coal keeps the lights on. for kentucky and for the nation. i wanted to do sue to a man who will speak for kentucky coal miners today. as a fifth-generation coal man, he truly understands the central role that coal place and in our economy and in our history and yes, in our future. his great-grandfather was a coal miner. his father managed large coal mines. today he is the president of service at a coal service company. he knows full well how kentucky coal miners work 14 hour days to bring affordable energy to the state and the country. youhe works just as hard himself. if you're truly interested in learning -- listening to the people whose lives you will affect the most, listen to the

wisdom and experience. i would like now to call for his observations. >> thank you, senator. first off, i'm president of the james river whole company. i very much appreciate invitation today from senator mcconnell to come speak with you. i left yesterday after a 48 hour workday, over two days. we furloughed or laid off for 200 employees. our company as a whole over the last six months has had to do that for many employees. these are communities of just 1000 or 2000 people or 3000 people.

when you have that type of economic impact due to regulations, and many of which are regulations that come from washington, that have very little understanding of what the outcome is for the local folks, for folks who get up and go to work everyday, the impact will mean for their families, that is wrong. obviously we're having hearings today in d.c. this is not my first visit here. i have been here on numerous occasions. i very much wish and invite you to coal country. you have heard people speak that they are from coal country erie to some of those folks -- from coal country. there are thousands of folks would love the opportunity to sit and discuss with you the issues that they have at hand.

those issues are basic -- they want a job and go to work and provide for families and provide college educations and have a decent retirement. it could be as simple as they want to buy a bass boat. it is american dream. without coal, without the industry that provides jobs, we have very little left. there might be alternative fuel measures that you can pop out of the fuel work but at this point, there is no alternative. asked the real people of coal country. if you take away our livelihood, i do not know what we have left here again, i invite you to coal country. >> thank you. we will go ahead and take a 10 minute break. 10 minutes, and we will

reconvene in 10. >> on this veterans day, washington journal is devoting the entire program to issues important to veterans. first, the foreign policy

research institute. dividek about the between the citizens and military. after that, the editor of military.com stop he talks about efforts to fund service members jobs when they return from overseas. and, the problems facing veterans. v.a..ing, the backlog of we are joined. washington journal is live every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. congress would be out of session in observance of veterans day. both will return on tuesday. the house will consider a series of suspension bills. is set aside, time for general speeches until 4:30 p.m.

senators will move forward on a debate for the d c circuit court of appeals. tore will also be a bill broaden the oversight of compounding pharmacies. the senate is live on c-span. items, whichhose oddly capitol hill reporter. >> humberto sanchez is a staff writer with "roll call." budget and senate conferees hold that house and senate conferees hold budget talks. what is their status? >> they continued to try to find common ground on the goal of the talks. expect a lot of positioning on open positions on where the negotiations will begin. senator patter murray actually

gave a speech about what her goals are on the floor last tuesday, saying that she is looking for a budget deal for the short term, basically, and to rollback the sequester, to replace the sequester, and she is hoping that republicans go along with closing tax loopholes to do so, but republicans seem somewhat skeptical of the idea because they think it's just another way of raising taxes. >> next week, senate committees are holding confirmation hearings for two of the administration's nominees. jeh johnson to be homeland security secretary, and federal reserve chairman nominee janet yellen. what's the status of those nominees in the confirmation process? >> senate democratic leader harry reid definitely wants to try to get this done as soon as possible. they are both coming up next week, and we could see some action on them before -- soon after they come out of committee.

if they do come out of committee, senator rand paul has threatened to put a hold on janet yellen's nomination in order to get a vote on the federal reserve amendment he has been pushing for a wild. would jeh johnson, some republicans have raised concern about his qualifications and they have also said that his background as a one raiser for president obama is an issue as well. >> tell us some of the details of the legislation to be taken up on the federal health care law. >> the law basically authorizes insurance companies to continue to offer plans that would have been canceled due to the new standards under obamacare. the bill basically -- president obama during the debate said people could keep their plans if they like them, and now that seems to be not the case. millions of people have gotten notices that their plans have been canceled. the idea behind this is to maybe try to score some political points on that, but also there is a big debate going on in congress about whether there should be a delay in the

affordable care act and many of its provisions. >> health-care care legislation also scheduled in the senate involving pharmacy compounding. they are also planning apparently to consider a few more judicial nominations. what else is going on in the senate? >> that will be the balance of the week. we will have a vote on adc circuit court judge -- a d c circuit court judge. she likely is not going to be able to get the votes needed. republicans argue that this three vacant seats on the court, and the caseload for the court does not represent or them to fill those three seats -- is not requisite for them to fill those three seats. they probably will not give her cloture, and she probably will not get the votes needed. then the senate will move on to overcome pharmacy legislation, which is basically designed to expand oversight after a fungal meningitis outbreak last year killed 65 people due to

medication that was contaminated. senator venter wants to offer an amendment that he has been pushing for a while to prohibit staff from getting health care contributions, and also to ensure that all staff and lawmakers and certain executive branch officials go into the exchanges. senator harry reid is offering the opportunity to have the amendment on the condition that he does not offer it again in this congress. they continue to talk, according to democratic aides. >> we thank you for your time today. >> thank you so much. >> a discussion of the political and regional interests of a shot. that is followed by a senate

judiciary hearing on the prison system. another opportunity to cq and day. >> i have spent a lot of time dealing with the fcc in my life. that the agency make decisions in a timely manner. there is nothing worse for , alltment and innovation the things that flow from then, than businesses not knowing what the rules are. >> the chairman is right. and the-moving agency deliberations for months and years on end, it creates uncertainty. uncertainty is the enemy of

business. business needs certainty. if there is one thing that we need in the united states, in terms of broadband, we need , as thent with dispatch chairman might say. on at communicators is 8:00 p.m. >> a discussion about the political and regional interests of southeast asia. this is from the atlantic council. hours less than 1.5 >> it is a nice cold clear day in washington and is probably the same in geneva. i hope if there is news from there, you will let us know. there is a connection between

what is going on in geneva and what is happening here. if there is a nuclear agreement or improvement in relations between the u.s. and iran, it is going to have an impact on iran's role in the region. we are focused on the eastern neighbors, specifically afghanistan, pakistan, and india. iran is considered a middle eastern country but is historically as strong if not stronger with its eastern neighbors. afghanistan and south asia. iran will be a pivotal player as it has been all along in afghanistan, especially next year as the u.s. and nato began to withdraw some if not all of their forces. they have recommendations for u.s. policy.

a bigger role helping afghanistan manage water resources which is a key issue for iran as a downstream neighbor. they can contribute to other regional problems. it would have enormous benefit not just for iran, but afghanistan, pakistan, india. part of this report is an expert on iran and south asia. she has worked as a journalist, media and political analyst and has written in english and persian. she is a frequent contributor. i have known her for five years now and have been impressed by the depth of her knowledge and passion. she is a senior geographer for the corps of engineers. she studied the watershed and its terminus which is the basin.

she served in afghanistan from 2001 to 2012 as senior adviser on watershed management to the commanding general of regional command south west. she has a ba in anthropology and this is a key issue for iran and its neighbors. we are very pleased to have him here as an act government official. the special representative for afghanistan and pakistan at the state department, a long-time expert that has directed at the council of foreign relations. he has taught political science.

from november to december of 2001, he was special adviser to the u.n. special representative for the secretary-general of afghanistan during the time that produced the bond conference and the first post taliban government for afghanistan. i will ask each of the speakers to make brief remarks and we will go to questions. >> thank you very much, barbara.

i would like to thank the council for providing us this opportunity to discuss this issue of amazing importance of peace and stability of the whole region. very quickly, the goal is to attract attention to the issue that this is not just as barbara mentioned, important for stability of afghanistan but also the entire south asia and central asia. it would also be of interest to the u.s. and its fight against terrorism on the insurgency, and drug trafficking as barbara said.

let me explain briefly what this report is about. one thing i need to mention is that the only country in south asia with territorial dispute is iran. between pakistan and india or anything like the territorial dispute between afghanistan and pakistan. there is a similar dispute between their south asian neighbors.

this difference and dispute over water. no differences over land. iran-pakistan relation has always been cordele -- cordial and friendly, with full military and financial support to pakistan during its three wars with india, and iran was the first country to recognize pakistan in 1947. the relation has been very close and friendly, and full support to pakistan against india. one major reason was as you can guess, the fact that india and pakistan belong to different camps. pakistan are u.s. allies, and

iran a very close ally of the united states in the region. in 1979, the revolution with iran -- friendship still continues, and exporting of islamic ideas and revolution that iran meant and was friendship still continues, and exporting of islamic ideas and revolution that iran meant and promoting did not apply to pakistan for several important reasons. one is that the shiite community in pakistan are very well integrated into pakistani society. if you can go back to the founder of pakistan, was a

shiite. the other reason could include the fact that the pakistani shiite community is very divided and split. more important is the islamic model that existed in iran. iran stayed away from interfering with pakistani matters. there have been several ups and downs in the iran-pakistan relation, and ironically, during one of these downsides in the 1990's was when it turned out that pakistani nuclear technologies were transferred to iran. the pakistani government or any responsible official did not know of the deal.

the fact that pakistan lost the war to india and lost a big the fact that pakistan lost the chunk of the territory. and saudi arabia coming into play has created a u.s. presence in the middle east. evaluating and seeluding that, you could india, thatits in

relationship started getting warmer and they are friends. that was a good excuse iran good joined the nonaligned movement. india was the starter of this movement. it brought the two countries together, and around the 1990's, they even started cooperating in military and even security sector areas. iran provided oil and gas, and it is basically opened up --

that was the result of the ideologically for things that bear in the way of getting two countries to get closer. the peace pipeline that we will discuss in detail, that was an area that india and iran could have gotten very close, and you will hear the story and how india had to pull back in 2009. what was shocked by the three times that indiana -- india voted at the boards of governors against iran, which referred iran to the un security council, and that was grounds for imposing more sanctions on iran. let me know -- very quickly about afghanistan, iran has

always been present in afghanistan, even during soviet occupation and communist regime. the only time that iran's president in afghanistan, even though iran was hosting warlords, iran was hosting millions of afghan refugees. it made a network to expand its power, and also invested heavily in the construction after the fall of the taliban regime. in time, it is also -- has also

disrupted the political process in fighting u.s. or foreign military in afghanistan, perhaps to make sure that afghanistan cannot be [indiscernible] in conclusion, as barbara mentioned, we believe there are issues in south asia that does not have a solution, there is no such thing as solving afghanistan's border issue without considering the fact that it is also an issue in iran, or pakistan and afghanistan the same way about water. any solution needs to be regional, and should also

involve other parties and countries. that would contribute to the peace and stability in afghanistan in 2014. thank you so much. i'm sorry if i took a long time. i always do. >> it is a pleasure to be here this morning, and quite an honor to represent many of the folks behind the research effort we been doing about the regional water security issues that are tied not only to afghanistan, but it's neighbors. let me clarify one point arbor made. although i feel like i could have been in afghanistan from

2001 until 2012, it was 2011 until 2012. i was deployed to afghanistan not as an army corps of engineers representative. i was reporting straight to the commander general, regional command south west, and was expected to be outside the wire, working with people and issues dealing with water. it had me engaged with provincial leadership in afghanistan, as well as going up to ministries in kabul, and i could not understand the situation as it is now without that field experience. i notice the picture they chose for the bio is me in my camouflage fatigues. although i was deployed with the

marines, more often than not i was in my cities. when one of the marine goes, do you think there are any of those soviet era mines in here, just make sure you have your dog tag in your laces. we were muddy, we were hot, we were sweaty. we had an incredible experience. monitoring the water involved in the systems is probably the fundamental challenge to understanding what are security in the region. there has been no true monitoring of the water on a consistent basis in afghanistan since the late 1970's. that is something that has to change. it is something that fundamentally is a problem that the afghanistan government is trying to work with. prior to going into government service, i was a college geography professor. it's important to make sure that you have a sense of place. if you don't have a cognitive map of afghanistan running through your head, try to get to where you can see. afghanistan's issues about life and livelihood are tied to

water. it is a landlocked country. it happens to be the headwaters 25 systems that move into -- to five systems that move into asia and pakistan. water flows downstream, except when it flows towards money. that was a saying when i taught school in colorado. that was one of our comments about the colorado river. you can redirect water, use it to death without monitoring it. unless you know the cost benefits, you don't know that what you are doing is sustainable. one of the topics i'm working on right now as a research scientist for the army corps of engineers has to do with water security and sovereign state stability. to stabilize the population's movement, to support agriculture, generate energy, and sustain public health, you need water.

it underpins the essential services that a country citizen expects of an established government. afghanistan's citizens expect that, iran's citizens expect that. countries around the world face profound water security challenges tied to food, energy, climate variability, and population dynamics which can exacerbate ethnic and political tension among negatively affect economic and social well-being, and increase the likelihood of a sovereign state's instability. i'm going to click to the next slide. thanks. the stability and economic development of afghanistan hinge on the improved management of its water resources, given the dominance of agriculture in the afghan community, the relatively low fraction of arable land in poor condition of the waters of

the country's water infrastructure, and the inadequate coordination and planning of water related civil projects. this map has afghanistan floating in space, as if it's not tied to any of the countries around it. it also does not show that those watersheds extended to the countries surrounding it. it is a huge fallacy that we make. if we look at countries in isolation, the sense of scale is critical. one of the things that has happened since 2002, as we've had civil and military projects developed to ensure progress and stability in afghanistan, water has been considered an essential service.

it has been bundled into the sector working groups. it's been about infrastructure, and acquisition of water for a family, but not tied to the watershed scale. this is critically important if we're thinking about iran downstream. as a member of the army corps of engineers, i can tell you that engineers want to have a mathematical solution to a problem. how much water flow needs to be in place? how do we solve this? what is the algorithm we use in a computer? this is a human problem.

the human dynamics of this area are is critically important as those watersheds. the different types of people who live in the area, compared to the population helping with some of the down construction, all of those factors are critically important. you need a geo-narrative of this area to really understand it. it needs a physical as well as human components. that is what our watersheds look like. since the 1950's, when the united states was involved in putting in dams in this area -- the argan doug dam, these projects were put in in the 1950's. they were countering activity in the north that was tied to the soviet union. afghanistan was seeing a proxy war, if you will, between who can have the influence in the south -- influence. in the south, the united states through the usaid. we build these projects, we put in things, assuming water will be there. that's probably a rather erroneous assumption. many times the water that is there is not in the quantity needed, and many times the water that is there is not the quality needed. the romans knew that in carthage. if you salt of the field, you will kill a crop.

if you water a field with water that is so high in solids that it retards the growth of the crop, you have not solved the problem. you can't put in wells and assume that will bring water to a city or population if the water from the well is nonpublic. -- non-pumpable. we don't have the hydro geological studies needed. this area has been undergoing a tremendous amount of drought conditions. as a geography professor, let me help you understand -- a drought means an anomaly. it's a reduction in water that is anticipated. this area is a desert. drought is the normal state of affairs. there has been less water coming into the river from the central helm. water is unpredictable. the amount of water contained in the snow varies. we have had numbers of challenges in this area. if you can see the slides, the upper left-hand side is a picture of the helmand river in october. the amount of salt in that river is incredible. you can almost walk on that

water. it's not something you grab a bucket of it and take it home to drink, but people do. on the right-hand side, you will see a flooded cornfield. we have had many projects where people are going, why don't you grow corn? their growing corn for silage or to create more organics for the soil. corn has an enormous amount of evapotranspiration, where you lose water to the atmosphere. poppy is incredibly tolerant. as we try to change crops, do things differently, those need to be considered. on the lower left-hand side,

there is an image of someone with their sheep out near the water. everything and everyone uses water from this system. and yet it is very unreliable. on the right-hand side, the helmand province, a semipermanent settlements. they are getting their water straight from the helmand system. this is what it looks like from an osprey. if you're near the helmand river, if you are near an era geisha and canal, if you have green. -- irrigation canal, you have green. one of the irrigation canals as shown on the right-hand side. some of those are incredibly deep. they are deeper than i am tall. i've had to catch a ride on many

a marine's back to get across. to understand this, you've got to work and a number of scales. the areas highlighted on this map, the most northern red box, the reservoir. to the right, the boxed area showing kandahar. you need to consider the climate change nexus with all of this. we have a river system with a limited amount of water, which is being used for irrigated agriculture. the water is being used to produce electricity. kandahar is a huge consumer of electricity. a number of projects represent the international forces as well as civilian community. they're working on projects to increase electricity.

you have to hold water behind a dam to have enough hydraulic power. you are holding water to generate power, you are releasing it for agriculture further down the stream. you have got people down there. human consumption of water is necessary. this is where it butts up against the iranian. -- iranians. it is quite an engineering project. it was built in a 1950's. hydropower was added in 1975. it needs a lot of rebirth for basement -- refurbishment. through the usaid and implementing partners, a lot of work has been done irrigation, canal rehabilitation. that affects the amount of water in a system. we have helped to clean out canals. every time you move, use, or

capture water upstream you're keeping it from going downstream. remind yourself, what is downstream --iran. the only transboundary agreement in place is the disputed helmand river treaty with iran. the accord determined the specific amount of water that should flow into iran, 22 cubic meters per second with an option for iran to purchase an additional four cubic meters per second in normal water years. this agreement was never fully implemented due to the afghan coup, the soviet invasion, islamic revolution. although iran and afghanistan have held discussions with the karzai government under the framework of the 1973 agreement, they have been inconclusive to date. upstream, where we have usaid projects that are being funded to move water into new canals, the dialogue and discussion with

iran is critical. i'm going to wind up here by showing you a little bit of the changes in topography. we have the mountain of highlands leading down to the lowland desert, draining into the basin. these are three shots from that area. the upper left-hand slide was taken at the reservoir, the release of water. 77 cubic meters per second and october of 2011. i traveled 280 kilometers further downstream. we are in the water getting these discharge rates. ed had jobs by an order of magnitude, from 77 cubic meters per second -- it had dropped by an order of magnitude, from 77 to big meters per second. we can use imagery to determine that is the way it has been over

time the mother water floods and retreats in the system. we have -- time, the water floods and retreats in the system. this is something that could be to scared -- discussed and shared. on the iranian side, a number of reservoirs of gone into place, and iran has been moving to redirect water for its irrigation and growing population in the region. these pictures are from surrounding afghanistan. it is a bustling city. since 2009, when the indian government helped fund a paved road that connects from the border up to the ring road, the road that runs around afghanistan and could bring

trade and commerce to central asia in a way that does not depend on the pass. this is huge. now there's another way to get there. one of the slides is a fellow making bricks. the truck traffic between iran and afghanistan at this border crossing, and the amount of money that could be tied to the trade and transportation here has made the city something of interest to kabul. otherwise, it was not as important of a player. that is it. thank you very much. i will say that this is a picture from the city down to the port. this is critically important. the port is being funded by the indian government to be increased, and the trade and traffic could improve. a lot of people are involved in water strategy, and he iranians are noting that as well. thank you very much for your time and attention. [applause] >> thank you very much. in iran, there is a basin. it is not just for dragging, agriculture.

there is a tremendous wildlife there. -- drinking, agriculture. there is tremendous wildlife there. >> is a great pleasure for me to speak to you here as a powerless person. i found during my time in government, i had the special forces standing behind me to win the argument, inhibited them from what i was actually saying. i'm hoping i won't have that problem anymore, and we can have more of a genuine exchange. i will talk about the political and security issues involved in iran and the future of afghanistan, to some extent pakistan. while i won't have time to make any of this explicit, the water

issues are closely related to all of these political, security, ethnic issues. it's not a coincidence that the river basins coincide with approximately the territories of the leaders that emerge from the civil war. it's not a coincidence that borders that cut water basins in half are porous to the people. nomadism is an adaptation. nomadism and irrigation our country. irrigation brings water to the people. nomadism brings people and animals to the water, and both have implications for political

authority, migration, military mobilization, and so on. i will note that the backbone of the taliban in helmand -- a move to the north, where there was more irrigated land. there had been displaced people in helmand, where there is an increasing shortage of water. resettling them as part of a political settlement would also require dealing with those water issues. the administration in iran came into office with the idea of taking a regional approach to afghanistan. most of the emphasis has been on afghanistan's relationship to pakistan. iran plays a very important role as well, could play a more important role in the future, and it's a very complicated one to understand, one that is difficult to discuss with the u.s. government. a few years ago i was at one of the supersecret international meetings, which will have to remain supersecret. if people found out what went on

there, they would realize how unimportant these meetings are, and they would realize how little goes on. there was a panel about iran. the question i asked of that panel was, does the u.s. have any other enemies with whom it has so many common interests. afterwards, henry kissinger came up to me and said, we have more in common with iran -- were common interests with iran than with most of our allies. u.s. and iranian interests in afghanistan are quite consistent, except in so far as they require a u.s. presence there. u.s. and iranian relations are overall antagonistic. the u.s. presence to realize goals that are otherwise in iran's interests are seen as a

threat by iran. this creates a lot of confusion. i see craig karp is here. i'm about to tell a story he was a part of. at the bonn talks, where craig was part of the delegation, the u.s. and iran work together to reach agreement on the successor government to the taliban. the iranians came up to craig and said they wanted to use this as an opening to discuss -- to improve relations with the united states. craig said, there are other issues we have to discuss. they said, let's discuss them. instead, they were put on the axis of evil. iran still manage this

contradiction by making the stabilization of afghanistan de facto cooperative with united states higher priority than its antagonism with united states in iran. iran, during the beginning of the modern the job -- ahmadinejad period, may defect incorporating with the united states higher priority than its antagonism with the united states and iraq. even as tensions increase, and there was talk about, as you may remember in the bush administration, regime change. it is still on the table, but now they are sitting around the table at least, even if everything is still on it. despite that, iran still had the position, as i was told by the government, via ronnie officials, that even if the united states attacks iran, iran will not respond in afghanistan or iraq -- as i was told by the government, via ironic -- irani officials. they decided that the u.s. presence in iran was a bigger threat to our brand man instability.

-- bigger threat to iran than instability. they started giving select targeted aid to taliban commanders, especially in western afghanistan, in order to send a message to the united states. the us afghan strategic partnership, which went further than iran wanted some of the dead beat the demonstrators in sharif killed a member of the guards. so i ran i hope learned from that but once you start organizing violence in afghanistan or anywhere you may not be able to control it. and i have been involved in my official capacity in a number of multilateral meetings, the official in a semi- official, where i've come to understand better the iranian position of the stabilization in afghanistan. let me explain what it is and how it relates to the position.

first of all, the us from the beginning of the obama administration, the u.s. want td a direct dialogue with afghanistan about iran. and we never got to that, excuse me a direct dialogue about the afghanistan and we never got to it because obstacles on our side and their side. i want to go into it right now. currently i have the opportunity during the visit to new york to have a few private discussions with iranian officials who might know from all these interactions over the years. their view was that if there's significant progress on the nuclear file that will then create the political space for the u.s.-iran engagement. what are the issues? both u.s. have a common interest in the stabilization of afghanistan, and more than that both the u.s. and iran are trying to the political dispensation in afghanistan acceptable to them.

which is not the case for pakistan which was pushing for certain changes in the political dispensation. however, they have different models of how to move from where we are to a more stable situation. the united states bottle has -- the u.s. government model -- and i don't want to exacerbate the model that i will present it as if it were coherent -- it has one track, which is as we withdraw our combat forces, build up the afghan national security forces, of course support the afghan political process and in particular the presidential elections which are essential for afghanistan's future because strong security forces with no government or not -- strong armed forces without government or not security forces. and at the same time, recognizing that there's a

political base as well as other bases for the insurgency to seek a political settlement, television or other groups on the condition that as part of the agreement they separate from al qaeda and other international terrorist groups and accept the constitutional framework and afghanistan. as the backbone of that, the united states sees a small but important long-term us military presence as well as long-term financial assistance to the afghan security forces as essential to provide a stable force in the course of the transition. of course if it's really successful, we will transition out of that eventually and everyone agrees that the goal should be in afghanistan with no foreign troops. but if we succeed in negotiating the terms of the bilateral security agreement and the us

and the afghan security will agree on a long-term presence for as long as it is needed. now air on's position is that of long-term military presence is in fact a major cause of destabilization in afghanistan. they threat to them. they say it's a threat to other neighbors and even if mr. obama who wants peace if they succeed him and they have a colorful picture of the american scene in whicwhich they want to present e of they said their three groups, powerful in the congress, the neoconservatives, the military companies and the christian extremists who believe that the end of days are coming and that there is no point in seeking peace. so they are not sure who is going to be in the -- in control of the military forces in the future area that is what they say at any rate. and therefore, they say yes we accept the need for a political settlement. that is to say they would be

prepared to support some kind of a negotiated settlement that modifies in some respect to the political dispensation in a way that was not a threat to them or a threat to their allies and friends in afghanistan. but that's impossible as long as there are us troops. in recent years other countries that opposed us presence in particular russia and china have very much modified their position. they still oppose the president basis but still russia and china advised the president of the highest levels. if he's sure to sign a bilateral agreement remarkable for russia in particular which has been quite vocal about this. iran has not yet changed its position about that. the president what he was in new york reiterated a previous positiothe previousposition at d leave afghanistan.

we don't know if the dialogue will lead to a modification of that. but let me briefly see why that would be so important. to the extent that iran has been supporting some television commanders, that shouldn't be misconstrued as support for the taliban. they support armed groups in order to send messages to the united states, perhaps the afghan government from time to time but that of course is destructive besides the fact i might mention this, it kills people, which is undesirable. and they might be prepared to stop that in that case. perhaps more important is that iran has a great deal of influence, softcover as it has been referred to in afghanistan. there are many afghan political leaders who they have close ties and it's known that they give cash to the presidency as the united aids. they give cash to other political leaders in afghanistan.

they have members of the talib taliban, they have contact with them. of course the price is often money which means that in the future, whether there is a full-scale insurgency war or not, every political move will continue to be negotiated in a very tense and unstable situation. in particular, the outcome of the next year's presidential election will very likely be negotiated. i don't mean the voting is irrelevant. but it's not an probable that the vote and the vote counting will not be decisive. there will be uncertainty about who got how many legitimate votes. we don't know yet if the country is capable of holding a second round. even if it is, forming a new government will require a huge amount of negotiation among various powerholders you u.s. and iran are still not speaking to each other at that point, or

the fear each of his influence in afghanistan, that would have a very negative influence on those investigations. if they are engaged and they can communicate, they as well as other powers will play a very positive role in enabling the afghan political actors to reach agreement on the successor regime and the same goes for a political settlement. because the fear about political settlement which would involve changing the political dispensation. i should mention in those discussions between the taliban and the united dates haven't said anything about that. they are concerned about the presence in iran and the prisoners in guantánamo. nonetheless, again that would be also a very tense and a difficult political negotiation. if iran feels excluded or that such a political settlement would be at its expense than it could be very disruptive whereas if it were included it could

help find solutions to some of the very difficult problems, some of which involve water inside afghanistan. so, what happens today is quite crucial because it may open the door for the us dialogue about afghanistan which could be very helpful to the security and political outcomes and to the american efforts. >> i want to start with fatemeh. you talked a little bit about iran and pakistan. but one of the issues that has also been at th that the dispute between the united states and iran to export natural gas to the region for the so-called peace pipeline iran has

constructed its portion of the pipeline. it is to go to pakistan and eventually india but the policy has kept us from happening. do you foresee any possible change on the front and if you could also say something about sharif, iran had to deal with a relatively benign government for the last few years in their point of view, but sharif is close to the societies and there have been more instances in baluchistan were both pakistan and iran face in true debate to -- insurgencies and the 14 iranians and the border guards were killed recently and the rumor is that, you know, the saudis gave the money and they gave them a green light to support the groups. so the peace pipeline is better. is there a better chance now? what do you think that is going to do for the pakistan

relations? >> let me say something to answer your question. there is an exhibition -- expression meaning something started very big and what you have from the peace pipeline is a synthesized model. the peace pipeline has involved several prime ministers and at least including rhouanni in iraq. so it would continue and would be go beyond. but there's also a good chance that that is what iran thinks at this point from all of the stories that come from pakistan.

on the pakistan -based institute to describe the disaster is or just to, you know, discuss the pricing but if you know the deal is not going to go anywhere and pakistan will have money. and then they start talking about pulling the deal and the pipeline from pakistan. so i think pakistan is waiting to see how it goes with the negotiations. that could have an impact -- on

any different aspect. the prisons in afghanistan and the peace pipeline. and if the sanctions on iran oil and gas is removed, there's a chance they could invite india to join the project again. it's not in conflict that was promoted that was supported to get into afghanistan who india and pakistan and afghanistan. but the security of both pipelines we have to compare one tribal area that is a relatively unsafe area on the peace pipeline that goes through the relatively safe area in pakistan and iran.

asked to baluchistan, by the way, sharif was also involved in the peace pipeline. it's nothing that he's forced to take but baluchistan as you know the insurgency historically you don't have rules in that area and the most surprised area and also the report shows the pakistan government that broke down on the insurgency and it's very similar. but most control of and of course iran over the region so

so they are not doing enough to secure the border. it's going on for quite some time but in the media you would see that they are kind of blaming the pakistan government for being upset with the borders and not anything in pakistan of course they believed that sharif is close but there is a difference when one of the officials put it out the other day that it's close to saudi arabia but is not the agent of saudi arabia and pakistan. it may be different but the other day the transfer of nuclear technologies that deal might change, but back to

insurgency by the presidency unfortunately iran's response to these kind of insurgencies have been very harsh and keeping people prisoner. some of them to kind of lesser terms. they have instituted in revenge to the insurgency. so, during, their approach is they would exchange prisoners for the group in baluchistan. the change for the government unfortunately had increased the violence and the resentment from

the population against the central government. but the leader is a very different person and has really presented to go crazy to calm people down. and we've talked about the importance to bring people together basically. >> on the water issues, we stole shamelessly from a white paper that's not yet been published that was written, and you have a very good recommendation on a water expert group that you would like to set up. where do things stand in terms of who is advising afghanistan on water and what's happening

next year under us troops start to withdraw and funding is go down? will it be possible to work with other countries in the area on the river basin in particular? >> i believe that a lot of what we have seen him play right now is a huge role by the usaid in capacity building because right now it is incumbent on afghanistan to have people trained to work with the water issues and i believe right now the government of afghanistan sees that as a shortfall that they do know they need some capacity building. and usaid is fundamentally involved in that. i believe th that universities n the area are also playing a role which is important to see. the university in kabul and kandahar are trying to bring forth some experts. the problem is in many of these areas they are considered on the permissive environments. a love o lot of the people in kl don't want to go down because they preceded to be kind of the

wild west and it is just out of control down there. so, the perception of this all needs to change and i believe that there's also issues of considering water information to be a matter of national security. and a lot of times people don't feel compelled to share that. and they know that in the region when speaking in central asia and pakistan and india that the water information is gathered and is yours. so, the degree to which we can help with analysis that we are not dependent on countries actually sharing a dialogue where we can get a sense of seeing it that has a role in this as well. but post- 2014 i believe that one of the issues that is good to come up as protecting the little bit of monitoring areas we've already got an established because you've got to engage in population and have them see a vested interest in understanding

education is a huge component of making it all work on a watershed scale. hispanic i encountered this issue as a political level working as a political consultant to the un assisting the afghan government and addressing the afghan national development strategy and the afghanistan compact in 2,005, 2,006. and what i found is that there is a very high level of mistrust at the highest levels of the afghan government in the water issues and in particular, there was a proposal to put in the contact something about afghanistan signing agreements with its neighbors which is actually required under the international law to get the project and levels of suspicion was so high that i