growing part of our focus has been to try to develop what's in the pipeline and to fostter kind of invasion that will make a to address gaps and to accelerate progress, and to foster the kind of innovation that will make a real difference for patients. also, we've seen how early in continuing engagement between the fda and researchers in the product development plan makes a huge difference in streamlining the process and making sure that the right questions get asked and answered from the very beginning. as you may know, we have now in place a number of expedited review programs that help to speed the development and availability of medical products that treat serious diseases. for prescription drugs, we have fast-track, priority review, accelerated approval, and now thanks to recent legislation, we have the breakthrough therapy designation.

we are seeing both development and review times decreased significantly with exciting new therapies entering the marketplace much sooner for the patients who need them. last year we approve the most new drugs in almost 20 years. and more orphan drugs than ever before. 41% of these new drugs were first in class products, resulting in a breathtaking array of truly innovative new therapies for patients, and the majority of these new drugs were approved using some kind of expedited pathway. today, contrary to what many would say, fda approved drugs faster on average than all other advanced nations, and the vast majority of the time, the u.s. is the first country in the world to approve important and novel medicines. and substantial improvements are being made in the efficiency of medical devices used as well. moreover, we have accomplished this while remaining the world's gold standard for safety and effectiveness.

yet we all recognize that despite the successes, too many diseases still await treatments and cures. serious public health needs such as treatments for all timers disease -- all timers disease -- alzheimer disease are not being met. people suggest that fda's authority and procedures be fundamentally reconsidered. i strongly disagree. in actuality, regulation, when done right, is not a roadblock. it's the actual pathway to achieve meaningful and lasting innovation. smart, science-based regulation instills consumer confidence in products and treatments, it levels the playing field for businesses. it decreases the threat of litigation. it prevents recalls that threaten industry reputation and consumer trust. not to mention levying huge preventable costs on individual

companies and in fact, entire industries. and it spurs industry to excellence. the fact is, when done right smart regulation allows us to deliver on the promise of science in the service of patients, consumers, and yes even industry. it is foolish and dangerous to believe that reducing regulatory standards will make new treatment intervention appear if the science is not there. alzheimer's disease is a good example. i've heard comments that something must be wrong at fda because we are not approving as many drugs for alzheimer's disease as we are as cancer. and we're not doing it as quickly. but the reality is that -- is not the problem of unnecessary hurdles, but rather for the need of medical research to increase our understanding of the underlying disease process, and natural history of the disease and where are the best targets for therapeutic development.

we are working closely with the alzheimer's research community. and i hope that in fact we will see meaningful progress soon. of course, there are sometimes tensions between moving new, potentially promising products quickly out into the marketplace and making sure that they have been adequately studied. as fda commissioner, i have been surprised by how many people ask whether i favor safety or innovation. in fact, mi confirmation hearing, now quite a while back,

i was really, i guess a bit of an unknown commodity to both the consumer and patient groups, and industry. they were trying to figure out what perspective i would bring to this new position. i was surprised to learn that someone supposedly went through and counted how many times during the course of the hearing i said safety and how many times i said innovation. this was supposed to be a measure of whether i was going to be consumer friendly, or industry friendly. i'm told it was actually about equal. i never went back to actually check. i certainly don't believe that the two are mutually exclusive. why should we have to choose protecting the public health while encouraging, not discouraging, innovation must be the goal? for us at fda, it is. innovation is only meaningful as it makes a real difference, a positive difference in the lives of patients and consumers. that's why we must have standards and science to assess the benefit and risks.

when comes to the treatment of disease, we must understand the broader context of use, the nature of that specific disease or condition, the other treatment options, and such things. we must also better understand the patient's experience of the disease and its treatment, their perception of the risks and benefits, and of course, their willingness to accept risk. the balancing of risks and benefits is absolutely fundamental to the fda's role. it's always a challenge. we joke at the fda that we have only two approval speeds, too fast and too slow. we are perceived to approve a drug too quickly when a significant safety is identified once the product is in widespread use. on the other hand, we are too slow when a drug that has undergone a lengthy development and review is finally approved and provide the real therapeutic benefits. it's a hard task, but the challenge for fda scientists is to strike the right regulatory balance.

i also want to speak briefly about the importance of striking the right balance between fact access and good science. in a race for the newest treatment, we must remember that innovation doesn't matter if the product doesn't work. i can't emphasize enough the critical need to maintain the standards of safety and effectiveness for medical products in this country. it wasn't that long ago that companies were allowed to market drugs without proving that they were effective. we've only got to look back at that time to see the devastating consequences for patients and for medicine. drugs were marketed for thousands of unproven uses. most of them unsupported by adequate research. when in the mid-1950's, congress gave fda authority to require evidence of effectiveness, i 80% -- almost 80% of the drug uses the companies were promoting turned out to be ineffective.

many of them were also dangerous and for example, before companies had to show that their drugs worked, drug companies widely promoted powerful toxic antipsychotics like thorazine for low-level anxiety. and there was little or no incentive to conduct those research is necessary to find out what were true medical advances. most promotion was based on unscientific studies, or no studies at all. it's important, i think, to understand that fda strongly supports responsible to medication of scientific information. but we do not support an approach that will harm patients or undercut the incentives for

the necessary studies to be done to prove that a specific use of a drug product is both safe and effective. history has shown that patients have been harmed when physician reliance on preliminary or incomplete scientific information regarding unproven uses. history is also shown the enormous patient benefits that results when i sponsor conducts rigorous clinical studies and demonstrates that a promising medical products is in fact safe and effective in treating a serious disease or condition. fda's objectives, to strike the right balance between respecting the usefulness of communicating scientific data in certain circumstances on the one hand, and preventing harm to the public on the other. we must not forget that the great leaps forward with evidence-based methods after a series of disasters involving unsafe and ineffective medical products. those standards have boosted the confidence that americans place on medical products, the world places on the american medical byproduct industry. we must move forward, not backward as a nation.

and embrace the opportunities of cutting-edge medical advances and the promises they hold for public health. i want to talk about one other important issue, it's been a priority, globalization. when fda was first established our regulated industries were predominantly local and the volume of imported products was very low. today, however, other nations increasingly produce in whole or in part, the food and medical products that american consumers and patients use in their daily lives. nearly 40% of finish drugs americans consume today are made elsewhere, and 80% of the active pharmaceuticals in those drugs are manufactured outside our borders. for the food supply, the numbers are equally startling. more than 85% of seafood that is eaten here comes from other

countries. about 50% of our fresh food and 20% of our fresh vegetables, and these changing dynamics obviously introduce new complexities, new risks for american consumers, as these products follow increasingly complex global supply chains to get to your table. in your kitchen cupboard. we can no longer rely on simple inspections at the border to track the products that are coming through. the volume has quadrupled over the last decade. we have introduced new high-tech risk-based screening systems of the borders to allow us to target on the most vulnerable commodities, the ones with the highest risk. we really have to step beyond our borders to the places where these products are being manufactured. processed, distributed. that has caused us to have to undertake a whole new shift in how we do business. we now have foreign outposts around the world to be a hub for

inspections and for collaboration. with industry counterpart regulators, and other stakeholders. we are working closely with counterpart regulatory authorities to harmonize standards, to share information, and in fact, to share the workload of inspections and assessments. of the products that we are all struggling to regulate in a globalized world. we are working together with other organizations, and nations, to try and actually build regulatory capacity in many of these countries with very immature systems, but where an increasing volume of products are coming. and being consumed by americans who expect the same standards in the products they are taking wherever they had come from in the world. so that has been a major focus of time and attention. i think it represents a huge and underrecognized area that

challenges health safety and security in our nation. so i think that, though i got lots more that i want to talk about, i think that i have gotten the indication that i ought to be winding down. so with that, let me just make a couple of points. one is that fda is a unique and essential agency. that has a set of roles and responsibilities that are not done by anyone else. if we can't do her job and do it well, there is nobody else to backstop behind it. moreover, we are regulating products that are so important to each and every one of us every day and to the health of our nation, our nation's economy, and in fact, our global economic competitiveness. as i look forward, i worry, fda

has constantly been underfunded with responsibilities that outstrip the resources we get to do our job. if you look at what cost every american in this country to support the services of fda, believe it or not, it's eight dollars for americans for a year. i suspect some of you may spend more than that starbucks later this afternoon, and yes, we regulate starbucks. [laughter] dr. hamburg: as i stand here not only concluding my remarks but concluding my tenure very soon as fda commissioner, i really am proud to be able to tell you that fda is a stronger, more engaged, more effective agency, better positioned for the challenges of the 21st century.

we are an organization that embraces smart science driven regulation, we are an organization that understands in the modern world the importance of partnership, we have a wonderful mission and an extraordinary group of employees . we have the challenges before us, and we do need your help and support so, while i will not be present any longer, i do want to leave you with this fact that the fda as a public health agency essential to the health of all of you, we need to strengthen it, rather than weaken or undermine it. and to do so will require support and partnership of all

of our stakeholders, and every american who uses fda regulate products is a stakeholder. i look forward to watching that vital collaboration amongst all of the stakeholders, just seeing the work of this relatively small in size, but truly mighty in purpose agency, be both appreciated and supported. thank you. [applause] moderator: thank you, dr. hamburg. you mention striking the right balance. when it comes to approval of products and devices, and from the experience of your tenure, what percentage of the time would you say that fda got it right, and what percentage of the time did you realize that we didn't do our job there, and maybe we should not have let that one out? commissioner hamburg: that is a very hard question to answer and to quantify would be dangerous task.

one of the things that's important to understand is that we are dr. hamburg always having to make decisions with partial information. because when you are doing the study before it drugs actually approved, you can learn a lot. and if the drug really works and really reflects a good match between the target of the drug and the underlying mechanism of the disease, you will know it quickly as the decision would be obvious. with many things that don't work quite as well, it would be almost impossible to know everything about the drug.

then even the things that actually are extremely effective, you still can't know everything about them. in the context of a preapproval developments. it's when they go out into the marketplace and they are used by many more people and are used by people with other coexisting diseases and taking other medications etc. that you begin to learn a whole lot more. that's why fda has a lifespan approach to the regulation of drugs. we continue to monitor drugs after they have been approved, post-market surveillance and sometimes by requiring those market studies to collect more information. in my view, people are quick to jump on us if a safety issue emerges, in the post-market setting. they think it's a failure of the system, someone had to admit a mistake, but i think we know that everything has risks, and that the nature of the process is that some of those risks will emerge when many more people are taking the drug, and it's more complex settings. so i think that when we can detect it early, and make the determination about how to address it, whether we need to change the indications for use whether we need to actually recall it from the market, or whether we need to provide additional warnings, all of those things are possible.

and all of those things are part of the comprehensive regulatory process. moderator: you mention several things that you are proud of about the agency, what would you consider the number one contribution that you have been able to make to public health in your tenure? what is the one thing he would -- you would talk about couple years down the road when you're talking about your service, that one thing you are most excited about. commissioner hamburg: that's an impossible question, number one. there many things in many different arenas given the scope of our responsibilities, it's unfair to even ask. [laughter] you think about the many different ways that you can answer the question also. if you mean in terms of potential impact on burden of disease, i would say we hadn't realize the potential yet. but the new authority we had to regulate tobacco clearly is

historic and transformative. tobacco products remain the leading cause of preventable death in the country. and frankly around the world. and with the new tools we have over time, we will be able to make a profound impact on health and well-being in this country. and as regulatory authority, a fairly unique regulatory responsibility over tobacco, we also i think are showing the way for many other countries around the world. and the global burden of tobacco-related disease. moderator: a couple of different questions on what you think of the 21st century cures initiative in congress to overhaul health care industry regulations? commissioner hamburg: i think we all can agree that this is a critical time to really look at what can be done to really

leverage the opportunities in science and technology today to ensure that we are developing the safest, best, most innovative and effective medical products for people who need them. that's the goal of 21st century cures. we are sort of in a golden age for this undertaking. we want to make sure that all of the parts of the biomedical products ecosystem are aligned towards that goal. i do think it needs to be approached in a very thoughtful and careful way. because many of the things that need to be done perhaps are not best achieved through legislation. i think for us, there certainly concerns about issues that i touched on in my remarks, of the misperception that you might be able to speed innovation by lowering standards for safety

and efficacy. we think that would be a terrible mistake and ultimately would not just damage patients but would damage industry as well. we also are concerned that through this process, we might be given what we call in washington unfunded mandates, or we would be asked to take on a set of new tasks, but there wouldn't be adequate resources to go with it. that i think would not only be difficult for that specific activity, but would have ripple effects on other important regulatory activities are really matter to patients and consumers. moderator: what if any steps is fda taking to ensure treatment and labeling of nutrition's in vitamins and nutritional supplements given recent findings on walmart shelves? commissioner hamburg: we have authority to regulate dietary

supplements. in a limited set of activities many people in this country think that the fda regulates dietary supplements in the same way that we regulate prescription drugs, with a preapproval process. but we do not. we oversee and have the authority to ensure good manufacturing practices at their plants, there's a requirement that they report serious adverse events to us, and we do regulate claims that they make, and we find a product that has been -- unapproved shouldn't be there, steroid or a viagra like compound, the frequency show up in dietary supplements. then we will take action. i'm not familiar with the

specific walmart case, i will have to say. moderator: there have been concerned that the medical device approval process is too lax. how do you feel about the process now, and have you felt political pressure to accelerate product approvals, and what changes need to happen to that product approval process? commissioner hamburg: medical devices have a different regulatory pathway than drugs. for some of the points i was talking about, in terms of the different perspectives that people have on fda, too fast or too slow, too lax or too stringent, applies with medical devices. the majority of medical devices that fda oversees are what are called 5-10 kay's, not the

highest risk devices but the middle category of devices. there are very limited requirements for new data to be generated as a part of that approval process. you need to demonstrate that your product is similar to an existing product in the marketplace, using a predicate mechanism and some people find that just totally lax and inadequate. to assess a changing device array over time. others think it's more than enough, they would like to see even the standard that currently exists relaxed a bit. it's one i have been fascinated with during my tenure as commissioner to see the differing responses and i think that we need to continue to look at how we regulate devices because the world of devices is getting increasingly complex on

one end and then there's a set of other devices that really don't need much attention. i think this is an area where i don't know that the u.s. has gotten it completely right, i do know that the european union has gotten it completely right, i think it's an area that we need to continue to learn more about and i think that we are encouraged by some of the activities, partly through public-private partnerships that have developed, to look at innovative strategies to do research that's necessary to better assess devices through a recent new requirement for you need device identifiers on devices, so we would be able to track devices and their use in the post-market setting more efficiently.

and learn a lot more about risks and benefits. i think it's a dynamic area. moderator: had a few questions come in on the relationship between the agency and the -- those the regulates. this questioner says that within the ranks of the fda, there are many scientists and administrators who have served at the agency for decades, and one of the criticisms is that the leaders become too cozy with industry after working for years with the same officials, well -- while fda obviously strives to retain its best staffers, is the risk that staffers can overstay their welcome and this problem creeps in? commissioner hamburg: again, this is one of those areas where different people have very different perspectives. some people believe that there are lifers at the fda that have

no use for industry, and are always skeptical. and then there are others who worry about the issue you were describing. what i would say is my experience at the fda, which is now almost six years, is that the employees who work there have just remarkable commitments to their jobs, and the highest integrity, scientific and personal integrity, we obviously operate in a framework where there are very clear conflict of interest rules. very clear requirements about how certain kinds of interactions are structured, and i think that we need to work in partnership with industry because we are regulating the product that they make, and we need to understand those products. we need to have a full and open exchange of information.

in many instances, there is great value in having industry academia, and government actually work together in shaping research in critical areas. i think people sometimes get worried about that. but we do it in a way that clearly defines us as free competitive research, not a collaboration where there is a particular product that's being developed where an fda scientist might be working in the partnership. but it's where information is being developed that can be applied across a whole category of products and help us to advance our knowledge and develop a regulatory tools that are needed to advance our ability to do adequate and full reviews of the products.

and to enhance product development. moderator: you have been a champion of advocating sodium reduction. the majority of your statements reference blood pressure benefits of lower sodium consumption. however, some recent studies cited by this questioner including one by the iom have suggested that low sodium consumption for healthy individuals can lead to significant health problems. another article found that for healthy people, there is no or very minimal blood pressure impact from sodium reduction. the questioner is saying that -- does the agency needs to reevaluate what it says on sodium and is there any examination of shifting the view? commissioner hamburg: this has been a topic of ongoing discussion, i think that clearly there have been some recent

studies that have raised some questions, there have been individuals who have obviously been representing that position over time. i think the body of evidence does really demonstrate a linkage between sodium in the diet and negative health consequences. and that americans' diets on average contain a very large amount of sodium. most of that sodium is in processed foods where we as individuals consumers really can't control our exposures in terms of what is in that food, it's not the salt shaker where you can control it, it's what you are eating. so we feel that we are providing very important information to consumers through things like the nutrition facts label, which enables you to know what is in

the product that you are eating. and we do things that there is -- we do think that there is clearly, a very positive health benefit by trying to bring down sodium levels in the american public. moderator: got a couple of questions on biosimilars. i will try to combine them because we are running short on time. one questioner wants to know how you envision this new area of copycat versions of biotechnology drugs playing out in the u.s. marketplace, the other wants to know if devices such as generics in bio similars may actually discourage the development of lower-cost options for the public? commissioner hamburg: bio similars are biological molecules that are similar to existing biological therapeutics that are innovative drugs in the marketplace. they have a parallel

relationship to generic drugs and innovative drugs. they are much more complicated molecules in terms of their size and how you make them. and the human response to them. it's a much more complex process than just generic chemical tablets. we've only just recently approved our first bio similar which was an exciting event for us. the pathway for bio similars actually is relatively new at the fda. it was part of the health care reform act, the aca actually. one of a few things for fda to -- that was embedded in that larger piece of legislation. we imagine that these drugs will be available to the public at much lower cost than the innovative biologics, which are

very, very important drugs in medical practice, they make huge difference in the lives of many patients, but very very costly. it remains to be seen whether some of the most optimistic estimates of cost savings will really be true, but if we can help make important therapeutics available in a more accessible way, i think overall in terms of the american health care system, that would be a huge benefit and the fda role is to assure that these bio similars can be used in these patients in a manner that is safe and effective. moderator: could you update us on the current listeria problem? we are interested in any specific foods or brands involved in recalls. commissioner hamburg: we have a couple of listeria problems.

we have listeria in bluebell creameries, which have resulted in several deaths in a kansas hospital. and there was a listeria outbreak in spinach and companies did a voluntary recall after finding listeria. i don't know that there's much more i can say other than it's a powerful reminder that foodborne illness is very real in this country, and it can be low-grade, where you get sick and have a few days off from work, one in six americans suffer from foodborne illness every year. but it also does results in many, many hospitalizations and deaths each year in this country. we are in the midst of implement the food safety modernization act, which is a historic

opportunity to transform her -- our food safety system from one that is reactive, where you respond after an outbreak occurs, to one that puts the emphasis on prevention, and understanding where the points of vulnerability in the lifespan of the product are, and how can you shore up those risks so we can prevent problems from occurring in the first place. i hope that we will come as we implement the food safety modernization act, be able to report fewer listeria and other foodborne illnesses, but in the meantime, i think one of the other things that striking about listeria outbreaks we've been seeing is that we are seeing listeria in certain food products where we hadn't seen it before. so it also is a reminder that microbes can be unpredictable, they can take up new homes, and that we have to always come back

to the best strategies for food handling and hygiene, and the implementation of the food safety modernization act to prevent problems from occurring. moderator: i will ask you one more question. i wanted to remind our audience of our upcoming speakers. on tuesday, irs commissioner will speak to us. on april 7, a best-selling author and outspoken critic of radical islam will address a luncheon. on april 16, ban ki-moon secretary general of the united nations will speak. second, i would like to present you with your national press club mug, which is perfect for enjoying fda approved liquids in. [laughter] commissioner hamburg: we do regulate some forms of ceramics as well. [laughter] moderator: wouldn't you know it.

the final question is you were named one of the world's 100 most powerful women by forbes and 2014. what do you think our country can do to encourage more young women to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math? in other words, to follow in your own footsteps. you have less than two minutes to answer. [laughter] commissioner hamburg: i think it's really important, we need to start early, we need to have exciting engaged, knowledgeable teachers in our children's schools. we have to help with mentoring career pathways, and we have to make sure that there are good jobs for women at the fda. we have a very strong representation of women in our scientific and leadership teams. i have been proud to be at the helm. moderator: ladies and gentlemen,

join me in thanking dr. margaret hamburg. [applause] moderator: i would also like to thank the national press club staff, including its journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's event. if you would like a copy of today's program, or to learn more about the national press club, go to our website, press.org. thank you very much. we're adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> on the next "washington journal," melody campbell, discusses the recent report on black women in the u.s. american enterprise institute has the latest on the conflicts in the middle east. matthew gardner, he talks about their report on the fairness of state and local taxes in each of the 50 states. we'll take your calls a you could join the conversation on facebook and twitter. "washington journal" lives every day at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. crist senate minority leader harry reid announced he will not

run for reelection. the 75 year old from nevada said in a video statement he doesn't want to soak up resources when it could be focusing on putting democrats back in powers. he has two more years and his current term. and exercising accident left him struggling to regain sight in his right eye. he said the incident has given him time to think. here is his statement. ♪ senator reid: these bruises i have on my face, on my eye, are an inconvenience, but they are nothing compared to some of the bruises i got when i was fighting in the ring. when i was a boy, i dreamed of being an athlete. i listened to those games on the radio, baseball games, and i envisioned me as a man out in center field in yankee stadium or fenway park in boston, but the joy i've gotten with the work that i've done to the people of the state of nevada

has been just as the filling as if i had played center field at yankee stadium. the job of minority leader, and the united states senate and is just a support as being majority leader. it gives you so much opportunity to good things for this country and that's what i am focused on. but this accident has caused us for the first time to have a little downtime. i have had time to ponder and to think. we've got to be more concerned about the country, the senate, the state of nevada, than us. and as a result of that, i am not going to run for reelection. my friend senator mcconnell, don't be too elated. i am going to be here for 22 months, and you know what i'm going to be doing? the same thing i've done since i first came to the senate. we have to make sure that the democrats take control of the senate again.

and i feel it is inappropriate for me to soak up all those resources on me and i can be devoting those resources to the caucus, and that's what i intend to do. the decision that i've made has absolute nothing to do with my injury. it has nothing to do with my being minority leader, and it certainly has nothing to do with my ability to be reelected because the path to reelection is much easier than it probably has been for anytime i have run for reelection. mrs. reid: i get a little upset sometimes when i hear politicians say that they're going to go and spend time with their family after they decide that they are not going to be in politics anymore. he's a wonderful husband and a wonderful father. so that's been more important than the other things that he's done with his life. senator reid: someone with my

background, my upbringing, to have the experience i've had is really a miracle, i want people in the state of nevada to know that i am so grateful, and i have done my best. i haven't been perfect but it -- i really tried my hardest to represent the people of the state of nevada. ♪ >> with two years left, senator

reid and said that he will endorse senator charles schumer to take his position. in a statement, senator schumer said it -- >> president obama had this to say about the announcement -- and mitch mcconnell issued a statement -- >> this sunday, eric larson on

his new book, "dad -- dead wake ." >> the story gets complicated when the story arises about what ultimately happened? why was the lucitania allowed to enter without escort and without the kind of a detailed warning that could of been provided to the captain but was not? this has led to some very interesting speculation about wasn't the ship set up for attack by churchill or someone. and it is interesting, i found no smoking memo. believe me, i would have found a smoking memo. nothing from churchill to jackie fisher or someone else saying,

let's let the lusitania going to the irish sea. nothing like that exists. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> a discussion about iran's nuclear program. a senate hearing about alzheimer's disease. outgoing food and drug administrator on her tenure with the agency. >> a discussion on how you run and other middle east issues have influence u.s. foreign of policy and politics for panelists include david rothkopf ceo and editor which publishes foreign policy newspaper and dov s. zakheim a former defense undersecretary who served during the george w bush administration.

hosted a by the center for the national interest, this is 90 minutes. jacob: hi, i am jacob, the editor of the "national interest" magazine and i am moderating today on behalf of the center of national interest, which has invited two guests to speak about iran and american politics. on my right is david rothkopf the ceo and editor of foreign policy magazine and managing director of kissinger associates and has held several high-level positions in the clinton and administration and is also the author of several books on international relations. to my left, dov zakheim, a

long-time friend and also the vice president of the center of national interest -- vice chairman. he is also the comptroller at the pentagon during the george w. bush administration and is the author of a quite provocative memoir about his years at the pentagon, called, "vulcan's tale." dealing with how he believed the administration mismanaged in afghanistan. and today, we will talk about iran, it could hardly be more timely. the middle east is always in ferment.

today, a defense department official weas quoted in the wall street journal asking, "who is going to be the person who shoots the archduke of the middle east, igniting a new world war one." with negotiations in geneva and the events in yemen, i think it is hardly a better time to discuss the role that the middle east and iran are playing in american politics. i will go to david first. david rothkopf: thank you, it is a pleasure to be here. i think it has been observed the observation i have heard most frequently since i arrived, that the center of national interest has the best lunch of any place in town. i have to agree with that. i do also want to make a brief side comment before i dive in. several weeks ago, i made a pledge not to appear on any panels that did not include women.

unfortunately, i see that there is not one woman at this table. but, -- good, i think we can do a lot to enrich -- well, yes. it is true. they should move closer to the table. i hope you are not diminishing my point, which is, i think there must be more women out there interested in this subject to enrich the conversation. in any event, you know, i think it is apposite in a discussion of the middle east that we focus on iran, because it is central to the situation. before we get into the iranian facts, we should jump off of jacob's point a moment ago there has never been a situation in our lifetime, such as that that we see and the middle east

right now. every single country in the region is involved in a military conflict, with the exception of one. every single country. the analogy to the balkans is not over the top. it may not turn into world war iii, but we already see a fueling unrest in africa and parts of asia. we already know it has potential conflict or consequences for extremism and -- in terror attacks in europe and north america. it clearly has global consequences economically. it is clear, we cannot afford to walk away from it and i think that our impulse and the impulses of some administrations to do that is a contributing factor to problems we have here.

but since the topic is iran and american politics, i want to zero in on that and then we can open it back to the rest of the region. during the 2008 presidential election, when barack obama was trying to differentiate himself from hillary clinton, in a debate when he said the approach ought to be engagement, the engagement, the questioner he faced said, with whom would you engage? his first reaction was iran. in fact, hillary clinton responded with some skepticism. i do not believe that our interaction with iran over the course of the ensuing six years is therefore an accident. if you look at the chaos that

followed in the wake of the arab spring and the changes that have come to the middle east, one country has benefited. that is iran. iran has benefited with greater influence in yemen, with greater influence in iraq, by very considerable amounts, it has benefited in syria, with its man assad now looking likely to outlast obama in office. it clearly looks to benefit from the upcoming nuclear deals, in some important ways, in terms of sanctions relief and increased stature. at the same time, i think one cannot help but objectively conclude that u.s. relations with virtually every key ally we have in the region have deteriorated and the only

country with which there has been a substantial improvement or potential for improvement, or thawing with our relations, is iran. not only is it that the case but our allies who feel shunned aside or neglected or distrustful, they feel that way for a reason. we did not respond to their concerns about growing problems in syria. they feel that way because they saw us embrace too quickly the morsi regime, not criticize it in egypt and embraced to slowly the possibility of the cc era in egypt and what it meant.

even though egypt is the anchor in the arab world. our relationship with israel is at its worst, in terms of the leader to leader relationship. and our relationship with gulf states who feel we have been in the midst of a slow -- with iran, even as they have had growing concerns, has also deteriorated. although everyone is trying to put a brave face on it. this situation does not look like it will improve, despite some optical sleight of hand this week that included general austin saying he would never have american troops coordinate with shia militias, which is preposterous. we are flying air support for the iranians in iraq and everybody knows it. if you do not collect

-- call it coordination, come up with another word, but look it up in the dictionary and the word will mean coordination. we are playing telephone with the iraqis or doing it through back channels. but, that was sleight of hand, having the shia militias pull out. and our so-called support for the saudis going into yemen, which creates the confusing situation of opposing an iranian backed group in yemen off -- while fighting alongside them in iraq. also that does not take away from this, particularly since the big looming issue on the horizon is an iranian nuclear deal. and that nuclear deal looks very likely not to be anything like the nuclear deal we we sought to

get. the primary purpose of the deal has to be, are we going to reduce the risk of proliferation in the region? secondary, are we going to reduce the risk of threat from iran? the reason i put them in the order, if iran were going to have this firepower offshore the deterred effect would work. the concern is that iran gets nuclear weapons and other countries seek to counter that and that increases the risk that weapons fall in the wrong hands. if you have a nuclear agreement that creates the possibility that iran could go from the day it ceases to comply with the agreement to having a nuclear weapon within a year or a few months, then every state that is concerned about iranian nuclear power gets put in the position of having to defend itself and thus the proliferation risk

remains. that is what we went from. we went from seeking zero situation to seeking a one-year buffer, from not wanting centrifuges to now accepting thousands of centrifuges, those placed in bunkers, we went from what i think was much more gradual expectations regarding sanctions to i think you will end up with us getting into some pressure for greater sanctions relief. pressure for greater sanctions relief. and we are going to do this in a way that will improve iranians standing ultimately with a lot of countries that want to deal with them. even it the united states congress blocks this, in terms of the places it has poutier power to do

so setting sanctions that requires congressional involvement. and so, you will end up with a less than ideal arrangement that will survive, will get from an interim agreement to a permanent agreement. the congress will not be able to block the agreement. the president will veto efforts to block it. a lot of it will go through the u.n. and iran will have additional cash. and as iran hasn't additional cash, that will give it additional opportunities. clearly it has economic problems at home. but rack has economic problems. the government of iraq is probe broke. it is unable to operate the oilfield property in the southern part of the country. and the iranians have put themselves in a sponsorship position with the baghdad government that is it it is a shocking reversal of what was in the past. the posters of the supreme leader in downtown baghdad.

sulamani is hailed throughout iraq as the leader of the pushback against isis. and if the iranians have the ability to help the iraqi further and weigh are disinclined to do o so which we are, imagine what that will pine in terms of further iranian influence there or syria or places like yemen or places like western afghanistan. i think it is highly likely that we will come into the 2016 election cycle with iran being the big middle east winner from the obama administration, with the middle east being in the most precarious shape it has ever been in. that the approaches of the obama administration to the middle east, being seen as egregious failures, even among those who

would argue that the bush administration had more egregious failures in its term. and by that i mean significant parts of the democratic party. it is pretty dark. and perhaps in our ensuing discussion we will be able to find some rays of light. but i wanted, because i know that dov's sunny frame of mind to provide -- you know, a useful counterpoint so that he can now assume his role, which is to defend it what the obama administration has done. [laughter]

jason: for the c-span viewers i would like to say that these remarks are coming from someone who served in the clinton administration and may not be sympathetic, but the situation is very stark. i am extremely sympathetic, ask any of my daughters. david rothkopf: i will now turn to dov. dov zakheim: i am afraid i will disappoint people here and the viewers and i will not defend the obama administration, i will take a perspective that is pretty much the same as david's but expand on it in a variety of ways. first, this guy used to sit at the far corner of this room, named arnold deborgraff, and he was a leading journalist analyst, a brilliant thinker quite a character and we will miss him. i wanted to mention that because he really was a regular here. and he contributed tremendously to the conversations that we had.

i wanted to give you some context that goes beyond in some ways what david talked about. you have to begin not just with the debate with hillary, you have to begin with the fact that the president as a candidate and pretty consistently since then wanted to focus on nation building at home. that was his priority. do stuff at home and try to keep the world at a distance if at all possible. so what are his big legacy items? obamacare is one he hopes to preserve, he is still trying to do something on immigration, he clearly has a predelection for envelope on environmental issues, even if it means alienating canada. you start from there and you look at, ok, what has been his approach to the world? it has been one, if i can keep out of it, i will keep out of it.

pull out of afghanistan, pull out of iraq, no ground troops in libya, even if the country falls apart. withdraw two brigades from europe, and not restore them even as mr. putin flexes his muscles. we sent a company to each baltic state, that is not a lot of people. and it is not a major deter. only arm the kurds with baghdad's approval, and without more forces in asia, and so you see a pattern. how does iran fit into this pattern? what i see essentially going on is an attempt to on the one hand create nixon's condominium

with the iran iranians in the region. more than that. nixon handed off. he handed off to the shah, and in some ways i think mr. obama thinks the way to deal with this region is to let the iranians handle it. part of that, and sort of an outcome of that, is to downgrade the relationship with the israelis. treat them as a secondary power, revert back to the relationship israel had with the u.s. prior to the mid-1960's. i think that is where he is headed. if you look at all the things that have been going on, they kind of all hang together. for example, in the case of afghanistan, everybody is noticing that they had a terrific visit here and we are keeping troops in there until the end of the year. one thing it does is help the

iranians. the last people they need back the last people they need back and kabul are the taliban. they almost went to war with them. that favors the iranians. not providing support for the kurds favors the iranians. because if you give the kurds too much military equipment, and they really feel they can go independent, and they have talked about it in a way that they hadn't as long as two years ago, but because of the collapse in iraq, they are now talking about it. if you do that, everybody notices that well, the turks will be upset, but so will the iranians. because the iranians have their kurds. so they don't want a stronger kurdistan. of

i was in kurdistan for a conference and i came away convinced that we are working hand in glove with the iranians. i had a panel that included the national security adviser of iraq, the vice president of iraq, bret mcgirk who is our emvary to it foyting isis and thed viceor and chief of staff to the president of kurdistan and i asked the panel four times talk to me about iran. nobody really wanted to. i can understand why the iraqis don't want to, because they want us to help and they want the iranians to help. i can understand why the kurds don't want to. they don't want to in flame the iranians. but why didn't mcgurk say a word? nothing, zero. that tells you something. so, it is true obama has a dilemma right now in yemen. no question about it. he is supporting the guys that

are fighting the iranians. but by and large that is -- iran is the direction in which he is headed. look at this deal. everybody is arguing for ages over how many centrifuges we will allow the iranians. it turns out, it is not just a allowing the iranians to have centrifuges to which they give nobody access. they were supposed to close them down. that was the original part of the deal and close down iraq. they are not doing that. we are giving way on the whole question of what they have done until now. which the iaea has been pubbing. we are giving -- has been pushing. we are giving way on this. and for an ancient empire, with what is 10 years when is 15 years, when is 100 years in the middle east? nothing. and then what. and then david rightly said, look at the reaction in the rest of the region. on the part of people who are supposed to be our friends. okay?

i am not as worried about an iranian strike on israel as some people are for the very simple reason if the iranians try it, wore the analysis. the missile has to go off. the target has to work. none of the four layers of israeli must sill defense works and only then might something come through. if it comes through, of course, you are destroying jordan and saudi arabia and a lot of other countries. lebanon. syria as well as israel. but guess what? with the percentage, the likely percentage that an iranian missile can actually make it through, well, if you run thers ands less than 1% -- run the percents, less than 1%. the likelihood that the israelis can retaliate and wipe iran off the map is 100%.

if i am an iranian general, i will not recommend that. but if the iranians have a nuclear capability, as david said, nobody is going to sit on their hands. if you are sitting in riyadh you are seeing groups that want to overthrow the regime next door. the iranians are playing in the eastern province which is mostly shia-dominated. you see the houthis taking over yemen. it's the nightmare being surrounded by iranian puppets and supporters. add on top of that an iranian nuclear capability. there is no way the saudis won't go nuclear. he her from one gulf foreign minister who told me i think about a month ago, he said why do you think the saudi vs. been supporting the pakistanis all these years? what to you think is the quid pro quo? it is that they will governor thegive thesaudis the nuclear capability

they need and they will give it to them very quickly. do you think the saudis go nuclear, the u.a.e. and the egyptians won't. the turks aren't sitting quietly either, they're nervous not about the arabs going nuclear and the turks going nuclear. there you have it. everybody goes nuclear. you have a chain of nuclear powers running from the pacific ocean all the way to europe and all it takes is one mistake. one mistake and then you have got worse than world war i. so this is what the iranian deal is going to get us. but again, the way the administration is going about it it's as if none of this matters. now the one person who has actually helped the administration more than any other is mr. netanyahu.

mr. netanyahu should not have come to congress. he should not have ticked off the president of the united states. his behavior during the election made the president of the united states feel absolutely justified in ignoring everything he says. and his subsequent backtracking hasn't cut any ice with anybody. now, what did he really do? if there is no override of an obama veto of new sanctions because of this deal, you can thank mr. netanyahu for that because the democrats were certainly going to override, but now they're in a very tough position. the only reason an override may happen right now is more and more is coming out about this kind of fuzzy deal that gets fuzzier by the day, but it's going to be much harder thanks to mr. netanyahu.

finally, i would point out that if iran were the number one concern of mr. netanyahu, then by definition, a deal with the palestinians isn't the number one concern. and if you want to worry about your number one concern, you offer something to the palestinians and tell mr. obama, hey, look, i'm giving you x, you give me y. he hasn't done that. so he hasn't helped his cause at all, in my view. but objectively, the deal is terrible. the behavior in the region is all of a pattern even as i say with respect to afghanistan and the pattern is simply some kind of condominium or less, some kind of off shoring american influence, prestige in the region and just simply handing it to tehran. i will stop there. >> a quick response and we'll

take questions after that. david rothkopf: i never said the word quick, but i'll make an effort to be brief. first of all, i think we need to look at the response of the saudis and the g.c.c. states to the houthi gains in yemen, not just in the political context of yemen nor in the traditional shia-sunni terms. it's also a response to the sense that there are no other stabilizing forces in the region right now. and that iran is gaining. it is a message from them that they are unwilling to tolerate a further deterioration with regard to iran's regional position.

and, therefore, it's a broader consequence than it's typically described to be. now, so far, dov and i haven't disagreed on any point. i am now about to say something he may disagree with, but i want to throw it out there if only to validate your assertion that i was in the clinton administration and that, in fact, i'm a democrat. i am not one of those people that believes that, you know anything other than a good deal shouldn't be done. i think we should get the best possible deal we can. the gains that deal gives, but i i think we should embrace the gains that deal gives, but i think that for that to be effective, it needs to be in the context of a strategy. and the strategy needs to work with regional allies to allay their concerns and to rebuild a regional alliance that extends

from the gulf to egypt and includes all of those who are concerned by the iranians and gives them the assurance that we are standing with them and we will tolerate no deviation from this. it requires a kind of balanced approach and a long-term view and a strategic framework that we have not seen. i think one bit of absence of a strategic framework is to the degree the iran deal itself has been overemphasized in the context of iran policy. not only when we're worried about iran gaining nuclear weapons is iran gaining ground in the middle east which is a greater threat to the stability of the middle east, but in other areas, there are other disturbing patterns. we're in the midst of a cyber war with the iranians. there are, as snowden documents and others have demonstrated

regularly attacking private sector targets in the united states. we are willing to negotiate a deal on the technologies of the 20th century and give them sanctions relief while we are exploring the risks associated with the technologies of 21st century conflict at the same time. so we may end up rewarding them even as they are attacking us in other ways, even as they're attacking our allies in other ways, even as they're destabilizing the region in other ways. this does not suggest strategy. it suggests a very narrow gauge focus on deliverables, a campaign-oriented approach to how to deal with geopolitics. let's get a win. let's get something out there that we can show for it without putting it into any kind of broader context. the final thing that i would

like to say and this, again, may confirm your suspicions that i'm a democrat, is that i don't think it's been all bad. during the first term of the obama administration when they were getting some good advice from hillary clinton, leon panetta, bob gates, they were pretty good at imposing tough sanctions on iran. they were squeezing iran. they were gaining benefit from iran from those sanctions. they were getting themselves in a position to negotiate a good deal. but what's happened since then? not only have those people left, but i have talked to people inside the negotiating process who will say they reach an impasse and then there are more people more senior come into the conversation and they say things like, well, how do we solve this problem and they capitulate and they soften the deal. i spoke to a former senior national security official

democrat, who said to me just two days ago, at this point in the negotiation, from the school of negotiation in which i was raised, i would be ordering everybody down into the lobby with their luggage and saying we're leaving because only in showing that you don't need the deal do you actually have the leverage you need to achieve the deal that you want. and that right now our body language, and the iranians know it and our allies know it and grandmas in toledo, ohio, know it, is that we want the deal more than the iranians want the deal. that is extremely dangerous and that is what gets you into a less than adequate deal and that is particularly dangerous when it exists outside the context of a coherent strategy for dealing with iran or the region. >> that was david rothkopf, we

will now have a response briefly from dov zakheim. dov zakheim: a couple of things. one area they haven't focused on is missiles. you can't destroy too many countries unless the bombs are carried in a suitcase, which no one has really tried yet. what you have to do is mate them to missiles. the iranians are moving right ahead and not saying anything about it. we have a problem that you can't resolve even with a halfway decent agreement and that is that nobody trusts us. if you're the saudis, for example, and your ambassador who was beloved by the previous king and highly trusted by the current king was the subject of an assassination attempt in washington by the iranians, you have a lot of trouble accepting that all of a sudden the iranians are good guys.

it's just not going to happen. the problem is we haven't been trusted for years. yes, it's true this administration accepted and i use the word accepted advisedly sanctions. those sanctions were pushed by the hill and every single time the administration tried to fight them until they couldn't fight them anymore and everybody knows that. what is most important is that the people in the region know that. let me be more blunt than david about this negotiation. why do we have an end of march deadline anyway? it's an artificial deadline. we chose to have an end of march deadline. we chose to have an end of june deadline. so we're fighting against ourselves the whole time anyway. and one other point, and this isn't widely understood, but you know, most of the arabs, virtually all of them see us as israel's closest ally. and watch how we treat the israelis. if we treat the israelis badly we're not going to treat them any better.

if we are undermining the israelis, they notice that. i was just at the munich conference last month and the iranian negotiator said in front of everybody -- and i double checked with somebody that was there so i wasn't hearing things -- that the israelis are responsible for the burning of the jordanian pilot and the killing of the two japanese. he said it with a straight face because he does things with a straight face. nobody in this administration said a word about that. and so you have got a fundamental problem of trust here. the israelis we know don't trust them. the arabs don't trust them. you're not going to turn around and cut some kind of deal on an artificial deadline that, as you just heard, even democrats are worried about and then turn around and say, trust me, it will all work out.

moderator: our first question will come from the head of the center for the national interests. >> i think that your indictment both of the obama administration, i certainly would agree with both of you 100%. the best i can say to the administration is that it's supposed to come to an end. the question is not, however how fundamentally flawed this policy is and the way we have handled it as david as suggested. we perhaps would cover for a better deal. we are where we are. so my question to both of you, in particular to you, dov, because you acknowledged that

perhaps the apocolyptic threat two years ago coming from iran is somewhat overstated. my question to you is, what is the alternative you would articulate now in the current circumstances, would you reject the deal and suggest that we leave more or less start but perhaps like david has suggested, making the new strategic approach? or would you contemplate an or would you contemplate an attack on iran? and you would be in favor of that or at least you think we can live with that, what do you think would happen to the price of oil? what do you think would happen to fortunes. would they use this opportunity to create further mischief in ukraine, far beyond eastern ukraine and russian forces are allegedly are now and where the chinese will be.

the question is simple, are we better off rejecting the agreement at this point? dov zakheim: most of these questions were directed to me so i'll start. let me first say that i have written and i have spoken over and over again that i think not only would an israeli attack on iran be useless, but i think our attack on iran would be useless. there are too many targets, it will take far too long. it's not a one shot deal. we don't have as great battle damage assessment as we say we do. the u.n. will tell us to stop in a few days. the job will not be done within a few days. let's assume that we or the israelis or some combination could take every iranian target out. fine, the iranians now say we're on our own and they get the bomb within a couple years anyway. so i don't think a military strike is the answer. what i do think is the answer is

essentially to turn around to the iranians and say, look, this isn't good enough, we have to keep talking. netanyahu said a year ago that the interim deal was a disaster. it's turned out not to be a disaster. in that respect, the administration, it worked. the iranians haven't moved anywhere as far as they otherwise would have moved and there is still a bunch of sanctions squeezing them. i would just continue talking until there is a new president. i don't trust this president. i think he will grab the first opportunity to cut a deal. but if i had my druthers, we would keep on talking. keep the sanctions that currently exist and do nothing more at this stage. moderator: david? david rothkopf: well, first of all, i agree. i don't think there is any benefit to us from attacking iran and i think in the current situation, the middle east, it would be calamatous.

building off of my prior point my sense is that we're going to end up with an interim deal that will turn into a final deal. that final deal will reduce the threat from iran somewhat and provide for inspection and other kinds of oversight that can ensure that the risks from iran are somewhat less. on the nuclear front. the primary threats posed by iran are not nuclear. the primary threats posed by iran are regional. in terms of instability, the actions of hezbollah, the actions of hamas, the actions associated with their support of

the houthis, their meddling in iraq, their support for asaad which runs into the tens of billions of dollars. unless you realize and treat those things as the primary threat, you're missing the unless you realize and treat those things as the primary threat, you're missing the point. and therefore take the deal, enforce the deal and then do two things. repair the alliance with the gulf states, with the jordanians, with the egyptians recognize that they have the responsibility for stabilizing in the region first, that we need to support them, that we need to work with them for movements that can be stabilizing in western iraq. we need to work with them to find a solution that will work in syria. we need to work with them to ultimately get a negotiated settlement that's the best settlement you can get with

yemen and primarily that we need to work with them to counteract the two pernicious forces in the region, one of which is sunni extremism which manifests itself in everything from isis to the brotherhood and the other is iran. one of the big mistakes one can make is cut a deal with iran say everything is fine and move into the mode as if this solved the problem when it only deals with a fraction, as dov said raising the point of missiles properly, with a fraction of a fraction of problem. so use it. but have your eyes wide open and don't think that this is producing a strategic re-alignment in this region because it's not, our allies don't want it to and it's not going to help, it's going to put us as greater risk. >> our next question is from ambassador bremer.

ambassador: i want to first agree with david. the problem that iran poses is strategic and geopolitical. effectively what he is talking about with the administration explicitly and hillary clinton rejected was a policy of containment of iran. that may be where we wind up but there are some very important lessons from the containment of the soviet union. first of all, it was a policy that was carried out by 10 presidents of both political parties for a half a century. during that half century, we spent an average of 6% of g.d.p. on defense. we forward deployed hundreds of thousands of troops around the ring of the soviet union, our allies, although they never spent up to 6%, spent 3% of g.d.p. we had tactical nuclear weapons

up against the soviet border. containment is not cheap and it's not easy. and it was bipartisan. i don't see how this administration which has got itself into a very partisan situation on this particular issue of the nuclear agreement is going to have the ability to produce a strong bipartisan support for containing iran, which is basically what david is calling for. he may be right, that's where we end up, but nobody should be under any illusions that that is going to be easy. it's going to be expensive. we have to put american troops on the ground in the middle east, we're going to have to probably put nuclear weapons on the ground in the middle east. we're certainly going to have put nuclear weapons there if we want the host countries not to get their own nuclear weapons. >> david? david rothkopf: first of all i'm not explicitly calling for

containment, i'm calling for counterbalances. if the iranians make real progress, adhere to this agreement, stop doing the other things that they're doing behave in a more constructive way that they could, you know, grow in international standing in ways that wouldn't be bad provided we were counterbalancing them. so i use counterbalance rather than contain, but it's all conditional on them actually doing those things. they have shown no inclination to do those things thus far. i think we need to be very beady eyed and very results and evidence-oriented in this regard and you're right, it's become political. having said that, i can't help but point out that to a large degree, the political problems that we're having -- well, the political problems we're having in washington cannot be blamed on one party or the other.

both parties have played a role in creating the most politsized foreign policy atmosphere that we have seen in a long, long time. that's not helpful and regardless of who is elected in 2016, one can only hope that as a centerpiece of their foreign policy will be a willingness to commit the effort at home to rebuild the kind of across the aisle alliances that are essential to have credibility overseas. the current experience with netanyahu illustrates it as well. if we are seen as dysfunctionally polarized, we are not seen as a reliable power in the world. that's a threat to us. we need to find a way around that threat.

dov zakheim: let me jump in briefly. if you want to contain iran, you have to spend money. this administration does not want to spend money on defense. what they have done just now shows that to you, they came in with a request for more defense spending than the sequester and the budget control act will allow. the congress turned around and said we're not going to bust the sequester, you know the administration know you don't want to bust the sequester. what we're going to do is take the additional money and put it contingency account. the administration is opposed to it. so it shows you where they're really coming from. they don't want to spend any more money on defense. containment is a nonstarter for these folks. there is another fundamental problem. the way david puts it is essentially tell our allies in the region, we'll cut a deal with the iranians and then we'll fix it with you. that's exactly putting the cart before the horse. if you want support for a deal

that's questionable, the first thing you have to do is shore up your allies. you have got to convince them that you are reliable, that you have a certain understanding of their concerns and that you're going to act on them because not only after a deal is cut, but before a deal is cut. so when you have a spat with israel that goes well beyond just mr. netanyahu's behavior when you have friction with the saudis, that has nothing to do with the israelis. when you have a cutoff of support for the bahrainies which we have done -- we have cut off any kind of military support for them and the bahrainies, of course, are kind of younger brothers to the saudis. they're just across the causeway for those of you who know the region. if you operate in that way, you are certainly not giving them the comfort factor that they would need prior to a deal being signed. we're doing it exactly the opposite way.

david rothkopf: let me say one thing in response to that. i agree that the right way to have done this would be to maintain and then build credibility, listen to our allies, understand where they need assurance, not undercut our credibility with them at every turn, not offer the iranians a deal on enrichment we wouldn't offer them, not do the things that we have done. we are where we are. my view on that is if you want to make the best of the situation you're in now, you have to look at those represents and restore them by actions, not words. and, by the way, you can't restore relationships in a region like this unless you empower your state department to

go out and do the work. if everything is done by the white house, you cannot do the day-to-day blocking and tackling of diplomatic relationships that this required. so there are operational issues involved here that are serious problems. the final point i want to make is we didn't address part of dmitri's question. he raised the point of mr. putin. there are broader geopolitical ramifications of this. when vladmir putin sees our behaving fecklessly or being distracted by situations like this, every single time he takes advantage of it. it is no accident, also, that when he takes advantage of it, people in the region see him as a little bit stronger. and the israelis have turned to the russians more closely and they have better relations with the russians.

others in the region have done the same. as i was saying to jerry we got here, there is an ironic twist going on. you may recall a discussion of pivot to asia. well, we didn't really follow through on the pivot to asia. you know who is pivoting to asia, everybody in the middle east, the people we were supposed to be pivoting away from, the saudis, the israelis the gulf states, the iranians, they're looking to china as a consumer of last resort. they're looking to india as a big buyer of their energy products. they are looking in a different direction for major power involvement in the region because they don't trust that they can count on u.s. major power involvement in the region and i might add, that is compounded by the fact that the notion of e.u. foreign policy is a fantasy because the e.u.

hasn't gotten its act together yet to actually have a foreign policy. the atlantic alliance and the deterioration that has taken place in context of that alliance, has contributed to this weakening in the middle east and the weakening in the face of putin. and that need to be addressed in you are going to dress this pivot and the issues in this region as well. dov zakheim: the reason i said we should continue talking is precisely so we can do the kinds of things david talked about shore up the alliances, restore some credibility. there is no reason for us to say as we have been saying if we can't get something done by the end of march, we're going to walk away. that's exactly the wrong thing to say. the right thing to say is, if we can't get something done by the end of march, we'll just keep on talking. the longer we talk, the more

time we have to restore our relationships with the saudis, with the israelis, the rest of them to prevent the pivot to asia that david just talked about, to have some kind of credibility with our adversaries as well and our potential adversaries. it's not just putin who sees us as week. it's the chinese who see us as weak, everybody see us as weak. people say we are unreliable, we are weak, we are looking in word. we need time to restore that. you don't cut a deal, and then try to restore it. all you will do then is further undermine yourself. you will have proof for how weak you are.

dov zakheim: please identify yourself richard solomon. richard: as jacob, you just said, the subject is iran and the american politics. the terrible message that i am hearing in this discussion is very fundamental to american politics. the question is, are we capable as a country, a country with presumably the most resources economic, military of any country, are we capable of conducting a meaningful foreign policy. and, david, you began with pointing out the various ways that iran has been the beneficiary -- you have to take that back to bush. when we eliminated the iraq saddam hussein challenge we

basically destabilized the balance. was anyone thinking about that issue when we went into iraq? i see a fundamental, structural question, it is partially related to a generational change occurring in our politics. the last american president who served in war was george herbert walker bush. since then, we have had a new generation with a different view of the world and how we should deal with it. we have been cranking through the lack of strategic thinking. the fact that people in the world do not trust us, you used the word weak, i would say people do not look at us as weak but as not knowing what we are about. what are we trying to achieve. that undermines the kind of trust that is reinforced by the kind of domestic, political dysfunction.

>> [indiscernible] >> under george schultz, one of the great secretaries of state. my point is i think the situation calls -- not probably in this room, we have people who devoted their lives to security. but as a country. look at the people coming up as potential presidents for the next cycle. almost none have foreign-policy experience. in a world in chaos, or as henry kissinger put it, a period of disorder, i think we have some serious self-reflection. >> i don't know if david will

agree, but i think a point to david made previously, goes to the heart of your concern. our foreign-policy is being run by a small group of people in the white house, most of whom have minimal foreign-policy experience. they've been doing it for six years, but it is if it has been six days. regardless of who is elected the real etch -- issue is, does the white house run for up -- run foreign-policy, or do we leave it to the professionals. people like your self and others who serve in treasury, state commerce, we have a lot of international agencies, and young people are more interconnected with the world than any other generation. there is no inherent reason why we should be operating the way we are today. the key is, do we rely on her executive agencies to do what

the law tells them to do, to the extent that a new administration, regardless of party will default back to executive agencies, i think you'll see a very different american image around the world. and a lot more credibility. >> there are two groups that make the same points. the roles have become centralized. it makes it impossible to do the job the agencies need to do. it also makes it impossible for the white house to do the strategic planning and implementation for all of it. that needs to be fixed and there are a variety of ways to do that, including cutting down the size of the nsc from 400 to 200.

henry kissinger's nsc had 30. we are over 10 times that. but you guys were special. [laughter] having said that, that is not the full answer. there are two other issues. one is foreign-policy is made in the executive branch primarily by the president of the united states, at the behest of the president. there is no area in which the old maxim of a single man or woman is true. five out of six of the last presidents have had no foreign experience. the american people continue to live under the delusion that

foreign-policy is something you could pick up. is that has been demonstrated to not be the case, certainly the past few years have driven that message home, or should have. you have to elect people who understand this, who understand how the agencies work, who understand the issues, who are not going to do on the job training, and are effective leaders. people who are effective of managing big organizations. the u.s. is the largest, most complicated organization on earth. the skill set least valued is management skill. this is the one city in the world where people tend to believe if you can articulate, that is the same as being able to get something done. that is not true. we need leaders who are also managers who have clear ideas, and they have to be able to go and do the retail politics of foreign-policy as well as they

do the global diplomacy and statesmanship. they have to go to the hill. they cannot maintain campaign mode. they have to engage. they have to have willing partners. it is not a small thing. the congress of the united states is obstructionist. many of the people in congress do not have passports. they do not engage in these issues. they think penalizing be president on foreign-policy, when it weakens us when it happens. they do not believe in the principles of collaboration and compromise that are essential to functioning democracy. that has to be fixed as well. you cannot fix it all at once.

the place you can start to fix it is in the presidential election. you have to pick the right woman or man to be president in order to be able to be in this process of change. >> if you want someone who is a manager, and my last incarnation in government i was on management side. i saw the price we pay for people who did not know how to manage being in management positions. the managers out there are not senators, they are ceo's. ceo's who are in politics are called governors. sometimes you will get a senator who knows nothing about foreign-policy and is still pretty good. harry truman. you can have a governor who is pretty good -- ronald reagan or bill clinton. it is a function of the individual. if the individual can listen has a good staff, recognizes his

or her shortcomings, you will be fine. if the individual has a management background, you will be better. if the individual is convinced hey, i am president and you are not. therefore i know it all and you do not. it does not matter what their background is. >> running a large agency like the u.s. state department count. i figured that was coming. two more questions. one for mike from pbs "newshour." mike: politics was in the title of this talk. first of all, an election campaign is usually not the best way to articulate complicated issues. you gentlemen have advised presidential candidates. on the democratic side, it seems like the candidate is going to have to distance

themselves from the current administration without repudiating it. on the republican side, how to run an effective critique without turning it into a rancid criticism. >> i believe that it is highly likely, regardless who the candidate is in 2016, they will both in some degree run against the foreign-policy records of the last two presidents. both will seek to identify themselves as something different. as far as democratic candidates, i think they will be able to split the difference that you described their because they will be able to embrace the lot of the president's domestic policies.

they will be a list saying there was recoveries, progress made in climate. they will be able to say that there was a variety of gains made. they can embrace that wholeheartedly. i think foreign-policy, they may talk about some of the progress that gets made in climate. they may talk about the progress that might be made. there may be some victories to look at. they will make a mistake if they get too bogged down in the details of defending the obama and ministration foreign-policy. instead of focusing on the future, i believe that what the american people will look for is someone who will say, i have a different vision as to where we are going to go. i can provide a different character leadership. i can demonstrate that i can deliver that character of

leadership, and i can give you a few key ideas of how i will restore america to the traditional leadership role expected of the country both here and overseas. my final point, i think whoever is elected will see as one of their central jobs restoring america's leadership role in the world. in that respect, you will see a lot of similarity in some of the rhetoric that is going to come out of both the democratic and republican candidates. zakheim: the obama administration is going to be a target rich environment both on foreign policy and domestic policy. i agree that will not be enough, there will have to be a positive vision.

i think it will be harder for the democratic candidate to fight the bush election again, because it will be 14 years before. it will be difficult. mr. obama has been fighting mr. bush from day one. the reaction gets more and more negative with the passage of time. i think the sense in the country that things are going wrong overseas means that unlike in the 2012 election when generally mr. romney did not focus much on foreign-policy here you will see national security as a major issue. probably as major as in the 1980 election. who knows what will happen in the next 18 months, but i do not think it will be good. that will be a major issue. the question will be what do we do. either candidate, republican or democrat, will have to come up with a viable answer. i don't think claiming credit

for climate change as a security issue, which by the way is a major element of the current national security strategy -- climate change and the environment -- will resonate with the american people when you see what is going on in the middle east and elsewhere. it just won't wash. i hope a democrat will oka's on -- will focus on that. >> the next question is from wayne mary. wayne: i am struck with the panel discussion on iran in american politics that there has been no mention of a collective letter from the u.s. senators to the uranian government. there has been only passing reference to the israeli prime minister. the focus of your criticism has been almost exclusively on one end of pennsylvania avenue

which i would be happy to join. but if you are talking about alliances, i have rarely seen in my professional life, a set of writing, i thought i was critical now. zakheim: i think congress made a mistake. he could have retreated by the way. senators feinstein and durban had offered to speak separately to the democrats. he could have turned around and said i will do that. an olive branch. he has offered no olive

branch. i think it is a reflection of frustration. massive frustration. it goes to the point david made. this president has no relationship with the hill on any issue. he is not a favorite of the democrats either. those who knew him when he was on the hill knew him as a loner who did not ever become part of the club. if you know the hill, and i know you do, if people like you, you can get away with a lot. if people do not like you, they will fault you for everything.

the classic example of that is ronald reagan and tip o'neill. reagan and o'neill clearly did not see the world the same way. they play golf together, they related, and when things had to get done, they somehow work it out. this president does not know how to do that. maybe he doesn't want to do that. i don't know. you have a degree of frustration. obviously the democrats will be more restrained than republicans. this letter was aslmost like a gut that had burst. perhaps a different way to handle congress, stroking people, being nice to people giving them the time of day could have resulted in something else. could have resulted in the president calling in cotton and some others saying, look, this is not the right way to go. if you had a relationship, he could've done that. >> i think i was explicit. i said they were obstructionist, i said they were blocking things. david: they are part of the problem. very few things illustrate this

as clearly as the letter. dov is rationalizing it. i don't think it is rationalize-able. i think the letter was ill considered and unconstructive. the kind of thing that ought to be repudiated by both sides. it wasn't. but it wasn't. it was embraced by virtually all with a couple of exceptions. of republicans in the senate. in that respect i think it is a symptom of a disease that needs to be cured. the way to cure it is not blame on the president. who is leading on the republican side looking for solutions? who is leaving, being constructive? i mean genuinely.