surrender. because of cultural understanding and tribal relationships, they realized the importance of protecting the population with whom they wanted to work once isis is defeated. once -- as i mentioned, there have been operations where the iraqi security forces, that the iraqi security forces have conducted that were completed much answer than the coalition forces would have anticipated. as these forces highlight, many other things i could say to you, those of us who hope to work closely with regional partners must be prepared, agile, and flexible for this eventuality. why am i sharing all of this with you? for the foreseeable future, workingn campaigns and with our partners is key to how many common objectives will be objected -- accomplished.

we of the department of defense are working to see which aspects of this approach should be included in the doctoral training management systems. many of our services, my service in particular, are taking measures now to develop forces designed for this type of warfare. one of the tasks at hand is the overall concept of buying, with, and through. the length is for further development and discussion. it is not just a military problem. by, with, and through applies to diplomatic, economic, law enforcement, so it is comprehensive. key to any definition of life, with, and through is the understanding we give to partner forces must be through a coordinated legal and diplomatic framework. it is this framework that will form the legal basis and provide guidelines for the employment of forces and with our

capabilities. we have to refine the term partner carefully and endlessly. the relationship of the partner and legal framework can spell success and failure, thereby directly supporting or potentially undermining and the diplomatic efforts. -- any diplomatic efforts. there are others we will be working to define and several changes of policy we will need to explore to facilitate more effective execution of this approach of by, with, and through. we have had discussions about this highest levels of the department of defense and certainly with our partners. with me the philosophy has made sense, but now it is time to code-5 this approach -- co-ad vise this approach. board. everyone to be on i would like to leave you with

one final thought. at the time of george washington, a letter to the sultan of morocco, neither could have seen the current strategic environment. the letter was a statement of commitment to become useful to our friends. the united states is now more powerful than it was back then and able to make good on some of its processes -- promises. and i am able to help, we will. as we look forward to the greater development of u.s.-arab relationships in the future, we would do well to remember that a simple commitment between friends can be more powerful than violence, extremism, and oppression. thank you once again for the invitation to speak with you this afternoon and sharing my thoughts with you. i trust our partnership will continue to strengthen overtime. partners in this region, as we work together on

these and other important issues. thank you very much. [applause] announcer 1: tomorrow a conference on countering violent extremism with lawmakers and former law fish -- law enforcement officials. the former cia director david trias, and arkansas senator tom cotton. this is at c-span3, online at c-span.org, or on the free c-span radio app. monday on the communicators, russia's involvement in the 2016 election with pro republican senior reporter. >> facebook said they learned a bunch of ads placed during the election were placed by russian outfits under anonymous accounts

, and they were politically onesive as, not aimed at sowingte or another but divisiveness. announcer 1: watch that c-span 2. now russian foreign minister sergey lavrov on the iran nuclear agreement. he spoke at the nonproliferation conference being held in moscow. this is about 30 minutes. [applause] sergey lavrov: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, we are pleased to be here at this conference, this nonproliferation conference. i can see a lot of familiar faces here, my colleague diplomats, representatives of foreign states, leaders of

previousairman of conferences and events on nonproliferation. thank you so much for coming your today. i would like to express special gratitude to the central for energy and security and the director who is cooperating, who has been cooperating with the foreign minister for quite some time and will continue to do so. over the years of your work, this forum has become an important platform for the discussion on nonproliferation issues with united experts for representatives, leaders, and all those who deal with such an important aspect of nonproliferation as the anti-development and arms control. in june next year we will be , marking the signing, the anniversary of the signing of the nonproliferation treaty, the

npt, which is the main part of the nonproliferation regime. and we have to say that the treaty that has laid down the foundations of nonproliferation is now challenged quite a lot, and it is to a large extent related to the fact that many countries are challenging the norms and values, and the successes that have become the result of our collective efforts. we are worried that unfortunately, the conference, when we come to the conference in 2020, we must have all the results we want, and the results of the conference in 2015 tell us quite a lot.

, and so the and position of russia is well known. we don't want to join the nuclear weapons ban treaty. this is important treaty, the international board recently. they believe they are well-intentioned. they want to limit and ban nuclear weapons completely. but the complete elimination of nuclear weapons is only possible if equal and indivisible security is guaranteed for all. as it is written down in the npt, and the document on the ban.ar weapons we are very far from these principles. we need to take into account all the factors that influence

stability today and destabilize the nonproliferation regime. as a result, the world can become even less stable and less stable. there is no agreement on the existing elements of the nonproliferation regime. it is quite unclear, what the it is quite unclear, what the nuclear-weapon free zone can be created in the middle east. the creation of this zone, as far as 1995, and the consensus boarded -- was thwarted in 2015 and an opportunity was lost to actually move towards implementing this zone. we are convinced the lack of specific steps towards this u.s.from the u.k. in the

all contribute to the creation of this zone will negatively affect the progress. we still support the creation of the zone and will continue to work with all interested parties and countries. we believe that success lies in finding the consensus in a broader security context. we have still not resolved the issue of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, and we continue to work towards its implementation. we call upon all the countries treaty sod ratify the as to contribute to the nonproliferation regime.

terrorism that uses weapons of mass destruction's not only needs to be combated. that is why we have resolutions to prevent the nuclear weapons and chemical weapons of falling into the hands of terrorist organizations. when need comprehensive norms to tackle this. that is why in geneva we will whath efforts to implement was laid down in 2016, the treaty to fight against chemical and biological weapons. we believe this initiative is in the interest of all the states, and it can lead to progress in the geneva process.

we can see a lot of attempts to use iaea resources to make this institution and institution for pressure on other countries for expanded mandates onto other areas so that it is not -- so as to make it responsible for nuclear disarmament and for reviewing military activities that it is not connected to. would like to point out that the international atomic energy agency needs to become a guarantor in the area of nonproliferation. it should also -- all states need to be responsible for providing physical security of

nuclear weapons on their territory, including the parameters of the national systems of the security systems so that the guarantees of the agency remain non-politicized and works towards the implementing ties towards a lot of issues such as the joint conference of plan of action, towards iran, and the international agency is doing a lot to review and actually implement the plan of action in iran. in any case, the situation around the iranian nuclear program, the work around this problem continues. it is evident that the failure

of the joint comprehensive plan would be a warning signal to all of the members of this group and to those who tackle the korean peninsula problem. the resolution of this problem requires action from all the parties in preventing a conflict that will lead to great economic, political, and ecological catastrophe. all the parties need to show restraint in all the resolutions taken with regards to the nuclear problem in north korea. restoring calls to diplomatic processes and dialogue between all the parties. there is no other alternative.

we call upon all the responsible members of this international ,ommunity to lay down a roadmap and our foreign ministers on june 4 expressed this idea. we believe that all of these actions will allow us to de-escalate the situation on the korean peninsula. not just in the southeast asia region, but in the world as a whole. we can see attempts from several countries and unions to create this balance to use the factor of force to resolve their own issues while at the same time

supporting international security. our allies in the asia-pacific and other regions and to create a missile defense system and move elements of this system closer to russian and chinese borders. our calls on managing the risks regarding this balance remain unanswered. we see the plans to continue the deployment of new weapons on the borders in eastern europe. we are worried about what is happening. this can all lead to lowering the threshold at which nuclear weapons can be used. we support banning the placement

of nuclear weapons on the territories of other states. we call on banning the use of other nations for your interests in terms of nuclear weapons and for intermediate and short-range missile treaty. we have talked a lot about that, and we have expressed our concern with that about -- with that, but washington continues to blame us. this approach does not lead to any positive progress. we believe this provocation is an attempt to show russia as a villain in the international arena, while at the same time keeping silent about their own failings. our position on the short range and intermediate-range missile problem is quite clear.

mr. putin yesterday clearly expressed russia's position. the immediate effect on international stability is furthered by other factors. there are threats that space can become a space for international confrontation, military confrontation. this needs to be prevented, and the russian-chinese project on the non-placement of nuclear weapons in space. colleagues, the nonproliferation regime is the collective responsibility of all the world. we need to promote a positive agenda towards more stability of the regime. we are ready to work with anyone

who wants to make international peace and security more stable. i am ready to answer your questions. thank you. [applause] >> colleagues, we have a chance to ask three questions. first of all, i will give the opportunity to our international friends, to foreign friends, to ask the questions. please. >> thank you mr. foreign minister. you have sent a very experienced ambassador now to washington. he has long experience in negotiating strategic arms control with the united states. i am wondering what you have proposed to him, to restart the arms control dialogue with the united states. as you yourself mentioned, we have a big breakdown in this vital important relationship between the two nuclear superpowers.

thank you. minister lavrov: we have some problems in our dialogue with the u.s. in recent months or maybe years. during the obama administration there were many things that were failing, not because of us. this is a different conversation. but after the trump administration came to the white house, we have stated our readiness to renew dialogue on all directions. we understand clearly the situation that the new administration is in, how much pressure it is in at the moment, the allegations stated against it, and it is still confronted by those who supported the

democratic candidate. still, we are ready to renew dialogue in all directions and to the scale that would be comfortable to the trump administration. i talked about that with the united states president when we talked in the oval office in spring this year. and the month before that, we talked with rex tillerson, who came to moscow to visit me and mr. putin. as a result, we developed a channel of communication. apart from other issues, we looked at where we stand on nuclear stability.

and the nonproliferation agenda. the main issue we discussed was the bilateral issues, how to prevent the spiral of conflict from escalating. in september, we had a conversation on strategic stability. first of all these were issues strategic limitation of offensive arms and the immediate and short-range missiles treaty. i cannot say the dialogue we have allows us to see any specific, positive results in the near future, but this is still renewed. it will be continued on bilateral channels.

thank you. >> mark fitzpatrick, from the international institute for strategic studies. mr. minister, thank you very much for giving us your time and your thoughtful comments. i think almost everyone here agrees with you that the iran nuclear deal must be preserved. one of the threats to the deal involves questions about the verification of the so-called section t provisions prohibiting activities relating to nuclear weapons and their development. the secretary-general of the iaea has asked for tools to be strengthened in verifying section t. do you agree this would be a good idea to strengthen the iaea

's mandate to verify section t? minister lavrov: you cannot strengthen something you don't have. the iaea does not have a mandate to verify this section. this reflects the consensus with iran, with the position of the eu and the security council, and that the changes to any part of this consensus requires unanimous support from all members of the five plus one and iran, of course. i am convinced, as are our colleagues in europe, that any attempts to do so can put an end to these talks in terms of the iranian nuclear program.

>> very good sir. i have noted the reference we have made -- >> can you say two words about yourself? it works. it works. >> i am a retired military officer from pakistan. >> that is impressive. [laughter] >> the best part was still to come. in my own days, i handled some very complicated affairs. frankly, i am in the business of peacemaking now. rearmament, but a possible disarmament. my question was about the stumbling blocks. you have referred to them. which are coming in the way for

nonproliferation regime to achieve its core objective. usually on such occasions, one has heard very often, we hope it will happen. there is a wishlist. but people very astutely deviate from mentioning the problem. if there are problems you would like to highlight, is it the elitist approach that is preventing us from achieving that goal? thank you. minister lavrov: to be frank, it is not a question i heard from you, but just a kind of philosophical point. i think that we need to base our

actions on the spirit and letter of the agreement. in this regard, this is important, it is essential, to maintaining our efforts toward further limitations and reduction of nuclear arms. but in the context of a comprehensive trek towards weapons reduction, and as mr. putin had said yesterday, we cannot ignore the new achievements in terms of military technologies. -- in terms of military technologies that we saw after the nuclear nonproliferation treaty was signed. we cannot ignore them, that would be unreasonable.

those who support the idea of a complete nuclear ban, they ignore the actual threats that are posed to strategic and global stability through the creation of new, deadly weapons. i don't know what to add to that. the npt needs to be maintained, needs to be secured. we cannot have a different dialogue so that someone can play games with this. and follow their own line. him that would include the mutual exclusive documents. we should not allow this to happen.

thank you. >> mr. lavrov agreed to answer another one or two questions. >> thank you. when speaking two weeks ago, -- said it is not enough to work at the level of administrations of russia and the u.s. to maintain arms control, but to also work with the congress. what is your view? mr. lavrov: i would say that the number of players needs to be even greater. the number of actors needs to be greater. when we talk about the issues of

nonproliferation and strategic stability, it is not just foreign ministries that present the reports to the president. it is also done together with the ministers of defense in russia. also federal securities services are engaged in that. certainly it depends on how effectively our interests are represented in the package we are proposing. and of course, this reaction of the parliament depends on that. i see the administration of the u.s. president trying to work with their parliament, with the congress, and we see the parties there that try to use the congress to oppose the president

and create unsurmountable difficulties and obstacles to the current american administration. as long as these negotiations, these talks continue, i don't think we will receive any specific reaction from the congress. taking into account the russophobia we have been saying -- we have been seeing and hearing for quite some time. >> thank you. i am the investor for disarmament from sweden. mr. minister, you stressed the importance of the mpp, at of the mpp, and i think we all agree about how crucial an agreement it is. -- the importance of the mpp, and i think we all agree how crucial it agreement it is. i was wondering, apart from organizing this excellent conference, what could a more concrete contribution be from the russian federation in ensuring a successful outcome of the 2020 review conference? thank you.

minister lavrov: alright. don't ask what the country can do for you, ask what you can do for the country. in other words, a slogan a long time ago. we are blamed not only for interfering in the american election, sweden is also worried russian hackers will be involved in your elections. the french talked about that and many other countries. we are accused of trying to block the implementation of the though 90%ment, even of these things need to begun by need to beng got -- done. now we are accused of the problems in the syrian peace process. fortunately, there has been less talk about that recently.

probably, we will be made responsible for the north korea nuclear program issue. i don't think it's reasonable to say it will be up to russia whether the 2020 conference will be effective and whether it leads to results. we see here someone who can tell you in detail about that. but the understanding we reached on how to launch negotiations on the creation of a nuclear free zone in the middle east, all the components to this compromise were prepared.

we have taken into account all of the security concerns from israel. i will not go into details right now. those in the conference needed to engage in that together with us in fact started to block and jeopardize this very important document. there is a lot of goodwill coming from us. at the talks, currently taking place, as part of the reviewing process, we are looking for new alternatives for ways to overcome this pressure, this confrontation. i hope when you talk to americans, the british and other

countries that you also point out to them the importance to make the review process successful. because for many times, 35 years after the idea of convening such a conference actually fails, -- such a conference, if the conference actually fails, this will be a blow to the nonproliferation process. >> we have time for another small question, short question. >> i am the counselor of the austrian embassy. i would have a quick question on nuclear disarmament proper. recently the u.s. have already achieved important steps on nuclear disarmament. for the future, would you see reductions to continue in a bilateral setting, or could you move more towards a unilateral setting for nuclear disarmament

without the other nuclear powers? thank you. minister lavrov: first of all, we need to ensure the current agreement is implement it in february of next year, the date when we need to see agreement both from russia and the united states. we need confirmation from both the russia and the u.s., and then we will continue to think about the next steps. i am convinced that dialogue between the russia and the u.s. on strategic stability will continue. i am also convinced it is quite difficult to imagine a situation where a new hypothetical, virtual round of talks on further reduction of nuclear arsenals can take place in a bilateral format. the figures reflected in the current agreement reach more

than just the arsenals of u.s. and russia. >> thank you. thank you and good luck. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ announcer: c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. monday morning, "usa today" correspondent and a white house reporter discussed the week ahead in washington. thean economist talks about mortgage interest reduction. george watch "washington journal" live 7:00 a.m. eastern

monday morning. join the discussion. announcer: tomorrow a conference on countering violent extremism featuring lawmakers and former intelligence officials, including former white house chief strategist steve bannon, former cia director ava petraeus, and arkansas senator -- director david petraeus, and arkansas senator tom cotton. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service why america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. next, "q and a" with the executive director of paralyzed veterans.

then british prime minister theresa may takes questions from parliament. ♪ announcer: this week on "q&a," executive director of paralyzed veterans of america, sherman gillums, jr. mr. gillums, a retired marine corps officer, talks about his paralysis and the work his organization does to help paralyzed veterans. ♪