if we are going to defend the systems of the private sector within our nation, we have got to bring together the private sector and the public sector in a way that traditionally we have not seen. we have got to do this real-time and we have got to do this in an enduring basis. it can't just be that when we only interact with -- interact each other is when things are going on. sony was a problem and if i'm honest i was struck by, this is , great, but the cow is out of the barn. now we are reacting and this is a cleanup on aisle nine scenario. i don't think that gets us where we need to be in the future. where we need to the in the future is the ability to harness a set of partnerships that allows us to interact with each other in a real-time basis so that i, using the capabilities of an essay and cyber community -- the capabilities of nsa and cyber command, can try to push

to the private sector and say this is what i think is coming at you. this is what it is going to look like. this is the precursor activities that will give you a sense of what is occurring. what i am interested for the private sector is did you see what we told you you were going to see? what did we miss? what worked out well? how did you configure your system? what were the telltale signs that told you something was coming? there are always advanced indicators well before you get to the final act, well before you get to the destructive act. there are always precursor steps that give you a sense of what is coming at you. i'm interested in what are you saying? what are the things we failed to anticipate question mark hey, i would like to see this malware because i am interested in tearing it apart and developing counters so we can defeated in -- the feet it in the future.

not just you, but us, more broadly in the private sector. i am interested in the signatures that help the system recognize the activity. i would love to get to the point where the insides of one benefit the money. the way we are doing this in some ways is we are all trying to learn independently. that is a very painful way to go about gaining insights and experience. it tends to be very resource intensive and we constantly repeat the same mistakes over and over again. if each one of us learns them independently. i would like to see what we can do to bring it all together. the second point i tried to make, people, is this challenge is about a whole lot more than just technology. technology is a big part of this problem set and the solution. but it is every did as much -- but it is every bit as much about culture and the human dynamic as it is about technology. you name the system, whether it is in the private sector or the public sector, in the end, it is motivated men and women that

really make it work. and it is our ability to align that technology with that motivated and well-trained men are woman that really gives us our edge. i am the first to acknowledge, at nsa and u.s. cyber command hey, we have some amazing , technology. we can do some really interesting things. but at its heart, we are an enterprise powered by motivated men and women. today is pretty wide -- you are looking at crime, doing a sharp -- a shark tank looking at how , to build a workforce, looking at acquisition. it's a pretty broad swath. i thought it was a pretty is -- a pretty good thing. as i said, there is no single silver bullet that is going to fix all of this. it's about how we can work together to make it all work. and that is a challenging time

for us right now. i am the first to admit i am leading at least one of my two organizations that still has a measure of distrust among some. i acknowledge that. i don't pretend it is otherwise. yet we have to figure out a way that we can harness the capabilities of nsa to partner with the private sector in the name of defending our nation. nsa has some amazing technical capabilities in the information assurance arena that are real positive for us as a nation. and i want to see us apply those in a partnership way with the private sector that maximizes value and benefit for the nation. as a nation, we are paying for that capability. i would like to see us use it in a positive, constructive way partnering with the private sector. that's important to me. rather than just talk at you, we are going to go the tablet route.

i will try to take questions from the audience. excuse me, i need to put on my glasses for that. let's see what we got. ok, we don't have any entries yet. this is not a good-sized. -- this is not a good sign. [laughter] michael rogers i'm looking at a : blank tablet. has anybody sent me something and we just missed it? damn it. [laughter] michael rogers i apologize. : who was helping me, young lady? i just lost the outlook app. [laughter] michael rogers: come on. i don't see it listed as one of your apps.

where is she? she was standing in the back. here we go. i apologize, i lost outlook. >> you have one question. michael rogers: oh. there you go. you see, the positive side was that it wasn't that rogers didn't know where to go. the positive side was, hey look, i know i need to get to. so the questions are shutting to come in so we will take the first one. the first one comes from cindy thomas. cindy, i apologize. it is loading your question real quick. so the question from cindy is, as a nation, we have been primarily focused on enemies abroad. with the emergence of islamic extremism, we recognize now there are domestic insider threats. is there information for the

-- is a discussion of consideration for the emergence of corporate nationstates and how will we act and respond to those? cindy, are you here? cindy. i want to make sure i am getting the question. is the question focused on the idea about how our corporations going to engage in this world? >> the potential threat of companies actively seeking participation [indiscernible] michael rogers so talking about : the hack back type of idea corporations. >> [indiscernible] michael rogers: check. in broad terms, i am a believer that the application of force, whether it is in the kinetic world the weapons we are familiar with and through

capabilities in the non-kinetic world, our best applied to the nation-state. i am not a big fan of the corporate world taking on this idea. it is not without precedence. if you go back to family history -- if you go back -- i'm a big fan of history and look back at if you when nationstates have lacked capacity on their own, in the early days of the american revolution, we had not yet gained the foresight to gain a -- to gewe turned to the , private sector and said we will generate a legal mechanism in the form of letters that will allow you to take that private ship you own and, acting as an agent of the state, if you will go after those british ships, we will give you legal protection. we will let you sell the cargo and take some of the monetary profit from that. so we have done this before. in general, i am not a big fan of going that way.

on the other hand, nature imports a vacuum and quite frankly earlier today, i was , looking at some analysis on some entities that are already out there offering a wide range of services. i'm not sure that in the long run that is in the best interest. ok, shawn. in recent testimony before congress, you called for more offensive capabilities. what exactly does that entail? the point i was try to make in my testimony last month was that i believe that a defensive only passive strategy is not in the long run going to deter nationstates and groups and individuals from engaging in some of the behaviors we have seen. from the theft of intellectual property to the destruction of data to the manipulation of data. that deterrence is an important

component for as a nation how we are going to change the dynamic we are dealing with. right now we are reacting. you saw that earlier this week with the administration's announcement of its executive order in which the administration has now authorized the application of sanctions against both individuals, groups, nationstates who engage in offensive cyber behavior. i think that is another could -- good stuff along the way. i am also a big fan of we should develop a set of offensive capabilities. their application and usage needs to be tightly controlled. that is not a decision i should make. that is a decision a policymaker should make. just like we do now with the application of force in the more traditional kinds of arenas. let's see. ok, this is from patrick tucker.

at the billington cyber security summit last year on this very stage, emil rogers asked the audience if any of them had suffered any kind of "compromise of their personal information." -- information with their personal system? " what was that event and how are you hacked? [laughter] michael rogers: patrick, where are you? patrick i apologize. , that is not one i will go into. [laughter] michael rogers: i will try shawn now. so this is from sean. are you there? all the way in the back. do you pronounce your last them correctly? lingas? i apologize.

how specifically will the nsa contribute intelligence to the nations cyber threat center? the cyber threat intelligence center is designed to act, if you will, as a kind of central analytic hub that has been generated across the federal government and the structure. the kind of act, if you will, as a one stop shop much as the , national counterterrorism center has overall responsibility for bringing together all the efforts of the intelligence community and the counterterrorism set. ctic will do the same thing. as a u.s. cyber command, i will be one of the primary beneficiaries, if you will of ctic's output, which is a positive. justin duncan, are you here?

is there any effort underway to leverage clear and retiring or exiting military members to act as trusted agents to bring classified indicators and intelligence to the private sector? the short answer is no, that i am aware of. i think what really gets to the heart of your question is what can we do to try to increase the throughput of classified information into the private sector? is that really the hub? what you have outlined is one way to do it. quite frankly, what i am trying to push largely in my nsa had as the leader of an intelligence organization is why can't we outright declassify them, much of what we are doing on the cyber defensive side? not that there aren't sometimes that we will be able to do that. i am forced to knowledge that, but we have shown a pretty good if you look at the aftermath of the sony and the north korean

peace, we have seen an increase ability of late to try to sanitize information that would generate in the more classified way, so it is usable on a classified level with many of our partners at the. let's see. ok, this is from victor ekinabe. victor asks, first, outlook is a phenomenal ap on the ipad. can you speak on how industry can help share in its learning and technical developments? on the nsa side, we've got a pretty long term effort with commercial counterparts. if you go to nsa.gov, look on the lower left-hand side and you will see a link that talks about

how to do business with nsa. we are interested in reaching out and partnering with the private sector. i am the first to remind both of the organizations that i am responsible for leading, hey much of the intellectual india intellectual ingenuity is in the private sector, not in the government. if we are going to be effective, we have to reach a and partner with them. on the u.s. cyber command site -- side, i am trying to create some infrastructure in the private sector away from our headquarters maybe more directly where industry concentrations as a way to do this. so it is something we are definitely interested in. ok. this is from metra forteski.

did i get it right? tell me what it is. [indiscernible] michael rogers: metra, i apologize. are you from nsa? only because of the way the question was phrased. this is the question. this may help us prevent attacks at the one on sony in the future. can you talk about any other effort nsa is taking to further public-private partnerships? nsa does, again, under our information assurance mission set, nsa helps in the development of standards, in writing signatures that recognize activity that we quite frankly share with the private sector. you won't necessarily see us. i use it on dod systems. i use it on our own systems. so the very things we try to use

with the public sector, we use ourselves. in addition when it comes to , cryptographic standards, to some technical development, we are committed to sharing as much of that as we can. if you look at the website, it is one of the vehicles we use. we push it directly to a lot of the major vendors, whatever the particular market segment is and say, hey, this is how we use it. let's see. let's see what this one is. here you go. this is from bill hill. bill, where are you? bill says, at the risk of being on your watchlist -- [laughter] michael rogers i apologize about : the role tied. it's just a conditioned response. [laughter] michael rogers all right, bill,

: thanks very much. daniel fink are you here? ok. with the competition between private and government sectors for cyber talent, how do you plan to retain your cyber workforce? this is not a challenge that is unique to cyber for the department of defense or the intelligence community. if it is purely going to be about money, then we are clearly not going to be your first choice for a work voice -- a workplace. but what are the ways we are going to compete? we are going to compete five different ways. number one, we are going to attract people because of our culture of service and ethos. number two we will attract people because of our mission. we defend the nation. and number three, we will let you do amazing things you cannot do anywhere else.

number four, we will give you a lot of responsibility at a young age. once we give you your training and are competent in your -- and confident in your abilities, we are a strong believer in giving you responsibility. number five, we are a global organization. if you want to work in europe, asia, multiple places in the united states, we have work spots for you. if you are an adrenaline junkie, if you want to be in afghanistan, iraq, fill in the blank, anywhere that dod is in general, you will find nsa and u.s. cyber command partnered right there with them. this is from stephen orenstein. did i get it right? i'm not doing so on the whole name thing. -- so well on the whole name thing. do you foresee an nsa reorg that would reintegrate overlapping standards of cyber. today is my one-year anniversary.

as the director of the nsa side and one of the things i have done in that year is i posed a series of 12 questions. we are calling them the directors chargers. one of the 12 questions talks about is our structure optimized for the future? is it reflective of our past? and i specifically said i want the team to take a look at that and i want you to look 10 years down the road. i'm interested in what do we need to do today to ensure that we have optimized ourselves to execute our mission in defending the nation five to 10 years from now? we can't just sit here and say to ourselves look at all that amazing things we have been able to do in the past and every thing will be find in the future. as a leader, i am not a big proponent of that thought process. ok, scott macione.

sweet! i assume you are a media got. -- immediate guy. while legislative authorities does cyber command need from congress? the first thing i would ask is we've got the cyber information sharing past. we have got to help -- it is not a cure-all and it is not a silver bullet. it is an important step in helping us deal with this idea private and public hardships. -- private and public partnerships. quite frankly and i certainly understand -- any general councils here in the audience from the private sector? don't be embarrassed. raised your hand. [laughter] michael rogers ok, i did not see : any hands go up. many general councils, in my experience, they will often advise their board, often advise their leadership, hey, be leery

about doing too much that potentially sets us up for liability. that's part of the function of the general counsel. help protect the firm. when of the aspects i think is important about legislation is this idea of liability protection. it's a way to help provide the private sector a measure of top cover, if you will, anchorage -- and encouragement in interacting both ways with the federal government. that would probably be the biggest and most immediate one. let's see. daniel, you have already asked me one. eric l, are you here? how are you doing? how do you plan to the conflict -- 2-d conflict cyber commands engagement with the private

sector and other u.s. government efforts such as nci gen f nc3. the first comment i will make us i generally have people embedded in those organizations. they've got people it doesn't we've got people with them. secondly, for u.s. cyber command, we will be acting in support of others. we won't be the lead. the most likely scenario, when the department of defense provides capability in aftermath of hurricane or tornado, they provide their support through fema. i believe the model will be similar. we will provide our capability through the homeland of security. robert homlme. what education and strategy

development are you most concerned about what -- are you excited about all caps are you concerned about? exceeds me, i am fighting a cold. among the things that we have talked about our, we have got to get people at an earlier age. as you heard earlier recognition from educational efforts that are ongoing at the middle and high school. we are increasing our outreach efforts, particularly at the high school level. if you come out to fort read right now, you will find young people working as interns. in fact, my second day on the job, i am down in the cafeteria and i see these two young ladies who looked incredibly young to me. i go back to the office and said something like how early are we hiring people? [laughter] michael rogers: i just saw people who looked a little older than my dentist.

-- older than my youngest. coincident become a i saw these people and i stopped him and i say, how long have you been working with this? it turns out they were both high school students. 15 years old and if it me, we are working as part of the internship program here. we have expanded that effort. i am also interested in how to be create a model. because right now, the model on the government side is different from in silicon valley. when i'm out in the valley and talking to the private sector about how you retain wrote -- retain grow, says -- assess the workforce. the model in the private sector is average employee will work to years to five years and then move around. the valley is a closed ecosystem in the big scheme of things and bouncing around. our motto, particularly on the nsa site is very different. most of our workforce once they

join, our retention is amazing. i think last year 2014, nsa's retention was 96.7% of the work hours. we only lost 3.7% of the workforce. that's a great testament. there are bunch of men and women who love what they do and have great respect for each other and they are dedicated to the idea of how to defend the nation how do we do it with a lawful and accountable framework. but there is a flip side to that. one of the questions i asked the team was, do you realize that it has a .7 attrition rate, it would take us 33 years to reconstitute the workforce. you know at the rate of change will be over 33 years? are we really comfortable that that is the right long-term answer? i would like to get to a place where you can start with us and go out in the private sector and then come back. you can be in the private sector, come internship with us for one year or two years because i frankly, one of the challenges we have been dealing

with. i have watched to cut -- two cultures that talked and work passed each other. i listen to my workforce and i asked, tell me what you think about with the private sector is doing? i would sometimes you from them, hey, well, their primary drive is money. i say, stop. they think they're changing the world through technology. the focus, our focus is about defending the nation. those two values are billion -- are very compatible and worthwhile. likewise, when i am out in the valley, to be honest, i will sometimes you, well, you have the workforce that we do not want to hire. [laughter] michael rogers: and i will say, interesting because you are fre aking hiring like this. so don't give me this. it is not a knock on either one, but i am watching, from my

perspective, i am watching two different groups, two different dynamics that don't fundamentally understand each other. one of the ways i think we can help understand each other better is if there was more cross-pollination between us. i'm interested in trying to figure out how do we create mechanisms for the private sector to work with us for a while and for us to go on the private sector and come back? i think that is very powerful for the future and what that come i realized someone is coming after me and i will take, question and i will close it up. herman huitt? i will pick a different, i apologize. not that it is a bad question but not when i went to end on. no name other than an address -- rob, did i get the name right?

ok. rob asked what is nsa's most challenging problem intimate with international community on cyber defense initiative? the positive side i would say is i don't have -- the biggest challenge in some ways is how we overcome some of the security challenges. as i said, goes to that of the question that i got. we've got to set this up so we can do this on a much more multinational basis. we are doing some things pretty closely with the partners right now and it is part of the historic relationship we have with each other. i'm interested in not only building on that but expanding it beyond that because i believe -- as i said to you before -- cyber to me is the ultimate team sport. not only is it a team sport domestically for us, i believe as a nation, but fiber does not

recognize geographic boundaries. -- but cyber does not recognize geographic boundaries, national borders, clearly defined solutions many times. we have got to come up with a framework that enables us to partner and work beyond those boundaries and beyond those borders. i am definitely committed to trying to do that. with that, i thank you very much or your time and attention. you are for your willingness. [applause] >> during this month c-span is pleased to present the winners of the student cam competition. the topic was the three branches and you.

here are second-place winners from michigan. >> from this day forward, all students will have the opportunity to live out their dreams. [applause] >> in january 2002, something unique happened. a mist of political controversy, and the war on terror, the bipartisan acted -- enacted legislation went into place to bring all children up

to reading and writing. >> i think the measures were used to measure performance are very lacking. >> did it succeed, the question is complicated. in short, it depends. and what it depends on is where you live. >> it is true that future is already here, but it is not evenly distributed. you do not have those same resources in every community. >> less than 40 miles apart detroit and ann arbor. they offer a striking can't -- contrast in their results to the federal mandate. after 21 largest trial urban

assessment measures, dps performs the lowest on fourth grade reading and math seeing the lowest did in the country. -- dip in the country. in june 2011, governor 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 of a 15 schools formerly part of the detroit public school system are now in the hands of the educational achievement authority. >> at a time when they had control over dps they went even

more in deficits, and were hemorrhaging students. >> many cited the lack of a democratic process to elect their board of trustees. seven of them are appointees of the governor himself. >> whenever you have someone who says i can decide on behalf of all, that is problematic. your diminishing dorsey, you are diminishing different views, perspectives, ability to weigh in and have their voice heard. >> while the responses have been controversial at best, the results in research -- resource rich and are perhaps charted a different path. >> we often do not have in our

picture of ann arbor that one in four of our students come to us with economic need. >> with an array of financial and nutritional resources the ann arbor public schools has been able to approach the problem in a multitier fashion. >> creates an environment where kids who are not at grade level have the opportunity to see success and know they are more than capable of being a successful student. >> the goal is to close the opportunity cap. without the opportunity to go to museums, to go on the trips, our students are going to be somewhat behind. >> ultimately, the sanctions that the legislation threatened for schools who did not make sufficient progress in test

scores created a sense of urgency in ann arbor, which has had the advantages of an affluent tax base and abundant resources. 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 critically important to break parents along. to bring the community along great to have them understand what you are trying to achieve. what will be the outcome of this consolidation. that it will be somewhat better than what was. >> with you think about the fact that these are communities that have been disenfranchised. they are economically stressed. they need all sorts of economic support, if in fact the schools and memoir to thrive. >> - - - ---if they are to thrive.

>> in places like finland, they have a much narrower achievement gap, because they put additional resources into the school. they try to bring the kids at the level that they need to. we are certainly not doing that here in michigan. we're almost doing the opposite. >> if you expose the child to the education to make the connection between those who have and have not everybody has a role to play.

>> to watch all of the winning videos and learn more competition, go to c-span.org and >> on student cam -- click on student cam. >> next, the president over on addressing nation on the nuclear agreement. >> the biggest part for me was hearing cory gardner so you need to be firm in your principles but flexible methodology. if that is something we can all adopt we could come together as

a country and solve our pertinent issues. >> my favorite quote came from the secretary of the senate. she said her mother to the humble, and have a strong work ethic. the kinds of people you would meet on the way up, you meet them on the way back down. >> congress itself, we have a lack of true statements. as much as i disagree with him senator john mccain did something impressive last year. he committed to the veterans affairs reform bill. maintain staying away from torture is important to the character of our democracy. when you have people willing to cross the aisle to make these decisions with people they do not agree with them a that is what we need to maintain the security and integrity of our nation. >> high school students who ranked in the top 1% of their state were in washington dc as part of the united states senate

youth program. that sunday" p.m. eastern on c-span q&a. >> the iranian president reiterated that they would keep their promises. this is about 20 minutes. president rouhani: in the name of god, salutations to the prophet of islam and his household. salutations, and peace be upon them.

we are going through the occasion, marking the marcher anniversary, peace be upon her. -- martyr anniversary, peace be upon her. today is the day that will remain in the historical memory of the iranian nation. today is the day that, 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 attaining national goals. i have to think the iranian nation, since the people, in order to safeguard the national interest, today they will remain resistant and steadfast in the future the people will turn this path. -- steadfast, and in the future the people will drive this path. the government and this administration has offered some promises to the people and we

have always made efforts in order to fulfill those promises within 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 for us to see the centrifuges spinning provided that the economy would also move forward. today, we have gotten closer to that object, compared to the past weeks and days. during the first hundred days of this administration, the

government took the first step forward and reached an entry -- in the roomterim deal regarding the nuclear issue in negotiations. since that time, we have been making efforts in order to take the second step -- efforts were made for several months, and i particularly refer to the efforts made in the past few days and last night we managed to reached an objective. we have managed to take that second step forward, and we have managed to protect our nuclear rights and, 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 for us. based on the framework that we reached last night, it means that with respect to the upcoming agreement, we hope that until june, we will be able to take that third step in the final agreement and the fourth step that will be later 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 attained, we have accepted enrichment of iran's soil. what they said in the past is that enrichment is a threat for the region. today, they have accepted that enrichment on iranian soil is not a threat. they are all aimed at the development of iran. this enrichment process and technology are not against any country of the region or the world. today, the world has admitted that iran is seeking peaceful objectives within this framework. iraq will be activated and

based on more modern technology. fordo will remain open forever. in fordo, there will be more than 1000 centrifuges installed. and there will be other activities in the field of physics, within the framework of the financial sanctions, will be lifted on that day of the implantation of the agreement, the sanctions related to the banking systems. all the resolutions against iran, the six resolutions against iran will be revoked and eliminated and they will be new

cooperation in the nuclear field and hopefully in other sectors. this will, in fact, open a new chapter in cooperation with the world. within this framework that we have ahead of us, you see that the approach adopted by this administration has been effective. in today's world, threats by others are worthless and pressures by others are worthless and all of us should be after an agreement to benefit all parties based on a win-win approach, mutual respect, common interest, and attaining common goals. some think that we should either fight with the world or give it

-- in to the powers. we believe there is a third option. there is a solution for this. we can cooperate with the world. they say that negotiations have been due to the pressure exerted by the sanctions. they know very well that such an approach is baseless and their sanctions were not aimed at negotiating. they imposed sanctions in order to make us to surrender. when they realize that we will never surrender and there is a united and steadfast, courageous nation, then they said that sanctions were aimed at negotiations. but we were negotiating with the world prior to the sanctions. we were negotiating in the course of the sanctions. the approach by this

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

all 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 his guidelines. i deem it necessary to appreciate the leader and the the heads of the three branches who have helped us in order to be able to take this step forward and in the next step, we need their support. this is not just about the nuclear question, this is true about all the other issues regarding the country's affairs. we are in need of the guidelines

by the leader and also the unity and solidarity and support of our nation, of course. we should be thankful to god. and the infallible immams, and the profits probably judy -- prophets progeny, peace be with her our thoughts should be with them. they have always supported us, they have been a source of support for us. 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 a massive turnout in the course of the presidential election.

in addition, that they have always put on display the unity and solidarity, enabling us to overcome the difficulty. i wish to seize this opportunity and mention some points. the first point is that in the course of the nuclear negotiations, whatever promise we have offered to the global community, we will fulfill our promises. we are not after deception or hypocrisy. if we have given any promise such a promise will be within the framework of our national interest. we will fulfill all promises provided that the other party would also fulfill its promises.

after this point, in the future, with respect to the final agreement, the agreement will be a balanced one if the other party fulfills its promise. if they decide to choose a different path, we will also be able to choose other options. the second point is that our nuclear negotiation has been the first step for constructive 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 that this issue will come to its end sometime.

in fact, this is the first step in order to reach the highest point of constructive interaction with the global community, and in today's world, stability and security will not be achieved without cooperation. we seek cooperation and interaction with all countries that are willing to do so, and the countries that respect us and respect the the iranian nation, we press their hands for friendship, and with countries we enjoy cordial relations, we are after closer relations, in case of strained relations, we are after improving relations. if we are actually have any sort of tension or even 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 in foreign relations, we have taken a step forward to eliminating the hurdles and we should take new steps forward in all fields. the government is of the view that the impediments to business must be eliminated. we welcome efforts by all the investors and the people. because we should take this step for creation of job opportunities for young people and improve business and also

promote exports, so that the people will actually witness improvements from the economic and spiritual point of view. i wish to appreciate the iranian nation and i wish to request the iranian people to actually promote unity in order to improve business and economic condition and also have sound political competitions. we hope we will be able to be better compared to the last year, and we will be able to take steps for the prosperity of our nation. and the progress of our nation

i also feel it is necessary to appreciate all of those who have been effective in taking this step forward, particularly the foreign minister and the nuclear negotiation team. the head of the country's atomic energy organization and his legal team, and all of those who have made efforts, particularly in the past few days and in the past months. i wish to appreciate them all. i wish to personally appreciate them on behalf of the iranian nation and, hopefully, support by the leader and the nation will be of great help to them in order to attain final success.

>> now, former deputy secretary of state for iran and other policy experts discuss the newly formed agreement. in a framework allows for the p5 plus one including the u.s. continue to negotiate a deal with iran. this is about 90 minutes. >> what can i say. outside it is raining, but inside the sunny shining.

we won the think tank lottery because when we planned this event we had a feeling they were not need the self-imposed deadline for a political understanding and framework. and i was right. so we're the first think tank in washington to be able to discuss the historic events that have failed -- that have happened and i am absolutely delighted. all of you by now have probably read some of the details of this agreement. we're going to look at it in much more detail and specificity. there is plenty of skepticism out there from israel, from some of the arab states across the persian gulf, and certainly from

congress about the nature of what was agreed to. we have a stellar cast of analysts to discuss it. let me extend greetings from ambassador stuart eizenstat, the chairman of our task force, who could not be here with us today. and let me thank the ploughshares fund for their genous support for our iran program. we have three stars who've come to talk about these issues. first is cliff 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 interest and vice president of 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 technical understanding of this nuclear agreement in the making. she is the director for the non-proliferation policy for the arms control association and provides research and analysis on nuclear programs on iran, north korea, and pakistan on nuclear security issues. she joined the arms control association in 2011 as a herbet scoville jr. peace fellow. prior to that she worked in a think tank in jerusalem. she may have interesting things to say about the israeli attitude. and john limbert.

a member of our task force and so much more. he is the class of 1955 professor of middle eastern studies at the u.s. naval academy. he has had a 34 year career in the foreign service, mostly in the middle east and islmic 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 this 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 ado, we will start. cliff. 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 sanctions relief. obstacles? there are a lot of obstacles to the deal. 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. the iranians think it will

happen up front, the u.s. thinks it will be in phases. that jumps out at you. the iranians don't mention in their press release that they will give up all but 300 kilograms of enriched uranium. the u.s. makes a big deal 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.

my own view, they are out in front of the opposition. my own view, bibi's way out in front of the opposition. most of the israelis were willing to listen privately. this deal is worse than they expected. i don't take they thought fordow would remain open. the number of machines is higher than expected. they are unhappy. four, then, is the u.s. congress. i don't think that congress can, or will, bring the deal down. i know it is early, and provocative and bold to come out with, but after talking to the republicans, i used to work on the hill and know a lot of them,

i 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 it sticks, let me rest my case. ms. 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 javad zarif. what struck you as important positive, and are there areas you are concerned about? ms. davenport: the details laid the groundwork for a strong deal that delivers on president obama's pledge to block the uranium and plutonium pathways to the bomb. what struck me about the uranium

elements is that it addresses the package about concerns about iran's uranium enrichment program and taken together will roll back the program, and ensure the international community that iran cannot get a significant quantity of weapons grade uranium within a year. if you look at the numbers, it is stark. iran has 20,000 centrifuges now. under the deal they will have 6000. the enrichment capacity will be cut in half. as cliff noted, there will be a reduction in the amount of enriched uranium they will keep in the country. ms. slavin: do we know what will happen to the centrifuges that won't be installed? will they be taken out of the facilities? ms. 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 iran's 20,000 centrifuges only 10,000 have been operating. that has left many critics concerned that iran could turn the machines on 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 reinstall these

centrifuges without the iaea 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. in the last international atomic energy agency report, 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 shipped to russia or blended down, there is not a big difference. what is important is it is removed from the equation, that iran cannot use that to quickly enrich up to weapons grade.

it is a detail that need to be worked out, but 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 reprocess plutonium. that is how you take the weapons usable plutonium out of spent 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. that removes the plutonium route from the equation. from a nonproliferation perspective, this is a strong groundwork. ms. slavin: john, foreign minister zarif went home to a hero's 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 posted on twitter

where an iranian was pinching obama's cheek on the television screen in a most loving way. people are having a little alcohol, which is technically forbidden, but goes on all the time in iran. it seems there is a tremendous popular upswell of support for this agreement. do you think, given the relationship between zarif rouhani, and khamenei that this is really going to have smooth sailing in iran? mr. limbert: it is a good question. whatever you think of the deal and whatever the details of the deal, it is clear that what was agreed to and the process over the last two years has represented change within our two countries, which has been one of almost uninterrupted hostility going back to 1979.

there were some efforts to change that. barbara, i think you described those as two teenagers trying to figure out who would invite whom to the prom. when one side was ready, the other side was not. we go back to the clinton administration, the inability to get together. we have to say that president obama -- or candidate 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-some years of hostility had not served american interests and that he was advocating change. it turned out that that effort was much tougher than he

thought, than anybody. it has taken seven years since he became president to reach the point that we have. it is clear that, judging what he said he wanted to do, and i think he was sincere, the possibility of moving beyond this rather technical deal. khomeini was asked about why isn't iran willing to negotiate with the united states, his answer was why does 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 iran and washington and be good for us. this agreement is neither munich, as it is described here, nor as it is described in tehran, turkmanchai. does anyone know what turkmanchai is? every iranian knows. it was an agreement where iran surrendered in 1828 to czarist russia. it was a great humiliation. the opponents of the current deal, they will use the metaphor of turkmanchai. given the metaphor that barbara referred to, and the support

that the supreme leader, who is termed a leaders 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. ms. slavin: cliff, i want you to pick up on that on how it will affect u.s. policy toward the rest of the region. the president has a selling job to do with israel, the saudis, and others. he has invited the heads of the gcc to come to a summit at camp david sometime this spring. i've heard the israelis talking about how they do not want to lose their qualitative military edge. i would assume that some of this can be smoothed over with arms sales and grants. would that be sufficient to calm

their jitters? mr. kupchan: it will take a real effort. previously, i said the saudis are not making much noise. last time i was in iran the degree of anti-iranian effectives were worse than anything that i've ever heard in israel. the israelites are concerned about bombed, 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 that quickly. i think the supreme leader was very sincere that a nuclear deal does not mean -- to the united states.

his constituency is the pious, poor, and conservative. what does a conservative do for a living if there is a detente with the united states? he looses the constituency. could we get more cooperation on isis? i think so. afghanistan? with the low hanging fruit, the obvious ones, 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 they have got to nurture and make sure the relationship is implemented which involves keeping an even keel in the atmosphere around iran and keeping containment, of discipline, of constraint on broader iranian behavior that i think will continue to be a hard-line government.

ms. 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 their foreign minister on a first-name basis, cell phone numbers, emails, 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 for long time and when simply having had contact with an american official could get you thrown in prison. i remember condi rice had a meeting on iraq. she wanted to talk to the then

iranian prime minister. she went after him and he ran away. he did not want to be caught in the same photograph frame with the secretary of state from the united states. how different is that now. there will be channels. if they will be productive channels, that is to be seen. mr. limbert: the differences are still there. the differences are not going to 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 imperfect agreements with people you neither like nor trust. with iran, until now we have not been able to do that. that, in itself -- not that

disagreements will go away, not that they will become a jeffersonian democracy tomorrow or respect human rights -- 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, which is the ability to talk about issues that we both care about. and may disagree about, but now we have the ability. maybe now john kerry or condi rice does not have to run after zarif to talk about the issues. they have a forum. ms. slavin: kelsey, one more than i will open it to the audience. this is about the non-proliferation implications. one argument we hear from critics is that leaving iran with essentially so much

infrastructure is going to spark an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the region. the saudis and the others will want similar programs. i heard the former saudi ambassador to the u.s. say that if iran gets a fuel 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? ms. davenport: it will be a close look at the details the monitoring regime imposes. from what we see in the parameters laid out, it looks like it will be intrusive, continuous monitoring of many of the supply chains, intrusive monitoring of the enrichment facilities, access to the undeclared sites, and 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 saudis 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 employ that will dissuade the saudis from moving quickly toward enrichment. certainly, thinking about fuel supply guarantees for future reactors, nuclear cooperation that does not allow for enrichment or reprocessing are avenues that are important, 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 netanyahu, i think he had an unrealistic expectation from the onset about what this deal could achieve. he talked about the complete dismantlement of iranian

facilities. that would be requiring iran to capitulate. that was not something that we were going to 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 would get that if it is without a deal, an 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. ms. slavin: president obama talked to king salman and talk to him before he made the announcement in the rose garden. and talked to netanyahu after the announcement. you can interpret that as you like. say your name and ask a question.

>> i am a senior fellow here at the hariri 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 rep to the u.n., samantha powers, suggested in kuwait that because of its support for the assad regime in syria, iran is an accomplice in mass murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. my 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 might those actions affect this process? ms. slavin: my view is that it makes a no-fly zone more likely. mr. kupchan: i think the two sides have been effective at building a cement wall between politics and nuclear negotiations. i think when you begin to add in syria, the worst of our disagreements and where iranian policy is truly worrisome, 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

interests. if the u.s. 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. mr. 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 are the kind of things you talk about -- external events. and what is remarkable is that this time it did not happen. there seemed to be an implicit agreement that events in yemen

syria, statements on both sides the congressional letters, statements about israel, we are not going to let those things sink the negotiations where in the past they have. ms. slavin: i'm going to ask a provocative follow-up. do you think the israelies will start assassinating iranian scientists again to blow this up? or do something else? trying to reinfect the centrifuges with stuxnet or son of stuxnet? mr. limbert: no, i don't. bibi is ahead of the israeli body politic. they don't like the deal. the israelis don't like the

deal. but this rejection, the no enrichment, that is bibi's shtick. they know the gig. 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 which could lead to out of bounds, off the chain, type of behavior murdering iranian scientists. bibi is under real pressure in israel. that bounds them. if he goes even further, he could face elections before he thinks again.

he barely squeaked by this time by tripping 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. >> thanks, from the atlantic council, and thanks for a useful presentation. the question i will ask is, 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 consensus 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. you go back to the afghan-pakistan strategy affordable care act, etc. i think the first steps 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? barbara, if you could jump in that, too. ms. slavin: what kerry did was an excellent first step. i hear a public welcome to secretaries of state 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? do you think the gatekeepers

the nuclear experts, will provide some backing? ms. davenport: in terms of the non-proliferation element, these numbers don't lie. we are moving from 2 to 3 months to break out to over 12 months to break out. the conditions on plutonium do not lie. i think what we have seen is that the numbers do not line up to the promise. there are details that need to be resolved, but based on the parameters how they have been laid out, you can tell that the p5+1 is discussing this. there is a plan forward. 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 congressional review of an agreement. actions like that seem more innocuous on the surface. but when 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 then encouraging congress to wait until after june 30 to see if an agreement is reached and then determine what the appropriate role in the future is. i think there is one.

overseeing implementation, requiring the president to certify iran is following through. that is a more appropriate role. they should evaluate the agreement, first. as senator king said, many of the measures were a surprise. it was better than he expected. senate and the congress should wait until the 30th to see if the entire deal is better than expected. mr. kupchan: first, i think the administration has been really resistant to a congressional role. congress should have a role. there are ways to tweak the corker legislation. i think they're open to tweaking the legislation. and that should move 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 fact sheet?

it has none of this stuff in it. almost none of it. those are u.s. numbers. why do we spin out these fact sheets? there go the americans with the fact sheet. the only thing i put faith in is the joint statement. that i think it's true. those are broad parameters. i don't know how much of this the iranians agree with. 10%? 9%? ms. slavin: in 2013 it was the same general fact sheet. in the end, a month or so later when the implementation came out, it was exactly what the white house said. mr. kupchan: i hope the same thing happens this time. i have one other comment. there are worrisome 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 breakout time expires in 10 years. one of bibi's main complaints is that after 10 years and one month iran can have a bomb. they need to answer to that. secondly, and unrelated, their 1000 machines that will stay inoperative. what happens in 10 years? can they replace those machines with other advanced machines? i think the administration should have an answer to what i call the 10-year problem. ms. davenport: i would agree there are some unanswered questions. the centrifuges that forgo, it

has been made explicit, will not be used to enrich uranium. a monitoring verification will need to be clear to make sure the 900 machines cannot be used for that purpose. it was important to the iranians to make sure that the nuclear facilities remain opened. that is something highlighted in the press conference. this i see as an acceptable 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 for zinc enrichment, if that is the case, i think that ensures that uranium will not then be introduced. as for research and development end, i think that we will see, coming out of a deal, more details about how advanced

centrifuges can be introduced into the equation. the p5+1 does not want iran to go off of a cliff in 10 years. that is why we have seen multiple timeframes employed. much longer timeframes on the constant monitoring of particular 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 detail to resolve some of those concerns. mr. limbert: we are seeing debate at two levels. one is 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 a bad thing. 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 and i gain something and you gain something. what many of the opponents seem to be talking about is not a deal, not an agreement, but 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. ms. slavin: indeed. mr. limbert: if there had been congressional oversight and congress had decided, no, no this is not right, would i have had to get on a plane and go

back to tehran? 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. ms. slavin: indeed. the lady right here. i'm so glad we got the executive agreement that got you out of tehran. >> we talked about how there is a bit of a cement wall between the syrian conflict and that nuclear negotiations, and how the administration seems more amenable to saudi concerns than israeli concerns. would that same wall exist for the kind of conflict in yemen between the saudis and the iranians?

is that going to be a similar wall, or that be more difficult to negotiate in terms of saudi concerns within the nuclear agreement? ms. slavin: i think that syria is a much more serious crisis. yemen has been a failed state for a very long time. what is happening right now is the effort of the former president to come back to power. the iranian angle there is very small. i've been told one of the reasons the iranians supported the houthis is because they practiced a form of shiaism that is different than what is practiced in iran is because they interfered in bahrain. the iranians think we will get the saudis on the other side if they couldn't get them in bahrain. i think, and perhaps others know more, we are headed for some

sort of diplomatic negotiation. at some point when the saudis have flexed their muscles enough and they decide that they can come up with another president perhaps. what do you think? mr. kupchan: no. yemen is trying to figure out what the iranians are giving. in my conversation with the iranians, they don't care that much. they just take guns, money maybe a few -- but it is not a major priority. it pales compared to iraq and syria. iran could recede on that and the saudis could have their own way, and this will pass. i don't think it's a threat to the agreement at all. >> 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? mr. kupchan: absolutely. the saudis have extreme

tentacles out as to what is a threat from iran. 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. the iranians got a lot of time more than the saudis do. iran is not unstable. they will make it more stable after this deal. ms. slavin: 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 iran look like in 15 years?

presumably khamenei will no longer be among us and there will be a generation that is very plugged in, this cohort moving up, and there will be a new successor generation, though one presumably no longer schooled in united states universities. john, my question, can you define anything about assuming an agreement, a faithful and limitation of the agreement, what kind of iran will we be dealing with in 15 years? mr. limbert: it is funny you asked that question of me. my record on prediction on 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, tend to live a very long time. the story goes that one of the senior clerics, 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 in it. [laughter] 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 they're 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. but 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 a state a government, that is out of touch, frightened, rigid -- that contradiction, i don't think it can last. and over the next five or 10 years, as people pass on, even our cain and abel man, the

situation will change. the situation will change. and that the society, the separation, the differences in state and society will grow so vast it can't remain. and 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. i will say 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

iran-gate, 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 its people decently. particularly its women. but the idea that somehow we can shape 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. ms. 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 from the one i started going to 20 years ago.

if you look at the women, i write for website called all monitor, and they had a story about iran's first fashion week. they have had shows, but this was the first fashion week. they had men and women going down the catwalk in the latest islamic chic. you can imagine the women of this country wearing these outfits except without a head scarf. i have met women mountain climbers in iran many women entrepreneurs. 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. they find a way. they have the latest technology. the apple phones.

it is a society that has evolved enormously. i would say in some cases because of repression. how do 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 live. 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. iranians are very smart. they have been repressed, put down, 2009, you know what happened. they will be cautious about what they try to grab out of this. we will see more interaction. here at the atlantic council we are supporting u.s.-iran

exchanges. we are having people going back and forth. more american tourists will be going to iran. they would be less frightened, not that they should have been in the first place, it is very hospitable. i expect more iranian students will come. you know it happened with detente 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 isfahan and the big mosque in the middle -- half the world. how do you say it in farsi? that will be happening next for the american express crowd.

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

minister zarif's press conference had nothing to contradict the terms. the broad statement that he issued followed the same parameters, just not an as much detail as the fact sheet. if you look closely at zarif's tweets, what he is critical of is the united states has spun this solely as a victory for the united states, which is normal given domestic politics, but does not emphasize that it is a win-win solution. if you look at the deal, you do 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. ms. slavin: i listened to what zarif had to say yesterday in farsi and english.

he said there would only be one enrichment plant. arak will be redesigned in such a way that weapons-grade uranium will not be produced. we will agree to the actual protocol and provision 3.1 that requires early notification on nuclear facilities. there will be cooperation regarding nuclear safety and security. he said all that. then he said the e.u. would terminate sanctions and u.n. sanctions and u.s. sanctions will also be lifted. a new resolution by the u.n. security council will be issued and the previous resolutions regarding iran will be null and void. he also said that this is a great achievement for the u.s. government as well. he said -- sorry, was a press tv

analyst said that. noting for the first time the u.s. did not listen to israel. i thought that was interesting. ok. you know, these were the main points. he did say that in fordow the centrifuges would continue to work, but we would use it for isotopes or other things. he called it a win-win. he told the iranian people. he said a great deal of what was in the white house fact sheet even if it was not put out in black and white. mr. kupchan: i feel like darth vader here. there was a document published in every iranian press outlet.

it stated that all sanctions relief would be immediate. it was 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 its ability to conduct centrifuge r&d. i don't get ahead of ourselves. there was no agreement on how sanctions would be phased in. there's a big gap. they want it upfront, we don't. 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 there are very difficult issues that were not resolved and we will have to resolve them.

it will be tough. i think there is an expectations management game that we have to contribute to, to be realistic about where we are. we are not home. we have a long way to go. ms. slavin: you had a question? wait for the microphone. >> with the middle east institute. i wonder if we could talk more about the iranian 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? one of the assumptions of most of us who are not deep in iran affairs, if there is a deal the supreme leader has agreed and he can control the opposition, is

that likely to be true or are we looking at this again who might have -- that might clear the deal? how about a few more insights into what you think the iranian opposition might be? whoever. mr. limbert: we used to say the strongest political party in iran in persian is called -- the party of the wind. that is, whichever way the wind blows. that is the way the party goes. i think everyone -- right, left, center -- is going to be looking at the way the wind is blowing on this. if the reports are true about zarif getting a hero's welcome

when he came back, about cities being illuminated, celebrations, and this kind of thing the leadership, including the supreme leader, is not immune to that. for now, the wind is blowing in a certain direction. so 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 top that we are going to let this go. you contrast that to what happened in 2009, when undersecretary burns thought he had an agreement and it blew up.

that can always happen again. that always happen again, of course. but for the moment, for whatever its own reasons, 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. but it is a positive accomplishment, and the the underlying 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. mr. kupchan: what does khamenei say?

what does the head of the supreme national security council say? these are the guys that run iran. rouhani doesn't really run the place. these guys do. i kind of agree with john here. i think they will be modestly positive, encouraged by this. those are the rainmakers. let's see what they do. mr. limbert: don't be surprised. i haven't seen the friday prayers or listened 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.