia who couldn't do anything because of the breach of treaty. they invaded georgia is still there and our response was minimal. the last time i was in washington, one of the u.s. senators, i won't name them come effective am wondering untrue word cuteness mistreating symbols from the u.s. i said is perfectly being the signals from the u.s. he acts, we don't respond. he acts, we don't respond. he acts, we don't respond.

what is difficult to read about that? >> thank you again for your remarks, dr. fox. moving forward it seems that the democrats in the u.s. will filibuster and the deal will be implemented. what are the steps moving forward that people who don't believe the deal is going to lead to the outcome of a rant not obtain a nuclear weapon and what are the steps that should be taken moving forward? thank you. >> it looks like the agreement will go ahead and we will be stuck once it is accepted will be stuck with all the risk inherent in it. what we have to do come in the best we can do is ensure the right of access by the iaea are

fully upheld and assorted stalling techniques that have been described in the past by iran are not allowed to buy them extra time. even the u.s. breakout i don't believe is an accurate figure. it is much more like seven or eight runs and there are so many risks in all the process. i genuinely find it hard to be optimistic about it and i think we are sadly going to be limited into what levers we have to pull if our anxieties grow over the years ahead. when it was brought out in the house of commons, the foreign secretary, my friend philip hammond said at the potential to be in historical agreement or that it wasn't historical agreement and with all due respect history will determine whether it is an historic

agreement. a generic lesson for politicians and not one. -- in that one. >> thank you. follow up. the vast majority of syria was not caused by isis but bishara sought -- bashar assad. [inaudible] against isis and bashar assad to remove him from power -- [inaudible] >> well, i won't get into the complexities of a rant except to save face. then it has been the movement of isis that is caused in recent times this mass movement of refugees.

you're quite right to civil war in syria was already causing a great deal of instability and mrs. instability upon instability if you like. it's not just the number of refugees coming to europe. i was recently in turkey. no one seems to be mentioning the turks have seen potentially 2 million people crossing borders as refugees, which is a huge problem for any country and again, we know what isis are capable of. we know what they've been doing. we have seen their animal behavior towards the fellow human beings in the name of so-called religion and at some point we have to raise our game and a few airstrikes in iraq is not enough because it's not given the civilian population the safety they require. i go back to my earlier point. in iraq we were able to achieve

no-fly zones. we were able to achieve sense of safety so people could live without fear in their own country. we have to do something them over again. i know we don't want to do it and they won't be in favor of doing it, but if we only want to have the policies that are already accepted by the public, why don't we just give up and not the pollsters run the country. politics is about leading, not just affect teen public opinion. ..