for those watching online we remind you you're welcome to send questions or comments to at any time by simply e-mailing speaker at heritage .org.

peter brooks is leading the discussion this morning. he is also in his term as a member of the congressional us, china economic and security review commission. prior to coming to heritage he served as a deputy assistant secretary of defense for asian and pacific affairs at the george w. bush administration. he is also served on the committee staff for international relations in the house with the central intelligence agency, the state department and was an active duty naval officer. please join me in welcoming peter brooks. peter. [applause] >> thank you. welcome to heritage in our program on iran. is a 2015 the nuclear agreement with iran has continued with troubling policies in the uk in the middle east. iran's expanding influence in these war-torn countries have been facilitated by the strategic dividends and

sanctions provided by the nuclear deal. this raises questions like how should the united states respond, what should be done about the nuclear agreement, how can the united states target the iranian regime through oppression at home. joining us today to discuss these and other issues are jim phillips, jim is a senior fellow in the douglas and sarah allison center for foreign policy. studies at the heritage foundation. he is a veteran foreign policy specialist was written and spoken widely on middle eastern issues, international terrorism. since coming to heritage in 1979 he is offered dozens of papers on iran and its nuclear program and its use of terrorism. he has testified congress on iran's nuclear program and other middle eastern security issues. jim hansen, next to him, president of the security studies group.

he served as the us army special forces in conducted counterterrorism, counterinsurgency as well as diplomatic intelligence and trinitarian efforts in more than a dozen countries. he's the author of cut down the black flag, a plan to defeat the islamic state. mark is the ceo of the foundation for the defense of democracy working with products on he iran, sanctions country threat finance and nonpolar ablation. if oliver denies that he is one of the key influencers in shaping economic station policies to counter threats to be run and its surrogates. mark features one of the key quote on quote financial warriors against you iran by the wall street journal's jay solomon in his book the iran wars. mark is a buys the trump, obama and george w. bush and ministration and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on iran issues and testified more than 20 times for congress in foreign legislators. with that, jim, start us off. >> thanks, peter. i like to focus my remarks on iran's. as regional brats and the degree to which the threats have been boosted income pitted by the iran nuclear agreement.

i'm sorry to say that the access of people is alive and well and if you like what north korea is doing today you will love what you run will be doing a few years down the road. both of these states are led by rogue regimes that have sought nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them. they've cooperated closely on the ballistic missile developments and perhaps to a lesser extent on nuclear issues. both regimes have repeatedly violated their nonproliferation commitments and just as the 1994 agreed framework with north korea failed to stop that country's nuclear ambitions i think future historians will eventually say that the 2014 iran nuclear agreement also failed to stop iran's nuclear ambitions. i would argue that you run is a much more dangerous regime and

imposes greater long-term threat the north korea. it has a much stronger economy, much more potent ideology, many more friends, allies and surrogates around the world and in the region. it has a much more aggressive record of regional interventio interventions. iran's neighborhood of the persian gulf is the center of gravity of world oil production so iran is able to establish dominance over the flow of that oil, it will be tremendous energy security, national security and perhaps long-term economic repercussions cascading out of that. contrary to the promises of the obama administration the nuclear deal did not moderate iran's behavior. in fact, to run untrained. the activities in the region

since 2015 in the nuclear agreement has been a bad situation worse by posting to ron's economic and the geopolitical spheres in the nuclear agreement has handed iran in an economic up to a hundred billion dollars and no one knows how much in sanctions and unfrozen assets and this economic transfusion has boosted iran's economy, enhanced its ability to threaten its neighbors with conventional weapons, terrorism and subversion and increased its support for its far-flung surrogate networks. for example, iran increased its defense budget recently announcing that there would be $300 million more in funding for the ballistic missile program and that is very concerning because those are the most

worrisome aspects of iran's threats. the current force is a real elite force of the guard and its charge of protecting and advancing iran's revolution, not their national interest and that's important difference since the july 2015 nuclear remake, iran has escalated its. iran's troops and surrogate militias have played a leading role in assisting the assad regime attempt to claw that territory from rebels. they have deployed more than 5000 revolutionary guards, troops in advisors, as well as technical support and in addition, 20000 foreign fighters from iran backed militias from lebanon.

untrained immigrants from afghanistan and pakistan. this aggressive intervention which has been partially eclipsed by the russian air campaign has decisively consistent in favor of the assad regime. now that the islamic state is on the verge of defeat, the us must take steps to preclude iran from filling the vacuum left by the islamic state and prevented from repositioning in the golan heights and elsewhere for the next round of warfare with israel. iran is also stepped up its hostile activities, targeting the jewish state and provided thousands of increasingly capable long-range rockets to hamas and palestinian in gaza in addition to an estimated 150,000 rockets and missiles to

hezbollah. in case the israeli government had any doubt about the nature of iran's hostility, the revolutionary guards helpfully provided a sign on one of the missiles they tested in march 2016 which said in hebrew, not in farsi, but in hebrew israel must be wiped off the earth. iran also as escalated its threat to arab adversaries. since the nuclear agreement was signed its wants to regulate shiites and by rain, back militant groups such as hezbollah and trained militants from bahrain and revolutionary guard camps in iran. bahrain is an intercepted several arm shipments and that's in violation of un security council resolution 2231 which enshrines the nuclear agreement and prohibits these arms

exports. iranian hardliners have also is quite a pressure against bahrain claiming that it is a long lost province of iran that should be

i'm not a proponent of the deal and i'm not focusing on the deal here and it was up to me we would find iran in violation of that deal that is deafly violated the security council resolution that accompanied the deal but regardless of what the policy is on the nuclear issue the us has to push back stronger on the regional level.

first and foremost we must draw clear redlines and enforce them. number one is the nuclear red line and i would argue that it's a deterrent that is the chief barrier to iran's proceeding down the nuclear path and not just some diplomatic agreement and that the us needs to maintain its strong forces in the gulf and an ability to launch a credible use of force against the nuclear facilities or other aspects of iranian power, if called upon. the us should also strengthen its allies, especially israel and the gulf cooperation council state that face the most immediate threat from iran; they should build of gcc defense capabilities; anti- summering forces, naval forces, intelligence, surveillance and recognizance and the pentagon

should expand an institutionalized joint planning and joint exercises to develop a shared strategy for deterring and containing the iranian regime. missile defense should be a high priority. israel has a very good one in the us can do more to help israeli withstand the ballistic missile threats but the gcc states also faced that bret and they have much less capabilities. they all have -- except for oman, us provides soul patriot missiles but those missiles are not integrated into a regional defense system and that needs to be done to improve the effectiveness against the iranian ballistic missile threat. another priority should be imposing additional sanctions on iran for terrorism for its ballistic missile activities and human rights abuses, especially targeting the right illusionary

guards in the huge constellation of enterprises, revolutionary guards have spun off to support its operations and the goal of these sanctions should be to forced to run to pay an increasing price for the hostile activities of the revolutionary guard and finally, the us should weaken and undermine iran's allies and circuits, particularly hezbollah which has been instrumental in iran's campaign in syria, as well as iraq, has paula has been training rebels in yemen. it's also active in lebanon and last year the gcc and the arab league declared hezbollah as a terrorist state and designated it as such but the eu continues to differentiate between the hezbollah political wing as if the political wing has no

knowledge or power to stop the terror activities of the so-called military wing. washington should work with the gcc of israel to try to influence the eu to step up with sanctions on hezbollah and during the rest of the world in trying to reduce the threat of that organization poses. the bottom line is that the nuclear deal has not moderated iran. in fact, it has a strengthen and embolden hardliners with in iran

they were one of the most major producers industry leaders of explosively formed projectiles that killed american troops

somewhere between 501,000 american troops were directly killed by weaponry provided by the ukrainians to the shia militias that were used by them and al qaeda in iraq to kill us troops and somehow he decided that they were going to be the ones that we should back. that was the worst we should back and now we are dealing with that. were dealing with the fact that not only have they been in powered but they been returned to the international community and their banking privileges and their cash and 2016 they were the state department's leading sponsor of terrorism worldwide. now, that may not give you much in the trump administration but in the obama and mistress got you a house full of cast flown in the middle of the night. they are spending that money now

on a lot of the organizations that jim mentioned. i want to talk about their proxies, the main one is hezbollah obviously is a humanitarian group that operates in lebanon to be the poor, as we are all well aware or has blood a terrorist organization that shares ill-gotten gains with people to buy their allegiance. they are a bad actor. hamas is another wonderful group of humanitarians. he iran back to them. they are causing no end of death and destruction and the other thing i'd like to note is israel is a great ally. holy cow. let's get back to that again. we can go from having iran as an ally, israel as a friend to me at best under the obama administration to israel being our only true friend in the region and he iran being the enemy to peace in the region. i think -- just if we change nothing else but that thought process, i think we have

established a much better and much more realistic world order. some of the other groups obviously, their backing and iran is the seas in yemen and there's a bit of a dangerous situation there because you have the gulf arab states, uae and the others and they're not helping the good guys but there helping less bad guys and against them but we have a shiite, sunni, scrap going on and this is dangerous and it's something we need to keep an eye on but the uranian influence is most important to united states is that iraq and syria and afghanistan. we have wars going on in both of those and we have a plan about the nice thing is we are actually at the end game in iraq and what is going on in this area, does anyone know?

no one knows what the answer is there. it is not good. it is not ended and closer to the end but we need to be planning for a post isa space in both of those countries. one of the things that has to happen is we have to stop the advance of the iran into both of those areas and we have to push them back. one of the main dangers and one of tran's biggest goals has been to create what some would call a shiite crescent or a land bridge to the mediterranean. if you go through iraq and syria you get to the and that would be iran's greatest dreams along with nukes and other bad things. they want to control that swath of territory. they like to control all of it but if they can at least have the capability to move from the iran to the mediterranean or the other way they have accomplished something that we can't tolerate. that is just a bad scenario for

everyone. they have been very, very good at beating that area with militia. we always hear about the shiite militias that have been involved first in the iraq war and in killing americans and as a destabilizing force there but once we left and he iran moved into that backing they started creating alliances with local shia melissa militias and what could become a shiite crescent. that's a horribly bad thing for everybody. these are local shiite in sunni areas and they've reversed the sons of iraq concept. during the search we went in and we worked with the tribal leaders and we made friends with them and said this is your territory. we will help you. al qaeda is in iraq, an enemy to all of us we want stability. we basically made them the local constables and said we will back

you as you try to take control of your own areas from al qaeda and iraq. what you iran has done is in the areas where there were pockets of shiite villages and people they started paying them and they said we are protecting you against isis and were protecting you against the other imperialist, the coalition and we will be your friends. they built alliances with these people, and allegiance from these people that goes to tehran not even to baghdad and that's something we now have to deal with because they are there and they are armed and they feel empowered and unless we and the other books in the region can do something to push them back they will be, at least the foundation, of that land bridge to the mediterranean. that cannot happen. so, i've got an idea. let's do something about it. let's not just admire the problem and say this is awfully portable. there are ways we can deal with this. the areas that they are in are in the majority sunni areas.

same place that isis has decimated essentially part of the regions that now have to come back under control. iraq and syria are both broken states. the baghdad government exist, they are fine and doing things but the idea is that they alone can go into the sunni areas and provide governments in a way that will be accepted by the people there is a fantasy. it won't happen. they don't trust them. they been burned once. we promised them after the surge we make sure that the majority shiite government in baghdad, which is highly influenced by iran, with treat them well; would do fine by them and share wealth and do all the things they need to do. that didn't happen in the iranians took more control and essentially those guys got burned. now we will ask them to do it again, trust us again in the

central government will defined by you and don't worry about the uranian influence and don't worry about the shiite militias that slaughtered their way across the territory to push isis out. one thing that has not been covered much is just exactly how that that was. the humanitarian slaughtered during the contest there was outrageous. we need help their well, there are two countries that have a border on southern iraq that could help us. the saudis in jordan. they have got a dog in this fight and now the president trump has a new best friend, mohammed, the new saudi conference two has said baby wasn't such a great idea to back all those who have been killing everyone because at this point he's afraid they will shut down his monarchy that he won't have his lamborghini and suvs at all of the other things he likes so much. he's looking more realistically. we can bring some of the gulf arabs and for rebuilding they can the bill and president trump likes it when other people pay

for things. if we can get the saudis and the other gulf arabs to kick in reconstruction money to start commerce with the sunni areas and potentially to provide peacekeeping forces i think we are in a position to provide a counterweight to the rams move into those areas and to stop that land bridge from solidifying. it will be tough and it's not an easy thing and you have sunni and shiite and the last time i heard the kurds were having a referendum on independence so it's messy. if it was easy, everyone would have taken care of it already. right now we need to look at what is the best way to stop either iranian domination of those regions or a third sunni insurgency. neither one of them is a particularly good idea. can get help from the gulf arab states and push the iran out of those areas we will have accomplished something. >> thank you, jim. >> thank you to heritage. it's great to be here for me

heritage is a house of reagan. i don't know how many of you know but heritage had a huge influence on the reagan administration, both in terms of ideas and policies and people who went into the reagan administration. the reason i mention president reagan is when you deal with iran you have to take a page from the reagan playbook. i think it's worth remembering that when ronald reagan came into office in 1980 he also inherited a mess, a global dog's breakfast, as it were. reagan had to shift us policy from the policy of containment with the soviet union to one of aggressive neutralization and rollback. he identified the soviet union, in many respects, very similar to the revolutionary iran which is aggressive regime, it was a revolutionary regime and it was internally fragile. the reagan administration by 1983 had developed something called national security directive 75 and that was an all

a government approach using american power to rollback and subvert soviet power globally. the elements were very important. it was a massive defense buildup and i know heritage played a significant role in recommendations on how to build out and expand our military potency. there was an element of economic and energy warfare and i know heritage played is in the payroll in the idea about how to drain the resources of the soviet state. there was support for anti- soviet proxies and dissidents and reaching out around the world are those who were under soviet domination and figure out ways to support them. there was an office against the ideological legitimacy of communism. i think president reagan was brilliant in articulating the case against communism. what. [inaudible] didn't do was have a myopic

focus and he didn't see in the first few years certainly not until 1986, the reagan administration obsessing over and obsessing over these deeply flawed arms control agreements that president reagan tested as her untrained predecessor had signed. when you think about iran, what do we know when we think about iran and we need to move away from the biotic focus on the joint commands of, the deal that obama administration reached we need to move iran policy. the trump administration uses all instruments of american power and to neutralize and rollback iranian regional influence and global influences and hit at some of the same areas that president reagan hit at. the problem with where we are today on iran is that the jcp itself has not only taken all of our energy and resources in this

town but it's also created policy paralysis and that policy paralysis was very much exploited by iran of the past eight years, as both jim and jim have well articulated. we were so afraid of the iranian shadow and we're so afraid that they wouldn't reach a nuclear deal and then we are so afraid and walk away that we were unwilling to counter iranian aggression and i would argue that the administration has to move away from the myopic focus on the jcp oa and move to countering the iranian lethal and state which is where the regime is heading. what is the weasel and state. it's about ten years time iran will have thanks to the steel, a nuclear program and all they have to do is wait until the key restrictions on the program's onset and they will emerge as a legal, internationally recognized, compliant nuclear program. the program will be powered by

advanced centrifuges. it will have near zero nuclear breakout and it will have an easier clandestine nine sneak out option. it will have icbm, it'll have an economy which grows at five, 6% a year will it be about a trillion dollars within a decade and increasingly immunized against our ability to use sanctions and other forms of economic pressure particularly as the europeans make significant investments in iran and in our way to you use those investments and lose our ability to impose sanctions. iran will have is jim and jim have articulate it increasingly regionally hegemony with countries like lebanon and syria and iraq in yemen and they are pushing at saudi arabia provinces with their maturity shiite provinces and their

working globally. they're working in our backyard, latin america, as many people at heritage and fd and elsewhere have analyzed. they are influenced in latin america is growing. you will have a lethal iranian and state in a decade and anyone tells you in a decade not to worry, is misleading you. iran will be stronger, it'll be richer and more dangerous and still be at near zero nuclear breakout and last time i checked you don't sanction a country and stop them from actually developing nuclear weapons when there a turn of the way the screw having a nuclear weapon. we will have one option which is the military. the gc poa and more and when that war comes the consequences will be much more to say. what we do question that we have talked about the rollback strategy regionally and jim and jim have done a good job of explaining that. it's an incredibly difficult

problem. i'm very worried about syria and i don't have answers but i think the trump administration inherited the mess and i'm not sure i quite see the way forward on these deals with the russians as the iranians continue to push forward and forward and establish this land bridge. i'm more enthusiastic and positive about the job mike pompeo is doing at the agency. i see an emboldened cia with the necessary resources and the political backing to go move aggressively against these networks. the regional approach and the approach targeting networks certainly we talked a lot about the money issue here and clearly you're not going to be able to do anything about the iranian threat unless you drained them of their resources in the jcp

oa, as jim said, has given them not only $100 million in cash but has opened up oil markets and open up the financial system and opportunities on industrial trade in the iranian economy which was in 2013 at negative 60% gdp, 40 or 50% inflation rates have about four or six months before it reached a crisis because i had no more than 20 billions in foreign-exchange resources and was on the verge of collapse before president obama decided to do the interim deal and a final deal. that economy today is growing at four or five or 6% and the iranian has access to another hundred billion dollars to shore up the foreign exchange reserves and inflations have gone down to single digits and it's an economy that is on the mend. as that economy grows, as i said, it becomes much more difficult for us to use economic pressure. this is the time to put on the pressure and this is the time to

follow the recent congressional sanctions, mandating that i grc be designated as a terrorist organization in its entirety. this is the time to go full throttle and there may be 80 or so designations that have ever been done in all these years and yet there are thousands and thousands of targets including an open source database that if you do digging to find these targets and meet the declination purple port treasury and this is a good time to do this designation and go after the thousands that dominate the strategic sectors of iran's economy. on the democracy side, this is the time to strengthen the democracy forces in iran. those forces that were crash in 2009 but still exist and the gap between the rulers and the ruled is only growing in iran. this will notion that they lead a stable political government

and country where he has this tremendous support is the brutal oppression of the radiant people in the massive corruption is only interestin increasing the . let's try to to the extent we can intensify that. now we get to the nuclear deal and what the trump administration should do. first and foremost as i made clear the fundamental weakness, the fatal flaw, the notion that somehow regardless of iranian behavior the restrictions go over time is unacceptable and should be unacceptable as a statement of us policy. the trump administration should come out soon with a clear statement of us policy that the provisions will not be honored by the united states. we shall not allow iran to take patient pathways to nuclear weapons in icbm. second, we were told by the obama imagination over and over that we would get access to all sites including military sites.

remember that? if you are listening to the iranians back in 2013, 15, 16 and 17 they have said repeatedly over and over again that you will never ever get into our military sites. we repeat, you will never ever ever get into art military sites. you are delusional as a recent reading official said yesterday you are dreaming if you thank you will get into our military sites. there is no way to verify this nuclear deal if you can't get into their military sites because that's where they will actually conduct illicit activity. guess where they will design warheads for short is where they will manufacture advanced centerpieces that exceed the limits under the jcp oa? guess where they will do that? in sites where they deny us access and every site where they deny us access will be deemed a military site. can't get into military sites this deal is useless.

we have to as a matter of us policy make it very clear that without physical access to military sites there is no deal and that house to be made very clear by this administration. the third issue is long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying warheads and the obama administration initially demanded that, the iranians said no, and the obama imagination to get off the table. in the jcp oa itself the illicit crucial issue is not addressed. it is addressed in the un security resolution which is the nuclear implements the nuclear agreement. we need to use that as a predicate to insist that a matter of us policy that iran shall not be allowed to develop long-range ballistic missiles capable of carrying a warhead because that program will produce icbms, as we see in north korea.

there is no point in controlling iranian enrichment or plutonium processing if you will allow iran to have those restrictions lifted over time while giving it a free pathway to develop icbms. it makes no sense. we should have an absolute prohibition against development of these missiles. finally, this whole notion of what iran has done in the past with respect to the possible military dimensions of this program the military programs were completely swept under the carpet by the obama imagination and said don't worry about the past, let's only be concerned about the future. when iran has done in the past should be of no consequence. we know there's about 11 and have outstanding questions report in 2011 about what iran did in the sites with respect to nuclear weaponization but let's not concern ourselves with that. "while and move ahead. we can't close the file. in fact, what i understand is

that we haven't technically close the file but we need to reopen the pmd file and we need to get into those sites and we need to interview those scientists we need to see the documentation because there's no way that we can have an adequate baseline about iran's nuclear program if were completely blind. not only are we completely blind or some may say we are not blind and it's all just when he knows what's going on but let's assume for the sake of argument they do and this they don't know exactly what's going on but let's assume they do. iran has succeeded in making the case that they are innocent. they never admitted their guilt and they are from a nuclear perspective innocent. that narrative has been accepted by the united states and the international community. you have to get a run to permit inspectors into the sites, scientists to be interrogated because we need to make the international case and iran has to be brought to the people to

admit that they were engaged in weaponization otherwise their claims of nuclear innocence continues in every presidential certification every 90 days only reinforces these claims of nuclear innocence. so, it took ronald reagan six years after an std 75 was introduced in 1983 and the soviet union collapsed and we have a huge project ahead of us but what reagan did, donald trump has to do -- i should say what ronald reagan had to do for the communist, donald trump needs to do and that there nuclear state is only a decade away. >> thank you, mark. using the prerogative of the moderator, what is your take on the nuclear matters that obviously complicates it well beyond the access of international spectators of any sites in iran.

any thoughts on that? >> as you know, and heritage has outlined a lot of details in a lot of places there's a long-standing relationship between iran and north korea with respect to ballistic missile cooperation. it wouldn't be a surprise if north korean icbm was renamed in farsi and the iranians found himself with an instant icbm program. the cooperation of ballistic missiles is long-standing and deeply problematic. again, let's remind ourselves what you need for deliverable nuclear weapon. you need a warhead and you need a missile and the jcp oa temporarily deals with the material and creates a huge hole with respect to warhead design because you can't get in to their military sites and doesn't address missiles. nevermind iranian north korean

operation but the other aspect of the relationship that intrigues me is i think there's tantalizing hints of cooperation but it's something that's often nailed down is to what extent are they cooperating on the nuclear site. there i think the ic needs to be directed and this is a difficult challenge to follow some of these leaves. [inaudible] are there the israelis bombed the north korean reactor and financed by the north koreans with the syrians or was there a third-party financier may be the iranians. what are some of the tantalizing hints of this cooperation? we have found only logical but it needs to be backed up with

evidence because it may be that all of this is on a run in its their program on iranian soil is a headache because what's really happening is the cooperation between iran and north korea and north korean soil is where some of the more dangerous research and development is taking place. >> anyone else on that issue? >> there is no way that syria had the economic wherewithal to finance that kind of project and it's clear to me, although it hasn't been confirmed, as far as i know, by intelligence assets that the iranians were behind that. if they are behind extraterritorial nuclear cooperation with korea, why not in north korea? we do know that uranian scientists have been observed at the ballistic missile launches and i think some of the nuclear tests, as well. i think that's a tremendous area

for investigation. >> was moved to question and answer. raise your hand, i will call on you, we will bring you a microphone. identify yourself for your panelist and let us know who the question is directed to. i would appreciate it. are there any questions? >> we solved all the problems. >> hello. david. poor david phillips. one of the most instant changes in the regional behavior has been the apparent shift in afghanistan when not only have they been recruiting afghans in taking up into the vacuum some of the shiite areas especially the his are a job but now they seem to be applying the russian relationship from serbia to afghanistan. how do you see this change in uranian policy? >> i think there's an iranian

saying about spreading your feet to the limits of your carpet and i think the radiance, especially under the obama administration, perceive the us to be on its way out the door, not only in the middle east but in afghanistan and they have been improving their relationships to tell a man which as you know, david, has been historically fraught with hostility and tension for the televangelist murdered 11 revolutionary guards in northern afghanistan and in 1998 the two countries almost went to war but now they have stepped up shipments to the taliban and and i think i can be explained with another iranian saying which is you use the hand of your enemy

to catch a steak. >> what about -- you painted a gloomy picture here, a run on the role and you've done a good job of that. what challenges is iran is facing and are they worried about is their potential overstretched because of their involvement in syria and iraq and yemen. what -- is there any good news in terms of slowing what you're picturing advanced? >> they have to be looking at the growing gulf cooperation council us partnership as a major country and good. it is needed. i think that's one of the things that present trumpeted that really has a habit of deciding to kick overcompensate was. when he walks into a situation is like let's these preconceived notions be gone and what if the saudi's in us partner in a real

way. what if the saudis aren't lying when they say they actually want to stop funding terrorism. he cut them loose on guitar. he used them as a stalking horse the idea that you can't do this and we will work with the guys who work with us. the enemy of all of those guys is he iran and if you look at the fact that he's now proven that he can in some way work productively with the saudi's and the uae and some of the other states that those guys become a rams problem in a big way. qatar and iran have been tap dancing a little bit and there's turkeys doing some things that were not too thrilled with and i think the idea of engaging in a way that we were just accepting the saudi's as number one a largest state sponsored of terror and pushing them on that, in return for their efforts against what is a larger threat

and that something he iran a story about. >> i would say certainly on the economic side i painted a bleak picture from an economy that is slowly recovering from the 2013 but the reality is that the economy is slowly recovering its fragile international banks are unwilling to do business and international companies are fearful of going back into iran because we stole command have huge economic influence and leverage. we use the power of our secondary sections and we make it clear to our international companies that we have a 1920-dollar market and the iranians have a $420.000000000 market, you choose. the rally is everyone in this town talks about the importance of keeping the european is on board and we don't want to lose

the europeans and i think that is true but when it comes down to it the europeans are not going to a valiant the market for iran. we will be screaming and they will be crying there will be concern expressed but at the end of the day if the europeans believed that we will use our secondary sections hammer they will choose us market access. they will choose us dollar access and i conclude with this. the most important thing that donald trump can do to all of this is maintain the credibility of the walkway option. not only the credibility of military force which is now being restored after eight years of significantly degraded but the walkway option, donald trump has to make a career, this is a bad deal for us national security and i am appeared to walk away unless i get certain concessions in those concessions are going to have to come from the european as well. they will have to be put on

notice that unless they begin to work with us to address the sunset provision and fatal flaws of nuclear deal that donald trump may one day turn over the table and walk away from the deal. >> i think one long-term problem that the iranian regime has is its attention between the national interest of the uranian state in the ideological revolutionary interest of the iranian revolution and the supreme leader, many people who cited this, is focused on protecting and exporting iran's revolution and the uranian people have paid a heavy price for that in terms of sanctions, in terms of a long buddy war with iraq that was provoked by uranian attempts to subvert iraqi shiite and this tension is

growing and it's a point of leverage that the us and others could use to say we have nothing against the uranian people and we have many parallel interests in allowing the flow of iranian oil and if it's a friendly regime out of the persian gulf but it's the actions of this regime in supporting and exporting that hurt the long-term interests of the uranian people and i think back in 2009 you saw the green movement take that to heart and the iranians are resent the fact that the regime has spent billions of dollars in syria and in rebuilding lebanon when the radiance at home are not in the best economic place.

>> on that point, it's worth noting that the reigning people in the regime and it might be a good time for the president to remind those people that maybe it would be more fun to deal with a resurgent persia type state as opposed to the koran and the united states would not be displeased that were to happen. we don't have to deal with a doomsday hold of 12 a mom as a people running the country. they almost got it, as you mentioned, that was close in 2009 in obama through them under the bus. president trump could point out that if that happened again we wouldn't be mad about it. >> i would add to that one of the brilliant things reagan did implementing the strategy was used the bully pulpit in an effective way to communicate to people who lived inside the iron curtain that america stood with them.

i'm critical of the administration so far on that. i think they have missed a huge opportunity, the last statement that was put out, huge opportunity. that's exactly what jimmy said and reminding the iranian people how oppressive their leaders are in that we stand with them as a people and do what reagan did. again, the travel ban there's good elements to the travel ban. one of the unfortunate elements is in not sending a message that we want uranian to come to this country and we want them to live here and want them to visit here and were happy to facilitate a brain drain, well embedded people come this country, i'm an immigrant and it took me 13-14 years to come as a citizen and it was a tough process but it should be a tough process. it should be easy to become a us citizen from its greatest

country on earth. there should be a pathway to become a citizen, a patient pathway. i worry that somehow we are closing that off to the iranian people. that's what the president really needs to step up in the next speech and i hope it will be more clear in supporting the people the last one. >> i think we have time for one or two more questions. why don't we take these two questions and we will allow the panel to go ahead and answer them. [inaudible] >> is that some type of material breach? >> let us take the other question and then you guys can. >> brandon. the question i have is regard to minorities within a run. he iran as a. [inaudible] the last services they had was 50% was minority. the remnants of this umpire.

similar to your reagan analogy it seems there should be a concerted effort to appealing to these weather or running real products on the grunts for them some of which have been fighting isis inside of iraq in syria where i just was. i like to get your opinion on that and what you think could be done. >> panel, or leave it open to you. >> the first question yes, a run airship be designated and they been shipping thousands of fighters and hundreds of thousands of kilograms of what being weaponry and they have multibillion-dollar deals with boeing and airbus and other airline companies and it should be redesignated. it is a breach of the jcp away and it's a breach by iran because the jcp away requires a licensee regime to be set up so that the planes they use for peaceful purposes only. sending shiite fighters and missiles to assad is not for

people purposes and real quickly to answer question, i would put it this way. i run does not respect the territorial integrity of its neighbors, both near and far and neither should we. >> the security status group without a paper saying that most of the boundaries in that region are postcolonial global imperial breakups and they are arbitrary and stupid. they don't reflect the wishes of the people. if you got boundaries that are causing issues and forcing people who hate each other to share a government, why? i realize that kicks over about as many as conference tables as you can but so what markets been going so well before him. it is worth considering it would put pressure on all of the major powers to look at that is the potential next step. >> i would agree with what was previously said by the panelist,

especially on iran air. this was very predictable and this is what was happening in if they're doing this on something that is so visible you wonder what they are doing in stretching the boundary of permissible activity on the nuclear issue and in the long run i think that's another comparison you can make between iran and the soviet empire was that towards the end the russians were less than 50% of the population and when the economic situation is floated those different nationalities naturally sought self-determination and freedom and iran is no different. their revolution, the iranian revolution has oppressed many of these memories, religious and ethnic and that, i think, in the

long run is a weakness of the regime. >> we will conclude there. please join me in thanking the panel for enriching us with this thoughtful discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]