looking particularly good success.a process of that is one of the major factors haso why the president and hisd political will own name towards this process in a way that he has not done since he took office. creating a they are genetically different situation than has ever had existed. it did not mean that it was easy. the talks were supposed to end friday, but they continued on to saturday. that is when john kerry showed up. a lot of us were thinking, they

are only showing up because the deal is already had. it caps on dragging on. was that john kerry has to go to london the day after. he had to have a meeting with the british foreign minister. the british foreign minister was staying at the same hotel. on, people started to think, they have to walk home without a deal. how is that going to be with ?hat -- for john kerry he put his name on the line to get a nuclear deal and twice he would have to walk home empty- handed. we are hearing munich, surrender. imagine what would happen if he did not get a deal.

end, it was quite dramatic and a lot of people thought it would not happen. journalistiranian run down the stairs towards her laptop. the person must have known something. to talkomats tended much more with their generalist than the american diplomats. the american diplomats hardly said a word. everyone thought, ok, something is happening. she says, there is a deal. logistics.rking out it starts to spread, but there is no confirmation. the only person who knows about it is one iranian journalist. there was a lot of confusion taking place.

for about an hour, a lot of people thought there is no deal. was confirmedt later on there was a deal. partly because they were debating how and where and when will they have the signing ceremony. it was a signing ceremony without an audience. they had a media center 10 minutes away. some of the negotiators do not like to have media. this was all done without journalists in the room. after 23 hours of negotiations. gave about a 40 minute presentation. you could never have expected he was awake for 23 hours.

these guys were negotiating. the presentation was made. if i have a couple of minutes to say a couple of things. the white house has not been given a fair treatment in the media, references to munich, it is absurd. the radiance give the -- the iranians gave the vast majority of concessions in this round. they did so because of the -- in the second round, it will balance out. in the second round, the main leverages of both sides will be traded. ,hat is from the american side banking sanctions and oil sanctions. from the iranian side, they will

agree to the additional inspections access to the .arious iaea -- it is understandable that if one looks at it, it may leave that impression. from the iranian side, it is 19,000 centrifuge the got the americans to the table. the bush administration refused to come to the table. to -- wethey offered said no because we were committed to the idea that they should be enrichment at the time. lo and behold, they have 19,000. on a lots have built

of added leverage that they are trading away. i am not so sure that either side managed to outpace the other. if anything, i think both sides have exhausted their pipedreams. the iranian pipe dream with an was aered nuclear program pipe dream, never going to happen. the western pipe dream that you could push back the iranians and have them surrender and give up their nuclear program was also a pipe dream. we lost a dreams -- we lost eight years chasing that pipe dream. play.ds left to as a result, they are doing what makes diplomacy happen. what is that? both sides have accepted each other's bottom line.

the west has accepted that the iranians will keep enrichment, but it will be limited. this is enabling the iranians to say that the right to enrichment will be respected. the iranians have accepted the .mericans bottom line iran will not have a nuclear weapon. inspections and the other limitations, the iranians will no longer have an undetectable breakout capability . if they try to cheat, we will know very soon and we will have plenty of time to do something about it. the two bottom lines have now converged. i have to say, it is not a done deal. challenge may be more on the american side. it is not in the hands of the president.

i have no doubt he would be able to deliver on it. sanctions that have to move through congress. the president can use waiver is, but i have doubts as to whether they can be of final complete permanent solution that ends the issue if the sanctions are still on the books, but every six months and every future president honors the deal by continuing to use his waivers. but i doubt the iranians would go along with that. waiving sanctions is an inherently reversible measure. both sides will exchange reversible concessions for reversible concessions and you reversible concessions for you irreversible

concessions for irreversible concessions. thank you. >> that is a great place to stop. underlying all of this is the bitter history of the u.s. and iran. no one better to talk about that then john, who has experienced it in many different ways. is this really going to make a difference between the u.s. and iran? as our iranian friends like to say, there are only two possibilities. it either will or it won't. so there we are. it is quite simple. they have been speaking and writing very sensibly about iran for many years. this is a very passionate

subject in this town. i tell my students at the naval academy one could spend his life going to iran in events in washington, whether it is the wilson center, the foundation for the defense of democracy. view.ideological point of you would never run out of subjects to talk about. it is an issue that a small number of people carob out cap -- care about passionately. probably 30% of that group is here in this room tonight. about, i going to talk will put the question of so what and now what? -- we andthe iranians

the iranians finally getting off nowhere, a road that we have been on for 30 years? of 2009, president obama offered the iranians a new beginning based on digital -- mutualmutual respect, mutual interest, that lady behind the grievances of the past -- that lay behind the grievances of a past. it caught the iranians this -- it caught the iranians offguard. discredited decades of anti- american rhetoric, a staple of the diet in tehran. how does one paint as an enemy someone who sends you greetings,

who speaks of mutual respect? the response to the president was at this offer -- was disappointing. it was as though the iranians saw him not as an enemy, but as something more dangerous, as arrival. means co-hey used wife, something more dangerous, more attractive, and younger. something you fear more than the enemy.

now it has been five years since that original outreach and finally these efforts are getting a response. what ever the value of the current nuclear deal, whether you do announce it or whether you supported, you cannot deny that today we are in a very different lace with iran than we have been for the last 34 years. look at what we have. the two foreign ministers are having professional and productive discussions. timeember this, the last ofore september of 1979 --

2013 that the two foreign ministers met was in october of 1979. disastrous.gs were diplomatcool polished walked out of those meetings completely exasperated. what should we do? before we jump in and say this is a great deal or this is a terrible deal, we should step and and take a deep breath admit that we and the iranians are now talking to each other, interacting in a way that five , just ago was unthinkable

could not imagine it. some will credit the sanctions sidesushing the iranians to change their approach. i am cautious. in the case of the sanctions, you need to make a distinction between what you know to be true and what you wish to be true. i think there are people who wish the sanctions had done this and therefore they say the .anctions did it what we know to be true is that the iranian economy is in bad shape. resources,ts educated population, with its geography, it should be a paradise. it is clearly not. it is clearly not a paradise.

frome end with something it was echoed in a beautiful poem by robert frost called the -- pastor. -- pasture. it looks like we may at last be theing in a field beyond ideas of centrifuges and subterfuges. we are not there yet, but there is at least possibilities that just a few months ago no one could have imagined. thank you. [applause] i will play devil's advocate.

you accuse me of being too positive. let me take the view of those who say this is an historic mistake and that we are being cheated and that the iranians will not keep their part of the bargain and sanctions will unravel and we will lose all of the leverage that we have developed. you said the iranians gave more than the americans did in this round. . am not so sure i am not so sure. the sanctions -- it is worth a few million dollars. symbolically, when you look at the fact that the entire international community had coalesced around these sanctions, now those sanctions are going to begin to be eased. the question is once you start down that path, will you ever be able to get sanctions up to the point that they are at now?

that is one of the critiques of this deal. that if we don't do a deal the sanctions would --ll be there he was this extremely different american president that the iranians could not wrap their heads around because he was speaking well and his middle name was hussein. as a result of back and the fact that the president really tried , butdiplomacy, it failed the narrative that got created

was that it fell through because the iranians. the president could tell the rest of the world to agree to sanctions that they never had agreed to before. the bush administration never even dare to dream about. now they could agree to it he cuts there was the sense that the united states actually tried. is playing the same trick on the united states. rosh hashanah greetings to the jewish people. his foreign minister is extremely charming. they are serious about diplomacy. in the last rounds of negotiation, a day was spent on just to decide when and where the next meeting will be.

negotiate --made made suggestions like kabul. everything was a negotiation. now it takes about five minutes to decide. the venue is now set, it will always be geneva. there is no excuse. -- that has translated into a lot of countries who have agreed to the sanctions and have agreed to , they do grudgingly not like to impose sanctions. several of those countries are in europe. they are not putting pressure -- they are now putting pressure on the united states.

because of your congress, congress is playing politics. if it fails now, it it will not be difficult. easy for theo be iranians to shift the blame away from themselves onto the united states. at that point, the iranians can get four more sanctions released -- can get far more sanctions released. 20% of the sanctions would drift difference.e big 20% of the sanctions would drift away without the iranians giving one concession. many of the sanctions would fall apart. risk of overplaying our hand.

when the iranians offered to stop the program at 3000 centrifuges and today they have 19,000, the cost of us overplaying our hand in the past is that they now have 19,000. want to do that again? the leverage will also -- will be lost. >> do you want to jump in on this? theseind many of critiques, not yours, of course, barbara. i find many of these critiques about as predictable as a clarence tomas supreme court decision. you and i could write these things. assumption behind them -- you cannot trust them.

they will cheat. i would say only this. iranians could never agree on anything, what about what we agreed on in afghanistan? 2001, 2002. inwhat we agreed on back same aboutargely the the lebanon hostages? if we and the iranians could never agree on anything at all, then i and 51 of my colleagues would still be in tehran. is i have -- i have a theory

and you tell me if you think it is crazy. has been consistently negative about these negotiations. the proposald before it was finished. after it was announced, he said it was an historic mistake. is it possible he is playing his assigned role in this? is it actually helpful for him to be so negative? if netanyahu were jumping up and down for joy, it would be difficult for rouhani to say he had gotten a good deal. it maintains pressure on the united states to get more confessions -- concessions out of iran in the final deal.

click >> -- >> i like your theory. i have no idea if it is true or not. by opposing the deal the way he is, he is helping rouhani and others deal with some of their more difficult constituencies. i do not think he is doing this on purpose. netanyahuse is that really still misses auckland in -he was the gift that kept on giving as far as israel was concerned. at the end of the day, what is , there are about it

a lot of currents within israel that are questioning his approach and saying, you are not serving the interest of israel by isolating it by getting into a public spat, public disagreement with the united states. >> you follow the israeli debate a lot. is it useful that he remains so negative? will that put pressure on the united states? is he isolating himself? will he be less relevant? >> he has become less relevant and that has been very problematic for israel. i wrote in my book that at the end of the day, to serve israel's interest, it is more

to be more helpful to the process and to ensure that you can be part of the process. instead of taking this extremely negative public position. the israelis did not know about the secret channel. content oft know the the conversation. it isy knew about it, difficult to understand why they were spreading data that was completely false. why diddo the content, they deliberately say something that was not true? i think they did not know. israel is paying the price for

having adopted the position of netanyahu. the u.s. thought they could not include israel. i do not think this is helpful for israel. it is helpful for the administration to have netanyahu come out and say this mistake.orica anything, it costs the administration more than it has cost the iranians. it does not mean that they will not be strong allies, but on the issue of iran, on the issue of israel-palestine, and what is

happening in the arab world, the israeli and the american perspective have diverged. the american-led order in the region fell apart once the u.s. invaded iraq. is trying to adjust to a new reality. there will be rising populations in many different arab worlds. the u.s. will no longer care and see the survival of these autocrats. when there was a coup in egypt, the u.s. was not in favor of the muslim brotherhood, but not in favor of seeing egypt go back to him military dictatorship. the israeli perspective was very

different. this has created a lot of tension. the chemistry between the president and the prime minister does not seem to be the best. the idea that this is some sort that isrdinated designed to add pressure on the notian negotiations, i do see them able to pull it off that way. >> it was a good theory. and we willcrophone pass it. if you could state your name. please ask a question, do not give a speech. asked a legitimate question. >> [inaudible]

click stanley will be the first one -- >> stanley will be the first one. getting -- giving netanyahu more credit for psychological scale. regionre talking about a that has a history of self- destructive behavior. be subtle ando clever is just incredibly stupid. >> i think there would be some in the audience who take exception to that. question, please. we have heard about these bilateral talks.

i was looking at a story, the islamic republic news agency. denying that there were any bilateral talks. byy dismissed speculation the associated press about bilateral talks with the united states. they rejected the ap report. why would the foreign ministry project this report? is there some internal dissension? bland,ter seemed very and his letter of endorsement in response to rouhani. >> he has embraced the deal. rouhani gave a very happy speech , which he counts as his 100th day of his presidency.

i would disagree and say the supreme leader has given a lot of support. the iranians still have a kind of allergy to admitting that they are doing what they are doing, which is negotiating with the americans. to learn there is deception going on in the islamic republic news agency. [laughter] that is just terrible. >> it is a very good question. peculiarities. the two-year it is on the american side. -- to kill you peculiararieties

on the american side. ministerputy foreign or some other negotiator in an awkward position, they have to go in front of parliament. >> there was an interesting comment. the anthropologist made an interesting comment this morning on npr and he talked about the dualities within iranian political culture, the ability to believe contradictory things at the same time. the fact that twitter and facebook are banned and blocked all have theirrs own facebook pages and twitter accounts. they are addicted to them.

the fact that the negotiations are happening while they are not happening should not be very surprising. >> the people who lost the .lection are not happy at all they are looking for ways to snipe, to bring down the government, to show this is not such a big deal. they are still there. they're temporarily contained, but they are still very much there. we have to be aware of it. they have their hardliners just as we have hours. -- ours. morell see who has discipline in which administration is able to keep its opponents in check better.

>> my name is stephen. his --nyahu lang to playing to his own house of representatives, not to the knesset? the idea that he is playing to his political base is true of having used a in his internal conversations in israel and playing up iran as a nexus into essential -- nexus existential threat, and a country like israel is so strong that could be faced as a threat like iran.

aaron miller told me on the radio that he would never have evoked a holocaust in the way that netanyahu is. after having done that and personified the idea that in is hitler inani sheep's clothing that he could not turn around and say, that is a great deal. he will have to oppose it until the very last moment. his political constituency will say, you told us this is a threat. why did you not oppose it and to the last possible second? that is highly unhelpful for israel. quickly shifting strategic environment, it union leaders that have the ability -- you

need leaders that have the ability to quickly adjust to a shifting reality. not in yahoo! has locked himself in a will not play well -- netanyahu has locked himself in. >> let me ask about the saudis. they have put out statements that are more neutral. are they adjusting to this? are they quietly fuming? >> i do not know the answer to that question. the saudi's have made a statement which was much more moderate and much more measured. i am sure they are not happy about this. on the other hand, for a lot of reasons, they are not going to want to identify with what netanyahu is saying. it does not look good in their domestic political agenda for

them -- for these two to be lining up together. i am not an expert on saudi arabia, but it is quite clear that there has been some interesting contradicting behavior. companion for u.s. security council seat. it indicates there are some significant divisions within the saudi elite right now, within the government. contradictoryhe messages may continue and may not signal much more than that they are not sure what to do. >> the gentleman back there. larry feinberg.

how does this agreement differ from the agreement they negotiated with north korea? korea.ve covered north there are two analogies that come up all the time. 1938, munich, the not cease -- nazis. the other one is iran is north korea. >> [inaudible] >> the nature of the regimes are different and the agreements are different. north koreans cheated and therefore, the iranians will cheat. this was the 1994 agreement that clinton reached with kim jong-il in north korea. agreed for 10ans

years the agreement worked. the north koreans kept their plutonium reactor. the united states delivered heavy fuel oil. the u.s. deliveries were often late because congress would not appropriate the money on time. this was a perpetual problem that north koreans talked about. the reactors were never completed. negotiations continued with the north koreans. went to northight korea in 2000. they were talking about negotiating a deal on north korea's missiles as well. the negotiations went well.

bill clinton had to decide and flip a coin at the end of his presidency whether he was going to go to earth korea or try to finalize an arab -- israeli peace agreement. wrong choice. , colinw. bush came in powell wanted to continue and wanted to pick up where north korea -- where clinton left off. he was publicly humiliated for making that statement. bolton went about leaking information that the north koreans might have a secret program to enrich uranium. then there was a confrontation in 2002. the whole deal fell apart. the north koreans started up the reactor again. there were other agreements that

were reached with the north koreans. in 2005, there was an agreement that was reached. the north koreans broke it. the nature of that agreement was that they would stop the plutonium reactor. in return, they would get various concessions. different,gimes are but north korea is a bizarre dictatorship that relies entirely on support from one country, china. beenood aid that it has able to cage out of the united states over the years. discussingat we are now with iran is quite different. the nature of the sanctions is quite different. i do not see that they are

comparable. at some point, yes, we made promises to build reactors. situationse that being the same and i do not think it is appropriate to make that comparison. we have to take each case on its own merit. we have to make sure we have verification and this is something that is built into this. the north koreans kicked out the iaea. to this day, they have not permitted the kind of inspection that iran has routinely. we have a better sense of what the iranians are up to. the iranians are not as far along in terms of their ability to build weapons. the north koreans have than working on their plutonium program starting in the 1980s. they already had enough

plutonium for at least one and possibly two nuclear weapons. i do not see them as the same. >> [inaudible] i used to work on nonproliferation at the state department. the key thing here is congress. members of the republican party are determined not to give president obama a victory at any cost. i am worried this agreement will get caught up in that politics. what is the role that congress has to play on this agreement? at some point, it will be a treaty.

[inaudible] envision their having to be a treaty. congress is nevertheless key. european past their sanctions to their executive branches. they have a foreign ministry meeting. not of the national legislators are involved in the process. it is created to take time in order to make sure there are not any fast changes. the american sanctions are a spider's web. it is very difficult to move one without moving all. , the biggestion

sanctions go through congress. only congress can lift sanctions. if it is a congressional act, only congress can undo them. this creates a significant difficulty. we are in an unprecedented partisan atmosphere. brought us to a government shutdown, which at first, people think it would not happen. it almost brought us to a default. deal with nuclear iran is nothing for these guys. 434 years, there has not been a conversation on capitol hill -- years, there has not been a conversation on capitol hill

about lifting sanctions. it is going to be a completely different paradigm. this cannot come until the very end of the process, it also, the concession, which is to ratify will have to go through their parliament. the sad thing is their parliament is picking up bad and howom our congress to create more difficulties. >> not all the sanctions will have to be lifted. these are only the nuclear related sanctions that are specified in the agreement. the u.s. and iran are still

going to have sanctions between them for a very long time. theyuestion is whether would be sufficient to seal the deal. >> the reality and you can i understand this, that there were sanctions against the former soviet union that remain for 20 years after the soviet union disappeared. of gettingal act congress to reverse them is very cumbersome. the other thing i experienced when i was working for the state and 2010t back in 2009 when onen affairs was spoke individually too many members of congress on both sides, people were very reasonable and sensible on this

issue. and aen it came to a vote public statement, these things margins. very large even if the sanctions -- even if it is nonbinding, this is very difficult to explain to the iranians. in the spring of 1979, the united states appointed a new ambassador. this was a confidence building measure. a goodwill gesture, something the iranians said they wanted, a sign of american goodwill.

while that ambassador was submitted to tehran, congress passed a nonbinding resolution condemning the excesses of the revolutionary courts. wild.ran, people went to the media, everyone, just went on a frenzy and sank the nomination. this is a nonbinding resolution. we got nowhere. somethingility of and this repeating derailing the process is still very much out there. time for a have

couple more. wait for the microphone, please. >> my name is stuart. whatestion is regarding implications do you think this deal has for the other sticking points between the united states and the iranian government? what does this signal for going forward? >> this was a necessary first step. we were never going to be able to have the discussion about serious or hezbollah -- syria or hezbollah. it would've been difficult to have those conversations without a nuclear agreement. it is my hope that we can broaden the conversation now that we have a nuclear agreement. i would love to see a restoration of diplomatic negotiations. if we have routine conversations between john kerry and others on

a lower level, that opens up a lot of prospects. in january, there is going to be a conference in geneva on syria and most likely, the iranians will be there. i have always advocated a broader agenda with iran. issue -- there were issues that were so idle to -- to eachissues of side, issues of nonproliferation, national pride , this was going to be very difficult to resolve. what had happened, if you'll pardon the expression, you were

holding the whole relationship . stage to the nuclear issue some people within the administration agreed with me, that line of argument got nowhere. it is very clear that at least , it is allp5+1 nuclear, all the time. issue -- until there are signs of progress to move beyond it. when the president spoke after this deal was reached, i did not hear him say anything about a new beginning. what he said in 2009 -- i suppose at this time, that would

be a bridge too far in terms of this administration. look, this is the major issue and this is what we are going for. >> i think john is absolutely right. they managed to get the first deal. those sites were only focusing on the nuclear issue. to build maximum trust, confidence in order to insulate and make sure the nuclear track is as protected and solid as possible.

the inevitable difficulties it will run into will not derail it i'm making sure they are hedging it with a couple of issues. there appears to have been something in regards to serial's -- syria. is positiveof that because at the end of the day the fact that the united states and iran could not deal with each other in spite of the disagreements, the fact that they could not even talk to each other exasperated all of their own problems, but almost every other problem. normalized,has been there will no longer be a when johnn a paper kerry picks up a phone.

the possibilities will be quite great. it does not mean that they will become friends. they areot mean -- walking away from the brink of disaster. >> that seems like a really great moment to stop. so i think we are going to. thank you for your questions and thank you for coming tonight. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] http://twitter.com/cspanwj

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] without structure, it is very difficult to navigate. i was extremely fortunate. i was extremely fortunate to still have had a residual him of the way i was raised and the hadcture that the nuns given me. i was extremely fortunate because i had already been in predominantly white schools. the transition to a school with very few blacks in a very difficult set of circumstances, i had a jumpstart. i was ahead of the game. it allowed me to continue to do well even though it was very difficult. >> thanksgiving on c-span, hear from two supreme court justices.

also this holiday weekend, four days of book tv on c-span two. a.m.day at 9:30 the 150th anniversary of gettysburg address. this week, president and ceo of the cleveland clinic discusses his 20 five years with the clinic and his life in medicine.

give us an overview of what the cleveland clinic is. >> it is a large group practice. weare 3200 physicians and have facilities in cleveland, ohio. eighte a main campus and community hospitals. vegas, facilities in las toronto, fort lauderdale. , it is the largest hospital in the uae. we are building the cleveland clinic in abu dhabi. that is a big project. >> you have been ceo since