i can't jump off this bridge. i had an aspirin, i had a gun with no bullets. i cut my wrists, and then came back from the brink. i went to my secret place and i prayed to god. i had an epiphany where i heard my mom's voice. we registered and it was pretty decent.

i said again, i pray that somebody in that audience today who is going through -- who is lonely, a divorce, you are catching a bus, that doesn't change your character or your self-worth. >> thank you so much. [applause] stagewill come to the [indiscernible] pelosi.y [laughter]

>> thank you. >> i heard you were recently inducted into the women's hall of fame. [applause] it was pretty sentimental. what was it like? >> it was very exciting to be , itcted in the hall of fame is very special. ago on the 165 years

anniversary in july. when women succeed america succeeds. >> when you -- could you talk about what you're hearing around the country? >> these women made this first statement that all men and women are created equal. the right to vote, some years later, women in the workforce leaving home, rosie the riveter.

women in every aspect of the workforce, and the women at home. the issue of child care. clearly over 60%. a champion for that.

, and theyational tour are working on these initiatives. it lists all of this up. for every individual woman who is working very hard to make ends meet to balance home and work and the rest, they know that people making public policy understand to the extent that we can, their plight. people talk about raising the floor, minimum wage? what is it that the women or the man talk about as their first priority.

>> what we can say about public policy and initiatives and all the rest, we try to have solutions. but the stories are so compelling and so inspiring. district, row so is the godmother of all of this. whoing with donna edwards is chair of the women's caucus, putting this together across the country. and in roses district, this was the story that you have heard many times. she got to tell her story. now she is driving the school bus. i am not going to talk so much about myself as what i see. and what i see, when i pull that , i predict what is going to happen. a mom in tears will be putting her child on the bus, knowing that the child is sick, and

having no option. if she stays home from work, she has dr. pay. if she stays more than a few times, she doesn't have a job. to takeno childcare care of the child, nor can she afford it? basically, it is a real different and she asian -- differentiation. i will put this child on the bus, the child is sick. either the tireless -- child will throw up or other kids will catch it. is heartbreaking to see the tears in the eyes of a mom that has to do that.

in sacramento, it was interesting. about the conversation pay and pay equity and raising the minimum wage, when we are talking about all of this, be sure to talk not just about childcare but eldercare. in fact, some of my male colleagues, when we approached , they haveall this taken more days off of work to care for their parents than they ever did to care for their children. so whether it is women in the military that have emerged. the story i love best, a college

in new york. we are talking about a head start. we are talking about head start. spoke, you know the story. five kids, single mom, now she is going to speak to hundreds of women about her situation. she says i have been very confident about my work in my role as mom. speech on myy children last night. i made the speech and i said to them, do you have any questions? old said, i just have one question. who gave you permission to use my name in your speech? [laughter]

it's about respect, self-esteem, it's about whoever you are. if that isn't an argument for -- but they were able to get that in the omnibus bill. neanderthal might be the real word. we are basically the only country, one of three that doesn't have paid maternity leave. we are really behind. think aboutis, to why. you have been added for a long time. people think it is counter to american entrepreneurial spirit. does it have to be considered being just a thing for women? what is the basic family leave policy that the rest of the world has?

>> we have been working on family medical leave act when president clinton was elected. people like pat schroeder and george miller had been working on it for a very long time. as newer people came to congress, we were working on it. at 100 million families have taken advantage of family and medical leave in our country. for many people, it is not paid. is a big difference. that is part of the initiative we have to see change in. is why i am so grateful to maria shriver and the shriver report because so many people are working in so many different ways that it raises visibility and gives people hope that something can be different if they way and with their voices that we can have paid family and medical leave again for children as well as for other family members that may be sick.

it affects what men as well as women -- we just have to get it done. other countries look to us and say, what is it that you don't get about eight? -- about it? the same thing is childcare. he competition for talent has made some difference. if they want to attract real talent, they will just have to adjust some of these policies. i don't want this in any way to be interpreted as a political remark. we have to build the public support for it and make sure that elected officials from all sides of the aisle understand this is a priority of the american people. president lincoln said that public sentiment is everything. had some heavy lifting to do in his day and the public had to be with him when he did it.

the public wants this. elected officials have to hear that. to the extent that the change is added to it so it is not countered with "it will cost jobs." it will unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of america and give people options. that is why we are proud of the affordable care act because it does things similar to that as well. this can be done. >> there are many struggling in red states than blue states, that would be my guess. republicans saying they are raising this as a distraction from what happened with the affordable care act. the atmosphere that we know

exists in washington, where is the hope to building bridges or a way that so many americans are struggling to make a priority? >> public sentiment is everything. i keep saying that. to the extent that elected officials are aware that the public is aware makes all the difference in the world. we have been planning this for a long time, researching the main issues. prioritizing is very hard to do. important, paid leave and childcare for women in the workplace. affordablepected the care website was not going to work. we were in sync with the 155th anniversary. the 50th anniversary of signing thennedy

fair pay act. one of our residents was in atsachusetts at the library radcliffe institute about the anniversary. they had pictures of women surrounding the president and he signed it, all of these incredible people including eleanor roosevelt. and what was their recommendation? equal pay for equal work. balancere, family work, 50 years ago. let's just do it. there is nothing partisan about it. >> it is said that women pay more attention to these issues when they legislate that men do. there is a growing number of women in congress.

is it good practice to have women on both sides of the aisle? >> absolutely. we want more. there is not enough. that is not to say that we haven't had -- there are others that have been champions. 40 years, how much more can we ask of him and his family? some of you are entertaining thoughts of entering a public arena. it is really important to have many more women here. some of the great work they have done with issues that relate to family, i assure you that if you had more women in elective

office, it would help national security, economic security, aspectc life, and every including all the issues that we know firsthand about and want to improve. how we get more women. if you reduce the role of money in politics and increase the level of civility in the debate, more women will run for office and that is a very hopeful thing. >> why is that? is it fund-raising that they don't get into politics? had $100 probably million spent mischaracterizing who i am. say, iee that and they

could never take that. my familyver subject to mischaracterization about me. among those options, include service to our country. we go back to a young woman who might be considering this. or i can have somebody spend millions of dollars mischaracterizing who i am, at school about what somebody said about their mother on tv. constitution -- amend the constitution, informed citizen participation and

empowerment. for a democracy, a government of the many, not a government of the money. elected andys got we want you to go. they want to subject you to negative publicity and if you're forceful in your presentation, [indiscernible] a have to make sure it is competition of ideas and what people have in their heart and in their mind about how to make the future better for our country. i am telling you, it is worth it. toto have -- nothing could be more hopeful than to have more women in the political

process. >> when you're thinking of questions, i will ask you one last inspirational thing. is it true that you eat ice cream for breakfast? that inspired me to he doughnuts for breakfast. >> i have been known to. grandchildrend my overheard me saying this. if i only had one food, very dark chocolate ice cream. morning, noon, and night. >> i will choose one person from each section. >> thank you for being here and talking to us today. as part of my job, i try to encourage women with children to become politically active and be familiar with the issues.

i will be starting a speaking tour in a couple of weeks talking about the family act. i want to be able to say to them, it only takes x number of e-mails to your officials office for them to know. the years ago, the number was 15. if we get 15 phone calls, each one of those represents thousands and the constituency is paying attention to the issue. can you give me something to say to them? needsunt because she only 20 to make a difference. i have the privilege and honor of representing san francisco and the congress, so anything less than 5000, we don't even notice. say that they all should be writing in. 15 won't make much of a dent. issues,at oppose these

culturally, whatever, they are very forceful on the other side with their messaging. if you wanted to be a true grassroots message and not astro turf. i would also say that there is nothing more eloquent to a member of congress than the voice of his or her own constituents. and to the extent they can make a physical appearance, some of the districts are far-flung, somebody nearby can go and say i represent x number of people that are concerned. let's put it another way. reallyust say nothing good will happen unless they mail in. we can do all the maneuvering we

want on capitol hill, the outside mobilization is what makes good things happen. >> someone from the middle have a question? i was photographed for the shriver report and i work for an organization called foster forward. i come from a foster care background. i utilize a lot of the services in i got my bachelors degree the work that i do. [applause] i deal with a lot of youth who don't think they can make it, a lot of women who are single parents. how do we motivate women to walk the walk and actually show these people that with proper guidance, we can make this. i am nervous, so my mind is

going. the mayor said that support can go so far and it is not always about the money. me putomeone that made on my cap and down because i missed my graduation because my daughter was sick. these support systems to be part of our lives represent these things we are trying to change? yourd bless you for personal success and thank you for posing that question. and i have had these conversations and one of the beauties of the shriver report is that it not only gives the aboutcture to the country pulling women back from the brink and defining the challenge that is there. .he priorities are reaching out

we want to make the difference. is made in each person's individual life. doing,rage that you are doing,reach you are especially to young women, so they know the prospects they have, it is really important. there are so many organizations contributing to the design of something that looks like a much better future because we are unleashing the power of women. do,ant everything that we making them aware of their opportunities as important as making the public policy. i want to tell you, years ago when she first published the and we said to

-- you know her story, but she worked at that minimum wage level. do these people know that we are fighting for them to raise the minimum wage? she said, i haven't the faintest idea. caught ifve gotten they saw me reading the paper unless i move right to the sports page. they don't have the time. they are keeping their families together and they have all these things going on. ideahaven't the faintest that we are making the fight. , it is really important that they know how it affects them.

the fact that it is getting so much play is something that we have been trying for years. is the story of women in america. cover this. [applause] >> one last question. lex i am with the grassroots organization. wanting to make their voices heard. if you can talk for the women who are on the brink, son of the -- some of the specific tips generally making sure how to make them real.

i think that people have to know that there is heightened awareness of what the -- it doesn't have to be this way. there is heightened awareness of what can -- when we took the majority in the first 100 hours, ge forse the minimum wa the first time in 11 years. we will try to raise it again. long overdue. they are aware of what the possibilities are.

>> is the impact of women and men on these issues that relate to family is that it changes the thinking, or reshuffles the republicans, that is a success. it is more important to pass legislation than it is to win the election, unless they don't want to pass the legislation. the fact is they have to hear. know, they have to know that people are aware that these are possibilities. also, and this is my life, no we are not going away. this is not one meeting. this is a way of life. otherwise people think i will just get through this meeting.

we are not going away. in the 70's. there was a bill on president nixon's desk for childcare. people thought he might sign it. that he didn't for cultural reasons. you can just imagine. [laughter] it is similar to immigration. we are not going away. background checks. we are not going away. women's issues. we are not going away. impact.l have an frankly, we would rather have a change in the law that improves the lives of people. if we have a choice between

winning an election or winning a positiveng to have a impact on the lives of women. that is what a political debate is about. president kennedy said, the government has to choose in favor of these issues. i had a visit from a head of state, the president of columbia. not the university. [laughter] >> i was thinking columbia pictures. >> he was telling me all these plans he had for the growth of his economy in this country. i said, do tell. what are you basing the success on. he said i'm basing it on the increasing involvement of women in our economy. i said, we have a slogan. when women succeed, america succeeds. we subscribe to that.

.hat is what our country needs a full infusion of women's energy and entrepreneurship, a sense of what is important in all of this debate. i know this can happen. they have to know two things. how important it is to everybody family. men and women. everybody in the family. that we aren't going away until this happens. 165 years since seneca falls. , and some of the same issues are still out there. we have a golden opportunity. -- shriver report lists lifts this to a higher awareness. it is fabulous. let's thank maria. [applause]

for all the hard work she has done.

>> good morning. welcome to brookings. i am the acting director and vice president of our policy programs here. welcome to today's event. we have for policy recommendations for the president in 2014. in five days, president obama

will stand before congress and the american people and deliver his state of the union address. he will mainly focus on domestic and political issues. this reflects the rising concern for nation-building at home. there is a declining interest among the american public in getting involved in other nation's business. president obama came to office in 2009 on a wave of optimism about his transformational presidency. five years later, it is fair to say that the mood has soured. hopes has dimmed. hopes have dimmed. profound political and social

changes have aspired against him. there is growing polarization, gridlock, dysfunction in our government. despite these challenges at home, the president has an ambitious list of priorities when it comes to foreign policy and national security. refocusing the fight against terrorism, reducing nuclear weapons, negotiating with iran, restarting direct negotiations between israelis and palestinians. he also faces enormous challenges posed by the uprising around the world. he faces the continued rise of china and the unpredictability of north korea. the foreign-policy program at brookings is releasing its own assessment of these actions and the steps president obama's administration should take to make the most of his remaining three years in office. we are excited to present our flagship publication. as we did last year, we have

identified the big bets the president should make to advance u.s. security interests in the world. we have set for five areas where the white house should double down on its previous bets and move the agenda forward on iran, cuba, syria, and asia. we have pointed out a number of black swans -- low probability, but high impact events, that could derail the president's plans. we have added a new category of nightmare scenarios. we have also pointed out several areas where the president should hold his cards and stay the course. before i introduce the panel, let me offer one or two

overarching points that bob kagan made in the introductory memo. in our view, over the last year, the global situation has deteriorated. america's role looks more uncertain and tentative. americans are disillusioned about our traditional leadership role, and cuts in defense and foreign aid spending are raising questions about our international system. the revelations about u.s. intelligence collection in our own country and around the world reinforces a sense of doubt about the underbelly of u.s. predominance in the world. to restore u.s. leadership, president obama should reinvest in the global order in which norms are not only articulated and endured, but protected and and -- and endorsed wherever possible of stop this means doubling down on higher standards in the trade arena, rolling back nuclear weapons development, and protecting civilians from the ravages of civil conflict and authoritarian violence. it also means making new bets on

rules for governing the internet that would protect our profound interest in an open information system. we should also make the most of regional and international peacekeeping efforts in africa and protect our investments in a more stable afghanistan. while pursuing these opportunities, the administration must mitigate potential damage posed by the turmoil of the arab world, fraying alliances, and provocations from russia and china. we believe that with dedicated presidential leadership, properly resourced by congress, these threats could be managed and the united states can remain the leader of the liberal global order. let me now introduce our panelists. david sanger. david is currently the national security correspondent for the

new york times. he has reported from new york, tokyo, washington on a wide variety of issues. foreign policy, globalization, nuclear proliferation. he has also been part of two reporting teams that won pulitzer prizes. he is known for his work in tokyo. he has also worked in southeast asia. he got his start working in the economics arena and the business pages of the new york times. david will moderate from the podium and will pose questions to our panelists. let me quickly introduce them. in no particular order, maybe the order in which they're sitting. bruce is a senior fellow here at our center for 21st-century security and intelligence. we also have a senior fellow at the center for 21st-century

security and intelligence , focusing in particular on afghanistan and illicit networks around the world. steve is a senior fellow with our center for the u.s. and europe. he directs our nonproliferation projects. mark is the director of a center on middle eastern policy and also a senior fellow who will cover all the various things going on in that part of the world. suzanne is a senior fellow at the same center and she runs an iran project. she will speak on iran. we also have a guess just off a -- guest just off a plane from korea.

he will be our expert on asia, china, the koreas, etc. we have the director of the china center here. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. >> thanks very much. it is great to be here. it is wonderful to see such a big crowd. his is one of my favorite events your brookings. i think this book really -- it is one that i keep on my desk all through the year. i refer to it. when i talk to my many friends, i see what they wrote. sometimes it is welcome and sometimes it is not. i have two observations from reading through his year's -- this year's entries. it is about half as big as last year. the official explanation is that last year was the beginning of

the second term. the unofficial explanation is that this group has also solved so many of the world's problems. if you read this thematically, what really jumps out is america's contribution to the world. through many of the other issues, their recommendations for what the president should do and then the frustration that the united states right now, despite its status as the world's largest military and economic power, and its biggest

diplomatic convener, has a hard time convincing other nations of what is in the world's interest, america's interest, and their own interests. as i ask questions to each of our authors and scholars, i want to focus on the question of where american leverage is. if it is gone, where did it go? i thought i would start with you. tamara, you have written a fascinating short paper here on egypt. you write that the u.s. cannot prevent the radicalization of the muslim brotherhood. but we can seek to mitigate the effects of this radicalization. one year ago, we all thought that the muslim brotherhood appeared to be in command of the country. the question was, could we moderate them as leaders?

can you moderate them from a war against the military that unseated them? it was interesting to note that you wrote that foreign aid cuts put into effect had no effect. tell us why that was. tell us why you think we could create some leverage with the egyptian in the coming weeks and months. >> on the narrow question of u.s. foreign assistance to egypt, i think one reason why that decision, which was made in october, and did not have much impact, is because it took so long. in fact, according to news reports, chuck hagel, the

secretary of defense, had warned the egyptian military prior to their takeover that are eight -- that theiraid aid would be at risk if they took that that. they were not dissuaded. in response to the coup, the u.s. did not immediately cut off assistance. there is a provision that suggested that that was what they should do. having failed to exercise leverage -- having failed to establish the credibility of the threat that had been made, the administration, when it finally made the decision to suspend certain forms of assistance, was just trying to draw a line under the problem. i do not think anyone here or in cairo predicted it would have that effect. the broader problem that you identified of reduced american leverage is not about the choices that have been made here

in washington. it is about what has gone on in the region. it is about what has gone on in egypt. the decisions made by the government to govern n/a exclusionary and ham-handed manner and then to fail to compromise when presented with a mass uprising against that governance, those choices are driven by the political competition taking place in egypt. and at this point, the brotherhood and the military feel they are engaged in a -- in an existential struggle. the military believes they had no choice but to carry out the coup and protect the stability of egypt and that's what they see at stake and the brotherhood is facing the wrath of the military in a full-on crackdown and believe they are fighting for their organization's survival. i think in that context, there is very little outside actors,

even the united states, could do to affect things. given that, what can the u.s. do to protect its own interests, because radicalization of even a small percentage of brotherhood supporters or members would present a significant upswing in the violence in the region. what the united states can seek to do in this case to mitigate is to set limits on its own involvement and culpability in what is a very far-reaching campaign of repression and suppression in egypt, which is extended not only to the brotherhood, not only to the violent extremists that are a real problem to the united states and egypt and the region, but has extended as well to all kinds of peaceful political dissenters. so the united states at this point i think, needs to correct

its fundamental error in the three years since the egyptian revolution where it has overinvested in each leadership, the military council after the revolution, president morsi and the general, let them not repeat that mistake and instead can clarify u.s. interests in counterterrorism extend to threats against the united states and u.s. interests and we are not going to engage in a wholesale investment in an egyptian war on terror that is defined to include all of its political opponents. >> thanks, tamara. so, bruce, we heard from tamara that our chances for influencing the egyptians are a, relatively low, and secondly that we shouldn't overinvest in the

leadership. fortunately, we have huge influence and haven't overinvested in the saudis which you have written about here. what jumped out at me was that the saudis have spent $25 billion in the past year and will spend 30 this year in jordan, bahrain, in yemen, in pakistan. amounts that really dwarf anything we are spending in that region. they have done the sometimes with things contrary to american interests. for example, they were in full support of the coup in egypt that we were just discussing. so tell us a little bit about where president obama is in influencing the saudis and tell us a little bit as well about what your concern is if the saudis become coinced that the negotiations with iran won't

work. >> sure. the saudis are deeply disappointed in president obama, as ted noted in the beginning, they were very optimistic, like everyone else about obama in the beginning. riyad is the first arab country president obama went to but the saudis have become disillusioned and they refuse to take their seat at the u.n. security council and argued that was a spite to the united states. i'm not sure most americans feel that way, but that was the saudi argument. they've promised to give the government of lebanon $3 billion worth of arms and to buy them from the french and that is also to be a spite to the united states that we won't get the arms from the united states and the media is filled with saudi anger and disappointment for the

united states. but at the end of the day, the united states-saudi relationship is not broken. this is our oldest alliance in the middle east that dates back to 1945 and continues to function in many ways despite the public irritation and the reason it does and the reason we don't have that much leverage is we need each other. saudi arabia is not only important to global energy supplies and may not provide americans with their oil anymore but it is critical to the functioning of the global economy and without saudi oil being distributed, there would be severe energy disruptions. secondly, their soft power in the islamic world remains very important. they are the home of the two holiest mosques in islam. they are very important to us in the fight against al qaeda. the last two attempts were

thwarted by saudi intelligence. they need us, too. saudi arabia's defense against at the end of the day external , aggression is from the united states of america. no one else can provide them with that kind of shield and that applies to the iranians. we have a relationship where we both need each other and therefore can't push too hard the other way. what the arab awakening did was expose their fundamental values at the bottom of this relationship -- are not shared at all, that we don't have anything really in common with the house of saud with an absolute monarchy with their views about gender equality that are at the other end of the

spectrum. we support democracy. they make no pretense of supporting democracy and we saw that vividly this year in egypt. the saudis were critical to the coup, to helping the coup take place. they were the first within minutes to recognize the new government and they orchestrated a multibillion dollar aid package to the government. the statements say, don't worry what the americans do, we'll outbid them. the americans give you a billion dollars, we'll make sure you get $6 billion. it's hard to have a lot of leverage on a country that has this much money. when it comes to iran, my own view at the end of the day, if the united states in the p-5 plus one succeeds in getting a deal with the iranians which the six negotiating parties accept, the saudis will accept it as well. the saudi's do not want to be the odd man out rejecting the deal that would be in effect the permanent five members of the security council and the iranians and don't want to be in the position where they are the odd man out standing next to netanyahu.

nothing they hate more than there is being associated with israel and especially netanyahu on some global issue and very uncomfortable that they are being put in that camp. they don't want to be partners with netanyahu. at the end of the day, they will accept the deal and criticize it along the way, but at the end of the day they will come along to be part of the process. >> if there is no deal -- >> it's up to the americans to fix it. the saudi position will be you tried, it didn't work, now use force. and we will be happy to hold your coat. \[laughter] >> would they be happy to go buy a bomb from the pakistanis? >> one of the great unknowns is whether they have already got a deal with the pakistanis for a bomb. that's one of the mysteries of the contemporary middle east and south asia.

why does pakistan have the fastest growing arsenal in the world and producing more bombs than the indians by double or triple? is there some external partner who they have a commitment to. on this issue, there is a lot of smoke, very little fire, but if you ask my bottom line, i think there have been discussions between the saudis and the pakistanis and the saudis have the commitment to provide a bomb and you can take it to the bank and cash it for probably nothing. [laughter] >> ok. let me turn now to steve. steve, we don't have a lot of leverage in egypt. we don't have a lot with the saudis. surely with president putin, we are awash in it. so you have written a couple of different essays in here, but the two areas where we are concerned is the ukraine and

whether or not putin will play or will foil the president's large objective at the beginning when he came into office in 2009 of truly bringing down the number of nuclear weapons around the world and you don't seem terribly optimistic about the chances of going beyond the new start deals. talk to us about those two elements. >> in the paper that possibly russia might go rogue in its neighborhood, this is the question about putin's concern that the european union is intruding on his turf. with the association agreements that were initialed with muldova

and georgia last november, the russians were pleased that the ukranians froze their process. as we look at this, the concern is that sometime in the spring, the russians might take punitive actions against them and if european union gets back on the track, ukraine could find itself in putin's target site. there is not a lot of leverage the united states has to exercise over the russians and it reflects a couple of things. one is the deterioration of the u.s.-russian relationship. it is a thinner relationship. we don't have much leverage to say, if you do a, we will undercut you on b. there is a huge balance in interests. imbalance in interests. for russia and putin, building influence is the number one priority. it's important to his vision of russia as a great power and important to his domestic, being plucked in the neighborhood, having that influence is important with the constituency

that he looks to for support at home and looks at the european union and says and says they are challenging my projects and i'm going to push back. in the case of the ukraine and we may have leverage there but it will be maximized if we can work with the europeans and won't be leverage used with the russians. and it seems to be moving in this direction a little bit. yesterday they announced that some ukranian visas had been revoked because they had connections to use of force. there is more to be played here in terms of threatening sanctions, both visa sanctions and financial sanctions against a group of people against that inner circle, because if they begin to worry they can't travel to the west and here's where it is important to bring in the european union. the kids go to school and vacations in europe, they want to travel to europe.

somehow if washington and europe can put that pressure, you may have an impact on events on the ground in ukraine that could discourage use of violence and b, i think this will be hard to do but prod him into a good-faith effort to negotiate. i don't think the europeans and the united states has this with russia. i think barack obama would like to further reduce u.s. and russian nuclear weapons. you have to have a partner that is prepared to play. putin is not prepared to engage in furtherer nuclear reductions. if you want to do that, you have to solve nuclear defense. you have to solve prompt global strike, the russians have tightened up the knots but they aren't solving the issues.

in the case of nuclear weapons, there may be an opportunity to move forward on this if the russians change their mind. until they do it, there's not much that president obama can do. he should not get into a negotiation with himself, although there may be a couple of small steps he could take. one is to accelerate the implementation of the start treaty. the treaty requires that be accomplished by 2018. that could be accomplished this year and could be something that the president could say, i have played a role in reducing nuclear weapons but you wouldn't do that without affecting the view in moscow and position the united states to have some demonstrated deliverables at the conference, the nonproliferation

treaty conference in 2015. >> steve, any possibility that the president could go down significantly below the new start numbers? he has plenty of studies on his desk that suggest 1,000 weapons or even fewer would be perfectly sufficient, that you could rotate some of these in and out and not all be on call at the same time, which is of good news that the people in the air force are having a hard time passing their exams. i'm running them, silos might help that process. what is the downside to acting unilaterally? >> the joints chief of staffs validated the president's proposal by a third and bring it down to 1,000 strategic warheads. some in the administration say if that is the number that suffices for deterrence and suffices for america's war plans, why should we let russia keep us at a hire level.

level?gher that is a minority view. i think there is probably going to be a stand in the administration that says let's see if the russians are prepared to engage. at 2015, if it is clear that the russians are stuck, there might be that discussion within the administration about do we do something unilaterally with our force structure. given where i think republicans are in congress, potentially provokes a fairly big fight with congress. >> on afghanistan, the big news in the past couple of days has been the pentagon saying well, if we are going to keep a force in afghanistan after 2014, the biggest it should be is 10,000

and that includes other nato allies, but we are prepared to live with zero if we can't get president karzai to cooperate with us. two questions for you. first of all, does it make any difference -- can 10,000 have any significant effect in afghanistan from either a security or a development view point? and secondly, if you go back to last year's report or other reports like this, you'll find discussion about negotiations with the taliban. the only one who seems interested in that right now is karzai himself. have we lost interest in that issue? >> the troop number is linked to leverage. importantly, the troop number is anchored within a critical triangle of the security, the

elections that are coming up this year in afghanistan as well as negotiations with the taliban. i would say the tragedy of u.s. policy in afghanistan is that this is one place where we have had significant amount of leverage and chosen not to exercise and greater disintegration in afghanistan as well as u.s. relationship in afghanistan. and indeed, the collapse of our security agreement, which is the deal that would allow u.s. forces to stay in afghanistan after 2014. our assumption heading into the negotiations was that it would be obvious to the extent that they are kind enough to devote any troops to stay, they would jump on that and not miss the deal. and we have found ourselves perplexed that president karzai has refused to sign the deal and making up a variety of conditions, some of which cannot

be satisfied and is himself turning the security agreement into what he believes is leverage on his part. to go back to your question, 10,000 troops make the difference, i would say yes. see where we are in the security situation in afghanistan. the afghan security forces have made great strides. they are far more competent than they were a year ago. they are now providing security

in afghanistan on their own for about half a year. the taliban over the past several months launched a n intense campaign that is sustained at the current level. afghan security forces have not budged and assured themselves of the tech any cool route that better than any of us thought. they are still entrenched and the afghan security forces are no where near to defeating it. and the advanced security forces are critically suffering from a host of key deficiencies. these decisions are not surprising our effort to stand up the afghan security forces. knew that they would be here in 2014 and since 2009-2010 we have been telling the afghan, don't worry, we will be embedded in the 10,000 force number and we are telling them, maybe not. you are on your own. your logistics are deeply troubled. too bad. you have to cope.

your intelligence capacity and strategic planning? too bad. we have been promising we would help and not we are not. we are both overestimating the troubles and difficulties that afghanistan is facing and jeopardizing to strengthen the real accomplishments that have taken place by prematurely pulling the plug on afghanistan. but let me come back to the number. i agree with the pentagon assessment. either we have a meaningful commitment that can help the afghan security forces tackle the taliban insurgency and other insurgency groups or we go out. if the number is somewhere in between simply for the show or because the only hope to use the forces left to strike these targets but define these tarts such as al qaeda targets in pakistan, we are turning our troops into sitting ducks and

provoking the relationship between afghanistan and pakistan -- difficulties in the relationship and further justifying the taliban insurgency. so either we recognize we can still contribute and make the contribution meaningful that protects our interests in the country, in pakistan and in regional cooperation or we decide these interests are no longer worth it and we go out. we come back to the elections. afghanistan is at a moment of profound uncertainty. a lot has been accomplished, but the future is deeply troubling and uncertain. the afghans are watching what the united states will do. they want the afghans are hoping that the united states will have

extension of military force but they are watching the elections. the elections are an opportunity to renew the deficiencies that have plagued the country for several years. but the elections can go disastrously wrong. either through violence or extended political crisis and even if they do not go wrong, the process is likely going to be dragged out well into the fall of 2014, into october, november, 2014, even without a major crisis associated with the elections. if we do not have a bilateral security agreement and waiting for the next government to sign a security agreement, we might find ourselves in december 2014 with zero bilateral agreement and the options defacto as

opposed as a result of a strategic decision on our part. my last point, however, is that the u.s. policy should get away from constantly badgering president karzai. unfortunately, it only makes him believe that his intransigence is a smart play that gives him leverage. we should reduce the pressure and lay our cards out. if this is a b.s.a., this is what our commitment would look like and not be selfish interests such as al qaeda targets in pakistan but it would meaningfully contribute to afghanistan and up to them to sign it. as long as we continue in

tit for tat negotiations with president karzai, he continues to believe he has leverage and can milk more out of that leverage. and he unfortunately completely discounts the options because he is persistent because his strategic perspective is fundamentally different than the u.s. washington -- the united states government -- is increasing continually asking, do we have an interest or stake in afghanistan? is this through balancing to the east, to china. is this a key threat to foreign policy. karzai believes that afghanistan in is the center of u.s. foreign policy, that the occupation and policy, that the occupation being the great game in central asia. i and he is persuaded that the u.s. can never walk away from afghanistan and forever needs afghanistan as a strategic

platform for engaging russia and for engaging with china. and there is a profound conception that leads parallels -- misconception that leads to paralysis of the policy. michael. turn to what president karzai has in common with the kim family is they, too, believe the center of u.s. policy has been about their country. we have had that discussion when kim jung il was alive. two questions about the north koreans: first, did we get kim jung un wrong?

two years ago, the intelligence estimates that you were hearing about was that his uncle was going to be running the country and the military wouldn't put up with what they viewed was a spoiled untested leader? and second, did we get the chinese wrong here? while we understood they wanted stability more than anything else on the korean peninsula, did we believe that they would have the capability, the desire to rein in the north koreans that has been made clear during the bush administration and the obama administration they simply can't do? >> those are very good questions. i think what the latest events in north korea yet again demonstrate is just how thin our knowledge is about the north, even though frankly, it's leakier than it used to be. in the case of the persian -- of the purge and execution, the south korean intelligence, anticipated this and disclosed it a few days in advance. it is not as if there is no information coming through. but there was a misreading in many circles of the way power is structured in the north, the capacity for a member of the kim family to dominate, because it

is a dynasty. and the fact that he may have been a young kid, at the end of the day didn't seem to matter. even if he seemed in a lot of the actions to take on deeply entrenched interests. in a very short period of time, he has moved against, that is to say two years, moved against all of those core leaders who supported his father, including a number of people in uniform. he has had his uncle executed, which is extraordinary, and he has defied the chinese repeatedly. so there is something going on here that we still don't fully grasp. the counterargument may be about mr. kim is the fact that the extraordinary things within the north korean system have now been disclosed. here was someone appointed by

kim jung il, but a signal to the people of north korea that maybe they are not all wise and seeing what goes on within their borders. whether that has a lasting affect or not we don't know, some people say that it will. but for the moment, and i think probably for the foreseeable future, we see him consolidating his power and going his own way, building a ski slope, inviting dennis rodman. all kinds of unusual gestures. >> that worked out really well. >> as for china, the irony in the situation, the chinese have long insisted to us and to others that they did not have the influence that we believe they could have or should have on the peninsula. and in this case, it may well have been true. there's very little to suggest that china had advanced awareness of what was going on, the imminence of the purge and

execution, the irony here being that the chinese here over the last four, five years have invested in north korea in terms of a much heightened economic role and the presumption being in china that when kim jung il had a moment that they could make their influence felt. maybe this time somehow convince the north to look at politics differently, to look at their future differently. or to be prepared for their collapse. any of the above. what it does illustrate is that the failure with respect to , with respect to intelligence and policy, our collective failures. no one has been able to get this place right or to understand whether there are levers that

can be turned in any meaningful way. theve tried to argue in piece that richard bush and i wrote, the question is whether over time the chinese see enough of a risk and a danger in north korea that they can be nudged towards a higher level of cooperation with us and the south koreans. >> one last question. the other interesting assessment that the u.s. had last year was that the chinese would really be consolidating their leaders power by focusing on the domestic economy, worrying about the slowdown in growth. instead, we have the uncertainties that come out of their declaration of the air defense identification zone, continued tensions with the

japanese, and to some degree the koreans on territory. is it surprising that they are pouring all that effort into this effort? >> i think what she is trying to do is reinforce his authority and abroad. here's a different kind of leader and he seems much less hesitant about demonstrating that. the chinese are juggling a very complicated agenda, but he and those around him don't want to make any suggestion that there is weakness and vulnerability on china's part that others can take advantage of. the other aspect that warrants notice is that this is a phenomenon not just in china, what across all of northeast asia. aboutbalance that i wrote , if the intent was that the united states could find a way

to deal credibly not only with china but all the other states in east asia in an effective way and give them shared incentives for cooperation hasn't turned out that way. the tensions between japan and south korea, the issues between china and japan, the fact that you have certain leaders in all the critical capitals here is not exactly what the administration bargained on, to say the least. >> suzanne, one area i think it is fairly clear that leverage has worked is iran. the sanctions got ramped up, the sabotage of the uranium program got ramped up. that combined with the election of a new leader brought about negotiation that many would have bet against going this far. my question to you is, how much time do we have to actually strike a real deal here before

president rouhani runs out of room? >> thanks, david. i think you are exactly right. what we have seen is the success of strategy that was built on the assemblage of real and .owerful american leverage it was what we would like to see in american foreign policy, both a long-term investment, not just in the covert programs you have written about, but also in the worldwide of a consensus for isolating iran and for eliminating the trade and their access to the international financial system that was so incredibly powerful in changing the leadership priorities there. it should be credited to the obama administration, not just as a long-term investment, but really is a nimble exploitation of an opportunity that was

presented to it. was the administration pursuing diplomacy, attempting to engage the iranians, even at a time when the pressure was wrapping up to its highest level, even at a time that thatc image was a strategy was almost entirely pressure and very little engagement. the fact that those efforts and engagement continued even when expectations were lowest, enable the strategy to pay off once the opportunity of the rouhani election came through. i tend to think in terms of the time and opportunity today, the balance of opportunity is on the iranian side. rouhani was not an accident. he was elect it as part of a shift within the iranian leadership to put forward a more modern leader. everything that has transpired since the early days of june and it was clear on the night that he was elect did, that this was

going to be his primary mission. everything he has done since that time, the team yesterday in place, the speeches he has made, the trade office he is made in terms of domestic right parties in which she has moved much more fluidly and much less progressively than people came out on the street to support them at the ballot box had hoped. he has been given a mandate to get some sort of nuclear deal. the other evidence of that comes in the interim agreement, not just that it was concluded with relative rapidity as you said. a year ago when we discussed this document, the idea that diplomacy would pay off in any kind of nuclear deal within a span of 12 months, i would've been laughed off the stage if i had made that kind of assertion. get a fairlyid comprehensive interim agreement in terms of what the iranians as confidence

building measures. never before had we seen them aseed to sign onto something wide range with a wide array of constraints on the program. it was nowhere near what we're going to be looking for in the final agreement. >> that takes me to my follow-up question. view this as a free agreement with tiny bits of rollback, the final agreement has to be mostly about rollback. it has to be about expanding the amount of warning time you would have if the iranians raised a bomb. somehow that would play out inside the iranian political theater. >> i think it will be an excruciating negotiation. we saw how difficult it was to move from the high-level interim agreement to the implementation plan. it took two months and several attempts by the iranians to walk away from the table. it clearly provoked a bit of backlash in washington, but in effect at the iranians are signed on at this point.

they have gotten relatively little in terms of sanction relief. a couple of billion dollars and some temporary openings in some in your tent but certainly not existential areas of the economy. that will not overcome the pain they have been experiencing. the loss of a million barrels a day for several years, they need that final deal to deliver to their people on the expectation that rouhani said they needed to be able to deliver to the supreme leader because he has given them running room. a debate within teheran. it is not meaningless or wholly fictional. i don't think it is yet a stage that it is likely to undercut rouhani and it will not get to the stage that it will prevent him from making a deal. until he starts fiddling on the domestic agenda, that is why he has been so cautious there. i don't mean to understate this constraints that are ahead of us. bobou read the piece by einhorn, an experienced u.s.

, you will with iran word nightmare scenario talks break down. that is not outside the realm of possibility. at this point the iranians are in it for the long haul because that is where the payoff for teheran is. on the flipside, the difficulty will be here in washington because the administration has a fight on its hands with the congress that is nowhere near over despite the fact that the bill is taking longer to get to the floor. onre will also be a fight the floor with our key allies in the region. none of those disputes or obstacles to the administration here are likely to get easier. in the short term they're likely to get tougher. get to the audience, the one word does not come up yet in this discussion is syria. i just wanted to ask steve to step in on this for a moment.

--k first on the question of given the incredibly warm, collegial atmosphere of yesterday's opening in geneva, what you expect to come out of .his and steve, how is routine going to play this. and how is president putin going to play this? this has been premised on the notion that u.s./russian concert could create leverage over the actors fighting in syria that produce acould negotiated end to this fighting. otherwise there would not be a near-term and to this fighting. i questioned that premise for a long time. i have been incredibly

skeptical, first that the russians could be persuaded to change their view in backing aside and second, even if they change their view would they be able to exercise any significant level over a side? i think at the end of the day, the reason this conference is happening is because aside is feeling relatively conference -- relatively confident. he is confident in his ability to persuade more and more act , that thernationally thread of sunni extremism is sufficient that he himself is not the greatest threat to stability. i think he is feeling confident militarily, in the balance on the ground. the syrian opposition, meanwhile had the power of leaks going into this conference, the power to say no. did decide they also to comment because they were

threatened with withdrawal of western assistance. this does not bode well, i output.or any as a bar has gotten closer, the success expected has gotten lower. in my own view, and i think the history of civil war backs us up , the outcomes are going to be driven by the military balance on the ground, not by negotiators in europe. >> steve, i'm sure you would've liked to be a fly in the wall in the conversation between president obama and resident routine on the phone. how do you think that went? it applies to syria, you have had a. of three months where there has been a degree of american -russian cooperation. the process to get the chemical weapons out of syria and to should not disguise

the fact that when you're talking about the broader future of syria, there is a big difference between the way the united states has a future the russian vision. the russians don't want to see assad touched out. they also see him as representing a degree of sterility -- a degree of stability. what happens if they sewed leaves? from their perspective, it is much worse. certainly, i think, with the military success we have been having in the last couple of months, you have to be more confident. my guess is that we are not going to see a lot of conversions between washington and moscow even if they're there is a matter of getting the chemical weapons out.

>> we're going to turn all of you -- turn to all of you. raise your hand, when you get the microphone please tell us who you are and please put it? at the end of the question. we will start with this gentleman right here. high, i am with "china data could you elaborate on what the incentive would be? what do you think it would be balance in thech new year? wrote is very the rebalancing

strategy being well received. , there was apeting -- 39% said it was poorly designed. obviously very different from what you described. be tpp doesn't look to concluded as soon as expected. your thoughts, thank you. retrospect, it was significantly oversold by some of the proponents that advocated it. that said, the essence of it, i think, as jeff and i tried to argue in our paper, makes sense. it makes sense because it is a political, economic and security that the united states would wish to operate in

this most dynamic region. onesroblems of course are of internal dynamics in the theon that have undermined overall context within which states interact. of course any of the u.s. problems in terms of the dysfunction of our own government process, of preoccupations here, that among other things, constraining and preventing obama from traveling to the region not too long ago, although he has rescheduled a trip for asia. the issue at the end of the day is whether a policy can be based on the kind of rod and supposed -- the kind of broad currents of polls. broad principles. probably the targets that were laid out were overly ambitious in terms of the fulfilling of the agreement.

on the other hand, i think that china's government looks at this in a much more measured way. thatnitial instinct was this is anti-china. i don't think that is what was intended. , they, the longer-term proof of the policy will not be a one-shot deal. it has to be something more fundamental that will be what is thetime. alternative for the united states or anyone else? either you find a framework whether states can compete and cooperate, or you have a far messier region where all kinds of dangerous risks that i don't think anyone seriously would wish to complicate. this puts united states obviously in a very complicated position. it tries to move ahead with all

relevant actors, but we can see that a lot of the practical changes -- challenges, are much more manifest right now and it has to be demonstrated not through words or speeches, but through a capacity to really solve critical problems. on that i think the verdict is still out. >> gentlemen, right back here. >> there is no chapter about europe in that. are noondering if there black swans? is everything is flat and boring as usual. in the elections we could've had a majority of right-wing or left-wing members of parliament into would turn parliament an even more dysfunctional organization than it already is,

which would support american ambitions for trade negotiations moving forward. generally speaking, why do you bigk the president lost a opportunity of engaging with europe? he was that popular when he engage with europe the first time. he is really very unpopular in europe due to the nsa thing. your comment would be appreciated. >> steve? >> the issues you're talking about including with upcoming elections, is not a good time for the american presidency. even if he were to say that he wants to influence them a credit collections in allied our there really was nothing he could write that would fit into the context. a the extent that you have

number of cases, we talked about how to work with russia. in some cases, the success of this will be increased if you are on the same page with europe. >> the biggest outflow of the edward snowden revelations have been more economic and diplomatic? unhappy withwere the obama administration as they were unhappy before that with the bush administration for different reasons. it strikes me that all this discussion of segmenting the whether you want to buy american products