focus to the human rights question. one senior state department official said you don't expect relegate your husband's release to all these geopolitical challenges. said, the issue will be resolved until my husband's release. there are hundreds and thousands of political prisoners. many people don't get the links between internal freedom and external peace. real quick about the issue of , the emboldened dissidents in speaking up for human rights encourages those inside iran. there is nothing more fearful for a dissident than feeling alone and isolated and not cared about by the rest of the world. we can do an enormous amount to increase the strength of

dissident movements inside authoritarian countries by speaking out in supporting them. this help gives them the power to rise up. that is another issue that the west does not understand. i agree with michael about missing the conventional wisdom of the arab spring. tois fantastic to look back supposedly smart people in 2009, they said the best thing was a wise, charismatic leader call bush a al-assad. they said he was a partner for these, prosperity and stability. an israeli newspaper said syria was an island of stability. others talking about egypt is a rock of stability.

all of these were falsehoods. dangerously wrong. they weren't listening to these dissident movements and the fact of double thinkers is always bigger than we think. the number of true believers is typically lower than we think. >> i'm going to push you on a little bit. that's not mean less emphasis on the nuclear issue. regime has nuclear weapons, the amount of progression -- oppression would make what's going on now seems small. the unfortunate corollary of that is that the people supporting terrorism and undermining countries and funding terrorism, brutally

repressing 80 million people, that is an untenable situation. >> we have some questions. introduce yourself and speak into the microphone. >> we are from the e-learning institute for iranian civil society. that inion is about 2009 american intelligence policymakers were saying that these guys are going to wind big we don't need to do much. we don't need to do much. i question that because president obama and one of the very do things he said -- very few things he said was that -- you'ree chanting

either with the regime are with us. we don't care who wins. it doesn't make any difference to us. i question that the move was one of optimism. the green movement was inconvenient. a lot of iranians feel a big sense of betrayal. i wanted to voice at here. >> i think everything is true. i agree with everything you said. of course the iranians feel betrayed. they were betrayed. they have a right to feel betrayed. consensuse time, the of punditry at that time was

that this is a huge thing. the uprising. and it continue. it went on and on. and they said, you will win. it's not easy to be wrong systematically wrong about everything, from beginning to end, but we are trying. in that case, we did pretty well. >> this raises a point that i would like to tease out. getting back to what you said about strategic clarity. on the right and the left. that moral clarity is an impediment. i will be writing about it in my column this week -- that we talk

about what is going on, including the islamic state, in away from -- we get the possibility of good strategic thinking. that moral clarity serves strategic clarity. decidinghen you're whether to support the green movement in 2009, when you're deciding a few years ago whether to support the nationalist in syria. the equation becomes what can they do. they were given guns and could not accomplish much. should we be supporting what is left of the nationalist secular movement in syria. do we have a moral obligation to support those people who are fighting for values we hold dear. ? even if they lose. or only if it's clearly utilitarian variant -- clearly

utilitarian. >> the moral choice turns out to be the pragmatic choice. the op ed in the new york times was outrageous. one man who was nine years in a log said, the happiest day in prison was when he called the soviet union evil. he's saw the blinding truth about that. that too many times -- i think it boils down to a loss of confidence in our own values. when you compare situations today, their many differences, ,ut american policymakers instead of a nuclear superpower, which spanned 11 time zones and get -- killed tens of maze of

-- killed tens of millions of people -- you compare that to iran today, which does not have a fraction of the power of the soviet union union. people are afraid to confront them. that is outrageous. on both moral and strategic grounds. >> let's go to dana. >> transnational strategy group. the question is more of a challenge. i think of myself as having a moral view of this. i am moved by what you're saying about not forgetting the human rights aspect for there is a part of the that was the challenge you. what you want to do about this? the west has been defined for decades with sanctions towards

islamic republic, but it's had the effect of starting a negotiation again. it took that. -- for those of us who think that a letter are 2 -- what do weve need to do? how much to put on the table? saying, let's put this into the last talking point, but what will it take to move his agenda forward? how likely is it? where we joined by those areas that are even closer to have more leverage? >> look at reagan and the soviet empire and i think you can answer your question just

from historical events. when reagan started speaking out against the soviet empire and saying that it's day in history was finished, people yelled and screamed at him. they said he was dangerous. when jackson-vanik was up for grabs, you cannot imagine how many people said do not put the soviet union with its back against the wall, things will get worse. the things that people like david hear everyday when they speak about what is going on inside iran. and as we know from all the dissidents, speaking out made life better. supporting dissident groups inside the soviet empire eventually was a crucial part in bringing down the whole soviet system.

if we could bring down the soviet empire, how could anybody doubt that we could bring down this hollow, corrupt regime in tehran? it does not begin to compare. yet whenever we have this discussion, people always talk as if it is big, powerful, massive, they are brilliant. they make mistakes all the time. can i make one point about iran? keep it in mind. iran, on paper, should be one of the most successful countries on earth. they have everything. when we sit down and draw up a checklist of what does it take to be a booming, democratic, successful country, iran has it all. even an educated middle-class and women with a significant role in society. they have it all. now, go into the streets of the

major cities. what do you see? a basket case. record numbers of suicides, drug addiction, prostitution, you name it. all those indicators of social malaise and failure. these people, brilliant, as we invariably think of them, have wrecked a country that was very hard to wreck. sort of like venezuela in that regard. my journalism days sent me to venezuela. everybody said god is venezuelan, you cannot wreck this place. food drops out of the sky, trees grow twice as fast. it takes a lot of work to wreck it, they've wrecked it. so, support the opposition. what are we waiting for?

as was said by soviet dissidents, it is morally right and strategically right. and it will probably work. everyone is afraid of them. everybody thinks it is crackpot and crazy. and yet, the track record, historically, is pretty good. ask robespierre, sometimes it works. >> there is a certain generation in the american foreign-policy making community that has experienced the cold war. they know how the system works. one of the things some younger people have forgotten is that there is a thinking process that began as an arms agreement and then it proliferated to encompass human rights issue.

most unfortunately, the brilliant people who are in government right now in the u.s. did not think of a similar model for the nuclear negotiations with the islamic republic of iran. maybe because it was not a priority, maybe they had no recollection of how things were done in the cold war period. take a look at the right, iranians are successful everyplace in the world but inside of iran. that tells you something about the system, which is called the islamic republic. >> there is something you can do on a personal level and then more on a diplomatic level. a few weeks ago, my organization, advancing human rights, relaunched movements.org, which links dissidents to people around the world with skills that can

it is like craigslist for human rights. thousands of people have come asking for something, legal help, pr help, policy health, some of them want a song written. you can go to movements.org and find somebody from syria, saudi arabia, russia, china -- it is open to large dictatorships. we have had songs about sergei magnitsky and about syrian refugees and so forth. we need to have a rabble rousing. i came up with the idea to rename the street in front of the chinese embassy liu xiaobo plaza, congress voted to change the name in front of the embassy to liu xiaobo plaza, just as they did with the soviet union. why is every street in front of the iranian embassy not named

after a political prisoner? it has some effect on the soviet union. the press covered it massively, liu xiaobo plaza, the chinese had to answer for this outrageous violation of human rights. on the national level, i think traditional things like raising the names of these political prisoners in meetings. when you do go negotiate in geneva or vienna, you have to -- you cannot say we will get to human rights later. saudi arabia and officials said of course we will raise human rights, but then they ran out of time. raise the names, a guy like one

dissident said the fact that he was on the cover of "the economist saved his life. " after 10 years in prison, he said it saved his life. attention, attention. linking any improvements to the iranian economy to improvements in human rights is a critical letter, which is underappreciated. >> let's go to the north a little bit. >> i wanted to talk more about the green movement. i'm a believer that the green movement is not dead and iranians are very smart, like boxers, waiting for the opportunity to come again and get out into the streets when they feel it is appropriate. what can the west or the u.s. do this time around when the opportunity comes? i am sure it will come again, it is a matter of time. what should they do to support

people? what things can i do? what things can they do? >> one of the things that the islamic republic cannot control is spontaneous uprisings. they can infiltrate any political organization, they can infiltrate even the smallest cell. the intelligence services have learned all the tricks of spy craft from the kgb and from the shah's secret service. they are good at this. they cannot control when massive uprisings spontaneously break out. massive uprisings need communication. among those who participate in the uprising. there's also a need for further mobilization of the public for a specific cause.

there you need public broadcast systems. the islamic republic has a highly sensitive institution because it has strategic value for the regime. most foreign broadcasters to iran are extremely cautious in their coverage of the green revolution. one of the things that could be done and should be done is to provide not only support from the media only when things happen, but also prior to it. we do not have a single media, not even voice of america persian, there is no room for debate. there are a number of other countries broadcasting to iran, none of them would be willing to provide those kinds of services. i think there is a lot that can

be done when it comes to the media. and then we also need to look at ourselves. most iranians, one of the reasons why the green revolution was defeated was because of the divide between the leaders of the movement and the followers. chairman mao, you do not usually quote chairman mao zedong, he used to say that a husband and wife sleep in the same bed but they do not share the same dreams. that was the problem between leaders and followers of the green movement. leaders wanted to reform the system, followers wanted to get rid of the system altogether. that was the big issue. in egypt, one of the reasons why the mubarak regime collapsed is because the leaders said that we are going to stay until mubarak is gone. in the green movement, leaders urged supporters to go home so they could negotiate with mr. khamenei in the dock of the

-- dark of the night. as soon as the people had gone home, leaders of the movement had nothing to negotiate with and they became captives of the regime. i think from the u.s. side and those who are interested in better development in iran, media and communication. when it comes to iranians, think hard if this regime is capable of reforming itself. it is a valid question and something we need to discuss. >> the main thing is that the leaders of the u.s. have to stand up and embrace these things. had a reagan failed to embrace the movement, it would not have become what it became. since we now have an administration who does not seem at all interested in endorsing, supporting, embracing an anti-regime movement in iran, quite the contrary.

all the evidence that i have seen is that this administration wants to work with iran and coordinate and have a big deal with iran. as long as that continues, no iranian is going to risk his or her life to bring down this regime, hoping or anticipating or expecting he or she will get american support. that support has to be explicit, outspoken, and continuous. that has to come from all the top diplomatic and political leaders. >> a question here. >> director of radio fardah based in prague. a small provision to what was

said about the media of iran, particularly persian speaking media. radio fardah provides such an opportunity for debate and for questions and exchanging ideas. >> i thank you. it is a great job that is being done at radio farda, following the tradition of providing radio broadcasting to eastern europe. iran is facing similar problems. a great job is being done. thank you for your service. >> i'm a consultant to aipac. i know this is not the main focus of the meeting but i would appreciate hearing from the members of the panel what you think would happen with a nuclear talk between iran and the u.s. >> the state of the talks. ali?

>> unlike many in washington, i am not concerned that you have someone here who lies and is deceptive and makes promises that the person is not ready to keep. i think there are three different approaches in iran but -- when it comes to the nuclear issue. all of them strategically agreed that a nuclear bomb rouhani is desirable. all of them strategically agree that a nuclear bomb is desirable. mr. rouhani believes that, so does the supreme leader. they believe god is on their side. each group has used different tactics. mr. rouhani's goal is longer-term, they believe right now iran is on the verge of bankruptcy and sanction relief is needed to keep the system afloat. on the other hand, you have the revolutionary guard.

the revolutionary guard wants to get the bomb as fast as possible. they believe fundamentally it would end like pakistan's nuclear bomb, iran would be forgiven and sanctions would be beoved because i run would -- i ran would be a a nuclear armed state. no one would like to see and economically bankrupt nuclear power. the argument that the revolutionary guard is making. mr. khamenei is oscillating between the two power centers. every second day he extends support to the line of mr. rouhani, the second day he supports the revolutionary guard and says he does not believe in a positive outcome of the nuclear negotiations. on the one hand, he understands the rouhani argument, that iran needs to get sanction relief. on the other hand, mr. khamenei cannot afford to alienate the revolutionary guard. he knows that the next time

people go to the streets of tehran like in 2009, he needs the revolutionary guard to suppress the public dissidents. the difference between these three groups is not so much strategic but tactical. as soon as the worst sanctions are removed, as soon as iran's economy has stabilized, we will see tendencies where mr. khamenei is backing the revolutionary guard. so iran would walk away from the table and things would change. these are some of the expectations that i have right now. which is very pessimistic. >> i will say a word on this, even though it is out of my role as a moderator. i'm familiar with the study of this being done by a number of people at fdd. one of the things we have to worry about at this point in the negotiations is that rouhani

will -- two things -- one is that rouhani will pretend to have made significant concessions and the obama administration will pretend to believe them. one way this might happen is to what is being talked about here as the sunset provisions. the idea that you would say ok, how about this -- you will not have nuclear capability during the life of this administration. the next administration is not going to be our problem. one hopes that those who are thinking about running for in office in may 16 are aware of 2016 this. the sunset provisions would tie iran's hands, at least make the breakout period reasonably long -- no more than a year -- but only for a few you're the next few years. at that point, there are no more

restrictions on iran than there are in japan. that seems like a plausible and distressing narrative that we could see unfold as early as this november. this agreement that holds it off for this administration is spun as a good deal, a deal we should all applaud. and, in fact -- we're just opening -- the one thing that might stop, ali has mentioned this. the revolutionary guard, khamenei is not young and healthy, he might have a different timeframe and not want to wait. i want this now and i don't see any reason why we can't have it. i throw that out for your discussion. if you think i am wrong, please say so. happy to disagree in this forum. >> just bring down the regime and then you do not have to worry about this.

>> next question? yes. >> will it be that what is being played in iran is good cop bad cop. they know exactly what they are doing. this administration and other administrations play a role, whether --[indiscernible] and they do not have to worry about it. the iranians are moving forward with the nuclear plan. they think that even holding it back just for strategic reasons,

it is much farther ahead than you really think. my question is, on this side, we have the useful idiots. the people who really want to see america being reduced and having less influence in the world. the press is a much more amorphous thing. they've been playing along all along with this game. what will wake the press up? this is the only thing we can do. the government is whatever the government is. we, as organizations of individuals, the only angle -- what would that be? >> the first thing is to be realistic about what a

journalist can or cannot do inside a totalitarian regime. years ago, i went to grenada on the first anniversary of the american invasion. i went with a tv news crew. the correspondent, we were walking in the hills outside a city and he came across some man and they knew each other and they embraced. he said good to see you, how are things? the local person said great. now, they are not going to torture me anymore. what do you mean torture? the guy took off his shirt and turned his back and you can see the scars. the correspondent said how long have we known each other, five years, 10 years? i've been talking to you and you never mentioned this. why did you never mention it? the guy looked at him like he was a madman.

you cannot expect that journalists inside countries where people are routinely tortured, killed, locked away and so forth, are going to have reliable sources who are going to tell them the truth about what is really going on in that country. it cannot happen. >> [indiscernible] the country that is completely sold on the way things are, they have to be changed. >> that takes us to an even bigger problem which is the , educational system. when you look at the people talking about the world right now, your heart sinks. because they do not know anything about anything. and that the words they use to talk about the world show you that they do not know. they do not know because they have been dumbed down by an

educational system that only teaches them certain kinds of doctrine, rather than information so they can think by themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. when the candidate for president talks about 57 states and you say well, that was a slip of the tongue. then you go on to all the other things that the same person has said over the last six plus years, it is astonishing. it becomes a characteristic of a whole generation. excuse me if i vent on this. when i was in the white house, when a draft reagan speech started to circulate, all of us eagerly jumped on it.

if you get the presidential speech, that is what policy is. secondly, we did not want him saying something stupid, ignorant, misguided thing. obama, nevermind policy. obama says so many wrong things, false facts. he gets so many things wrong about the world. just as matter of simple respect, people are obviously not doing that for him. that is not happening. there are two possible reasons. one, he has made it clear is not going to happen. he is going to write his own damn speech and if you do not like it, shut up or get yourself elected. the second is that they do not know. when the president goes to cairo and say muslims brought printing to the middle east, that it is three times wrong. not just wrong, but triply wrong. the chinese brought it, they sold it to the middle east, they did not want it, they sold it to europe and in portuguese jews brought to egypt in about 1492.

wrong, wrong, wrong. when you ask the question, we have journalists talking about the world in ways that alarm you, and me, obviously. if you want to fix that, you have to fix the schools. that is a really big undertaking. >> bring the microphone so we can hear you. a follow-up and comment in those areas. >> [indiscernible] i agree with everything you said. the press is a distribution of people. some are very dumb and have not learned anything. but some who know and choose not to call the president or the policy or any of those things.

that is a process that has to be in place. those who know and are quiet. that is a question -- [indiscernible] >> briefly, there is so much information out there already. every minute, there is a new youtube video of slaughter in syria by assad's forces. we saw the guy who showed tens of thousands of photographs of people starved and killed. it does not move policy, seemingly. for a lot of reasons -- fatigue, isis is worse, so on and so forth. it requires -- we'll write op-eds frequently. i am often frustrated about the little impact in op-ed has, even in "the new york times," people forget about it. it requires a new way of thinking about how to use

information to push it and to impact people who can make policy decisions. i'm not sure that we need a bunch more journalists covering good things. even when we do know, we fail to act. that is a spiritual and a moral failure more than a lack of information. that is a much tougher thing to broach. >> i would say one thing. it is in a way worse because anyone who you hear on npr saying i have been to iran 12 times in the last five years, you know that means they have not done anything too seriously offend the regime and all those times. and, therefore, as brave as they may be, you have to take with a grain of salt what they are saying. nobody at this table can say i want to find out for real what is going on, i am going to get some notebooks and apply for a visa and go to tehran and find out what is going on. journalism is in a total crisis

today in terms of what can be reported. it also coincides with a crisis and that there is no business model for journalism anymore. this is a subject for another panel or many more panels. there is a lot of noise and very little signal. >> let's go back there. >> the previous post was in vienna. i know what the game is for negotiations. i want to stick to it ali said about helsinki. i believe the cornerstone of every and fair elections. without that -- is iran going to have an atomic bomb at all, that is a technical issue.

pakistan, india, china, russia have it. what is going to happen with the regime? ali said helsinki, human rights. how realistic is it that we have free and fair elections in iran? if you have a democratic government then you can negotiate because democracies do not go to war with each other and talks. >> ali, want to respond? >> thank you. your country has gone through very harsh his circle times, just like ours. you have experienced even greater harshness then our country has in many ways. most unfortunately, many of the intellectuals in my country draw the wrong lessons from what happened in central and eastern

europe. many of them still live in a world of utopia. those who are in power right now, they believe the establishment and continuation of an islamist ideological regime in power. some parts of the opposition are misleading them in deceiving them so that there would be some kind of communist utopia at the end of the rainbow where iranians can find peace and prosperity. this is very unfortunate. ideological experiences in your part of the world show this is not a path iran should follow. considering helsinki and how realistic it is, i think some parts of it should be imposed on iran. if the u.s. government genuinely takes spread of democracy as a model very seriously, that should be tied to the nuclear negotiations. this is not the case. this is one of the issues that

we really need to talk more with the obama administration about. we also need to make the leaders in iran understand that a democratic transition, a slow democratic transition would even be in their own interests because a violent turnover of the regime and the system would be much worse for the system, the country, and current ruling elites. they are seeing a gradual maturity among large parts of the opposition, particularly in the u.s., where even those who are victims of the regime abuse human rights. former political prisoners, those who have lost family members, they say we do not want revenge. we want justice. justice is fundamentally different than revenge. there are those who generally talk about the south african model.

about committees and those who say keep all the money you have stolen. but make iran a democracy. pressure from within, where domestic opposition and opposition abroad says justice is more important than revenge and we care more about the future, a brighter future, then about correcting the injustices of the past. those negotiating with the regime in tehran also pay attention to the plight of the iranian public, that would be a combination. and we certainly do need to learn from your experiences, mr. ambassador. >> i want to follow up on that. the agreement on this panel in regards to human rights is probably not widely shared nowadays. i think the obama administration has not made human rights a priority, rand paul does not think human rights internationally should be a

priority. the un's human rights council has become a forum for human rights violators. even major organizations are selective about human rights, that is why your organization came into being. this is a challenging time to make the case. the arab spring has not -- we have not seen human rights flowering from the soil, as some had hoped. this is a challenging time to promote human rights with moral clarity or as a strategic imperative. >> no doubt. you got to the heart of the challenge i face everyday. on capitol hill and in the state department, it is just too frequent to hear yeah, this democracy stuff, but better sisi than the brotherhood and better assad than isis.

better king abdullah than what waits in the wings. people in policymaking circles and even amongst the general public do not understand what tyranny does to increase radicalism. they do not have to question where the muslim brotherhood came from, 30 years of brutal dictatorship that decimated political discourse and wrecked the economy, that helped give rise to the muslim brotherhood. isis in syria is in no small part a consequence of the combination of brutal dictatorship for the last decade and a half and western inaction to stop it. the quicker we understand that opening these societies is absolutely critical to the fight against the radicalism, the sooner we will act on human rights.

that is not to negate the importance of simultaneously combating and liberalism -- combating illibrism. if you polled people and say what is the punishment for leaving islam? and a high percentage say die, that is a cultural issue. identifying true moderates and not fake moderates and supporting dissidents and liberals and democrats and moderates is absolutely crucial to our own safety. until that link is recognized, we're going to keep this vicious cycle alive. where in egypt, the only forum is you go to the mosque and rant against the jews.

radicalism grows and instability increases. go back and read "the case for democracy." it is all in there. >> the other thing is modesty. as we judge our own ability to see what is coming next and forecast what is happening. and what david said about the brotherhood reminded me. i did not know anything about the brotherhood. when they came to power, i asked all the experts on the brotherhood, ok, what is going to happen now? what should we expect. almost all of them said this is it, they are in for x generations, two, 3, 4. they have been preparing for this for 80 years and they are ready and they are organized.

as we know, they fail in two months, three months, or four months. something like that. they failed almost at once. these were the great experts who told us that the brothers were going to rulfor generation after generation. we are not very good at figuring out what is going to happen next. the experts on the brothers had the advantage of knowing what the brothers wanted and intended, which is a big part of good intelligence. for heavens sake, do not think that anyone has a reliable crystal ball or even a good magnifying glass. you have to keep fighting and you have to keep at it. that is why it policies of the sort we are talking about here, which combine moral and strategic wisdom are so valuable

and so important. it is always very discouraging to me, when we get national leaders who do not appreciate that who've run from it in the name of false realism, which is based on this conceit that we can see the future when we cannot. >> a very precise example, people say there are no liberals in egypt or saudi arabia. ask yourself about where it might liberals be if they had received tens of billions of dollars of support going back decades. rather than funding these theocratic these tyrants, imagine if a fraction of that support went to actual dissidents, as small in number as they maybe. that would only help them grow. hosni mubarak got over $50 billion of military aid.

we got instability, a coup, muslim brotherhood. another $10 billion would not have kept him in place. the same is true for countries like saudi arabia, the president just signed $60 billion worth of arms to a country that does not let women travel without a man's permission and kills you if you bring a cross or bible or try to build a synagogue. does that strengthen liberalism in saudi arabia or give hope to democratic dissidents? or does it cut the rug from under them and keep in power these dictators which only help foster instability and radicalism in the societies. >> we have another question -- take the microphone. >> we were talking about the spiritual and moral failure that we can control in democracies about the media in particular. one thing nobody wants to hear about, i do not really even want to mention it, among the iranian

american community, we have a spiritual-moral failure. sometimes it is real, sometimes it is manipulated. particularly under the guise of the national iranian american council. all the people who had to leave the country because of a lack of freedom are now being sold this association that the best thing that we can do for our homeland is to not support sanctions, to not talk about human rights, to not talk about political prisoners. it is all a game and it is all meant to create war and bring suffering to the iranian people. when we talk about moral and spiritual failure, we as iranian americans are not doing our part, unfortunately. i would even wager that more than half of iranian americans are falling prey to this propaganda that is being developed right here in america. >> i spent a week in london

meeting with iranian dissidents. i met with opposition sources. i would say i just met with so-and-so. they would badmouth the person i had just met with. they say oh, he takes money from shady sources, he has no influence inside iraq, he's a joke, or he is connected to the regime. and i was flabbergasted for the past seven or so years, i've worked with dissidents in the middle east, a really matters, all this undercutting and backstabbing and inviting. when jews were fighting for jewish rights, they got 250,000 people in washington. that made a big difference. i pretend to be iranian because i grew up in l.a. it is difficult. >> the iranian government is

very adept at causing fractures and splits outside the country. groups like the national iranian american council, it is not that hard to caused splits in the community if you are clever. >> when i was in copenhagen, i finished university and started speaking in public. there would be a gentleman from the iranian embassy and he would not ask any questions. he was always wearing the same suit and would come and go, no exchange. at one point, i said i need to have some fun with the gentleman. i said hello, very polite exchange of words. i asked him, could you tell me how many spies you have in

denmark? he said we do not need any spies, iranians come and report on each other so much that we do not have enough administrative capacity. we dislike each other so much that we forget the big enemy, tehran. there is a systematic infiltration attempts. whenever you organize a poetry reading anywhere in europe, somebody's is going to stab you with a knife. if you and your wife go to a poetry reading, you do not expect somebody to get stabbed with a knife. at the same time, the mosque is also organizing a competing poetry evening, at which there are armed people who are taking care of the situation and nobody gets stabbed.