post." it will probably make more news over the weekend. there is the article if you're interested. c-span live continues. we go to the atlantic council in washington, d.c. there will be a conversation looking at the framework for a copy handset agreement withahead of the eurasia group of the atlantic council. that is clifford kupchan. he has the arms control represented. the atlantic council represented . this is live coverage on c-span.

>> what can i say? i know it is raining outside. in year the sun is shining. i joked on twitter that the atlantic council one that think tank lottery because when we planned this event, i have a

feeling they would not meet the deadline of march 31 for some sort of political understanding or framework. indeed, i was right. we are the first think tank in washington to be able to discuss the historic event that happened in switzerland. i am delighted. i am barbarously van and i coordinate the enron task force and the atlantic council. i ask you to check out our website. we have a new statement that is out that includes esteemed individuals. a lot of foreign-policy experts and nuclear experts. of course, all of you, by now have read some of the details of this agreement. we will look at it in more detail and specificity. there's plenty of skepticism out there from israel and to some of the arab states across the persian gulf, and certainly from

congress about the nature of what was agreed to in switzerland. we have a stellar cast of analyst to discuss it. let me extend greetings from the ambassador of our house force who cannot be in her and let me thank the fund for their general support for our iran program. we have three stars who've come to talk about these issues. first is clifford kupchan. he is one of the actual washington experts as opposed to people who pretend to be. he has expertise particularly on iran and russia. he is the chairman of the eurasia group. he provides top-level analysis and thought leadership on global macro issues as well as russian domestic and foreign energy policy and iranian nuclear foreign and domestic policy. prior to joining the eurasia

group he served in the state department and on the house international relations committee. he was vice president of the senate for national instant and vice president of the airasia foundation. -- at the eurasia foundation, a program that works in russia. this is the first time that we have had kelsey davenport. i am delighted. she's the new star in washington. she is a go to source for a technical understanding of this agreement in the making. she is the director for the non-proliferation policy for the arms control association and provides research or nuclear programs on iran, north korea and pakistan on security issues. she joined the arms control association in 2011 as a peace fellow. prior to that she worked in a think tank in jerusalem. he may have interesting things to say about the israeli attitude.

and john limbert. a member of our task force and more. he is the class of 19 55 professor of middle eastern studies at the u.s. naval academy. he has had a 35 year career in the foreign service, mostly in the middle east and islam in africa. in 2009 and 2010 he came out of retirement to be the deputy assistant to the secretary of state for iranian affairs during an earlier effort during the beginning of the obama administration to get the nuclear deal. before joining the foreign service he taught in iran as a peace corps volunteer. for 444 days from 1979 to 1981 he was a guest of the previous ayatollah in tehran when it was held hostage. john will have a lot to say on what this means for u.s.-iran relations. without further do we will start.

clifford. i will start with you. i want to get your general impressions of what has been announced and the likely obstacles that might be on the horizon. clifford kupchan: so far so good. any deal will be an ugly deal. it is not a pretty deal. there are some technical problems, there's a lot we don't know. it meets the basic structure of a deal that curbs iran's access to nuclear weapons and provides state sanctioned relief. obstacles? there are a lot of obstacles to deal with. one of the first, to me, is there are a lot of substantive gaps between the two sides. did you read the dueling press releases from yesterday? there is no agreement on how

sections relief will work. it iranians think it will happen of front in the u.s. things it will be in phases. that jumps out at you. the iranians say they will give up all but some uranium. the u.s. exhibit d a lot of that. there are other discrepancies. the second obstacle is iranian domestic politics. in 2009, the deal fell apart because he could not sell it at home. is the leader going to get cold feet? the pressure is going up. the hardline is already coming after him. this is not a saddam hussein situation. he runs the country but does not call the shots. he is just a central guy, but not the only guy. then we have the israelis and saudis. the saudis have been relatively

quiet, the israelis have been screaming. they are out in front of the opposition. most of the israelis were willing to listen privately. this deal is worse than expected. i don't take they thought it would remain open. the number of machines is higher than expected. they are unhappy. i don't think that congress can or well, bring the deal down. i know it is early and provocative, and bowl to come out with, but after talking to the republicans, i used to work on the hill and know a lot of them, i don't think that they correctly don't think that they have the votes to override a veto of a bill to bring down the deal. a lot of obstacles. in the end i would say that if the president gets a deal that sticks, i will rest my case. barbara slavin: kelsey, let's

talk about the details as released in the fact sheet at the white house put out yesterday. a lot of detail as opposed to the vague comments of foreign minister gerard sharif. what struck you as important positive, and are there areas you are concerned about? kelsey davenport: it laid the groundwork for a strong deal that delivers on president obama's pledge to block the iranian plutonium pathways to the bomb. what struck me about the element is that it addresses the package about concerns about iran's uranium enrichment program. taken together that will roll back the program and ensure the international community that iran cannot get a significant quantity of weapons grade uranium within the year. if you look at the numbers it is

stark. iran has 20,000 centrifuges. under the deal they will have 6000. the enrichment capacity will be cut in half. as clifford noted there will be a reduction in the amount of enriched uranium they will keep in the country. barbara slavin: do we know what will happen to the centrifuges? will they be taken out of the facilities? kelsey davenport: that is a key point. they will be removed and stored. that answers one of the biggest concerns that has persisted about iran's program. of enron's 20,000 centrifuges 10,000 have then operating. that has left many critics concerned that iran could turn on the machines and begin moving to enriching uranium to weapons grade level. removing the centrifuges from the equation is a huge bonus from a nonproliferation perspective. they could not install the

centrifuges without them noticing. they will be removed and stored by the iaea. getting back to the question cliff is right. it is not clear what will happen to the additional stockpile of enriched uranium. and the last international atomic energy report in iran had 8000 kilograms of low enriched uranium. they will only have 300. we heard controversy last week if that would be shipped to russia. iran said they did not want to do that. in my view, whether or not it is blended down or shipped to russia, there is not a big difference. what is important is it is removed from the equation. that iran cannot use it to quickly enrich up to weapons grade. the details need to be worked out, that establishing the level

below 300 kilograms is what is important. on the plutonium side, the deal is even stronger. there is an indefinite commitment by iran not to process plutonium. that is how you take the weapons usable plutonium out of the fuel. that is very important. iran will not produce any weapons grade plutonium at its heavy water reactor. that will be modified. iran pledged for 15 years not to build additional heavy water reactors. it removes the plutonium from the equation. this is a strong groundwork. barbara slavin: foreign minister sharif went home to a heroes welcome. the iranian government allowed president obama statements in the rose garden to be broadcast live. iranians were taking selfies

with obama behind them. i saw one on twitter where an iranian was pinching obama's cheek on the television screen in a loving way. people are having a little alcohol, which is technically for bid and, but goes on all the time. it seems there is a tremendous popular up swell of support for the agreement. do you think, given the relationship that this is really going to have smooth sailing in iran? john limbert: that is a good question. whatever you think of the deal, and whatever the details, it is clear that this, what was agreed to it has represented change within our two countries. uninterrupted hostility. going back to 1979.

there were efforts to change that. barbara, i think you describe those as two teenagers trying to figure out who would invite him to the prom. one side was ready, one side was not. we go back to the clinton administration. the inability to get together. president obama senator obama made very clear that he did not talk about a nuclear deal. he talked about changing the relationship into something that was more in line with american interests. in other words, that the 30 something years of hostility had not served american interests and he was advocating change. it turned out that that effort was much tougher than he

thought. then anybody. it has taken seven years since he became president to reach the point that we have. it is clear judging what he said he wanted to do, and i think he was sincere, the possibility of moving beyond this rather technical deal. back in the 1980's, but how many was asked about why doesn't iran willing to negotiate with the united states, his answer was white as the wolf have to negotiate with the sheep? they don't want to negotiate with us, they want to eat us. that statement set the tone for a lot of what followed.

the ascension of hostility. now, what is interesting, is people are discovering that an agreement can be in were iran and washington and be good for us. this can be in munich, or in tehran. does anyone know what turk manchai is? iranian surrender to sorriest russia. it was a great humiliation. the opponents of the current deal, they will use the metaphor of curkmanchai -- of t urkmanchai. given the metaphor that barber

refer to, and the support that the supreme leader, who is termed a leader of a hard-line has given to the whole negotiation process. there is a great change in the dynamic. i anticipate, if this goes through, what the president said he wanted to do, which was to redefine the relationship, we will be looking for ways to do that. barbara slavin: cliff i want you to pick up on that on how it will affect u.s. policy in the rest of the region. the president has a selling job to do with israel, the saudi's, and others. he has invited the heads of the gcc to camp david the spring. i've heard the israelis talking about how they do want to use their qualitative military edge. i would assume that some of this could be smoothed over with arms

this. without -- would that be sufficient to calm their jitters? clifford kupchan: it will take a real effort. the saudis are not making much noise. the degree of anti-iranian of effective source than anything that i've ever heard in israel. the israelites are concerned about bombs, the saudis, it is a blood feud that is not going anywhere. the administration faces a tough challenge. i think, the first point, and again if we agreed on everything everyone would be bored, i don't think we need to do that. i don't think the u.s.-iranian relationship will change quickly. i think the supreme leader was very sincere that a nuclear deal is not for the united states.

his constituency is the pious and conservative. what does a conservative do for a living? he is for the constituency. could we get more cooperation on isis? i think so. afghanistan? with the low hanging fruit, yes. is iran going to stop what we call terrorist behavior, i would say definitely no. respect human rights as we understand them, i would say definitely no. i think the administration has to nurture and make sure the relationship is implemented which involves keeping an even keel and containment and discipline of constraint.

constraint on iranian behavior that i think will continue to be a hard-line government. barbara slavin: obviously, and i will go back to john, one of the things we get out of this is an extraordinary channel of communication with iran that will not go away just because they are not spending night after night in switzerland trying to negotiate a framework. we have our secretary of state and prime minister on a first name basis. they're giving each other gifts when someone becomes a grandfather or someone's daughter gets married. this sort of intimacy is mind-boggling for folks like you and me who has been following iran from long time. then simply having had contact with an american official could get you thrown in prison. i remember condoleezza rice meeting in iraq. and sharmila chase in 2005 wanted to talk to the then

iranian prime minister talk. she went after him and he ran away. he did not want to be caught in the same photograph frame with a person from the united states. there will be challenges. -- there will be channels. if they will be protective channels, that is to be seen. john limbert: the differences are still there. they will not go away. the difference might be, how do we deal with them? can we deal with them? we have differences with a lot. what is diplomacy? making in perfect agreements with people you neither like your trust. -- like nor trust. with iran, we have not been able to do that. that, in itself, not that these

disagreements will go away, not that they will become a jeffersonian democracy tomorrow or respect human rights of -- i wish they would. that would be wonderful. if it happened. but, that will take time. now, we have some things that we have not had for over three decades. that is the ability to talk about issues that we both care about. we may disagree about, but now we have the ability. maybe now john kerry or condoleezza rice does not have to run after them to talk about the issues. barbara slavin: kelsey, one more than i will open it to the audience. this is the non-proliferation implication. one argument we hear is that leaving iran with essentially so much infrastructure is going to

spark an arms race. a nuclear arms race in the region. the saudi's and the others will want similar programs. i heard that turkey and the former saudi ambassador to the usa that is iran gets a cycle we want a cycle. what do you think the impact of the agreement, as we see it emerging, will be on the liberation in the region? kelsey davenport: it will be a close look at the details and the monitoring regime. from what we see in the parameters laid out and looks like it will be intrusive. continuous monitoring. many of the supply chains, intrusive monitoring of the enrichment facilities. access to the undeclared sites. many other provisions will be permanent. that sends a clear message to countries in the region that this deal will block the covert pathway to nuclear weapons.

certainly, the saudi's and other countries in the region have made noise about moving toward their own fuel cycle. i found the saudi announcement interesting that it did not reference the uranium enrichment program. i think the united states still has policies that it can employee that will dissuade the saudis are moving quickly toward enrichment. certainly, thinking about fuel supply guarantees for future reactors, nuclear cooperation that does not allow for enrichment or reprocessing are important avenues, as well as the security elements. i think the camp david meeting will be quite critical. for other actors in the region particularly prime minister benjamin netanyahu, i think he has an unrealistic expectation from the onset about what it

could achieve. he talked about the complete dismantlement of iranian facilities. that would be requiring iran to capitulate. that is not something that we would see happening. from that perspective it is important to realize that what you get in this deal, a limited iranian nuclear program that is highly monitored, versus what you get that if it is without a deal, and unrestrained nuclear program with less monitoring, that is a bigger threat than what netanyahu is saying. that the deal is not good enough. the alternative is far worse. barbara slavin: president obama talked to king solomon and talk to him before he made the announcement in the rose garden. you can interpret that as you

like. say your name and ask a question. >> i am the senior fellow here at the her very center. thank you barbara and thank you to the panelists for a superb presentation. i have a question about the regional implications. as recently as three days ago, our permanent representative to the u.n., samantha powers, suggested in kuwait that because of its support for the assad regime in syria, iran is an accomplished in mass murder. war crimes and crimes against humanity. by question is kind of a technical political one for these negotiations. if the united states decides to take some action to protect syrian civilians, how would you envision actions for a protected

area -- how with those actions affect this process? kelsey davenport: my view is that it would make a no-fly zone more likely. >> i think the two sides have been good at building a cement wall. i think when you begin to add in syria, the worst of our disagreements where it iranian policy is truly worse, there would be no agreement. we would not be here. if he gets mixed in the future, it is trouble for the agreement. what i would expect, no one is making this agreement because they are nice guys. they're making this agreement

because they perceive it to be deeply in their own national interest. if iran moves to establish a protective zone, which i hope they do, i think the iranians will swallow hard and look the other way. i don't think it will have a significant, is any, effect on this agreement. the iranians want to their economy back. getting involved in a no-fly zone will answer that question. john limbert: it is a good question. the hard part, what has sunk previous efforts for the u.s. and iran to get talking about things is the kind of things you talk about. external events. what is remarkable, is that this time it did not happen. there seems to be an implicit agreement that events in yemen

syria, statements on both sides of the congressional letters. statements about israel. we are not going to let those things sink the negotiations, where in the past they have. barbara slavin: i'm going to ask a provocative follow-up. do think the iranians will start assassinating scientists again? or do something else. trying to bring in fact the centrifuges? john limbert: no, i don't. -- barbara slavin: he is a little closer.

clifford kupchan: the israelis don't like the deal. but the injection, the no en -- the no enrichment, that is a shtick. they know the cake. iran will not unlearn what they learned and get rid of everything. i think it is that sort of over-the-top way of thinking that could lead to out of bounds off the chain, type of behavior. murdering iranian scientists. they are under real pressure in israel. that abounds them. if he goes further, he could face reelections before he thanks again. he barely squeaked by this time by pulling the right-wing.

how many times he can pull that rabbit out of a hat, we don't know. i think netanyahu has constraints within israel and politics from doing something like that. >> the atlantic council, thank you for useful presentation. the question i will ask us what you think the white house needs to do to make sure this deal works. i want to put it in context. john kerry had a conversation with a number of former secretaries of state and national security advisers of both parties. the unanimous consent was they were impressed with the deal and surprised we were able to get what they got. having said that, the obama administration has proven incompetent in terms of execution. going back to the afghan-pakistan policy, afford will health care etc..

i think the first apps are good but i think there are stumbling walks. i think the right-wing and the republican party will be a problem. the sunni-shiite split in the gulf will be a problem. what advice would you give to the administration, because it will be a tough fight. how should they begin the rollout of selling this deal publicly here and abroad? harbor, if you could jump in net, too. -- jump in that, too. barbara slavin: coming to the atlantic council they were coming and saying how much they like it. i think that would be very helpful. kelsey, what do you think in terms of non-proliferation? david albright, i have not seen him quoted. have you?

kelsey davenport: -- barbara slavin: do you think the gatekeepers, the nuclear experts will provide backing? john limbert: in terms of the non--- kelsey davenport: in terms of the non-proliferation element the numbers don't lie. we have over 12 months to break out. the conditions on plutonium do not lie. i think what we have seen from heinemann is that the numbers do not line up to the proliferation process. there are details that need to be resolved, but based on the parameters how they have been laid out, you can tell that the facts are already being discussed. there is a plan for rick i think the u.s. congress is a significant obstacle. less from a sanctions

perspective, but i am concerned about defining the role of congress moving forward. such as the corker legislation, which would require a congressional review of an agreement. actions like that see more innocuous on the surface. and you're talking about passing legislation that delays implementation of a deal that requires the president to certify additional conditions beyond what is required in the agreement to grant sanctions relief, that sends the wrong message to congress and the international community about the u.s.'s willingness to implement the agreement. the obama administration needs to focus its energy on congress, explaining the parameters of the deal. and encouraging congress to wait until after june 30 to see if an agreement is reached and then determine the appropriate role in the future is.

i think there is one. overseeing implementation, requiring the president to certify iran follows through. that is a more appropriate role. they should evaluate the agreement, first. a senator king said, many of the agreement parts were a surprise. better than expected. many in congress should wait until the 30th to see is better than expected. clifford kupchan: i think the administration has been overly resistant to a congressional role. congress should have a role. there are ways to tweak the corporate legislation. i think they're open to tweaking the legislation. and moving forward. secondly, they need to come up with good answers to questions. first, i want to point out we are talking about the u.s. fact sheet. what about the iranian backed sheet. it has none of this and it.

almost none of it. those are u.s. numbers. whited waste been out these fact sheets? there go the americans with the fact sheet. arbor, the only thing i put faith and is the joint statement . that i think it's true. those are brought parameters. i don't know how much the iranians agree with. 10%? 9%? barbara slavin: in 2013 it was the same general fact sheet. a month or so later when the implementation came out it was exactly what the white house said. clifford kupchan: i hope the same thing happens this time. i have one other comment. there are worries some things i want to point out that the administration better have answers for on the hill. after 10 years iran can develop

advanced centrifuges and implement them after 10 years. a one-year break out time. one of bv's main complaints is that after 10 years in one month iran can have a bomb. they need to answer to that. secondly, and unrelated party their 1000 machines that will say operative. what happens in 10 years? can they replace those machines with other machines. i think the administration should have an answer to what i call the 10 year problem. kelsey davenport: i would agree there are unanswered questions.

the centrifuges that forgo it has been made explicit, will not be used to enrich uranium. a monitoring verification will have to be clear to make sure the 900 machines cannot be used for that purpose. it was of imports to the iranians to make sure that the nuclear facilities remain open. that is something i was highlighted in the press conference. this i feel is an accessible compromise. leaving a small number of machines that can be used for medical research. isotope production. if they are configured in a way that ensures uranium cannot be introduced. if the reports that come out of the media talking about using these four think enrichment, if that is the case, i think that ensures that uranium will not be introduced. as for research and development, i think that we will see, coming out of a deal, more details

about how advanced centrifuges can be introduced into the equation. the g5 plus one does not want iran to go off of a cliff and 10 years. that is why we have seen multiple time frames employed. much longer time frames on the constant monitoring of elements. some up to 25 years. a timeframe on limiting the uranium to reactor grade, 15 years. and a longer timeframe, as well, about what research and development can be achieved up to 15 years. they are preparing for that, and we will see more details to resolve some of those concerns. john limbert: we are seeing debate at two levels. one among arms control professionals. who say, what about this part or this time or the centrifuges. that is fair enough.

people can have differences of opinions on whether that is good or bad. there is another level of debate where the objections to the deal have nothing to do with its content. everything to do with the fact of a deal. a deal to me means that i give up something and you give up something. i gained something and you gain something. what many of the opponents seem to be talking about is not a deal. not an agreement. a surrender. the other side has to give us everything we want. let me make one comment about executive agreements. i'm a big fan of executive agreements without congressional oversight, because that is what got us out of tehran in 1981. barbara slavin: indeed. john limbert: if there had been congressional oversight and congress had decided, no, this is not right, we would've had to

get on a plane and go back to tehran. that is the -- and i have noticed that the wording seems to be, the people are being very careful. one side seems we talking about oversight, the other about consultation. as we know in this town, these are very different things. barbara slavin: indeed. the lady right here. i'm so glad we got the executive agreement that got them out of tehran. >> we talked about how there is been a bit of this e-mail wall between the syrian conflict and that nuclear negotiations, and how their -- how the administration seems more amenable to saudi concerns than israeli concerns. with that same wall exist for the kind of conflict in yemen the tween the saudis and the --.

will that be a similar wall, or that be more difficult to negotiate in terms of saudi concerns within the nuclear agreement? barbara slavin: i think that syria is a more serious crisis. yemen has been a failed state for a long time. what is happening right now is the effort of the former president come back to power. the iranian ankle there is very small. one of the reasons the iranians supported them is because they practiced a form of shiism that is different than what is practiced in iran is because they interfered in bahrain. i think, and perhaps others know more, we are headed for some sort of diplomatic negotiation.

at some point when the saudi's have flex their muscles enough and they decide that they can come up with another president perhaps. what do you think? clifford kupchan: yemen is trained to figure out what the iranians with the whose ease. in my conversation with the iranian state, they don't care that much. they just take guns, money maybe a few our gis, but it is not a major priority. it pales compared to iraq and syria. enron could concede on that and the saudis could have their own way, and this will pass. i don't think it will affect the agreement. >> although the importance to iran might be minimal, due you think the saudis view it as something that is more of a threat than might be reflected?

clifford kupchan: the saudis have out tentacles as to what is a threat. if the hot water goes off, the iranians did it. it is my view the saudis have their way with yemen. i don't think the iranians care very much. they have more time than the saudis do. iran is not unstable. they will make it more stable after this deal. no other experts? >> one of the things about the agreement is that the double-digit timelines. 10 15, 20, 25 years. that raises the question, what will it wrong look like in 15 years?

presumably he will no longer be among us. and there will be a generation that is very plugged in. the cohort moving up. there will be a new successor generation, the one presumably no longer school did united states universities. john, my question, can you define anything about assuming an agreement and a faithful and limitation of the agreement, what kind of iran will we be dealing with in 15 years? john limbert: it is funny or asked that question of me. my record on production things iranian is about three in 10. which of the great if i was a baseball player, but not as a political analyst. we have all gotten it wrong. i'm not alone about that.

but, i think a couple of things are clear. first, the clerics, the ruling clerics, live a long time. the story goes that one of the senior clerics that is the head of the council of experts, i believe, is so old they checked his telephone book and he had cain and abel's number. there are all kinds of stories about these people. clearly, the place is changing. the dynamics that we have seen, that rouhani could go back and get the hero's welcome having negotiated and been so friendly with a representative of the great satan. that in itself represents a change. you have to look for changes in places you may not expect them.

small, symbolic, but there. i would say this. is iran going to go through some great change tomorrow? i don't think so. i don't think so. the current situation, where you have a society that is well educated creative, savvy dynamic, particularly among the women of iran who are doing remarkable things. and the state, a government that is out of touch frightened rigid -- that contradiction, i don't think it can last. over the next five or 10 years as people pass on even our cain

and able man the situation will change. the situation will change. the society, the differences in society will grow so vast it can't remain. if the islamic republic, the current system, wants to survive it will have to change. otherwise, it will follow the way -- the lessons of the arab spring. for better or for worse. one more thing. these changes in iran are not about us. we should've learned by now to stay out of iranian domestic politics. every time we have gotten into it we have seen things like

irangate. or worse. these are going to be iranian processes. we would welcome changes. we would welcome the society opening up. we welcome a society that treats as people decently. particularly its women. the idea that somehow we can shave it or influence it, or bring it about, i don't think that is the case. i think the dynamic is already there. i agree with you greg, that in five or 10 years we will see a very different place. barbara slavin: can i add a little. i've been going to iran since 1996 every couple of years. it is already a completely different country and the one i

started going to 20 years ago. if you look at the women, i write for website called our monitor, and they had the first fashion week. they have had shows, but this was the first fashion week. admin and women going down the catwalk in the latest islamic sheikh. -- islamic chic. you can imagine the women of this country wearing the outfits without a head scarf. i have met women mountain climbers in iran. many women on maneuvers. 70% or 80% internet penetration. iran has more bloggers than any other country except the u.s. people are on social media despite the filters. i find a way. they the latest technology. the apple phones.

it is a society that has evolved enormously. in some cases because of repression. have you fight a system like that? you fight it by changing your personal behavior in a way that you are living as if the government was not there. as if the restrictions were not there. you follow the letter of the law in public to the extent necessary and do what you can in private to live the life you want to lose. one of the reasons obviously the government has been reluctant to do this deal is because they know it will encourage people to ask for more. the iranians are smart. they have been repressed, put down you know what happened in 2009. they will be cautious about what they try to grab out of this. we will see more interaction. at the atlantic council we are supporting u.s.-iran exchanges.

we are having people going back and forth. u.s. tourists would be going to iran. they would be less frightened, not that they should have been in the first place. i expect more iranian students to come. you know it happened with the old soviet union. the opening of china. there was a fascination about the other. a lot of people that been everywhere else on the planet decided i have to go to this country. we will see the people who used to go to the great wall of china will be going to the big mosque in the middle. they will be going to the

mosque. >> i was curious about how significant the discrepancies are between how the agreement is understood on both sides. we have seen that sharif on twitter was criticizing the u.s. fact sheet as a spain. the press tv report this morning about the deal was resenting the terms a little differently. barbara slavin: i find this normal. he will stress sanctions relief and no concessions or few concessions. we will stress concessions and limits on the program. what matters is what is signed in june. >> to add on, while the iranians did not sign off in support of the fact sheet, foreign minister sharif's press conference at

nothing to contradict the terms. the broad statement that he and mother rini issued follow the same parameters, just not an asthma detail as the fact sheet. if you look closely at his tweets, what he is critical of is the united states has spun this as a victory for the united states. which is normal given domestic politics. but does not emphasize that it is a win-win situation. if you look at the deal you see a lot of balance. and a lot of what in iran wants. not closing facilities. retaining research and development. he is pointing out that the united states is not necessarily demonstrating this is a deal that is a win for both sides. barbara slavin: i was and what he had to say yesterday in farsi and english. he said there would only be one enrichment plant.

heather will be redesigned in such a way that weapons grade uranium will not be produced. provision 3.1 that provides early notification on nuclear facilities. there will be corporation regarding nuclear safety and security. he said that. then he said the eu would terminate sanctions and even sanctions and u.s. sanctions will also be lifted. i knew resolution by the un security council will be issued and the previous resolutions regarding iran will be no en -- will be null and void. he also said that this is a great achievement for the u.s. government as well. he said, i was i that was the press tv analyst at said that.

noting for the first time the u.s. did not listen to israel. i thought that was interesting. ok. you know, these are the main points. he did say that the centrifuges in 40 oh would continue to work that they would use it for isotopes or other things. he called it a win-win. he told the iranian people. he said a great deal but was in the fact sheet even if it was not put out in black and white. clifford kupchan: there was a document published in every iranian press outlet.

it stated that all sanctions relief. that he would be immediate. his unequivocal. it stated that iran was free to pursue industrial scale enrichment to fuel its own reactors. unequivocal. it stated that iran was unhindered in his ability to conduct centrifuged r&b. i don't get ahead of ourselves. there was no agreement on how sanctions would be lifted. there's a big gap. they want -- we want the infrastructure to stay, they don't. i think it is important to be objective about what we have and what we don't have in the obstacles still facing us. i don't think we are out of the woods. i think very difficult issues that were not resolved.

and we will have to resolve them. it will be tough. i think there is an expectation's management team that we have to contribute to. we have to be realistic about where we are. we are not home, we have a long way to go. barbara slavin: you had a question? wait for the microphone. >> the middle east institute. i wanted to talk more about the rainy in opposition. what are they likely to do. last time there were charges that the supreme leader had not been briefed properly and other sorts of twists. what is the strength of it? most of us who are not deep in iran affairs, if there is a deal the supreme leader has agreed

and he controls the opposition is that likely to be true? or are we looking at this again who might have -- you might clear the deal. how about a few more insight into what you think the iranian opposition might be. whoever. john limbert: we used to say the strongest political party in iran in persian is called --. the party is the wind. that is whichever way the wind blows. that is the way the party goes. i think everyone, left center, will be looking at the way the wind is blowing on this. if the reports are true about sharif getting a heroes welcome when he came back. about cities being eliminated.

celebrations. and this kind of thing. the leadership, including the supreme leader, is not immune to that. now, the wind is blowing in a certain direction. we will take it. what is clear is that this process would not have gone as far as it did -- and i agree with cliff that there is still a lot to do, but it would not have gone as far if there was not a decision at the time that we are going to let this go. uconn can't just that with what happened in 2009, when undersecretary burns thought they had an agreement and it blew up.

that can always happen again. that always happen again, of course. for the moment, for whatever its own reason, there seems to be a directive that this is a good thing for us, and we are going to paint it as a good thing -- as a victory, win-win, or where ever whatever it is. it is a positive a compliment. the underlined text is via talking to the united states which we have never done -- never really done before, we can achieve something that is in our interest. clifford kupchan: what does lori

johnny say? what does the head of the supreme national security council say? these are the guys who run iran. rouhani doesn't really run the place. these guys do. i kind of agree with john here. modestly positive. i'm encouraged by this. those are the rainmakers. let's see what they do. john limbert: don't be surprised. i haven't seen the prayers or listen to them today, but don't be surprised to be here some traditional anti-american rhetoric coming out of that. that's not going to go. the slogans, the rest of it, those are not going to go away.

barbara slavin: another question? >> i why does the other side my question and that is in this country there will be opposition vocal opposition. if you want to be this agreement by june 30, what do you think that opposition will do. what is the opposition likely to do to defeat this agreement? barbara slavin: anybody want to touch that? we don't want to give you ideas. coming out of some of these statements, what do you think their tactics will be? kelsey davenport: following the lines that the deal isn't good enough. you look at places where we don't have much detail and poke holes in what has been accomplished. there is still not necessarily a

clear path forward after the 10 year limitations. iran could transition to an rich uranium. what the criticisms and ignore what the director of national intelligence had said about iran's nuclear program -- the decision to pursue nuclear weapons has been guided by a cost-benefit analysis. if the deal is mutually reinforcing, and iran sees the benefit moving forward, that presumption to exploit any weakness becomes far less of a probability. i think opposition will try to poke holes where we don't have the full details of the agreement yet, but it ignores these very strong arguments that iran sees this in its best interest, and if the

cost-benefit analysis holds true, they will continue to move forward. john limbert: if the president were still -- it would be a lot easier. you can always count on him to say something outrageous. now it is harder. what you focus on? maybe you focus on what some of these groups have said, they keep talking about how bad the public is, all the terrible things it had done. the problem is that's not new. we made a policy decision -- rightly or wrongly -- we made this policy is isn't to say ok, we will put that aside for a moment, human rights violations, terrorism, all of these other

things, and focus on this particular issue. now, the debate could be, was that the right thing to do? or, can you make any agreements with the state that does things that the islamic republic has done? barbara slavin: can i give a shout out to john bolton who has written and now set in public that he thinks more sanctions are not the answer, and obviously diplomacy is not the answer, we should go and bombed the place. he sets up a very stark choice which the white house has always been trying to set. basically they say, it's a deal a negotiated deal, or iran resumes its program and we have the military option. i'm not sure it's quite that by binary, but john bolton seems to.

clifford kupchan: there's an argument that we could have gotten a better deal. iran is going through a. of very -- going through a period of low growth. the economy is a complete mess. there's something to that. i think the main point is the opponents to the deal are in vastly worse shape this morning been it is kind of a jpla phenomenon. once you have numbers in front of opponents of a deal, they get scared. you remember menendez, the 59 votes. then, jpla came out. i think we will see a lot of that now. we already see it.

i think these guys are going to have a real tough time. barbara slavin: any other question? kelsey davenport: i can also point out about sanctions, a lot of critics say yes, we can make them bleed more, and the united states may be able to impose more sanctions, but the united states is not going to follow. especially while there is this deal -- potential deal. europeans are anxious to get back into the iranian market. asians are eager to buy iranian oil again. there may be some people in the industry who are nervous about the impact on oil prices, which are likely to go down. the point of view of the rest of the world, they are ready to have the sanctions over and done with. it is a fantasy, i think on the part of the republicans in congress, to see how they can

increase pressure on iran now at a time when the negotiations are so far advanced. john limbert: maybe what they need to do, going back to john bolton statement, is break the narrative of either this agreement or war. it's very clear. this president's big positive is keep us out of a war in the middle east. is opposing this agreement will lead to a war in the milieux, that's not a strong argument. they have to somehow make this argument that, no, there is a third way, and it is somehow better. some far i've not seen a make the argument very effectively. barbara slavin: left go back to the question as to what will happen in internal iranian dynamics.

jason, a friend, a colleague, is still in jail -- the longest of any american journalist. six months now or more. there are two other iranian americans who have been held for a long time. other iranian political prisoners -- some have been let go, but there are others that are still in jail. john, what do you think will happen on the human rights front? i have heard different interpretations that they will ease up a little, and some things will get tougher because they have to show there is still in control. john limbert: the best explanation i have heard is that this is all part of the power struggle. those in charge of the security services want to flex their muscles and show that no, all of these smiles and handshakes haven't change the fact that we are dealing with an enemy, and

we will cheat these people as enemies. it's a reminder of who's in charge. the same thing happen under o hatami. you had him making these eloquent statements, and at the same time -- the president, his ministers, his so-called government was powerless. they couldn't do anything to stop it. the best i can tell is that it is a test of wills between the two sides. poor jason. wonderful reporter. wonderful young man. it's unfortunately -- he's unfortunately the victim, as are some of these other people. again, that's one of the issues that we should be, and have been

discussing with the iranians and not let them off the hook on these things. i understand that when kerry and the zarif met one-on-one, these things came up. barbara slavin: we should mention that elections are coming up. the election of the group that chooses the supreme leader. those are coming up i think on the end of the month. what will this do for rouhani and the private does, and also performs? there are still reformists who are in the system and allowed to function. i don't know, clifford, if you have some ideas about that. there are two presidential candidates from 2009 who are still under house arrest. are these guys ever going to see

the light of day, or do they have to wait until this passes? clifford kupchan: i think there's a connection between what we are seeing now and the domestic issues. rouhani has been very weak on everything but the nuclear issue. three or four of his ministers of higher education were rejected. he has lost a lot of internet. the judiciary has not succeeded in widening social freedom space. it's extraordinarily likely that if there is a final deal, his political clout rises significantly. i think that does -- that guarantees nothing, but makes it more likely that we will see slow hard-fought progress in other areas, that so far have

been stifled. barbara slavin: in a couple areas, things have improved. book publishing. there are more books published. also, people are back teaching. people associated with the reform cap -- clifford kupchan: they never flushed it completely. barbara slavin: not completely. a lot of folks who were prominent have come back in circulation. they can be quoted by the western press now, and not worry about being thrown in prison. they are small things. there is a new server that would have been banned -- it was bad -- a came back. it was a very important voice for the reform will that in iran. you have to look for the small victories as well.

do we have any more questions for many viewers? over here. this lady here. >> maranda bernstein. i would like if the panel could discuss a little more what sanctions relief will look like, and also as far as even possible weapons of sales. arba slaven: there was a report that the russians will sell -- i don't think so. clifford kupchan: it's clear that the plan is to lift the u.n. resolutions and replace it with one that allows illicit material to iran. on the russian case, the russians despite ukraine, have been one of the most innovative

members of the p5 plus one. they have an absolute first-rate diplomat. we need to factor that in. the sanctions relief is -- we don't know. what the iranians what what a fight is the oil back on the market, reconnection of some banks into the international financial system. my guess is that they will get a lot of out front. what they will not get a front i think, is fdi. my guess is from a western point of view, from a u.s. point of view you can read -lock

reserves, but if you have companies coming in -- if someone not money into the fdi, you would be hurting a u.s. company, known what ones that. not on quick infusions of foreign investment. barbara slavin: i would enjoy your attention to two papers that we put out at the alleged to cancel -- atlantic council on how sanctions will be relieved. i agree that with a few exceptions, u.s. companies will be the last to the party. you said something about how creative the negotiator has been . i want to ask about the contribution of secretary mo needsniz.

i was on a conference call where one of these unnamed senior official talked about how over the course of the last few days, their hopes would rise, and then they would four a few days, the senior administration official talked about the technical creativity of secretary moniz. we know moniz has this extraordinary relationship with an m.i.t. graduate -- mo niz taught at m.i.t.. kelsey davenport: i heard that secretary moniz brought him m.i.t. logo baby where when they became a father for the

first time. from the beginning of these negotiations, even though they have been less visible, except for the last few months, hasn't quite important. moniz and the department of energy will be an extremely important to this. they have played a critical role in determining breakup time, looking at the research and development, and making that available to the public, that level of expertise certainly will be helpful. as much as there is a political component to this negotiation and i think it really did come down to make very difficult and painful political concessions ensuring that the technical details are in place is

extremely important. you see some of that innovation and the promoters -- parameters laid out allowing centrifuges to operate, but in a way to ensure that they are enriching uranium, a dedicated channel to allow iran to access some technology for its programs, but not pose a threat to the weaponization process. i think monisz's validation is certainly important here. i would add just one big tear question about sanctions, and that, i think, we do have a little bit of a clear picture where the un security council sanctions are going. i was pleased to see that the lifting of those sanctions will be tied to iran completing the investigation into its past weaponization work.

and that these measures will not be lifted until they complete the investigation. and until the iaea ensures that is program as before. i think that will really incentivize iran to cooperate with agency because that has been a difficult process. originally, iran was referred to the security council in 2006 because it was not cooperating with the agency dur. i was p please t see agreement about that in the faction. barbara ssheet. barbara slavin: there will also be nuclear cooperation for the first time. iran needs -- i don't know what

the technical tenets -- term is -- it will need other technology that will they didn't mention the terror on the research reactor, i think they would want to talk about that as well, the have a lot of second rate old technology that they use for civilian purposes. is open to the possibility that they will be able to renovate this and do it in a way that is safer for the iranian people and also more proliferation proof. kelsey davenport: certainly. i think along with these safety and security provisions, some of the most vital cooperation will have to do with their soul operating reactor that is led by the russians. there are some concerns about the safety of that reactor especially in relation with its

location to an earthquake fault. i think that will be key. also, the other measures that you mention. cooperation, perhaps on the provision of reactors. that will be important because iran has produced emphasis on creating medical isotopes. providing it with reactors that have less of a proliferation threat can also add to these assurances that iran's nuclear program is progressing in a peaceful direction, and not in a way that can be used on the road in weapons development. barbara slavin: we don't know which foreign countries will be providing this technology, do we? raleigh something that will be resolved over the next few months. john limbert: an interesting story, indicative to me about the difficulty of this relationship, but also of how far we have come. a contractor was created back in

the 70's with eight germany -- by a german company. according to my iranian friends it was obsolete when they bought it in the 70's. it was finally completed 40 years later. 40 years later again, my iranian friends, tell me it should have been scrapped long ago, but for reasons of national pride, they completed it. when they did, the then secretary of state heller clinton was asked, what do you think about this. she said, we are not concerned. we know what this is, we know the safeguards involved, we know what this does, and is it is not an issue concern to us. then, they went back to an iranian official, maybe barbara you remember who it was, i don't. they asked him, what do you

think about the secretary statement? his comment was, we are not sure what it is, but we know there is a trick there somewhere. [laughter] we know she is up to something. why would the american administration make a seemingly friendly statement like that? had to be a trick behind it. that was the environment that we have been operating in for 35 years. maybe, just maybe, what we are seeing now is a chance of breaking down those particular walls of mistrust. barbara slavin: i think you get the last question. wait for microphone. grandma thank you. as she>> thank you. one of the reasons that iran was reluctant to do this deal is they were concerned that

iranians would lose more. if we do have a deal in june what are the expectations, and given the support, will the government be in a position to deliver on those? barbara slavin: that is a fantastic question. i think satan's release will happen slowly. i'm not sure about the exact sequenceing, but officials are clear that i iran have to do many things before they get relief. they have to do something about the esto stockpil, they have to move up the centrifuges before they see any relief. it will be slow. already, i'm sure, i don't think the iranian -- well, the currency traders are obviously operating today -- i'm less

interested in what they have to say that the comparison of the real to the dollar. i would bet the iranian stock market will go up. i would bet that eggs pgi iranians are going to go home, look around, and see, what can i buy for cheap. maybe put money away. the chinese the diaspora started returning after normalized relations as with the united states. a lot of good things can happen. companies have gone to iran on exploratory missions. now, those memorandums will be signed. also, just psychologically. this is a huge shot in the arm for iranian people. i think we have the keep that in mind as we look at this. this is not just about

centrifuges, and you know heavywater reactors. this is about human beings and a country with amazing potential that has really been squelched for all of these years. for that reason alone, we should hope that things go well. i think that can be the last word, unless someone else wants to add on. john limbert: there is a danger that this could be oversold, and people think, now the sanctions will be lifted, and everything will be fine. the story that the iranian government has presented very often is that our economic problems are the result of the sanctions. well, they might be, some of them, but there's also many people who say -- analysts who say, no, it is the result of their own mismanagement of the economy.

what happens when the sanctions go and the economic problems are not solved because mismanagement is still there. it is much easier to blame your troubles on what outsiders have done to you than your own mismanagement, which has been a chronic problem, frankly, for the iranian economy going back to the founding of the islamic republic. barbara slavin: thank you for that skeptical note. thank you for coming out today. follow us on twitter. come to our upcoming events. we will be very active. they give. [applause]

[inaudible chatter] >> a reminder you can see this anytime on c-span.org. we have that document from yesterday after the negotiation concluded. also, online, some tweets today. from "the hill" a photo there.

be good boehner just coming back from his visit to the middle east and israel. a tweet from "the hill" -- gop denounces proposed iran nuclear deal. hossein rouhani had a speech this morning. he spoke to the nation today for about 20 minutes. [video clip] president rouhani: in the name of the passionate, salutations to. salutations to the eimans.

peace be a upon them. we are going through the occasion marking the anniversary of -- peace be upon her. next week, we will mark the birth, the anniversary of -- . peace be upon her. today is the day that will remain in the historical memory of the iranian nation. today is the day, from my point of view, is a day of appreciation and gratitude to the great nation of iran. the iranian nation, through its

resistance and steadfastness took another step towards the sublime national goals. i have to think the iranian nation. since the people, in order to safeguard their interests today, they will remain resistant and steadfast. in the future, the people will tread this path. the government and his administration has offered some

promises to the people. we have always made efforts in order to fulfill those promises building the framework of our national interest. one promise was that the centrifuges have to spin, and at the same time, people and life should go on smoothly, and it will be valuable to us to see that centrifuges are spinning, it provided that the economy will move forward. today, we got closer to that objective comes p compared to previous weeks months, and even to the past decade. during the first 100 days of

this administration, the government took the first step forward and reached an interim deal regarding the nuclear issue a new negotiations -- in negotiations with the five plus one. up until today, we have been making efforts to take the second step efforts were made for several months. i can particularly refer to the efforts made in the past few days, and last night we managed to obtain an objective. we have managed to take the second step forward, and managed to protect our nuclear right. at the same time, we have taken steps for the lifting of sanctions.

and at the same time, constructive interaction with the world. this is of great significance to us. based on the framework that we reach last night, it means that with respect to the upcoming agreement, the third step, we hope until june we will be able to take the third step. the third step will be the final agreement, and the fourth step that will later be taken will be achieved several weeks later. that will be the implementation of the provisions of the final agreement. based on the framework that we have obtained last night.

the five plus one has accepted enrichment by a iran on its soil. what they said in the past days is that enrichment is a threat for the region. today they have accepted that enrichment on the iranian soil is not a threat. i explicitly wish to announce that enrichment and the whole nuclear technology are all aimed at the development of iran. this enrichment process and technology are not against any country or region of the world. today the world has admitted that iran is seeking its peaceful objectives.

it will be based on a more modern technology. speaking of what thought was shot down, for do will remain open for ever. there will be more than 1000 centrifuges installed and other activities -- nuclear activities in the field of physics, and within this framework of the financial sanctions, they will be listed on the implementation of the agreement. sanctions were lifted on the banking system. all of these resolutions against iran, this means be six resolutions against iran will be

revoked and eliminated, and rene there will be renewed cooperation in various sectors. this will in fact open a new chapter with the world. so, within this framework that we have ahead of us, you see that the approach adopted by the semester nation has been effective. in today's world, threats by others that are worthless. pressures by other s are worthless. all of us should be after an agreement that benefits all parties with a win-win approach. obtaining common goals of all the parties. some think that we should either

fight with the world or given to the powers. we believe that there is a third option. there is a solution for this. we can cooperate with the world of course, they say that negotiations have been due to pressure exerted by sanctions. they know very well that such an approach is baseless. there sanctions are not aimed at negotiating. they impose sanctions to make a surrender, but what they do not realize is that we will never surrender. there is a united and steadfast nation, courageous nation. then, they said that sanctions are a debt negotiations. we were negotiating with the world prior to these sanctions.

and we were negotiating in the course of these sanctions. the approach by this administration was that if others respect us and do not impose sanctions, they will actually receive the same respect from our side. and they have realized this fact that there should be respect in order to receive respect. and that sanctions are pressures are worthless. it indicates the fact that the ministration's approach has been the correct one. the second point is that the objective that we have achieved today, that has been due to our unity and solidarity. we have -- actually we have

consulted with all of the officials and we have always benefited from the guidelines of the leader of the islamic revolution. he, the leader, has also provided generously with guidelines. i'd even necessary here to appreciate the leader and the heads of the three branches, and all of the officials who helped us in order to be able to take this step forward. in the next step, we do need their support. this is not just about the nuclear question, this is about all the other issues regarding

the countries of affairs, also the unity and solidarity of our nation. we should be thankful to god and imam, and the profits. and all of the inso you imams. we have chosen the right path. today, our nation has shown to the world that in spite of pressures, the nation has put on

display is massive turnout in the course of the presidential elections, and in addition to that, they have always put on display their unity and solidarity, enabling us to overcome the difficulties. i wish to seek this opportunity and mention some points. the first point is in the course of the nuclear negotiations, whatever promise we have offered to the global community, we will fulfill our promises, and we are not after hypocrisy. if we have given any promise such a promise within the framework of our national interest, we will fulfill

the promises, provided that the other party will also fulfill its promises. up to this point, and also in the future, with respect to the final agreement, that agreement will be a balanced one is the other party fulfills its promises, iran will also fulfill its promises. if someday they decide to choose a different path, we will also choose other options. the second point is the new nuclear negotiator has been the first step forward with interaction with the world. we are not just addressing the nuclear issue. it is not just the nuclear issue that we are after. negotiating with the global community and is issue will come

to an end sometime -- in fact, this is the first step in order to reach the highest point of constructive interaction with the global community. in today's world, security and stability will not be achieved without cooperation. we see cooperation and interaction with all world countries that are willing to do so. countries that respect us and work with us on the basis of mutual respect, we do ask her hands and friendship, and with all countries that we have cordial reele relations, we are after strengthening relations.

if we actually have any sort of tension or hostility with any nation, we are after putting an end to such hostility and tension. interaction will be to the benefit of all. the last point is that in order to eliminate hurdles, we have taken a step forward for eliminating hurdles. we should take new steps forward in all fields. the government is of the view that impediments to business must be eliminated. in fact, we welcome efforts by all the investors and the people because we should take a step for creation of job opportunities for young people

and improve business, and also promote exports so that people would actually witness improvements from the economic and spiritual point of view. i wish to appreciate it iranian nation and request the people to actually promote unity and order to improve business and economic conditions, and also have sound the political competition. we hope that hopefully we will be able to -- hopefully this year will be better compared to the past year, and hopefully we will be able to take steps for the prosperity of our nation

and the progress of this nation. i also deem it necessary to appreciate all those who have been effective in taking these steps forward, including the nuclear negotiation team and the head of the atomic energy into two, the legal team, and all those who have made efforts particularly in the last few days, and past months, i wish to appreciate them all. i wish to personally appreciate them and on behalf of the iranian nation. hopefully support by the leader of the nation would be of great help to them in order to obtain the final success.

>> the iranian president from this morning. by the way, we have a link to the details of that joint comprehensive plan of action. you will find that on c-span.org. you will also find president obama's comments shortly after the deal was announced, he spoke to reporters in the rose garden. the president today is in utah. this afternoon, he will be at an air force base talking about the economy. a jobs report was released today. the president's comments coming up at 1:00 eastern on c-span. tonight, former president clinton speaks.

this was part of the annual clinton foundation health summit. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern. , this weekend, the c-span city store learns about the history and literary life of tulsa, oklahoma. >> when guthrie is most famous for his writing of "this land is our land," but he is known for much more than that. we are very happy to have his work back in oklahoma, where it belongs. he was an advocate for those who were disenfranchised. the migrant workers from oklahoma, kansas, texas, who found themselves in california literally starving. he found a vast difference between the haves and have-nots. when he recorded very few songs of his own. we have a listening nation that

features 46 of his songs in his own voice. that's what makes the recordings that he did make so significant and important. >> ♪ this land is your land this land is my land from california ♪ >> watch all of our events from tolls the saturday on c-span 2. >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in the studentcam competition. studentcam is c-span's annual competition of high school students on issues critical to our nation. this year, the theme was "the three branches and you," and how that has affected them and their communities.

eli kirshner, ricardo moreno, and arden siegel from skyline high school in ann arbor, michigan are our second prize winners. president bush: from this point on, all students will have the chance to excel and live out their dreams. [applause] >> in january 2002, something unique happened admits and political controversy and the war on terror. a bipartisan act of legislation to fix america's broken education system. the goal, straightforward yet ambitious. all children would be provision in mathematics and reading by 2014. the year is now 2015. all children have been b

brought up to grade level, right? >> the method and means that "no child left behind" relies on to measure is very lacking. >> the question is, located. in short, the answer might be, it depends. what it depends on especially is where you live. >> it's true that that future is already here. the future is not evenly distributed. we don't have those same resources in every local community. >> here is a snapshot of two cities in our greater southeast michigan community, less than 40 miles apart. detroit and ann arbor. but to offer a striking contrast in their results and responses to the federal mandate.

of the 21 largest district, the trial urban assessment measures, dps rated the lowest, the most significant dip in math for eighth graders in the country. in 2013, only 7% of the cities eight graders were proficient in reading, as compared to the 35% national average. in june 2011, rick snyder introduced a revolutionary new experiment to improve michigan's lowest performing schools, taking the bottom 5% and consolidating them into a state run district. as a result, 15 schools formally part of the detroit public school system, are now in the hands of the educational achievement authority.

>> during the time that the state had control of dps, dps has gone further into deficit and they have had more trouble than when the state first of them over. >> many have cited a lack of a democratic process to elect the board of trustees, appointees by the govern them. >> when you say, i, the governor, can be decide on behalf of al, that is problematic. you are diminishing diversity different views, perspectives, people's ability to weigh in. >> while the responses have been controversial at best in the decade and a half of "no child left behind," the results in research rich and armor have charted a different path. >> we think of ann arbor as

youthful. we often don't have the picture that one in four of our students comes to us with needs, socioeconomic needs. >> with an array of pre-k literacy, afterschool, nutritional resources, the ann arbor public schools have been able to address the problem in a multitier fashion. >> it creates an environment where kids who aren't at grade level have the opportunity to seek success. i'm more than capable of being a successful student. >> the goal of all of that is to close the opportunity gap. you know, without opportunities, to go to museums, use science experiments, go on trips, our students will be somewhat. ultimately, the sanctions that the legislation threatened

against schools that did not reach the test scores created -- so what have we learned in the last 13 years? what can we do better? >> when you do something on a major scale like this involving public education, it is important to bring parents along. bring the community along. have them understand what you are trying to achieve. what will be the outcome of this consolidation will somehow be much better than what it was. >> we have to think about the fact that these are communities that have often been disenfranchised. they are economically stressed. they need all sorts of economic support is in fact the schools are then to thrive.

>> in places like finland, where they have a system that is often regarded as one of the best in the world, they have a much more narrow achievement gap. what they do is when they recognize areas of high childhood poverty they put additional resources into those schools. they tried to close the gap to make sure that those kids are being brought up to the level proficiency that they need to. we are certainly not doing that here in michigan. we are almost doing the opposite. >> if you are media and exposing challenges, we need that. if you are feeding the homeless, we need you doing that. if you are educating kids and have friends with a shelter that have clothes, and you see a kid that needs close, and you make that connection for the kids. everyone has a role to

play. >> to watch all of the winning videos, and to learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. also, tell us what you think about the issues that these kids address and that documentary on twitter. >> next, on c-span, three former three and ministers to afghanistan look back on the diplomatic roles and comment on the future u.s. role. the hour and a half performance is hosted by the middle east conference in afghanistan. >> welcome this afternoon to the middle east version of the three tenors. the washington version is three ambassadors. we are pleased to have the same level of challenge that you got from three tenors. i am