impose the most far reaching sanctions that iran has ever faced. as a result iran finds itself increasingly isolated from the international community. it find it harder than ever to acquire the materials for its nuclear and weapons programs and to conduct transactions in dollars and euros. it is unable it access 70% of its foreign currency reserves at this point. it has struggled to buy refined petroleum and the goods it needs to modernize its oil and gas sector. already, already close to $60 billion in iranian energy-related projects have been put on hold or simply shut down. no funds. world-leading companies are deciding to stop doing business there. i'll give you a list because it's pretty impressive. it's a partial list -- shell,

total, e&i, stott oil, repsol, luke oil, which is russian, that's significant in and of itself, kia, toyota, siemens, and many others. and this is true, too, by the way, of the foreign subsidiaries of u.s. firms such as g.e., honey well, caterpillar, and a number of others. now most recently the administration worked with congress to make sanctionable a host of transactions involving the central bank of iran. and we are now working with partners to implement this new law in a way that maximizes pressure on the iranian regime. and the regime is feeling the pressure. there's no doubt about that. in fact, you don't have to take my word for it. here's what iran's president, mahmoud ahmadinejad, said about sanctions to iran's parliament late last year -- and this is the guy who a year before had

told the same audience that western sanctions were a hanky that he blows his nose in, okay? this is -- it's not exactly a refined guy. [ laughter ] >> anyway, this is what he said much more recently. "the west has imposed the most extensive and dastardly sanctions ever. every day, all our banking and trade activities and our agreements are being monitored and blocked. this is the heaviest economic onslaught on a nation in history." that's mahmoud ahmadinejad. now the purpose of this pressure is not punishment. it's not what we're trying to do. it is to convince iran that the price to be paid for pursuing a nuclear weapons capability is too high. and the time is now to make good on its commitment to the

international community. but iran's leader should have no doubt about the resolve of the united states or about israel's sovereign right to defend itself. as the president has said, we take no options off the table. of course, iran's nuclear program is not the only regional issue that is of concern to israel or its leaders. in a period of sweeping regional change that brings new opportunities but also new challenges and uncertainties, the united states will continue to bear israel's security in mind as we develop and implement our foreign policy in response to these challenges. concerning israel's neighbor, syria, we believe that the longer assad remains in power, the greater the risk that his brutal tactics will destabilize syria and possibly the region. for that reason, we are working with our international partners to pressure assad to step down

as soon as possible so that a syrian-led stable and democratic transition can get going. in egypt we have supported the historic transition to democracy that began last spring. this will continue to be a bumpy ride. as egyptians debates freely the big issues of the day for the first time in many decades. this is a country where politics was frozen for 40 years. it's now just thawing out. and as egyptians begin to build the institutions that will secure their future, amid these ups and downs, as we support universal principles of democracy and individual rights, we will also continue to do all we can to protect the egypt/israel peace treaty and the relationship between israel and egypt that has anchored regional security for so long. in conclusion, let me turn

briefly to middle east peace. one of the most critical and probably one of the more elusive of america's foreign policy goals. israel's own leaders -- just take this as baseline -- understand the imperative of peace, and they speak about it. prime minister netanyahu, defense minister barak, president paris have each called for two states -- a secure israel that lives side by side with an independent palestinian state. that vision is profoundly in israel's security interest, and the best solution to the host of challenges it faces from shifting demographics that will eventually jeopardize its status as a jewish democracy to emerging weapons technologies, to the challenges afoot in the region. peace is also the only sure way for the palestinian people to realize their legitimate and

long-standing aspiration for a state of their own. as vice president biden has said, in president abbas and prime minister fayad, israel has partners who share the goal of peace. all that said, you know as i do peace will be very difficult to achieve. america, too, has a profound interest in peace in both israel and the palestinians continue to believe that our involvement is important to making progress. both israel and the palestinians want the united states to persevere. so as president obama said recently, while there are those who question whether this goal will ever be reached, we will make no apologies for continuing to pursue peace. and that is why from the president down, we remain deeply engaged with israel and palestinians and continue to work toward a resumption of direct negotiations.

earlier this year, king abdul h abdullah's government hosted a set of serious and meaningful discussions between the parties in jordan. in a more recent example of direct contact between the parties, a pair of palestinian envoys carried a letter from president abbas to prime minister netanyahu on april 17. we believe that such contacts are essential for progress and were encouraged by the fact that the parties put out a statement following that meeting, reaffirming their commitment to peace. at the same time, of course, syria's challenges remain, and we're not oblivious to them. we have made no secret of our concern about the great. s between -- agreements between fattah and hamas. our policy on hamas has not changed. it is designated as a foreign terrorist organization. and to play any role in achieving peace and building an. in state, it must renounce violence, recognize israel and

adhere to previous agreements. we believe that president abbas remains committed to these principles, and he has told us that any government he leads will remain committed to them, too. president obama has made clear there will be no lasting peace until israel's security concerns are met, period. to summarize, the u.s. government has done more to ensure israel's security under the president's leadership than under any previous administration. from providing record level security assistance that is saving lives to leading vigorous diplomacy that is defending israel at the u.n., to championing sanctions against iran, our record is rock solid. based on my experience working these issues day in and day out, i can assure you that israel's

security its at the top of the agenda of president obama's national security team. and as for the -- [ applause ] >> and as for the president himself, he said he has israel's back, and he meant it. and that's one of the reasons why i'm very proud to serve in this administration. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. [ applause ] can everybody be seated, please?

>> welcome back to the morning session of the national leadership conference of the anti defamation league, one of the nation's premiere sieve rights and human relation -- civil rights and human relations agencies. thank you for being here this morning. i'd like to introduce our experts round table on this next topic and to call on national commissioner and regional board chair from new england, michael sheetz. [ applause ] >> okay, good morning again. the intense focus on promoting arab-israeli peace that once dominated america's middle east policy agenda has taken a back seat to concern about seismic shifts underway in places like egypt and syria. the arab uprisings have brought about profound political and

regional upheaval. it will be years before we can truly assess its lasting impact, but for now, the uprisings have shaken up some of the foundations upon which u.s. policy has been based. at the same time, leaders across the international community find their attention shifting to iran's march to nuclear weapons capability and the often heated debate over options to confront it. we've just heard from president obama's top adviser on national security in the middle east. and now we're privileged to have with us a panel of veteran policy analyst. each will share with us their views of the challenges facing the administration and their vision for the best way for the u.s. to move forward. dr. aaron david miller, who's second to my left, is a public policy fell toe woodrow wilson international center for

scholars where he wrote his fourth book, the much too promised land, america's elusive search for arab-israeli peace. he served six secretaries of state as an adviser on middle east peacemaking and u.s. policy throughout the region. dr. miller also served as a senior member of the state department's policy planning staff and in the bureau of intelligence and research. david mckoskey who is at the end to my left is the ziegler distinguished fellow and director of washington institute's project on the middle east peace process. he co-authored with dennis ross the book "myths, illusions, and peace, finding a new direction in the middle east." before joining the washington institute, mr. mckofsky was an award-winning journalist based in israel where he covered the peace process for "the jerusalem post," and "u.s. news & world

report." danielle pletka, third to the left, is vice president for foreign and policy studies at the american enterprise institute. before joining the institute, she served for ten years as a senior professional staff member for near east and south asia on senate foreign relations committee. she writes frequently on national security matters with a focus on domestic politics in the middle east and south asia, u.s. national security and terrorism and weapons proliferation. adl first began working with ms. pletka when she worked for the later senate helms, crafting important counterterrorism legislation at a time when the threat of terrorism against americans was seen as remote to all but a few courageous legislators. we're also gratified to have with us washington bureau chief of the jewish telegraphic

agency. ron campius covers these issues in the halls of government day in and day out. his blog, capitalj, is a must read for beltway insiders following politics and issues of importance to the jewish community. ron will give the floor to each of our panelists to open with a few remarks and engage them in discussion before he takes questions from the audience. please consider what questions you'll have. there are mics around the room. make sure when you ask a question that you give us your name and your region. thank you all for taking time to be with us today. [ applause ] >> our order today is going to be aaron, david, dani, add, appropriate considering both my profession and topic. so we're going to start with dani pletk -- aaron. sorry, i was looking at you. i told you. >> i have an option to speak

from here or -- >> you can speak from the podium if you like. >> i will. first of all, it's an honor and privilege for me to be here today. a few shout outs, abe fox -- where you are? extraordinary member of the jewish community and extraordinary american, someone who has done what few have done, that is to establish a close personal relationship with my father. abe, it's really, really good to see you. [ laughter ] >> finally to barry and gaye from cleveland, barry, we're going to see you tomorrow night. lindsay's really looking forward to. it i can't imagine anyone with more integrity and more passion to assume their responsibilities. adl is an extraordinary organization, and i'm really, really pleased and happy about your new role. [ applause ] >> i've had the honor and privilege over the course of a quarter century of providing good and bad advice to half a dozen secretaries of state. when the advice was bad, it

flowed from one primary mistake. that is to see the world the way i or we wanted it to be rather than the way it was. we do not have the luxury, the time, or, frankly, the power in this country any more to harbor and abide illusions. and illusions in life can be very dangerous. they're endearing because you cannot just see the world the way it is. if we all saw the world the way it was only, nothing would change. but if you choose to see the world the way you want it to be, without taking into account the way it really is, your policy -- and i speak from great experience here -- will fail. i want to make three general observations and then deal quickly with a situation in iran, syria, the arab/israeli peace process and the arab spring. and i promise to do this in under ten minutes. number one -- [ laughter ] >> we are in an investment trap. we are a great power in an investment trap in this broken, dysfunctional, angry region.

we cannot fix it, and we cannot ex-trick indicate ourselves from it. this is the worst position in my judgment for a great power, no, the greatest power on earth to be in. forget transformation. american interests and policy in the middle east is not about transformation. it's about transaction. it's about survival and protecting core specials. and frankly, we'll be lucky and fortunate if we can do that. core interests, preventing another attack on the continental united states. the organizing principle of any nation's foreign policy. if you can't protect your homeland, you can't need a foreign policy. ner 9/11 was the second bloodiest day in history. 9/11 is not a footnote, it is not a historical memory, it is a reminder of our vulnerabilities. preventing weapons of mass destruction, maintaining access to energy, security for the state of israel. i would argue when you strip it all away, these are our core interests. the other two, promotion of

arab/-israeli peacemaking and doing what we can to bring transparency, pluralism, respect for human rights, gender equality to an arab world in the process of change. to me is t's goi-- to me it's g be a very tough proposition. if you cannot change history, you better be very careful. if you don't get out of its way, you can easily be run over by it. we need to keep this in mind as we deal with these issues. number two, street credibility. street credibility in this region is everything. and frankly, we are very low on it. we are extricating ourselves from the two longest wars in american history. they were arguably after the first year in afghanistan in my judgment discretionary wars. they were not wars necessity, they were wars of choice. and in wars of discretion you better know what you're doing because the standards for success in a war of discretion rather than a war necessity are

very high. and i would argue to you that in both of these wars, what we have paid for what we have received, there's a huge disconnect. victory for us means not can you win but when can you leave. and for a great power, this is the worst possible set of consequences because it -- it has resulted in a situation and helped to promote a situation where we are neither admired, feared, nor respected in this region as much as we need to be. finally, leadership. in my judgment, forget leadership in washington for a moment. i have -- forget leadership in washington for a moment. i'm talking about leadership out there. if i were to tell you that between 1920 and 1950 six human beings were responsible for most of the death, destruction, devastation and prospects of peace and prosperity for much of the western world, six people,

it would simply drive home the core point -- leaders, what they do for good or ill, is critically important to whether the world gets better. better. and we have, my judgment, a profound absence of leadership. just about everywhere. and this by the way is pot something confined only to the arab and muslim world. israel also has its own leadership crisis. lack of street credibility. everybody says no to america without cost or consequence he's days and the absence of leadership. tease are the three issues which will continue to dog and hound our policy. now, just a quick regional tour.

iran. the issue of the nuclear issue in iran cuts to the core of one fundamental question. and that is do they want to acquire the capacity, about it not, the actual stockpile of nuclear weapons. that is the core issue it seems to me. there are five permanent members of security council, they all have nuclear weapons. outside of those five, there are four additional powers that have them. north korean, indian, pakistanis and israelis. three driven by a profound sense of security and entitlement. the worst possible combination in a nation, even worse in a human being, someone who is profoundly insecure but yet who has visions of grandiosity. and iran is the poster child for this. so the answer to the question does iran want the capacity to acquire a weapon so?

absolutely. will they acquire one? there is only one country that will prevent that a from happening. if they choose to decide the costs are prohibitive, 2012, will there will nobody war, no deal. this is a 2013 problem. and ultimately it will be a problem that the united states fundamentally is going to have to wrestle with. syria. the situation there will continue until two things occur. number one, the russians can be persuaded from their policy and there will be some fundamental change on the ground. right now you don't even have a hurting stalemate. you have a situation where the regime still controls the instruments of state power. the opposition will not break. but neither can it cause the regime to break. now, what to do with this will? this will of course is the great conundrum.

what do we do. and here again, i am a believer. if the united states determines that it is in its vital national interests to remove this regime, then it should act comprehensively and decisively in an effort to do it. if it does not believe it is in the vital national interests to remove, and in my judgment it is not a vital national interest, we should stay out. and certainly not adopt the kind of half baked ill advised half measures that will get us into a military commitment without producing the desired results. arab israeli peace. let me be very clear on this. it is now closed for the season. it is missing these things. it is not not happening because of some met take physical

reason. it is simply missing three things.physical reason. it is simply missing three things. number ones leaders on each side prepared to pay the price if a conflict ending resolution. neither side is prepared to pay that price. two, the urgency that is required to make these decisions. nations let people take decisions for one of two reasons. either process spepgt spects of gain. without pain, disincentives, or gain, incentive, you have the status quo. manageable, painful, uncomfortable, but it does not change. and there is no example in the history of arab israeli peace making where in it fact you can make progress without leaders who are masters of their constituencies, or without urgency. and finally, the third missing ingredient, if you had the first two, if you had the first two,

would be an administration who was prepared to be reassuring enough, tough if you have, and pair enough to actually serve as an effective mediator. now, we haven't had one of those for a while. even i will continue to disagree on this. i just attendeded saturday night jim baker's 82nd birthday party. now, i admire jim baker. i really admire him. he was tough, he was unseptember mental, and he locked horns with many in the american you jewish community. but ultimately the policies he understood benefited not only the united states, but the state of israel. and the arab world as it was at the time. so you give me those three factors, you give them back to me or create them, we can have a real peace process. if not, this is an illusion which may be about our interests to maintain, but it is still an

illusion. finally, president obama. let me be very clear. this president i think has learned a great deal about american interests in this region. he came wanting to bend the trajectory of american foreign policy, to transform temperature about i think he quickly understood that was simply not possible. i would give him relatively high marks, no spectacular achievements with the exception of killing osama bin tacular fa. and the revision niss on eisenhower argue his greatness as a president lay in what he didn't do and an english general was quoted as saying some of my greatest victories lay in the battles i did not fight. we have to be very clear here. when we project our power,

economic, military, and diplomatic, and why. and frankly, i think obama has learned much from will this. some say he's leading from behind. it's a ridiculous expression, but it reflects something extremely important. because if leading from the front means iraq, if leading from the front means a badly mismanaged dilutionary policy in afghanistan, about it leading from the front means bringing american credibility and setting america up for failure, well, i don't want america to lead from the front. last point. barack obama is different. i voted for him. not because i knew who he was, not because he could transform america. i voted for him because only we of any democratic in in the

world, including the french and british could have done what we did in 2008, and that is to elect a man of color whose wife is a direct descendant of shaves to the presidency of united states. that is a transformative act.las to the presidency of united states. that is a transformative act.ve to the presidency of united states. that is a transformative act.ae to the presidency of united states. that is a transformative act.ves to the presidency of united states. that is a transformative act. whether i'll vote for him again or not is another matter. but i'll just make this one respect to the israelis. i've watched presidents and secretaries of state. this is not bill clinton when it comes to israel. this is not george w. bush when it comes to israel. this is not a man who instinctively and emotionally understands or bonds with israe israelis. he's much less sentimental, much less forgiving. netanyahu would describe him as bluntless. if he could, if he could, he would bring to bear an enormous

amount of pressure. an effort to facilitate a solution. he may or may not have the chance. and finally, i'm writing a book have another great president. and i'll close with a phrase of the last president who had an emotional impact on me, jack kennedy, who described -- i was 12 when he was assassinated, described himself as an idealist without illusion. that's where america should be, never giving up on the possibility that the world can be made a better place. every religion has a concept for it. improving imperfect world. but as we go through this process of improvement, of reform, we better go through it with our eyes open because the cost and consequences of not having our eyes open have now back prohibitive. thank you very much. [ applause ]