that sort of -- conflict will be bad or will be contained. that would be the one thing that american foreign policy makers have to cope their eyes on. >> thank you. timing actually if we can bring you again on the same question so looking forward to the next 12 months the biggest challenges and potential opportunities that you see. and u.s. iraq relationship. >> yeah. no it is a great question. i was recently in a conversation to ambassador of the united states who said something similar he said this is in context of the iraq engagement program and you have to stop looking at iraq as a problem but as an opportunity. and that may actually be as a lot of folks who they've pointed out that may be the biggest challenge is finding those opportunities that get beyond security -- security cooperations. but right now our biggest window in security cooperation and this is something with security

sector reform is going to require kind of rethink how we are -- how we can do that in a way that brings about or supports kind of institution reforms that -- that the iraqi security sector needs if we can't do that, it will be pretty much more of the status quo. ... government is one mediator and actor that brings instability of the region. for years it was embroiled and roars constantly been the aggressor. our rock really wants to move

past that and has been working on that even with regards to the recent conflict in the region. it is meant very difficult to balance iran and the u.s. i think there is potential in the year going forward to that become untenable. truly i have never been an appointment in the middle east where i don't know it's going to happen next in terms of whether were going to be approaching something that is impossible to come back from. iraq us right in the middle of that. the presence of u.s. troops in iraq on one hand suggests maybe israel will not attack iraq because it is not the retaliation to be on the united states. but, at the same time i do not know if that will deter israel. it creates problems for iraq and if it's being attacked, how's it going to retaliate? the potential that to go downhill is stronger than it has ever been. it's a problem for the iraqi

government for years. both in the united states and iran have costley pushed and pushed for dominance and hegemony in the country. i think the successful side is a side that understands iraq was to be a mediator and constantly looking at a source of threat in the region or something on which they have to intervene strongly to reform institutions. the prior panel is talking about i think 360 relation. emphasizing person-to-person food. these kinds of things i want to bring an example for my own experience on academic. i recently found it difficult to work with the iraqi academics particularly but we are looking for shared funding. because of the sanctions on the iraqi minister of higher education. trickle-down to every professor in iraq. it is nice to hear things about

iraq in the u.s. wanting to have a good relationship. but even the most innocuous relationship which is the research project between two professors which ought to be honest no one reads anything academic appeared it's not going to amount to huge difference in the world. everyone in this relationship has said something and acted in a different way. that's the biggest trouble going forward. >> have any of these sanctions think it's the banking sector is subject to some u.s. measures is that impacting things of your perspective? >> definitely in the sector you are seeing some of the sanctions play out. but again, what is important is the reform continues to progress because at the end of the day iraq has to part of the global economy. in order to do so the financial services and capitol flow is

absolutely critical to the iraq's future in micro economies. to getting that right is very important. what course it can cause difficulties in the short term. in the long term does reap results. one of the big opportunities we see historically a lot of u.s. companies have been doing business with the government of iraq. what they have not been focused on is the iraqi private sector. granted it's a small private sector. focusing on those companies big can do business with is important. it is an area that we as the chamber we are going to focus on going forward is to try to help develop more of business-to-business partnerships and taken government and a back seat perhaps. do not get me wrong. they're going to continue to pursue opportunities with the

government. i think it is important to look for those opportunities with the business community as well. prior panel on the business side there were some furniture analogy to the stool of different pegs on the stool. the economic as part of the 360 that is important to give more attention the other penalty they talked about visions, visions for different economies across the region. keep with the furniture analogy the vision can create at la-z-boy approach and you kind of sit there without doing the work. the challenge is to focus on the economic leg of the stool. as the development built roadmaps that are five or 10 years out promo for government the private sector the stakeholder community to work

together on the real tangible sometimes granular reforms that need to take place to inject more investment. to hold people accountable and make decisions. sometimes just the challenges for decisions to be made when it comes to the bureaucracy. streamlining that making those reforms on having the long-termm vision for getting into the here and now i'm making those often times in granule very specific reforms are actually critical. >> the next 12 months? >> again will be more impactful obviously the u.s. government will have opinions on some of these things. for example earlier this year that's a lot of discussion between our government on the

pipeline, the energy sector at large. also in health, agriculture and education is always government to government dialogue. i think at the end of the day the reforms are going to be driven and baghdad upping the bill that is what the business community is going to look for it. they want to be able to engage two and have a seat at the table keeping with the furniture analogy may be a large dinner table. have a seat there to share recommendations with working in other markets? what other types we need to see to create more ground up commercial activity as well. that empowers the privacy. >> thank you very much. a reminder we had questions one has come in, what lessons from the u.s. invasion of iraq can be

implemented and america's approach of expanding regional conflicts caused by the israel/hamas work? >> what lessons? assume the 2003 invasion. >> what lessons from the u.s. invasion of iraq can be implemented in its approach to expanding the conflict caused by the war? >> it is a good question. my immediate response or my immediate thought is just say no. certainly i think i guess what i don't see them progressing in the same way for the same

reasons. the escalatory dynamic that resulted in one is not exactly the same here. the idea of a permanent occupation of any area by any one is not exactly all on the table. and if it is it's more of a last resort than the first one. now, a, i don't know what i would euthanize these dead wishes try to occupy any particular territory. which tells us then we have got to figure out another way to de-escalate. and get to a point the continued fighting is no longer the best option. in terms of lessons i would

simply say i think they'll have to work with some point will have to figure out is not going to be an overthrow or defeat of any of the other side. so finding a new equilibrium means more of the focus and there becomes a de-escalating conflict. which is not exactly how things developed in 2003. >> you think we are anywhere near any kind of de-escalation? it seems like the biden administration's talk about you try to contain the conflict do you see any hopes of being real

back and examine soon? i don't know what that would look like. there is not a lot that's currently deterring israel from continuing and trying to meet its current military objectives. i don't get a sense from israel of any desire to occupy, govern, any of the areas they are currently operating. so with that off the table it is not -- without any kind of deterrence, i guess from an israeli point of view it may make sense to continue to go after what it considers capabilities at organizations as that represent a threat. i don't know what was going to put an end to that.

or on the flip side some sort of incentive to find a new medicine entity that would give response to de-escalate. but right now i don't hear anyone talking about or see any of that on the table. >> thank you. >> may ask a question? i really wanted to answer this question i've been teaching a class on the iraq war this year. i had my students go to the national security archives. one of the really interesting things they found was that the rhetoric in the '90s of the potential to have weapons of mass destruction was they won't have it in the next century. suddenly close to the war they're going to have it within the next year. i feel like i've seen the same rhetoric about iran. i just want to reinforce people who work and intelligence aren't different human beings. they have the same biases and are seen this mistake being made once more.

instant belief is a nuclear weapon the nuclear taboo subjects russia in ukraine as well i see of how completely divorced from reality it is. much less accessible country if the claimant they know and iran. not just jumping because i feel an emotional or we feel like a something must be done. really, really a dangerous position we place a lot of innocent people in the world then. we must take it must more seriously. the one lesson as they work and

intelligence and government are not more capable or more smart than the average human being. in fact been to be pressured much more. they need to be forced to track not once, not twice but 10 times before they make any statement. >> thank you brings an interesting question just to go back you help in the u.s. navigate the sustainability concerns? >> eat previous conditioning the sanctions on the reduction without the bearing. how should the u.s. navigate the promotion of sustainability concerns? without becoming overbearing? >> a big role is from our perspective from the business community is to bring the technology and make it available. not be overly prescriptive for the iraqi government has their goal to end by 2030. we want to be a partner.

how can we help you achieve your goal? i think u.s. companies have the technology, have the wherewithal so as to showing up as a partner and making sure they understand here is what our technologies can do. and here is how it can achieve that but i don't think it necessarily got involved in the policy-setting and whatnot. it's showing up and bringing our technology and capability to america. >> thank you. go back to your point about some of the intel with iran and nuclear, perhaps we can bring into the conversation. how concerned are you about going back to the 2003 question about this idea the intel is being hyped or pumped up to justify a strike. >> according to the last we heard about too have nuclear weapons, it was yesterday.

we said in a week, eight days ago. from the intelligence. that's where it is. that is why they needed to do it. so it's one 100% right on the issue. on intelligence and how to handle it in a way. it is important. there is a lot that has been said about the intelligence going into the iraq war. worse than that, the biggest failure about the intelligence failure is accountability. do not get me wrong, i'm very happy that was removed. he put my life on the line to do it and i was okay with the removal. but certainly that does not answer the question whether or not we should be careful about

intelligence. the same thing here. it's nuclear weapons are dangerous. it's a dangerous phenomenon in the modern world. probably have a different view than many other people. as when everybody has them. not the third-best, the worst is when one side has it on the other. that side that has them will always feel unchecked. they can do whatever they want because they have that strategic advantage. if we were to stick to the philosophy of having nuclear weapons which is a short destruction and deterrence that it prevents conflict. had happened with india and pakistan for a while.

i do not know if it would work in the middle east. that is a different scenario. it's the curse of our generation. since they came into the world and people started to give nuclear weapons. they are a bad phenomenon as we said. people feel they could get away with what others don't. i don't know. the other question which is important can you prevent somebody from having them if they have the capability? that is the question. the iranians for example to have the capabilities to enrich. they have a lot of expertise. at the end of the day if they decide what their claim is they

do not want to use them. this depending upon the circumstances. there are other people if the iranians would have it i'm sure the saudi's would want to have it and may be others who have the memes. it is a problem. i do not see a way to prevent somebody from having nuclear weapons if they already have a program set they are having them. >> the iran backed groups that deal in iraq are they still taking their orders from tehran or do they have control over them at all? >> is a complicated sort of relationship. on mutual interests collapsed to

the save the day? some of them are working very well with the iraqi government. and now they aren't public supporting the approach of the iraqi government. for regional some of them proudly and now they take and they take their instruction they would take their instruction so

the priorities are to defend the priorities for the rest of the world. they are strong second they are working is not on the top of the list of priorities for the iraqi government. it's also from iraq he government perspective maybe having a simple war on your hands part of your military goes against it. and your security forces i believe the best solution for the problem to implement the 2016 this was supposed to tackle the issue in the right way.

so far we have three prime ministers actually for this not taken upon themselves for this law and put it in force. of the laws on the books. they do not need to have any special genius to solve the problem. which tells you how hard the situation is not simple to look out. a lot of the decisions are being made and iraq are based on the current equilibrium of security in iraq. the iraq east don't want to risk disturbing the current equilibrium that's happening.

not to mention why the united states because isis is still a threat. and we need their weapons. they are helping us. and they use also the same. when you tell them they say once wantto defeat isis come to us. i say go home. this excuse or this is a reason if you will has given by everybody for various purposes but there respective purposes. >> thank you. tony, isis is still a threat how big of a threat do you perceive it to be? >> it is a good question. what i would point out i think it would be hard to get good numbers for it.

i think it's down but not out. this goes back to something we were talking about a little earlier whether the tolerance would be for the extra year of u.s. basically look at the forces or troops in the curtis region supporting syria. a key factor in the ability of groups like isis to sustain themselves as having a safe haven. so if we are not able to degrade isis operation in syria and a presence in syria to a way that presence in syria is not able to sustain their operations in iraq, is going to become a bigger threat. a lot will hinge on what we are able to do. not just on iraq and keeping it manageable there but degrading the capability to research and grow again by getting at the safe haven. i think that will be investment that will determine a lot and which way the trajectory goes.

>> thank you. we have a few minutes left. a couple questions have come in for this is in general. going back to the question of the policy potentially changing with new administration what ideally will be the pillar of a long-term bipartisan u.s. strategy toward relationship building in iraq? i'll start with you steve. >> regardless of who is in the white house, will enable a top pivoting away from the middle east. that's usually military assets and geopolitics. but i would say he was in businesses are going to continue to be focused on iraq and looking at opportunities. the key to that future is creating the business climate and a lot has a policy regulatory environment, rule of law, confidence and certainty in

what you're investing into. creating a business environment for long-term investment. not just one and done is going to be critical to iraq's economy in the future of attracting american western investment. >> and perhaps of i might be idealistic but more straightforward policy it would be very much welcome the pedal middle east. it's intrinsically tied as a region. about palestine and 11 on in the security. >> thank you. >> optimistic i would look at and refer to so far the relations between iraq and the united states. even if we take the last administrations i think we had a good relation so far.

two countries that work there very difficult challenges. and again relations were collapsing somehow people who are working from both sides working on the relationships came up with solutions. and came up with solutions and also agreements. i think one of the hardest questions is this idea of whether or not the united states troops will stay in iraq. those of us who are watching the relations back in 2020 thought that u.s./iraq relations came to a point of the cliff. in the two administration compromised -- went to governments compromised. a series of agreements that made it work. i think that is also -- steve

was just talking about this and also the relationships are not monotonic right now and if you years ago we have a more diversified relation. we have good war between the two countries. i am very optimistic that whatever the administration comes next time, the project will not be affected negatively. >> thank you privileges have time to tell you jimmy closing thoughts on that question? >> i will just say it real quickly and agree with what everyone else said. if this theme is going to be treating iraq as more of an opportunity, not a problem. for governments in particular can be a help a nonprofit and so on manage the risk i don't mean

physical risk but iraq is a very different place to operate. to underwriting the risk for businesses or expertise and navigate it will go a long way to expanding on those opportunities. >> thank you very much. thank you to all the excellent panelists for very interesting conversation today. it's been a pleasure talking with you. thank you very much. [applause] mocha here's what's ahead on c-span2 a discussion about rhetoric in the democratic party mission candidates to replace rob menendez and the u.s. senate and human rights