ammunitions when your target requires more guidance. and your political frustration increases which leads to this and it is time to put away the stick and show the carrot. we will not be able to happen. the second question, the u.s. support yemen, right now there is a lot of -- i would imagine there is a lot of consternation within u.s. circles because a lot of the things we have given to the yemenis, such as night vision goggles, we cannot account for. these are something we try to track cosi and that we inventory on a monthly basis. i actually inventoried the yemeni parachute brigade's. it was immaculate. we do not know where those are. unless we can establish where they are, we are not going to send more things of that nature. there will be cooperation of there is an entity we can

cooperate with, particularly against a common enemy like those guys who just busted out. it will be very, very low level and low tech until such time as we can be assured that the high-tech things people ask for it like night vision goggles are capable of being accounted for. thank you. dr. anthony: two more for jeremy sharp and then the panelists on my right and you're left, can you talk about the implication potential for this arab state coalition to be engaged in the challenges pertaining to syria? and possibly against isis or to try and restore somewhat security and stability in iraq jeremy sharp? jeremy sharp: is there in egypt question?

dr. anthony: and if one can analyze egypt's position and role. the united states has lifted the ban on sanctions or hold on ammunitions and armaments to egypt, and that egypt is to be the location of a 35,000 arab ground force for this united arab joint defense command for which there is an air component, which is much smaller. just a few thousand. and a naval component that is perhaps double that. with those it to combine and multiplied by seven would be the ground forces. who is paying for this? largely saudi arabia and other

gcc countries, but not all. and to us is involved in this? morocco is, jordan's, and you may recall in the last four years, a geostrategic announcement that the gcc countries would be more aligned and associated with jordan and morocco monarchies. this is not completely new with regard to reaching out to those two countries. but reaching out to sit and is -- to sudan is. partly because it is the neighbor of egypt and has there own armed forces and it diversifies the coalition. mr. sharp? jeremy sharp: it certainly is not, as john points out. but we are at a moment and one of the interesting strategic

things to think about in terms of this conflict in yemen and really what has been going on in the so-called arab spring began in 2011 isn't this concept of regional integration. albeit military or economic, something that has been talked about for decades, right? if you look at just from the economic side, saudi arabia, kuwait, the uae are financially supporting countries that fiscally cannot do it themselves anymore, whether it is egypt jordan, certainly yemen needs the assistance. all of these countries now. the gcc says they have the finances now but the cost of the region are going up exponentially, whether it is military integration or and -- or economic integration. who knows how operationally this joint force will work or where it will be deployed in the future. this may be the beginning of the

-- we're at a point where we cannot laugh is often more. oh yeah, they talk about integration and they make deals that never happened. this actually may be the start of something both financially and militarily that has some legs because the region itself is getting to the point where it is so bad that they need that kind of assistance. dr. anthony: these questions shifting gears here, too are other panelists. could the two of you comment on the way the discussion is going with regard to questions asked and the answers provided. is this another case of american lack of empathy and inability or limitation of americans to

project themselves into the the shoes and situations of the peoples? your comments on the americanism aspect, anti-americanism, the american role back and saudi arabia saying it will support this 10 estate coalition providing intelligence operational, logistical, ammunition support. are you in accord with his anti-american perceptions and iraq, hundreds of americans were sure that they knew iraq and could plan and predict and anticipate effectively -- cost effectively and efficiently with the united states did and most would agree it is a disaster that iraq was smashed to smithereens and lost its

national sovereignty, political independence, lost its territorial integrity, lost before things that are in america's constitution as to why america exists, namely to provide domestic safety to assure for the external defense, to enhance material well-being and to ensure the administration of and it -- prevent effective system for justice. all of those things were smashed. the united states cannot blame others for those results. what are your answers to these controversial implicitly challenging constant questions? panelist: [indiscernible] [speaking arabic]

[speaking arabic]

[speaking arabic] [laughter] dr. anthony: i tried to get as much of that as possible. that is definitely a great lack of information on yemen.

in yemen is a private society, but it is a very loving society and they love each other, their neighbors, and the idea of secretary is an and as far as he is concerned, the houthis are part of human -- of part of yemeni society and they have been and will remain there. [indiscernible] the issue is that the u.s. relation with him and is based on security issues. what do we do with al qaeda, what kind of role does yemen play? the question is definitely broader than what the united states wants to look at yemen

around. i don't like to talk of sectarianism and yemen is for everybody. abbas almosawa: [speaking arabic]

[laughter] abbas almosawa:[speaking arabic]

translator: he is relating to a specific piece of information that before the operation to -- before the current operation, he asked the united states to it. basically, everyone wanted to limit the houthi influence in yemen, obviously. there were many times that try to secure large areas on the saudi arabian border.

there is a story that abbas almosawa has, the son of the president, they wanted to lift the sanctions on his family and basically, he promised that he would lead the campaign to be the end of the houthi threat. abbas almosawa: thank you. [speaking arabic] thank you. [applause] translator: that was fast. basically, the idea is that he

is against the war since he does not think it is going to resolve anything. panelist: i will try to be brief. given everything that has happened, i understand the united states being cautious and endorsing this attack and they are in top corner considering the drone strikes that are happening in yemen that are unpopular on the ground. i think the problem or there is an opportunity here for the u.s. to play the role of mediator and peacemaker for once in the region. they can help bring the parties together and reach a negotiation because at the end of all this and sending ground troops or air tubes, they will have to sit

down and come with a solution. i talked earlier about this being a war to eliminate an ideology and there was no such thing as illuminating the houthis or any of the rhetoric does not make sense. what yemenis can do is learn to coexist together and create a process that allows for pluralism. my opinion is although americans try very hard to understand yemen, yemen is a very remote location. it is a very different culture and i think that sometimes because we are so different that results in the creation of i vs. you or me vs. them dialogue. there are yemenis that can speaking english and communicate these ideas. unfortunately, there are nuances the west cannot get unless there is a yemeni person translating for the. there is a sense that yemeni life is worthless. this sense comes from yemenis themselves to kill each other and spill blood everywhere. this has been happening since

2011 at this point. yemenis generally feel their lives don't matter and this is an opportunity for the world to say your lives do matter and learn you are worth something. the situation we are in in yemen now can be narrowed down to the politics of five individuals. the president, former president, the first four that i mentioned have been on the political yemeni seen for years. -- scene for years. the reason he succeeded was he was able to take the youth and employ them in the houthi movement. all other factions failed to include the youth. the houthis were able to construct a show to present that women are participating.

it shows me they are more poetic -- more politically savvy than other political ribs on the ground. -- groups on the ground. i think everything and yemen is a result of lack of leadership. for good governance. ever since 2011 until now, we had an opportunity to take yemen out of the situation it was an animated towards democracy. we have all talked about the gcc deal that granted the president and as long as he was on the ground he could carry out operations and now we have a president who is residing there. his strength in yemen is getting weaker and weaker by the day and it is hard to imagine how he would go back and will again by issuing orders. that is the only thing he can do and that is how he rolled prior to do thousand 14. he would issue orders for things to be carried out but they would not be implement it. in order to move forward whether american, saudi, or any other part of the world, they

need to sit down and taken yemen's history. i really do recommend to look at yemen's history not just in the past four years, not the past 20 years, i would say to look really, really back. we are tribes by nature and we do take pride in our genealogy and whatever vendettas we had from 50 years ago could still apply to this day. having said that, if there is a process that is endorsed by the west, it has been proven in the past that every political party is willing to come and negotiate. a lot of people have suggested oman as a neutral location because they are the only location that has not participated in the airstrikes were all factions can talk to each other. that is about it. dr. anthony: thank you. his excellency will be here in less than one minute we are told. we westerners, i am one of them,

have a problem thinking about tribes. those who are americans here and over 50 years old, perhaps have seen no fewer than 30 movies cowboys and indians, and the indians were all tribal. they were the bad people. and the non-indians were the progressive and good people. and the indians were seen as file and and backward, nonprogressive, liberal. in terms of what has happened to them, their lands, resources mountains, valleys, rivers streams were all taken over by a white people, christian people largely who came from western europe. so americans have a difficulty question of tribes. they come from the state of virginia where many of the tribes still are in existence

but living on reservations and others of you come from elsewhere where the tribes are larger and so are the reservations. but think of it in this context because the british do not have this. hang on. indeed, the british role and roll and power and prestige largely was through the tribes in the region. so, with regard to tribes in a british sense, that power that for nearly two centuries held the ring of security and stability, they could not have done it without tribes and through tribes. the american experience is emphatically different and this means we have proceeded with maybe two hands behind our back because we say we don't do tribes and largely we don't.

but here is a self-inflicted wound because what are tribes? they are groups of people, social logical and anthropological realities forces phenomena on the ground and they place where the central government is weak, resources a few, and there are no strong central government. it is left to plan b, the pre-existing tribes who have leaders and tribes are not nondemocratic in many instances. they, too, live by consultation and they, too, live by consensus. this buildings ethos in terms of democracy boil down to a phrase is the consent of the government. had to get the console except a consultation? so the tribes are steeped in consultation and largely

peaceful interior room in terms of where people would go for security and stability. and up until the last 40 years but still in some places, you went to your tribal leader for scholarship to get help to have medicine and health care. even to have a job or get a position in the armed forces, so if you look at tribes from this perspective, they are the glue they are the adhesive, they are the lubricant that has kept this particular society together longer than more peacefully and more effectively than otherwise would have been the case. it sounds as though i am a member of the tribe, it is called the human tribe. we have his excellency who has arranged his scheduled to be with us.

mr. ambassador, you were not here when many of the questions were asked, but i will try to summarize some of them. if you would be good enough to respond. are you comfortable with that? all right. well, we had questions that were divided index or no -- in the external category of what other countries are doing. iran on one hand and then the united states and newly formal declared arab joint command to be based in egypt and along with their 10 countries. these are in the external realm. one that wasn't tasked was will the oral surplus or the decline in oil prices, how that will affect yemen which depends on oil and gas for its limited revenue, as does your country and most of your g.c.c. neighbors.

so those would be on the external side with one addition and that is several questions, maybe half a dozen were asked about sunni, shi'ia, and iran saudi arabia tension conflict, etc. on the internal side, questions about will saudi arabia give serious and favorable consideration to a ground offensive if it comes to that? what has been the price saudi arabia has paid economically human resources, geopolitically, humanitarially and people killed in the air strikes and other questions having to do with the internal dynamics of yemen and ali abdullah saleh's role and your government supported him and had relationship with him for decades. and also, your government had

close and extensive relations with most if not all of yemen's major tribes. and people used to criticize riyad for doing this, but in my own meetings with ali abdullah saleh he said i don't have the resources to deal with large segments of my people. if someone from the outside is willing to help meet the basic health care needs, education needs, security and stability needs, who would not have an outstretched hand of appreciation and gratitude for whatever country did that, the united states, even the soviet union where it could be the case in years past. so this is a little bit of the nature of the external questions and the domestic ones. the domestic ones are charged with the understandable needs, concerns, and emotions of

individuals who have relatives in yemen. who are suffering and who are uncertain about the near term present let alone the longer term future. i tried to summarize. would you respond to these kinds of questions? panelist: thank you for the opportunity to speak and thank you, everybody, for being here today. let me start off by talking a also bit about where we are in the operations. first of all, this is not something that we wanted to do. this was an issue of last resort for us. nobody wants to use force in anger. but we were left with no choice and spent years trying to establish a legitimate government in yemen, years trying to help yemen move from the chaotic situation it was in 2007 to a stable future. as times went by we had the houthis, reneging on the agreements they signed and

backed away from them. their aggression kept moving and they went from iran and moved around and threatened to capture the president's palace and imprisoned the president and cabinet in their homes in sana and thank god most of them were able to escape and make their way to another city. we had no choice but to respond to the call of the president of yemen of the u.s. chart tore come in and support him and protect him and protect yemen. so our objectives in yemen are simple, protect the government of yemen and protect the people of yemen from a takeover by a radical group allied with iran and hezbollah. and we had a situation where a and we had a situation where a militia that is in control of ballistic missiles and was now in control of an air force. i don't believe there was a

situation in history a armed militia had an air force and this is something that cannot be tolerated. we tried to reason with them and tried to reach agreements with them or broker agreements with them that as i mentioned earlier, it all came to not and we ended up having to resort to force in response to the request by the legitimate government of yemen. the operations are ongoing. we have targeted the air force. we have targeted air bases. we have targeted ballistic missiles and targeted heavy weapons depots and have tried our best to minimize collateral damage. there have been malicious charges made the saudi air force responded to a refugee camp and turned out not to be the case. the site was not on our target list nor were operations conducted above it and could not have been us. there were charters that saudi arabia bombed a milk factory a

few days but turned out the factory was bombed by the houthis themselves to generate sympathy towards themselves and hostilization to the coalition forces. we believe the activities are achieving their objectives. it will take a little more time but are determined to prevail in yemen and determined to strength and restore the legitimate government of yemen and protect the people of yemen from this radical group. with regard to the internal situation in the kingdom, of course everybody is apprehensive about the use of force and nobody wants to do it but people understand it was necessary and have total support not only from the people of the kingdom of saudi arabia but for people throughout the region for these military operations. the issue of yemen's oil, unfortunately, for yemen, yemen does not produce enough oil to

export so not most if not all the oil yemen produces is for domestic consumption and therefore the drop on the price of oil in world markets has no impact on yemen and if anything reduces its import coast of oil they have to purchase from outside. president saleh, we've had our ups and downs with him since he came to power. when saddam hussein innovated kuwait, the president sided against saudi arabia and we cut off relations with him. so the relationship was not always an amicable one over the past 35 years. but now he's playing a very negative and destructive role in

yemen by aligning himself with the huti's and using what influence he has in the military in order to per situate them to side with them. houthis could not have made their advance without the explicit support of president saleh and the military units he controlled. the world knows this and believe history will judge him harshly when it comes to yemen and what he did to yemen and his role in the current crisis. we have been targeting units that are loyal to him or that are under his command or virtually under his command in order to degrade their capabilities and in order to make sure the role he has in yemen and the roles the houthis play in the militia are limited

or nonexistent. we recognize the houthis are yemenese and have a right to be a part of the political process in yemen and not denying this and in fact was the g.e.c. initiative that opened the door for them to participate in the yemeni political process but cannot be a militia or have heavy weapons outside the scope of the state and that's a situation that is not tolerable. we see the consequences of hezbollah where militia dominates the state and threaten state institutions and will not allow this to happen on our doorstep in yemen. dr. anthony: i'll read them out and you're good on remembering them and answer them as you will. does it matter one way or another if the united states lists the groups in women under the designation of it being a terrorist organization? and as much as saudi arabia has

designated of late various groups as terrorist organizations is this under the options they have you said exclusions and what will be the implications if they did or did not, that's one. the second one your view of aden. there's oman near the east-west shipping routes and there is jizan and other places you're developing along the red sea. in eastern oman. that's one question. i'll let you think about it, about how this strategic geoeconomic logistical of exports from the peninsula and exports into it, where does that come on the radar there? >> i'm getting old so my memory

is limited. let me talk about the two. the first one was designating the houthis are a terrorist and they've terrorized the population and taken out of property and government equipment illegal have the houthis. if that is not terrorism, i don't know what it is. i don't know it will have an impact, i guess from a psychological perspective in the sense of defining them and their actions as illegal and criminal. but in terms of facts on the ground, i don't know what impact it will have in the short term. the second question with regards

to economic support for yemen, saudi arabia has been by far the largest contributor of economic assistance to yemen ever since the civil war in yemen ended in the late 1960's and early 1970's. we have built roads, schools hospitals. we have sent medical teams and have brought yemeni students to saudi arabia on scholarship. we've tried to help yemen with its development plans and we are committed to doing so in the future. we have with our partners in the g.c.c., we believe that yemen has the potential to thrive. it has a large population base. the yemeni people are

industrious and hard-working and very honest. we have in saudi arabia almost four million yemeni people working in the kingdom and we believe that yemen, were it to have the legal infrastructure and the bureaucratic infrastructure that is proper could be a magnet for investments by gulf businesses where they can set up shops or factories in yemen, fund agricultural products in yemen take advantage of the abundance of labor in yemen in order to produce items or food that can then be exported either to the gulf countries or even sold in yemen. so we have no hesitation about continuing our vast support for yemen in order to help the yemeni people and irrespective of what happened to the port of aden and what happened to the logistics in terms of shipping. we deal with the situation as it is and the situation as it is now is we have a country that is one of the poorest in the world with one of the highest

unemployment rates in the world with one of the highest malnutrition rates in the world that has no water to speak of, a country that is ripe with disease and that needs the attention and the support of the whole world in order to get back up on its feet. we are determined to help the people of yemen and the yemen country to overcome the challenges it faces but first we need a stable and legitimate government and we need to find a way where we can end the divisions that exist in yemen and prevent a radical group from taking over the country, and as part of a foreign driven agenda that seeks to divide yemen and seeks to destroy yemen and seeks to create instability in the arabian peninsula. dr. anthony: these are three questions, then, keying off that last one about those seeking to divide yemen, outsiders for sure have investment in that kind of a strategic outcome but so do those inside.

and there is a movement in the south that would love to see another independent republican of south yemen. so would a two state solution ever be possible in yemen and what would saudi arabia's view be about that? you dealt with that reality for a long time from 1967 to 1990 there. could there be a reversion to that? second question is the houthis like iran 1979 revolution, are rejecting any form of western influence. what does this mean for your major partner, the united states, that is ready and available and amenable to meeting but it takes two to tango if the houthis want to have nothing to do with washington, understandable, but

what are the implications of that? you want to answer those two and then there are some more? adel: with we guard to the different movements in yemen, i think they are driven by the sense of mismanagement, a sense of corruption, a accepts of feeling that people's rights are being denied, and i think if we can create a situation where we create a stable, legitimate government that's balanced, it represents all yemenis that work for the interest of all yemenis, we wouldn't see these different movements in yemen. i can't comment about the two-state solution or the one-state solution in yemen because this is ultimately up to the people of yemen. we have always maintained that it is important to maintain the unity and territorial integrity of yemen, the objective of our operations right now are to protect the legitimate government of yemen and to protect the people of yemen and to prevent the rides of a radical, militant armed group on our southern border. so that's on the first question. with regards to the second

question, the houthis ideology is very clear and they've been very clear about what they stand for, their education system and text books have been very clear about who they perceive as their enemies and i don't believe that the houthis would -- what they are advocating would be in the interest of yemen because it's not. they want to close yemen off from the world and want yemen to be a radical state that is allied with iran and hezbollah and that's not going to serve either the yemeni people or the people of the region. dr. anthony: that last comment assumes one here about the alliance, rhetorical or political or ideological with hezbollah and baby none so won't go to that one as such. at which point, if any, of the houthi power increasing would saudi arabia withdraw its estimated $1 billion in the yemen central bank, assuming it has not been looted?

and sec question, and lots of these are great questions that come from the media, nbc, cnn, c-span, "wall street journal,” reuters and the like, they're well-versed here and want to know how much hard evidence is there of iranian armed shipments and other support to the houthis, none, a little, a lot? adel: a lot. with regards to the -- what we would do to withdraw our deposit from the yemeni central bank. we're not going to withdraw it. it cannot be looted because these deposits tend to be numbers on computers. so it's not some physical cash that we gave the yemeni several central bank. the houthis, we are much less

worried about the houthis taking over yemen before the operation started. we are degrading their capabilities and will destroy their capabilities and will protect the yemeni government and yemeni people, period. no question about it. and the operations are, as i mentioned earlier, ongoing. the objectives are being achieved and we're working through these objectives in order to reach the conclusion that we all want. that's with regards to the issue of the central bank and the houthis. with regards to iranian support for the houthis, it's very, very clear, there are -- the first thing the houthis did when they captured sanaa, was to release the operatives of iranian revolution guards and hezbollah from the intelligence jails in sanaa. the iranians have been shipping weapons to the houthis long before this conflict began and those weapons include shoulder launch surface-to-air missiles. there was a shipment that was interdicted of iranian weapons

going to the houthis. they're helping them with -- to build certain facilities. and so the evidence we have -- and they're providing them with financial support. the evidence is very clear to us and we have no doubt about it. we also see it reflected in the public position that iran and hezbollah have taken with regards to the conflict in yemen and with regards to the houthis. dr. anthony: the next one has to do with various aspects of iran and perhaps three aspects. several questions about if you were to address the question of to what extent, if at all, is it really sunni versus shi'ia issues, ideological, political geopolitical, versus revolutionary view points versus the legitimacy of the incumbent governments in the region. haven't seen that question but that's an intriguing one. adel: i think the way we never wanted to have a sectarian

conflict. we have in saudi arabia, saudi citizens who are of the shiite islam and viewed as equal citizens to every other saudi. every right a saudi citizen has irrespective of what their ethnicity is or what their sect is. so this is not something that we want to -- the path we wanted to go down the road to. the iranians and hezbollah have tried to stroke the sectarian fires in order to generate conflict in the middle east. you see it in the speeches. you see it in the actions they take. we on the other hand and our allies in the gulf have tried to avoid this so we don't look at it from a perspective of sunni versus shi'ia but look at it

from the perspective of good versus evil. there are those who want to build and those who want to bring countries together. there are those who want to create a better future for their people and there are those who want to do the opposite and so for us, any person or any leader or government that wants to improve the love of its people and take its -- the lot of its people and take its country forward is a government we're happy to work with irrespective of what their sector or ethnicity is. the kingdom of saudi arabia last year provided $500 million to the united nations organizations working in iraq in order to provide humanitarian assistance to the iraqi people and we insisted it be irrespective of religion, sect or ethnicity and

it should go to all the iraqi people and be distributed through u.n. organizations and that's exactly what happened. so we don't favor one sect over another. we look at every country as being a country. and all of its citizens being citizens of that country and we don't go beyond that. dr. anthony: ok. another related to iran, two really. at various d.c.c. heads of states summits for several years after the u.s. led invasion of iraq in 2003, sort of a sick joke that used to pass was that the united states attacked or innovated -- invaded iraq and iran won without firing a single shot or shedding a single drop of blood and something similar as a gift to afghanistan earlier when the united states took down the taliban, people would say that this is rare in the history of geostrategic dynamics that a country that has a lot of people who want to hate iranians, more perhaps than others for the hostage taking, and then on the iran side, hating some americans, or the american government for taking down iran's first democratically peacefully established government in 1953. so there are those who ask how has this complicated everything that the united states is

conducting these controversial sensitive negotiations with iran and switzerland at a time when iran has leaders that say we now control for our capitals, yemen, syria, iraq and lebanon. some say it was intentional. can you address this aspect because it's known that you and the other g.c.c. countries would like to have at least been auditors or listed as participants in the sensitive strategic negotiations between the p-5 and iran. but you were excluded and excluded largely because i believe the united states asked iran, what do you think?

is this all right? and iran opposed and so we accommodated iran's position. how has this soiled the waters or made things more complex and convoluted than may otherwise be the case and what are the implications? adel: there are a lot of conspiracy theories but i don't subscribe to them. but the issue is there's no doubt iran benefited from the invasion of iraq and the toppling of the taliban government in afghanistan. no doubt about it. the taliban were iran's ideological enemies and saddam hussein was viewed as the bulwark against iran stepping into the region. this happened. i don't believe this was the objective of the united states at the time. but this is the situation that we're dealing with now. the question becomes, how do you stop iran's mischief in the region, their involvement in lebanon and syria and iraq.

they're trying to cause problems in because rain and their involvement in yemen. all of these are areas of great concern to the people of the region. now -- and this is irrespective of the nuclear generations. the issue of the nuclear negotiations, i don't know i would characterize it as the iranians excluding the gulf countries from the talks. i think that it was set up to be the permanent five members of the security council plus germany is the largest economy in europe negotiating with the iranians. we see the talks, we hope that the talks will succeed because everybody wants a serious agreement that stops iran's weapons-making ability. so we've been assured and we've continuously briefed by the united states about the status of the talks and what -- where they are at any given moment and we have been assured by the secretary of state that the negotiations, the objective of them is to deny iran the ability to make an atomic bomb, to cut

off all paths that could lead iran to an atomic bomb, to limit the research, iran's ability to conduct research and to have intrusive and severe and continuous inspections on iran's nuclear program. that's what the objectives are. and i think everybody will share those objectives. the thing i cannot comment on is the details because i don't believe the details have yet been worked out in terms of how the inspections would work, how the limitation on research would work. and so until we see those details, we really can't comment about whether this is a good deal or this is not a good deal. but like i said at the beginning, everybody wants a good deal that prevents iran from developing an atomic bomb. dr. anthony: we have two more minutes in terms of our permission to be in here.

your views about the newly formed arab league military coalition response force and with regard to how can one really back president hadi when he did not engage in deliverables in terms of what the yemeni people expected and needed and would that not rule out some role possibly for ali saleh if only indirectly given his role in keeping a relative sense of security and stability in yemen for not just years but decades? is he completely out of the picture? in geneva with regard to syria seems as though people lock themselves into a corner by saying bashar assad must go and now you see references to well maybe he can be a part of the solution there. and two last short ones, i guess yes and no, are there saudi arabian troops in aden as reported?

and you correctly noted four million yemenis in saudi arabia. the panelist before you came and the other panelist mentioned how many yemenis are trying to get out and be evacuated and can't get visas except to somalia and they're stranded at airports not just in yemen but throughout the world. these are the last two questions. adel: there were a series of two questions? dr. anthony: yes. the one about add he saudi arabia troops in aden and the visa one. and then how can you support hadi when he's not a proven leader. adel: we don't have troops, formal saudi troops in aden. we actually view using ground troops as always something on the table but the decisions will be made depending on the circumstances and the need. with regard to president hadi,

the reason he wasn't able to deliver deliverables, which i disagree with that premise because i think he has. the reason he's viewed as not having delivered deliverables is because he was being undercut by the houthis and former president saleh. so he -- we had the number of friend of yemen conferences. we had projects that we were working with yemen on with him as president. i believe given the opportunity hadi would do the right thing but it's hard to be effective when you've taken away your ability to control. and when people attack you and take over your capital, and when people imprison you in your own home in sanaa. that's not the problems were on the other side not on president hadi's side. he's the legitimate president of yemen. yemen, the g.c.c. initiatives

and the outcomes of the national dialogue in yemen call for a transition period during which a constitution would be drafted. then you set up an electoral process and go through elections. then you have a new president and life goes on, hopefully to a better future. that is that we were working on when these problems magnified and multiplied. he is the legitimate president. he wants to do what is good for yemen. when human moves towards a better phase it is up to the many people to decide who they would want for their leader. 35 years or so driving the

country into the ground. he was played a very dark role in the events in yemen. now he is removed. he continues to cause mischief behind the scenes. we are doing our best to prevent it. moderator: i want the audience to remain seated for two minutes as they leave. not before saying this is one of the best sessions we have had. standing room only in this room. on short notice. it shows a concern about yemen and the you many -- yemen people , and humanitarian geopolitical , geoeconomic and otherwise.

all speakers cap within 10 minutes. we had more than 40 questions. i think we covered somewhat of the waterfront, especially we are grateful to our speakers, and to his excellency. thank you all. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] http://twitter.com/cspanwj[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] so i>> this weekend, learn

about the history of literary life of toll so, oklahoma. >> he was much more. he was born in 1912. we are very proud to have his work act in oklahoma where we think it belongs. he was an advocate for people who were disenfranchised. for those people who were migrant workers from oklahoma and texas. who found themselves in california literally starving. he saw this vast difference between those who were the haves and the have-nots, and became there spokesman. >> he recorded a few songs of his own. that is what makes the recording so significant.

>> watch all of our events on american history tv. >> the announcement of a deal on a framework on iran's nuclear program and sanctions announced from switzerland with countries involved. foreign ministers and secretary of state john kerry making the announcement with the head commissioner. we will show the president's announcement as well talking about what is expected in the months ahead from this framework agreement. we want to hear what you think about the way things have panned out in the iran nuclear talks. they are wrapping up with this framework deal. we're going to be showing you the u.k.'s leaders debate.

that happened -- let's take a look at what president obama had to say about the announcement on iran and what kind of framework has come from this 18 months of talks. president obama: good afternoon, everybody. today, the united states together with allies and partners, have reached a historic understanding with iran , which, if fully implemented, would prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon. as president and commander in chief, i have no greater responsibility than the security of the american people. i'm convinced that if this framework leads to a final comprehensive deal, it will make our country, our allies, and our

world, safer. this has been a long time coming. the islamic republic of iran has been advancing its nuclear program for decades. by the time i took office, iran was operating thousands of centrifuges, which can produce the material for a nuclear bomb. and iran was concealing a covert nuclear facility. i made clear we were prepared to resolve the issue diplomatically, but only if iran came to the table in a serious way. when that did not happen, we rallied the world to impose the toughest sanctions in history. sanctions which had a profound impact on the iranian economy. sanctions alone could not stop iran's nuclear program, but they helped iran to bring to the negotiating table. because of our diplomatic

efforts, the world sit with us and we were joined at the negotiating table by the world passes major powers, the united kingdom, france, germany russia, and china, as well as the european union. over a year ago, we took the first step toward today's framework with a deal to stop the progress of iran's nuclear program and enroll it -- roll it back into key areas. recall that at the time, skeptics argued iran would cheat, that we could not verify their compliance, that the interim agreement would fail. instead, it -- it succeeded exactly as intended. iran has met all of its obligations. it eliminated its stockpile of dangerous nuclear material. inspections of the iran program increased, and we continued negotiations to see if we could achieve a more comprehensive deal. today, after many months of

tough principle diplomacy, we have achieved a framework for the deal and it is a good deal that meets our core objectives. the framework would cut off every pathway iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon. iran will face strict limitations on its program and it has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history. the deal is not based on trust. it is based on unprecedented verification. many key details will be finalized and nothing is agree to until everything is a great. but here are the basic outlines of the deal we are working to finalize. first, iran will not be able to pursue a bomb using plutonium, because it will not develop

weapons grade plutonium. the core of it's -- its reactor will be dismantled and replace. fuel will be shipped out of iran. iran will not build a new heavywater reactor and it will not reprocessed fuel from existing reactors, ever. the deal shuts down iran's packed to iran using enriched uranium. it has agreed it will be reduced by two thirds spirit iran will no longer enrich uranium at its facility. it will not enriched uranium with its advanced centrifuges for at least the next 10 years. the vast majority of iran's's stockpile of enriched uranium will be neutralized. today, estimates indicate iran is only two or three months away from potentially acquiring raw materials that could be used for a singular -- single nuclear

bomb. iran agrees it will not stockpile materials needed to build a nuclear weapon. even if it violated the deal for the next decade, iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for it -- for a bomb. limitations on iran's stockpile would last 15 years. third, this deal provides the best possible defense against iran's ability to produce a weapon covertly, that is, in secret. international inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to iranian nuclear facilities, but to the entire supply chain that supports iran's nuclear program, from iranian mills that provide from materials, to the centrifuge production and storage facilities. if iran sheets, the world will know it. if we see something suspicious

we will inspect it. iran's past efforts to weapon this program will be addressed. with this deal, iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. so this will be a long-term deal that addresses each path to a potential iranian nuclear bomb. there will be strict limits on iran's program for a decade additional restrictions on building new facilities were stockpiling materials will last for 15 years. the unprecedented transparency measures will last for 20 years or more. indeed, some will be permanent. as a member of the nuclear proliferation treaty, iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon. in return for iran's actions, the international community has agreed to provide iran with relief for certain sanctions. international sanctions imposed by united nation's security council.

this will be faced as iran takes steps. if iran violence the deal, sanctions could be snapped into place. other american sanctions on iran, for its support of terrorism, it's human right abuses, its ballistic missile program, will continue to be fully enforced. now let me reemphasize, our work is not yet done. between now and the end of june, negotiators will work through how the framework will be fully implemented and those details matter. if there is backsliding on the part of iranians, if the verification and inspection mecca -- mechanisms do not meet the specification of nuclear asked -- experts, there will be no deal. but if we can get this done, and iran follows through on the framework negotiators agreed to,

we will be able to resolve one of the greatest threats to our security and to do so peacefully. given the importance of the issue, i have instructed my negotiators to fully brief congress and the american people on the substance of the deal. i welcome a robust debate on the weeks and months to come. i am confident we could show this deal is good for the security of united states, for allies, and for the world. the fact is we only have three options for addressing iran's nuclear program. first, we can reach a robust and verifiable deal like this one and peacefully prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the second option is we could all my ran's nuclear facilities thereby starting another world in them -- another were in the middle east, and setting back iran's program by a few years by a fraction of the time that

this deal will set it back. meanwhile, we would ensure that iran would raise their hedges and try to build a bomb. third, we could pull out of negotiations, try to get other countries to go along and continue sanctions currently in place and ones that hope for the best. knowing every time we have done so, iran has not capitulated but has instead advanced its program. in very short order, the breakout timeline would eliminated. and a nuclear arms race in the region could be triggered because of that uncertainty. in other words, the third option leads us very quickly back to a decision of whether or not to take military action. as we have no idea -- what is going on. iran will not simply dismantles program because we demanded to do so. that is not how the world works and that is not what history

shows us. iran has shown no willingness to eliminate those aspects of their programs that they maintain our for peaceful purposes, even in the face of unprecedented sanctions. should negotiations collapsed because we, the united states, rejected what the majority of the world considers a fair -- fair deal, what our scientists and nuclear experts suggest would give us confidence they are not developing nuclear weapons, it is doubtful we could even keep our current international sanctions in place. so when you hear inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question. do you really think this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world causes major powers, is a worse option than the risk of another middle east?

is it worse than doing what we have done for almost two decades with iran moving forward with it nuclear program and without robust inspections? i think the answer will be clear. remember, i've always insisted i will do what is necessary to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and i will to that also know a diplomatic solution is the west way to get this done and it offers a more comprehensive and lasting solution. it is our best option by far. while it is always a possibility iran may try to cheat on the deal with future, this framework of inspections and transparency makes it far more likely that we will know about it they try to cheat. i or future presidents will have reserved all of the options currently available to do with it. to the iranian people, i want to reaffirm what i've said since

the beginning of my presidency. we are willing to engage you on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. this deal offers the prospect of relief from sashes imposed because of iran's violation of international law. since iran's supreme leader has admitted a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons this framework gives iran the opportunity to verify that is program is in fact peaceful. it demonstrates that if iran complies with its international obligations, it could fully rejoin the community of nations. thereby fulfilling the story married talent and aspirations of the iranian people. that would be good for iran and the world. this deal alone, even if fully implemented, will not and deep divisions and mistrust between our two countries. we have a difficult history

between us. our concerns will remain with respect to iranian behavior so long as iran continues its authorship of terrorism, its support for proxies who destabilize the middle east, it's threats against america's friends and allies, like israel, so make no mistake, we will remain vigilant in countering those actions and standing with our allies. it is no secret the israeli prime minister and i do not agree about whether the united states should move over with a peaceful resolution to the iranian issue. if in fact by mr. netanyahu is looking for the most effective way to ensure iran does not get a new we weapon, this is the best option. i believe our nuclear experts can confirm that. i will be speaking with the prime minister today to make clear there will be no daylight,

there is no daylight, when it comes to our support for israel's security, and our concerns about iran's destabilizing policies and threats towards israel. that is why i have directed my national security team to consult closely with the israeli government in the coming weeks and months about how we can further strengthen our long-term security operation with israel and make clear our unshakable commitment to israel's defense. today, i also spoke with the king of saudi arabia to reaffirm our commitment to the security of our partners in the gulf and i am inviting the leaders of the six countries who make up the gulf cooperation council, saudi arabia, kuwait, -- to meet me this spring to discuss how we could further discuss our cooperation, while resolving multiple conflicts that have resolved in hardship -- involved hardships in operations. it is finally worth remembering

that congress has, on a bipartisan basis, played a critical role in our current iranian policy, helping to shape the sanctions regime that apply so much pressure on iran and ultimately forced them to the table. in the coming days and weeks, my administration will engage congress once again about how we -- how it can play a constructive oversight role. i will begin the effort by speaking to leaders of the house and senate today. in those conversations, i will underscore the issues at stake here are eager than politics. these are matters of war and peace. they should be evaluated based on the facts and what is ultimately best for the american people and for our national security. this is not simply a deal between my administration and iran. it is a deal between iran, the united states of america, and major powers in the world,

including some of our closest allies in -- allies. if congress -- without offering any reasonable alternative, then it is the united states that will be blamed for the failure of diplomacy. international community will collapse in the past will widen. the american people understand this, which is why solid majorities support a diplomatic resolution to the iranian nuclear issue. they understand its sting to leave the words of president kennedy, who faced down a far greater threat of communism, and said, let us never negotiate out of of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate. the american people remember that at the height of the cold war, presidents like nixon and reagan struck historic arms control read -- agreements with

the historic union, a far more dangerous adversary, despite the fact that adversary not only threaten to destroy our country and way of life, but had the means to do so. those agreements were not perfect. they did not end all threats. but they made our world safer. a good deal with iran would do the same. today, i would like to express my thanks to our international partners for their steadfastness cooperation, and i was able to , speak early today with close allies, chancellor merkel, to reaffirm that we stand shoulder to shoulder in this effort and most of all, on behalf of our nation, i want to express my thanks to our tireless secretary of state, john kerry, and our

entire negotiate and team. they worked so hard to make this progress. they represent the best tradition of american diplomacy. their work, our work, is not yet done. success is not guaranteed. but we have a historic opportunity to prevent the threat of nuclear opportunities in iran and do so peacefully. with the international community firmly behind us. we should seize that chance. thank you. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. >> president obama speaking at the rose garden after the announcement that negotiations came up with a framework for iran's nuclear program and sanctions. we will be taking your phone calls. we want to know what you have to think.

all others can join us. let's take a look at an article that lays out in plain english the deal translated. , talking about an important note, the deal is not yet finalized. it is not particularly details. it is only for the basic framework. negotiators will continue to meet to develop a detailed agreement based on these terms. the deadline is june 30. this is a major step towards reaching a full agreement and ending the world's year-long standoff with iran. you can read more here about centrifuges, stockpiles, sanctions relief, nuclear

facilities and the plutonium plant. in switzerland we heard from the eu representative and john kerry. first we will take your phone calls. the first from houston texas. are you there? go ahead. caller: hello. one of the things, i'm an iranian american. there's a huge misconception that this is the reason why so many americans get involved. they think it is in iran. host: this is the iraq nuclear facility. what do you think about what has come about in this agreement? caller: i think that it is

definitely a good step forward for something bigger. i don't think it can completely play out the way that we think it can. host: why? caller: i think the iranian policymakers are trying to extend some things further to make more time for themselves. not to actually get something done. i think it is a good first step. maybe it can go through but there are still details to play out. anything can go wrong from now until june 30. everybody is waiting for this to happen. there are thousands if not millions of iranians waiting to get something to start business. it comes down to the economy and business. we are trying to trade with the

united states, to trade with different countries. it has become such a big hassle. for financial reasons and the requirements with different countries. we are fully capable to produce and trade. we have manufacturing facilities that are state-of-the-art. what we are trying to do is get the world to realize iranians can invest and grow businesses. we are waiting. this is the key thing that many people my age, especially people from 25 years old to 35 years old are having an issue with. host: out of curiosity, you are in houston now. how long ago did you live in a wrong? caller: in the capital city of toronto -- tehran. the manufacturing facilities we

work with are in the plastic packaging division. i go back-and-forth. i did live in america. right now i'm in houston for vacation. the vacation goals all the way to next week. there are a lot of people coming here for traveling. host: thank you for weighing in and letting us know what you thought about this nuclear deal. mickey go ahead. caller: i don't believe any of this, that obama has lied to me so many times, i don't see any worthwhile thing that he is saying now. it is not a deal. we don't until they sign it. all that i think has happened, i ran, john kerry, none of our

white house staff to negotiate. that is evident. they put them sleeping in. i hope they won't lift the sanctions now but it sounds like we are. i don't understand how they can do that if they don't have a deal. and they don't. host: thank you. craig is on the line from tulsa oklahoma. there you are. caller: yes. i have a concern. whether it would be obama or republican president doesn't matter who goes over, you are negotiating with two parties. negotiations is only as good as how honorable the two parties are. with chamberlain back in the 40's when he negotiated with hitler, hitler was known to break his word.

chamberlain negotiated and said we have peace in our time. hitler went back on it. the problem now is we are negotiating with a partner on the other side within they have an ideology where it is acceptable to lie to the infotel. we have a problem that it doesn't matter who went over to negotiate, can we trust they are going to negotiate in an honorable fashion. i'm concerned about that. they have every intention of expanding just as hitler had every intention of expanding. host: doesn't it matter if there were a number of countries at the negotiating table? caller: it doesn't change the ideology of their position, which we don't have to keep our word with these people. that is a dangerous thing. you can come back with an agreement and have nothing.

host: we have deal on the line for the independents. go ahead. caller: i am a little c an islamic regime that calls out death to america at its conferences. could you explain that to me? host: i did hear your question? caller: i'm concerned that a democratic nation like the united states is negotiating with a islamic terrorist regime that calls for death to america and all their conferences. could you explain that to me? host: it sounds like you are concerned about that. what is your impression in terms of what you see maybe from the people on the streets in protest versus what happens in these higher level meetings? host: they are sponsor

of terror worldwide. the plan of the jewish community center in argentina, and killing multiple american marines. i don't understand why america would come to the negotiating table and trust them to abide by any given deal won a consul called out death to america. host: another one of the players in the middle east, the prime minister of israel. he has had some comments since this framework was announced including saying the current framework would threaten the survival of israel. any deal must rollback iran's nuclear capabilities and stop its terrorism and aggression. a couple of tweets from members of congress.

as i review the iran agreement my priority is ensuring that it and final deals can verify what achieve the goal of preventing a nuclear armed iran. that is what the president talked about. can he with his tweet, the president has vowed to you is -- he's sanctions based on this deal is irresponsible foreign policy from the congressman of texas. one from lisa murkowski. whether the deal proves to be good or bad it has to be presented to congress. that is what john boehner had to say. we will see if we can pull that out. my immediate concern is the administration signaling it will provide sanctions relief. congress must be allowed to review the details of any agreement before any sanctions are lifted. we will see if we go forward

hear how that process pans out in terms of how members of congress expected to work and the president. here is nora in montana and the democrats line. what do you think of the deal? caller: i don't understand it. what i don't understand is on a tweet from the iranian representatives, and the iranian government, within the last two hours, they called obama a liar, and carry a liar. this is on drudge, on multiple on multiple platforms throughout. they said the deal as presented is not true.

they are totally convinced obama is lying. host: let's go to the republican line in new jersey. >> thank you for this format. i think this deal is not a good deal. i listened to the president's speech when he was talking about this deal. they know he says the american people should agree diplomacy should always be looked at or done. the fact that israel along with arab neighbors find the steel to be not good. -- find this deal to be not good.

to me he is trying to make this his legacy by kicking the can down the road by saying, we are going to stop the ability to create a weapon 10 to 15 years down the road. i think we should walk away from these negotiations and put more pressure in the form of sanctions until they agree to whatever. we are not a leader anymore. diplomacy is one thing, but we are not a leader in this world. iran is calling the shots. >> we are going to take one more call and then look at the announcement from switzerland. then we will also see what secretary of state john kerry had to say. first ryan is waiting.

caller: i just wanted to stress some things. netanyahu is the prime minister of israel. his election and campaign are going on in israel. he is playing politics right now in israel that are going to be in his favor. it's not that he doesn't support what's best for israel. he understands what's best for israel is ultimately walking -- working with the entire world but he also has an election going on, and for him to take a public stance in israel, he would have to go against

everything he and his political party believe in. if you take that time and look into things based on his principles and the things going on and try to learn from our treaties and trade agreements and see what has happened and what has been set up over the years, you will see this as a deal we don't have a lot of say in. if the u.s. was to back out of this deal, i don't see the rest of the world joining us and having a solution to this. i just wanted to kind of hear your thoughts on what you think. host: thanks for the call. netanyahu coming out on top in

what was thought to be a tight race. he did end up winning that. he ended up making his coalition government. we want to take a look at the statement the announcement of iran sanctions. we will hear first from the eu representatives, and we will take a look at what john kerry said. the remarks are about five minutes. federico: we, together with foreign minister's, china, france germany, russian federation, the united kingdom and the united states met from the 26th of march until the second of april, 2015.

as agreed, we gather here to find solutions for reaching a resolution that will ensure the exclusively peaceful nature of the iranian program and the comprehensive listing of all sanctions. today we have taken a decisive step. we have reached solutions on key parameters for a joint plan of action. the goodwill and hard work made it possible. let us think all for their dedication. this is a crucial decision, laying the basis for the final text of the plan of action. we can now start drafting the joint plan of action, guided by

the solutions. iran's original stockpile will be limited for specific iterations and there will be no other enrichment facility. it will be carried out on a scope and schedule that has been mutually agreed. we convert from a site into an nuclear and technology center. international cooperation will be encouraged in the area of research. an international joint venture will assist in a research effort.

there will be no repossessing. a set of measures have been agreed to monitor the provisions , including implementation of the code and provisional application of the protocol. the international atomic energy agency will permit use of technologies and will have access through agreed procedures , including present issues. iran will take part in the field of nuclear energy. another important area of cooperation will be in the field of nuclear safety and security. the european union will terminate implementation of all nuclear related and economic

sanctions and the united states will seize the application of all economic and financial sanctions. simultaneously with the iaea and the mentation of the key component. a new security council resolution will endorse and terminate all resolutions and incorporate those measures for an agreed time. we will now work for a joint plan of action in the coming weeks and months. we are committed to complete our efforts by june 30. we would like to thank the swiss government for its support.

let me thank you all for having followed our work and somehow having worked with us over this difficult but intense positive week. secretary kerry: well, good evening and -- excuse me -- thank you all very, very much for your patience. and i want to start by expressing an enormous thank you, merci, danke, to the people and the government of switzerland for their incredible generosity. the way in which they have

welcomed us and the amount of effort is really extraordinary and we're very, very grateful to them. and throughout this entire process, certainly over the past week, the people of switzerland have gone above and beyond in order to facilitate these negotiations, and i don't think anybody could imagine a much more peaceful setting in order to pursue a peaceful path forward. i also want to thank the very many other nations that have provided a home for these negotiations over the past couple of years -- people forget that, it's been going on that long -- and that includes austria, which was incredibly generous in hosting our delegation in vienna for a long period of time, oman, which has not only hosted a number of important meetings, but also played a critical role in getting these talks off the ground in the first place, and then, of course, we say thank you to turkey, russia, kazakhstan, iraq, and my home country, the united states. i particularly want to thank

president obama. he has been courageous and determined in his pursuit of a diplomatic path. and from the day that he took office, president obama has been crystal-clear that a nuclear-armed iran would pose a threat to our security and the security of our allies in the region, including israel. he has been just as clear that the best and most effective way to prevent that threat is through diplomacy. the journey towards a diplomatic solution began years ago.

and i can tell you that i've personally been involved for about four years, beginning from the time that i was serving in the united states senate. others have been on this journey, and some of the others in our team, for even longer than that. but as foreign minister zarif and high representative mogherini announced moments ago, today we have reached a critical milestone in that quest. we, our p5+1, eu partners, and iran have arrived at a consensus on the key parameters of an arrangement that, once implemented, will give the international community confidence that iran's nuclear program is and will remain exclusively peaceful. and over the coming weeks, with all of the conditions of the 2013 joint plan of action still in effect from this moment forward, our experts will continue to work hard to build on the parameters that we have arrived at today and finalize a comprehensive deal by the end of june. now we have said from the

beginning -- i think you've heard me say it again and again -- that we will not accept just any deal, that we will only accept a good deal. and today, i can tell you that the political understanding with details that we have reached is a solid foundation for the good deal that we are seeking. it is the foundation for a deal that will see iran reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent for 15 years. it is a deal in which iran will cut its installed centrifuges by more than two-thirds for 10 years. it is a deal that will increase iran's breakout time, which was confirmed publicly today to be two to three months, and that is the time that it would take iran to speed up its enrichment in order to produce enough fissile material for one potential nuclear weapon. and that will be expanded now, under this deal, to one year from those two to three months.

that is obviously as much as six times what it is today, and what it has been for the past three years. i'd like also to make one more point very, very clear because it has been misinterpreted and misstated, misrepresented for much of this discussion. there will be no sunset to the deal that we are working to finalize -- no sunset, none. the parameters of this agreement will be implemented in phases. some provisions will be in place for 10 years, others will be in place for 15 years, others still will be in place for 25 years. but certain provisions including many transparency measures, will be in place indefinitely into the future. they will never expire. and the bottom line is that, under this arrangement, the

international community will have confidence that iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful, providing, of course that the provisions are adhered to. and if they aren't, we have provisions that empower us to deal with that. ultimately, the parameters that we have agreed to will do exactly what we set out to do -- make certain that all pathways to make enough fissile material for one nuclear weapon have been cut off, including the uranium pathway at natanz and fordow and the plutonium pathway at arak, and, of course, the covert pathway.

now we, our partners, and iran have agreed that the only uranium-enrichment facility iran will operate moving forward will be the facility at natanz. and even that one will undergo dramatic changes. the vast majority of the centrifuges and their infrastructure will be removed. and for at least the next 15 years, the stockpile will remain at 300 kilograms. and any uranium that is enriched at natanz will be capped at 3.67 percent, which is a typical level of enrichment for civilian nuclear power, but doesn't even begin to approach the enrichment level necessary for a weapon. we have agreed that the facility at fordow will halt all uranium enrichment, period -- all uranium enrichment, and in fact,

there will not even be any fissile material present at the site and no enrichment r&d. instead, the facility will be converted into a nuclear physics and technology center. we have also agreed that iran will redesign and rebuild its heavy-water reactor at arak so that it will no longer produce any weapons-grade plutonium. and the united states will be able to sign off, certify, the reactor's final design redesign. and through international cooperation, it will be transformed into a reactor supporting only peaceful nuclear research and nuclear medicine.

and the calandria, as you heard earlier, will be taken out and destroyed. we have agreed that iran will ship all of its spent fuel from the arak reactor out of the country for the reactor's lifetime. and iran has agreed to refrain from building any additional heavy-water reactors for the next 15 years at least -- "at least" means still open for beyond that period in the course of the next three months. and we have agreed that iran will face regular and comprehensive inspections, which is the best possible way to detect any attempt to covertly produce a weapon. not only will inspectors have regular access to all of iran's

declared facilities indefinitely, but they will also be able to monitor the facilities that produce the centrifuges themselves and the uranium that supports the nuclear program. and they will be able to do that for at least 20 years. this critical step will help to guard against diversion of those materials to any clandestine location or plant. in addition, iran has agreed to allow iaea to investigate any suspicious site or any allegations of covert nuclear activities anywhere. so these are just a few of the key -- and i mean a few -- of the key measures that will make up an extraordinarily comprehensive monitoring and transparency regime when and if it is finally signed and completed over the course of the next months. now we have been very clear, both publicly and privately, a

final agreement will not rely on promises. it will rely on proof. it is important to note that iran, to date, has honored all of the commitments that it made under the joint plan of action that we agreed to in 2013. and i ask you to think about that against the backdrop of those who predicted that it would fail and not get the job done. and in return for iran's future cooperation, we and our international partners will provide relief in phases from the sanctions that have impacted iran's economy. and if we find at any point that iran is not complying with this agreement, the sanctions can snap back into place. so together these parameters outline a reasonable standard that iran can readily meet, and it is the standard that iran has

now agreed to meet. throughout history, diplomacy has been necessary to prevent wars and to define international boundaries, to design institutions, and to develop global norms. simply demanding that iran capitulate makes a nice soundbite, but it's not a policy. it is not a realistic plan. so the true measure of this understanding is not whether it meets all the desires of one side at the expense of the other. the test is whether or not it will leave the world safer or more secure than it would be without this agreement. and there can be no question that the comprehensive plan that we are moving toward will more than pass that test. this isn't just my assessment.

it isn't just the assessment of the united states delegation and our experts. it is the assessment of every one of our p5+1 partners who stood up here a little while ago in front of the flags of their nations. it is the assessment of our negotiating partners -- germany, the uk, china, france, and russia -- and all of our experts who have analyzed every aspect of this issue also join in that assessment. from the beginning, we have negotiated as a team, and we are all agreed that this is the best outcome achievable. no viable alternatives -- not one -- would be nearly as effective at preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon than -- over a period of time than the parameters, providing they get completed and are signed. our political understanding arrived at today opens the door

for a long-term resolution to the international community's concerns about iran's nuclear program. now, we have no illusions about the fact that we still have a ways to travel before we'll arrive at the destination that we seek. we still have many technical details to work out on both sides and still some other issues that we acknowledge still have to be resolved, for example, the duration of the un arms and ballistic missile restrictions on iran and the precise timing of and mechanism for the conversion of the arak reactor and fordow site. and of course, once we're able to finalize a comprehensive deal, the process of implementation then remains in front of us as well. but that's a good challenge to have, frankly. throughout this negotiation, we have made a diligent effort to consult with our allies, our partners, including israel and

the gulf states, and we have vigorously reaffirmed our enduring commitment to their security. no one should mistake that. and we will continue to stand by >> talking about the framework announced today and also the month ahead of coming to negotiations of how to deal with sanctions. the number is on your screen. tehran and the west agreed to parameters of a deal on iran's nuclear program. it imposes strong constraints on iran for up to 25 years in exchange for lifting sanctions. mike is on the republican line. go ahead.

mike: are you there? what have you been hearing? mike: i don't know why we are messing with these people. we know they support terrorism. they have got everything covered up. why does the world stand by and let this happen. host: charles is on the line. charles: i think we are making a terrible mistake. israel has more information about them. saudi arabia does not feel comfortable with this deal.

there was no reason to take off sanctions to negotiate. we gave up all our power by doing that and put us in a power of weakness. i do not think we should make a deal with iran. they don't need nuclear weapons. they don't need nuclear energy. they have more oil than anywhere in the world. why would they need nuclear energy? host: on the democratic line paul. paul: i think this is ludicrous to have iran have a nuclear weapon. you cannot trust these people. we should support our allies in the region, which will be more affected by it. we should not even consider this

deal obama is trying to put in front of the american public. all of his other ideas have been completely crazy, and i don't support him in any way with this idea on this nuclear deal. >> take a look at some tweets. early reports indicate this is the obama administration spinning diplomatic failure. i prefer a robust verifiable diplomatic solution over war. some republicans seemed determined to go to war just like they did with iraq. and then the committee chair very concerned about the sanctions. sarah is on the line from

potomac, maryland. >> i think iran is not a terrorist group. they are not supporting the terrorists. the deal done is great for all the nation. i think it's a great thing happening. i congratulate all parties. everybody deserves a safe and comfortable living. host: can i ask where you are from originally? caller: originally i am from iran, but i have the in on the

united -- in the united states for 55 years. host: the democratic line. caller: my question is what is america getting out of this deal. how is this going to >> we did hear from president obama earlier, you can watch his remarks in their entirety. and also, earlier, we read some from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and his concerns. again, just see the framework agreement -- possibly june 30 from what we are hearing so far. waiting on the line, adam. hi, adam. adm:a,: im