this discussion was held last week at the heritage foundation. one hour 15 minutes. >> good afternoon welcome to the auditorium this afternoon. if you are joining us on the heritage.org website please you that your mobile device has been silenced and of course if you are watching online or in the future are welcome to send questions and comments at any time to e-mails beaker at heritage.org we have mr. phillips for middle eastern affairs bedroom policy specialist rich and widely on middle eastern issues on international terrorism since joining us here in 1879. authored dozens of papers on iran, the nuclear program and

use of terrorism and has testified before congress as well as other middle east security issues. jim the phillips. [applause] >> welcome to the heritage foundation, we are approaching a key function point from the trump administration iran polic policy. president trump last january set a deadline of may 12 to either and or mend the armed nuclear agreement and a quotation's' are ongoing between u.s. britain france and germany to address some of the flaws of the deal including the sunset of key restrictions on the enrichment and advancing the missile program which should be considered in the context of a nuclear program and the inadequate verification

measures included in the deal. it is not clear if a satisfactory arrangement or agreement between the u.s. britain, france, germany, can be reached by the president's deadline. more importantly it is unclear the broader strategy is for the administration going forward on the nuclear issue. the president has hinted he could negotiate a stronger deal directly with iran but there is no clear path to do that. on monday the plot thickened when netanyahu gave a genetic presentation revealing from the nuclear program but those long-standing suspicions secretary of state mike pompeo

confirmed these documents are authentic and it shows the iran clear deal was built on lies that that issue and at a minimum those revelations will increase pressure for stronger inspections and verification measures imprecise targets ia further investigation that the revelations also make it much more likely the administration will scrap the deal entirely given the crumbling foundations should the u.s. walk away or try to fix the agreement? to answer this and others we are fortunate to have a panel of distinguished experts including goldberg for the defense of democracies and the american foreign policy council.

but our first speaker is michael rubin and former desk officer at the office of secretary of defense in the senior lecturer at the postgraduate schools department of national security affairs in an analyst of the foreign military studies office. in addition to his policy work he has authored a number of books academic articles and encyclopedia entries. michael? >> thank you very much. i will be at front there are certain things we now know that we didn't know before. while the press is focusing on whether or not that netanyahu presented, new material or not but let's talk about the other issues that we now know to be true.

number one, the foreign minister lied and has said repeatedly that i ran never had a nuclear program but to speak to anyone with the american secretary of state is not a magic formula to improve and then to apply as the ambassador to promise not to interfere or to send these lawmaker revolutionary guard in or other militia men but that is exactly what they did. there were two possibilities at the time either he thought they were lying or he was sincere bad no control over

the islamic revolutionary guard. whichever one it was it is a bad situation and counter productive also he has lied that iran really wasn't fighting in and already lost a thousand but as soon then as they said this the point is and we need to be very careful about any agreement in president obama cited this saying that they were serious about resolving the program and said that iran would never

kill them? and yet it shows that's why he which by the way was never written down and has never been revealed in any consistent format. it just suggested that this is with u.s. intelligence community in 2003 a finding iran was developing nuclear weapons and 2007 much to public debate the national intelligence council released a new estimate of the u.s. intelligence community to find that if they stopped at the nuclear program in 2003 or 2004. the international atomic energy agency after defending himself after netanyahu

revealed the documents said they had no evidence they were experimenting with nuclear weapon design since 2009 which means in 2007 the consensus document was wrong and with the mistakes that were made in that account but the then national security advisor john bolton was right when that national intelligence estimate was to constrain debate it was really the pinnacle of intelligence. when it comes to nuclear weapons think of the non- technical aspect. one is because who changes the definition and we have the

technology to do so. the second component is the warhead design beyond a reasonable doubt and the third one is a delivery platform of ballistic missiles and this is something unfortunately secretary of state john kerry gave a free pass. what happens of trump walks away? fry -- frankly despite the hyperbole not much. the fact of the matter e is when it comes to unilateral sanctions the administration which has been toughest over the years has been bill clinton's administration. if you go back to 1994 or 95 with the executive orders and then with that aspect to forbid and no matter what they

say but if you are the chairman of the european business you don't want to become and take and then to be sanctioned and therefore we need to stop paying attention to what deals european leaders say and recognize there is a precedent to the unilateral sanctions. european companies when european governments give no guarantees and then the taxpayers. but that is a different issue.

but also with their work on ballistic missiles in terrorism but why? because they caught them red-handed smuggling various in algeria. but that restoration grievances is the key to bring them back. also terrorism in yemen as well we spent about five months and i can tell you i saw a lot of weaponry but i

never saw i am a historian i fetch iran is not the first country entering into negotiations to give up a code for but then in a word decided to work with the a ea not just

the russians and the chinese but fortunately from the government allowing them to soiled their own reputation and remember that between 1980 and 1991 the international atomic energy agency gave the iraqis a letter year deal on -- bills pay --dash bills are paid to the sun a lot is that we really did have a nuclear weapons program. this is the first time but

then to focus on other elements of our special projects so therefore we need to but we engage in a doctrine

of surprise to open those and and and with that i will turn the floor over but then the toughest negotiator from 201,113 and worked for years on ballistic missile defense to defend against iranian mitchell moved us missiles and for the fact into often in

washington the debate currently is ripped up and when we talk about whether or not the presidential that is important to understand how we got here in the first place. i am not a historian and all of you did as well. starting in 2013 up until then we had what appeared. >> it is very easy to understand the threat because he vocalized it with their intentions every day and then

suddenly the obama administration sold us on a narrative that the new president come to iran. this was a reformist president and somebody who would take iran in a new direction we have to be ready to embrace that opportunity because this could be the moment we negotiate some sort of framework into the community of nations that could be the start of something magical that terrorism goes away as a state sponsor or missiles are no longer used as threats and would not expand into various ways to intimidate allies in one day the old unilateral sanctions need to have normalization. what have we learned since then?

>> because of that narrative we decided to reverse long-standing precedent from the united nations security council in regard to two important things. one was the enrichment of uranium and to allow them to complete and control those capabilities that could be used in the production of nuclear weapons. we considered the entirety of the program elicit we cannot control them or trust them we cannot be happy as an international community these are ideas that we could trust iran with any past military dimensions and the director will issue a report as long as it comes back with no worries or no intention to build your weapon think should really forgo forward allowing them to

produce nuclear weapons under the international monitoring and that is the jcp away today on --dash jcpoa they also took it vantage of the sanctions really to expand throughout the region, double down. to save the leader during the civil war and also the booty rebels who are now in yemen and then with missile attacks against saudi arabia and that comes from the jcpoa so going into fixed negotiations to see if we could stay within the premise then to maintain the

capability to enrich on its own soil but around the edges to make president trump more comfortable since he doesn't seem to like the deal. also the three pillars of this negotiation was flawed from the start because the european allies that we negotiate with have different intentions and not to see behavioral change but to preserve them to increase trade unlike the united states since those on unilateral sanctions went into effect they had trading relations and they see a market they can do business in and so as long as they come up with parameters to keep those

secondary sanctions then that can continue. what are the three parameters? number one we would talk about some sort of sanction i'm stopping iran from developing longer-range missiles. note that term late last year we learned from the supreme leader that they would limit the range of the missiles from 2000 kilometers anything over 2000-kilometer wide have international sanctions and with the arsenal would not so they could keep that delivery mechanism but with regard to inspections one of the key

concerns trump the has raised over and over is that there is the impossibility to truly verify without access to military sites in addition to those under surveillance and iran has declared it will never allowed a single inspector into a military site so what did european say? we should strongly encourage and pressure the iaea but but unfortunately it could do that today the last couple of years and to break down the deal and that dynamic will change and with those wealthy weapons

archive we don't always know what we don't know and certainly the iaea doesn't know what it does not know. the final piece of course on issue of sunsets and when could expire that restrict iran on the arms. this is a key issue for the trump administration and for iran and the europeans don't want to trigger and from the deal because the sanctions would combat again this was the key part looking like it was on the ropes with those negotiations because we could never agree to eliminate the sunset for fear of the iranian exit and so they tried to work around it and then maybe those

sanctions will come back or maybe not. but at the same time as a couple weeks ago it already look like it was on life support but i think what we from the intelligence information that was revealed by israeli intelligence as we have been negotiating over the wrong things and that idea that fundamental idea we can trust iran given of the nuclear weapons that they don't look to say to us to matter if there is a sunset or not we have her own built in

sunset we have the capabilities intent and infrastructure and organization we used all this time to develop missiles doing a lot of research and development and we can say goodbye to international inspectors and it will happen quickly. we now know that is their intention that is what critics jcpoa has said from the beginning and to break that fundamental commitment the free condition of sanctions relief that they would come clean right now to build nuclear weapons.

with this and any other agreement that is why you look at the secretary statements for monday night is clear and important what he says the intelligence shows us the extent and that must force us to call into question to be entrusted that is a fundamental reset the jcpoa to go back in time to long-standing international precedent and then to call on iran to halt entire new three-year program. and to about to enter negotiations the standard for north korea is maximum pressure and then to take the

steps to verifiably and irreversibly d nuclear eyes. and that is exactly where the trump administration is going now they have a decision with them on the 12th i will leave you with this but they 12h is coming up important it isn't a deadline to report to congress that the deal collapses but for renewal of one wafer on one law governing one piece of the sanction of architecture now it is big the central bank of iran that has to do with locking down sets overseas and requirements to reduce iranian crude or through the central bank.

and then it comes back automatically but not the only thing that needs to happen. and returning to pressure a lot of other banks have to be re- designated and other laws that are ascended. rescinded that if there is a true asset there has to be a comprehensive strategy in place that is diplomatic military and economic. and i look forward to your question. >> our cleanup speaker is ilan berman from the american foreign policy council and an expert of the regional security and to provide

assistance with national security issues. >> not to focus on where we have been he did a wonderful job to lay this out but i want to spend double of my time what happens now and what happens next? that is where the conversation is. i am the big hand to play the field as it lies in my spidey

sense is telling me the administration is now committed to an ideal that the only plan is how. so first of all personnel is policy so you had a trip administration equally divided and then substantively. and then decisively in that direction. and with the advent of the national security advisor and the secretary of state looks at a critical mass that is

deeply skeptical and willing to take resolute action. and that revolution that i heard for those that are committed to preserve the deal or we don't know how much because we have not read everything. but but if you get down to the core of what the prime minister said it wasn't reveal

a new set of facts to remind audiences in particular one member that this is a regime that cannot be trusted and counter to the spirit and the letter of the jcpoa and it wasn't intended to convince as much as to reinforce the direction he is headed. i think that is a good frame because the united states hasn't away from the deal would also the way to bridge

the two sides that you talk about at the same time that supplemental agreement that is so robust and powerful that i ran walks away from this coalition with new restrictions on ballistic missile or expanded access and things that have been signaled clearly they are not willing to accept. at the end of the day we will have and then where you are heading next? this has been occupying various agencies within the u.s. government for quite a while. i would argue that the state department national security council really need to focus

on three main major problems. on the day after jcpoa. the first is military because it is not an exaggeration to say the last decade they have those that posted publicly for force capital. but stretching all the way from the territory to the eastern mediterranean because of the fertility and the shia

militia beholden to iran because iran controls the ground in the battle states and because it controls five proxy lebanon because of that relationship with hezbollah. >> and you have a matter of intense concern even more for the allies that are not separated from iran's expansion by geography. in particular to end up there but the israelis are very concerned this project has brought iran which they consider the existential threat much closer to their boundaries than ever before that the second military problem is looking at a new legion and to unpack this a

little bit has a standing army with a conventional force with the iran-iraq war and it has a clear mobile army with the revolutionary guard and this is proactive and the diversity and that expeditionary terrorist asked abroad the revolutionary guard is instrumental to establish a third foreign legion ti but

normally it is what i stack but now it is a very personal for those that are on the ground and it must be addressed as we think strategically about the space. >> the that center of gravity is from the revolutionary guard corps which is more than enough force but the economic powerhouse and buy calculations they control one third more viewing and that means that through measures of economic pressure then open

that strategy and our water carrier was designated but to devote those time and resources to bring them into the syria fear.

and we will need new pressure on man but it is that true is him strategy that is interesting to watch over the last several months the iranians think how to and iran has changed but to get to those things like that coi coin -- bitcoin with crypto

currency to make them more difficult for the united states and those partners to access it is a crucial point because our sanctions need to move to where the money is and the last point is that we need to focus something that we haven't done the protest broke out the team may -- through 2017 are less large but more so sustained they suggest a fundamental structure between the people and the oppressive richie that controls them and our and during the protests

bed then spent a lot of but if we want a sustained effort to convince or engage the iranian people we have to do a lot of other things including systematic reform of the tools by which we reached out with.

>> the order has to be said and is but we don't know what will happen on may 12 but we do understand a moment going to. >> i hope he had that since september of last year. connect for the first time from the direct military confrontation between the state of israel and iran, with

iran and in israeli airspace and we hope it should not be a portend of things to come but it is clear has making it increasingly dangerous and urgent to outwit those

expectations we see that are likely to that then but then deal with that issue with north korea that some people say that walking away from the iran deal undermines u.s. leverage with north korea and

other say looking back in history the x is still alive and well with one of the strong reasons to suspect i wouldn't say close allies ballets of convenience so i will ask each of you in order what link if any do you see between the two issues and how does that proceed going forward? >> ilan berman is right traditionally playing what about me somebody else get greater benefit but there is a pattern that the united states under multiple administrations have not been willing to allow the north koreans to get away with actively cheating on previous agreements energy for

you now that north korea announces they are ready to de-nuclearization there was a declaration they agreed to make there is a reason our founding fathers but with those efforts from the

lobbyist come out with it consistently see to rationally eyes. >> it may seem counterintuitive but i take the current administration more seriously. >> i think that's well said. there has been a lot and with

that inauguration and the weed just did not now and that you say what you think that the north koreans will be upset.

but you are on a couch with your therapist talking about donald trump. he wrote that deal with iran. i don't feel like i like him right now. no. the state has a really your throat.

>> we could continue the pressure but it will not go away but actually that is what is happening. is it because he doesn't hold two agreements. is a dictator and so what we said is the better and more successful the possibilities are both. >> i think that is absolutely right that my sense is that this discussion we are having in the likely outcome of what happens later in the month should be clarified for the north koreans because it provides an opportunity to message about the durability or the permanent if you look

there was a poll that was done in may 2016 that americans oppose the jcpoa on a margin of two/one so obama ran through a deeply unpopular agreement and that is why that site is having problems now because the agreement as the trip administration approaches north korea it's can point to the difficulties politically the jcpoa is having here is how the system actually works and you have to give me more so they believe that you are here otherwise this will go shortly away to after i'm gone

is strengthen the physician of the goal linkage and maintenance for with north korea threatened to draw from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty the legal consensus is that countries can walk away but only after they have all the concerns that developed under their membership which means as north korea found out that is not a magic formula for ridding itself of these concerns that have developed over the decades. >> opening up to questions from the audience he should be

questions and not statements and keep them short. wait for the microphone. ambassador? >> please comment on the extent of the disagreements within the western alliance are undermining this process and how the impact they will have on our ability going forward? >> think it would be ridiculous to suggest there would not be reputational damage but my point was however going back to the clinton administration even upset over unilateral sanctions that just the sheer

size of the market from those that could be targeted like libya and iran leaving them to settle down and when it comes to the financial sanctions to help implement that certainly seems to be the key issues so yes they will complain but no it isn't a ladle low as some like to portray and i would just add that shouldn't underestimate the impact that revelation may have on this issue and we still see the pm putting up the front making statements with a tremendous amount of commercial pressure to make those statements until

such time as the president proposes a sanction will not reveal sources but there are conversations going on in berlin and europe people who are really affect that they feel they were duped. they are very cruel vase and that they made a commitment now faced with the reality that iran did not uphold its commitment so that is a contradiction they can't get through and they want to see the documents but in the end today there was a document proposed steps european union could take and trade wars et

cetera doing business through deutsche bank and regular banks and to open yourself to money laundering concerns and all the crazy things still the world's leading we want to make nuclear weapons. so there has to be a step back we are not happy that donald trump did this but are we going to come up with crazy ideas? i certainly hope not that would be unbelievable.

>> and my reading that it smacks of desperation in a desperate bid to save the deal so that goes to that dilemma if anybody tells you and with the trading partners that simply that is not correct. and then to re-create and in its negotiating process to create an environment that the coalition was fundamentally

broken as it begins to think the sanctions are broken so the center of gravity is to convince those allies in those countries that have a huge stake consequences to do so. for alliance completion with the response or terrorism. >> for looking at the world we also have other countries that are importers and history and precedent knowing who will evade sanctions and who

doesn't. if you are watching you and you are cross the ocean. if i was treasury department overlook very closely and say don't do it. but if you are in europe there are so many other things or topics so there will be a momentary fizzle but after that there is russia and china and trade issues. >> this is curiosity i am one of the millions and millions of people who voted for donald trump and we voted on this issue and have no other word for former president or secretary of state or my senator has endangered all of us. is there one thing we got out

of it? do you have an answer one thing we got out of it that makes the united states safer. i don't know? >> im critical of the deal and have always been critical ed to give an honest recitation of what proponents of the deal said and true believers i am throwing out there were two main strands. one was this was a moment that by engaging the so-called reformist we could put them over the top but i disagree with this but i'm just giving recitation that they play good cop bad cop but the other aspect this would and the

pathways to the nuclear weapon and that is proven false. when they said this is the toughest inspection regimen? they agreed with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty there is 129 companies at the very niche you can say it has the 13h most robust inspection regime where i think a lot of people share your frustration and this is one of the reasons why it did not pass the smell test. >> the line that you hear a lot in a moment of honesty that they say it bought us time and delayed the crisis we don't have to face nuclear

weapons today. it bothers time. the supreme leader will die, something will happen we bought time. so what we learned this week is the iranians brought themselves sometime. not us. they use this to expand and advance region and to keep all equipment facilities in place and we could do with a nuclear crisis today there under stress internally they don't have nuclear weapons was those longer-range missiles we can wait ten years that they are

stronger have the missiles perfected with all of the capabilities there a crisis if you confronted now or later we are stronger now to confront that don't let that dynamic changes. >> so the really good question is why i did not beholden now but what are they trying to do? assuming they were acting in good faith? one was a fundamental misreading illusory performance challenge andrew

honey by the way was one of the original revolutionaries that stepped up came back from exile in 1979. he would be a little more of company man but i'm just saying. but there is a permanent conversation about the internal struggle and balance between liberal forces and conservative forces. i would argue there is a struggle but you see these protesters and women in prison for taking off their headscarf not wanting to live under sharia law that is a marriage more fundamental part. and the psychological dynamic that the psychologist has the pavlovian response the obama administration commenced itself there was a binary choice to make either the deal

war war. you could argue that is not the case i don't believe those were the only two options but if you perceive from there then even a terrible deal that only delays but does not divert is a good thing and that is what the conversation has been. >> also a belief in the obama administration that if we only showered them with trade we could join the international community often times proponents would say the bush administration would try coercion. many centrifuge and --dash enter fusions of course that doesn't work but 1998 through 2005 european union under the idea during the same time.

it went up all -- it quintupled. so 70% of that covert nuclear ballistic missile program that is the indication why iran had a massive expansion in the first decade not because of too much coercion but too much diplomacy. >> is it legally possible if trump uses to withdraw from the ideal to unilaterally impose the sanction that says all transactions to and from iran prohibited from u.s. financial system?

>> yes. first of all, yes, the u.s. unilateral sanctions when you try to boil it down it is hard to understand what we talk abou about, there are bilateral sanctions on iran that have been in place from the beginning of the islamic republic and we started increasing on terrorist attacks but to go back, we have never really back down for a company to do business with those humanitarian channels. and iran cannot do a transaction that brings the money over here.

what we decided to do it on 2010 and 2012 and 2013 was the idea we can leverage our financial system against the rest of the world and make them choose. whether your bank of america does a transaction, we can already make that happen. but how do you make sure deutsche bank isn't doing those transactions? that is the law that we passed. if you are a european bank if you hold correspondence accounts with the central bank of iran assuming the president does not renew the waiver it is illegal under u.s. law for that transaction to occur and

the penalty that is mandatory is to deny you or somehow constrict your own correspondence payable accounts with u.s. banks. you are jeopardizing your entire access to the u.s. financial system which is catastrophic which means it doesn't only just apply to a bank but you all the companies that need banks to do deals. so overnight everybody with a corporate attorney with any multinational corporation puts a memo to everybody in your business and says hall all further business with iran until we can figure out what is going on. i had an immediate impact on the regime. all the iranian accounts overseas from the central bank go on lockdown and cannot move

the money to go into escrow. you can imagine what that means for the iranian regime right now that has so much stress to combine the two extreme traits in drawdown of foreign exchange reserves most likely that is the only way to avoid price hikes internally know you don't have access to the reserves. that's why we see saber rattling. it is a lot of pressure. it can happen overnight. that is the may 12 function not just by itself in our other banks and we took them off of the blacklist under the t5 the swiss system in europe that processes the electronic system they reconnected the central bank and iranian banks we passed a law that said the president could impose is on those board members if they do

not disconnect including the central bank specifically. that is a big? would they will do afterwards to ensure that that happens. >> with that thank you to the panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> you can imagine these are two married couples, and they occupy the same bed. that is how they set up the two separate households about 1 mile from each other. and they start to a very rigid schedule that they would say that they live in one house

for three days with chang's wife and during the three days chang is the master of the house and can do whatever he wants and his brother gives up his free will. then the three days later they moved to the other house and he is the master of the house and chang will give up his free will and it worked. apparently. they had 21 children.