the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 2-b of house resolution 796, the house stands adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on monday, the house is finishing up its pro forma session of the week and they will be back on april 10. life has coverage here on c-span when members return. there live forex forum of future of the iran nuclear deal. hopefully before the may 12 deadline, the president has his eye round team -- it ran team in place. toare looking forward hearing what that means. foreign-policy and for

iran's allies specifically russia and china. >> thank you for having me. , coveragee this quick of this is pretty widespread letting people know we are talking about. no need to rehash all of the nuclear deal.iran most of us live through that. when we started the beginning of 2017 the new president during his campaign for president he deal onee iran nuclear of the worst deals ever negotiated in his works. we knew there would be some --nge, the end administration underwent a year-long review, about what a

strategy would look like and in october an announcement about some action. up until then, from the administration's perspective, we have seen the iranian regime used the cover of the nuclear deal to expand a lot of nonnuclear activity. the nuclear deal itself, they were allowed to consider some -- -- continue some r&d. , weaw 23 tests of missiles have seen them move throughout the region with physical presence and others whether it is with the cooties in yemen -- destabilization efforts in the ukraine and the sheer melissa's back by eight iran.

syria obviously doubling down , bolster hezbollah. through the advancement share but irgc commanders and troops on the ground. we have seen missile production facilities popping up in syria and lebanon. security north and the future of an indigenous efforts in syria or lebanon. we have seen iran trying to form what they call a shia crescent. in october did something that was controversial

on capitol hill and elsewhere by our allies and he used the provision of the u.s. law that required regular review of the , and something called the certification which meant that he sent a letter to the iran dealg was not good. , we soughted destabilization inside iran and their economy. despite ad that couple years that economic stability increased in trade, now there was a chilling effect from the decertification and a little bit beneath the surface a vulnerability inside the regime. that led to the next phase that andave seen, on new year's

ever since people taking to the streets and i run --iran. now we see the president on january 12 making a statement has waived sanctions for the last time against the regime . ,entral-bank of around --iran cameeryone hundred 20 days agenda were 12th in the president said this is the lamb i am waiting these sanctions and if i don't see a change in the nuclear deal to account for and's long-range missiles inspection of their military site which has not happened yet and the elimination of the sunset of the deal, provisions that go away within 8-10 years and making those provisions permanent, that he would

reimpose the central bank of iran's sanctions. ongoing negotiations right now, u.k., france and germany and italy can come to common ground on those conditions. all reports so far is that they are well short to read the president's goals. decisionsew personnel we have set the stage for the likely exit of u.s. from the nuclear deal and potential for reposition of sanctions at least on the central bank on may 12 and perhaps much more. the panel wants to focus on what happens the day after we walked away and what is being put in place already, stable will continue to

.- destabilize the middle east if it doesn't change, it would become an economic power, a , while continuing to develop its ballistic military capability, to put a warhead on top of the missiles. p a way takesco away those protections. we talked about some of the destabilizing events that have specifically about opposition before thejpoa. >> we can say with confidence is also a battlefield where it will have achieved its

most success in the region in addition to --. the question here is a major recalibration of the so-called iran's nuclear deal or the thereon of it entirely, is massive regional conflict. averting a major all out war, it is equally true deal that has set the stage for even more devastating regional can't lift -- conflict and we can see that playing out in syria today. iranian revolutionary guard has suffered the greatest amount of casualties in syria including overall commanders that was appointed directly by khomeini himself.

borne aians have significant amount of damage and they are not going to receive -- these units having lost the most in that fight in syria on behalf of assad, to build an uninterrupted line of supply into eastern syria than into the mediterranean sea. >> is that in effect right now? it is. having that land route into sincere he is enables them to move or weapons, personnel, more , which number about ,0,000 regional's shia forces

afghanistan all trained by the iranian new -- revolutionary guard. we have seen a significant fiveiran's in syria. we have a humanitarian situation , forces are becoming refugees. have notian disasters seen this scale since world war ii. we cannot contain what is happening in syria despite policy being defective obama for at least three years while they were negotiating the nuclear deal with iran. there constantly say that is a byproduct, not a

consequence and casualty of the nuclear deal. will we see much worse, recalibrated specifically or negated? the question is, how much worse can it possibly get? under the assumption that the political solution was negotiated in syria. do we believe that the iranian revolutionary guard want to go home? ?ant to disarm or demobilize absolutely not. the west constantly look for other fronts, like in israel and targetlooking to american and allied assets. ,hey will never demobilize while on one hand i do agree

with the analysis that when the sought there was regional conflict. that regionalean conflict on a wider scale has not been deal -- don't with. that's a very dangerous situation for the entire region to be. region --knows the how would it be affected if we walk away? jcpoa isthink the very important.

there was a recent article that caught my attention about the israeli bombing of the syrian nuclear reactor. by two men and they went through how the israelis found out about this nuclear reactor in syria. quoted, this was in a country next to us where we had access and good information and so forth, and they found out about it by accident. lucky eventsies of so they can be sure what was going on there. if the israelis were very good at finding this kind of information, could not find it.

estimate of our ability to monitor iranian nuclear projects is very pessimistic. all thethey high things time, i think there are things going on that we don't know about. irannk our intelligence on over the years since the revolution has been awful. every surprised that eruption of hatred in this regime, even though we should note in the newspapers, not having access to clandestine sources that we see going on all the time. .hey are riots every day all the time. constant and nonstop troops going in, people being arrested. it is a component of policy?

i think not. whether -- i don't think it matters. i think they are going to do whatever they think they can get away with. an un-sign treaty. nobody has signed this. nobody has put their name on it. it is not a formal agreement. it is something that people say when it feels good. what is the situation? the situation here that iran will go to work us? it may are part of a national alliance which is trying to destroy the u.s. and at a --imum drive it out of the

destroy us. goes on worldwide and that alliance corrupts. that is what we have to worry about. that's the war that is being , if that ist us what we will have to win. delimit the amount of that is behind in order to further destabilize lebanon and beirut and the things they are trying to do and about rain. in bahrain. iran even under the jcpoa.

they have these goals in sight. , with the ballistic missile the program and what they have been able to develop and calibrate and make them walking awayu see from any of that? no, not really. i think it is interesting that you can use the ballistic missile program as one of the tests of iranian intention. you would not spend so much -- on tophis program of the missile. the fact that we were told that make dealing will with this ballistic missile in the context of the

deal, we are now seeing that it did not come into fruition and there is nothing easy about negotiating the ballistic missile program because the deal does not change their attentions why they want to have a nuclear weapon. weaponmeans to deliver a is a critical component in the iranian strategy utilizing outlined,missiles as the evidence is well aware of ,he importance of this program and it was one of the conditions that the president wanted to see fixed in the context of congressional law, negotiations

with iran, and there was discussion as to the scope, what should it be. should it be long-range missiles , shorter range american target groups and allies in the region? who one that is not emphasized is that iranian-north korean corporation on both nuclear and ballistic missile programs. today, if you say missile defense, the next thought is, would need tot i defend ourselves from north korean missile ballistic capability. way, they can the reach the entirety of the united states, including washington dc although a potentially to miami, florida. well, north korea and iran have close corporation on these types of programs --

corporation. so if we worry about north korea, as not iran, we are missing a big piece and opening ourselves to vulnerability in our thinking about protecting the homeland, protecting u.s. allies, and how to go about fixing these things. panelisthing that each has talked about so far has taken place under the jcpoa. iran's ability to set up factories to develop missile guided missiles, that are folk -- focused on israel, rockets to deplete the iron dome, precision missiles, all of this hasn't taken place under the nuclear agreement. it goes up to the protest. -- theirsts on ongoing ongoing and they're asking for regime change and wondering where the $150 billion or the $100 billion went.

and as was said before it was to the missile technology. paying these proxies, developing the shia crescent. and once again, to reemphasize, one egg in tehran costs $.50. paying $60 for one dozen and in the u.s., which none of us would do. ,o, even under the jcpoa whether sanctions were relieved, iran is squandering this and the protests, they highlight that. the the daypens that we walk away from a run deal and we impose sanctions back on the central bank of iran? how does that impact everything that we talked about? how did it impact the eventual is them, ballistic missiles, technology?

>> it is a potential game changer, truly. because when we look at right before the jcpoa, one of the tragedies of the nuclear deal was the increasing amount of leverage the u.s. had over iran, and it was increasing rapidly. iranians when it to talk, they wanted sanctions relief fast. thecombination of sanctions, going after insurance, reinsurance on a tanker is an iran, locking up their foreign exchange reserves overseas -- they had a balance of payments crisis and all of their's had been disconnected, including their central banks, from the swiss banks in europe. all those things together got their attention very fast, very fast. combined with the existence of a military threat, especially from

israel, they were looking for a stabilize and continue their program under legitimate international means and that is what they got. rather than keeping the pressure on in dealing with all of these issues at once, what michaela was talking about, we give away the pressure and came to the table, having already given up the toughest sanctions. veto threats from the president --inst perspective perspective sanctions in order to give them some sort of edge on the table. iranians are afraid of those sanctions and the regime is. and if we see what is going on in a run right now, we see the plummet of the rial to record lows since september. there is something going on inside that regime, inside that country that is not clear to us west.n the

but if you look at all of the signals, this would be the most fragile time to bring back the central bank sanctions, it would completely destabilize the lifeblood of the regime financially. and after that, you have flipped thelippe leverage that we have lost the has let all these things you're talking about. >> what you just talked about sounds like an accelerator for regime change, or pressure on the regime. even have iranian protesters saying that the jcpoa was a bad deal, because of the way that the regime actually squandered the money and the opportunity, loss of goodwill with the united states. what i would like to do is ask are the steps of -- the steps the president will take on may 12,

again before that -- the +1 isan element of the g5 coming in april and they are not likely to meet the president's goals. toonnell is the last chance save the iran nuclear deal. and the us are those accelerators for regime change? or what are the accelerators for regime change? that a desireieve for regime change is necessarily linked to economic melees. i don't believe that revolution, which is what we are talking about in the case of iran, i don't think revolution is one less last desperate throw of the dice before everything fails in this -- and the society goes

under. i think revelation is an act of hope. i think people who carry out revolutions can -- they think they can change the world for the better. that is why they are usually typical actions of young people. not all people. folder people know that you will be more of the same and so on. so i don't think that is the link. i say to my colleagues, especially the younger ones, you don't need sanctions to bring down a run. iran will bring down itself. they will wreck it all by themselves. look what they do with whatever money they get? whether it is sanctions, not sanctions and so on, they steal it. most of that stuff, yes, a lot urds forces and others, but i love it goes into bank accounts, whatever, the far

east increasingly. some of it is still in switzerland, and it goes into their own pockets. they are stealing it, and that is what the people hate. not just that they don't get anything to eat, but not only are they not eating, but the mullahs art eating the very best, living life of luxury. they want to change that world. -- the mullahs are eating the very best, living the living lives of luxury -- living lives of luxury. totalitarian systems fail. tyranny is the most unstable form of government. intellectuals to live in it,

they think it is wonderful that -- thomas on top friedman has actually written this, that tyranny is wonderful, in the face of all human history . to change thet regime, support iranian people, support the release of political visitors. talk to them. so far as i know, and iran is a very hard country to know, easy to be wrong -- so far as i know, have not talked to the leaders of the iranian domestic opposition movement, 2003 we have not talked to them. and awas an uprising, communication which nobody ever talks about, or they communicated with obama and tried to answer his questions

about what was going on in a run. then when the clamps down -- what was going on in iran. then, when the clampdown started, contact stopped. that is a fundamental mistake. we have to talk to them, and talk to them both directly and people have to go there or meet with them elsewhere and find out what they want. and also, we have to talk to them by radio or television. i have to say,-- the most startling thing to me about the trump administration and iran is that they have not the rfe, redone dust the same programming, not very effective. the need better people in there. .t is very important

it worked very well with the soviet union and it would work very well in iran, but it is not happening, they are not doing anything. and i have my doubts, frankly, whether the trump people really have in mind an effective plan. the livesink making of iran and people more miserable do it. i don't think that is good enough, nowhere near good enough. because i don't think they get what revolution is, how it ones ---- we are the the one revolutionary society in the world. that is what people come here. so we have to lead that revolution. we are not doing it. have not -- i have heard all along from the security council, the state department, have not heard it. far, -- andseen so

this is one of the few things on which we disagree, mike -- the people in favor of revolution in iran have all been fired from all three of those places. and the people who have been hired by the trump administration are by and large, people who are not in favor of that kind of policy. i am curious to see whether pompeii will have different ideas, but i have not seen them yet. host: you are going to say something? >> yes, unfortunately revolution doesn't have a great track record in the middle east. and as someone who is to and following the revelation so quickly, we must remember that there are always spoilers when it comes to these revolutions. a quick anecdote here, it was indirectly related to the nuclear deal.

it 2012, --mander in 2012, when he came to the conclusion that the fall of bashar al-assad would be imminent is the iranian revolutionary guard did not significantly increase their -- thisto that regime, was at a time that iran was still economically hurting, it was still suffering from the sanctions. have the spare cash and personnel to all of a sudden make that decision and search -- surge there forces. it was going to more than likely be a losing battle. but to compare that mindset, the western mindset, he believed his ally was about to fall that he did not cut the rope.

doubled out and tripled out when it seemed all but impossible but bashar al-assad would somehow defy the syrian revolution. revolutionaryn guard commander was able to make it happen, bringing supplies and materials to syria in record time to shore up the regime. so when we think about the potential scenarios of the day situation where either sanctions are reimposed on iran, the nuclear deal is recalibrated or potentially negated, always remember that the commander, when he views a desperate situation, his instinct was to push forward and double down. that, i think, is a very telling reaction by the leaders of the iranian revolutionary guard in syria in 2012, which i think would be very tell it of what

the best telling of what the reaction would be in the iranian regime believed that the u.s. is bent on regime change and bringing down the regime, by imposing crippling sanctions and essentially neutralizing the nuclear deal with iran. host: you would like to follow up? michael ledeen: two things, revolution is not only a failure in middle east, it is a failure everywhere. i am a professional historian, human history is a history of failure. . we are more inclined to do evil men to do good. so generally, revolutions fail. you don't have to credit the middle east for this. secondly, on your last point, quite light. outuite right, but you left the hero of the story. uleimani was

desperate, what did he do, he went to putin and put in saved him. putin never gets credit for saving assad and so forth, he is the man in charge in that situation, the one who builds out to the iranians. goes towhat one honey talk to putin, he gets humiliated. he gets five minutes. and that is it. about the charlotte assad, by the way? this was after the jcpoa was put in place, after the 150 billion dollars was released, when iran could purchase weapons and russia can secure or the rights in iran along with china. i wanted to go back to what you said about north korea and iran working together. they run deal, if the president walks away, a lot of the critics supportersident and

of the jcp away, they say that that will weaken us with north korea. i don't believe that. i believe kim jong-un once a jcpoa, that allows him to keep his nuclear weapon them a little weak enforcement. what is your take. does it hurt north korea if we walk away? >> considering the jcpoa did not have any real provisions with teeth that could prevent iran programsnding nuclear and actually working toward nuclear weapons technology, north korea would have lost a deal like that. .ut it got it and by the way, it was negotiated by the similar people who negotiated the iran deal. no wonder that north korea is -- in a today, and an way, it is a glimpse into a run future, regardless of whether you have a deal or not. because again, the deal does not fundamentally change the runs

and tension, iran's desire for wide was to have nuclear weapons capability. host: writes, kim jong-un's father got on a nuclear deal under clinton. we have female protesters in iran, with regards to the hijab. s,otests which are leaderles built with western support, yet you don't hear of the support here in the media and to our politicians. and i credit it to obama being able to rep himself around the run deal -- wrap it around the deal, that if you criticize that, if you criticize the regime, you are could a sizing al obama. rich, i want to ask you, what kind of package would you put

together, the day after we walk away from the jcpoa which would impact iran's propaganda machine, highlight the supreme leaders $86 billion fortune that he uses to skirt sanctions now? people are looking for things like about. what kind of package would you put together? >> it ties into the response i wanted to have for michael anyway. i think he had a great comparison and analogy which is what the evolution of u.s. policy toward the soviet union, all the way to the eventual design -- demise. of the soviet union. three key elements of the reagan administration in their strategy to bring down the soviet union and see the full change come about in common use them, number one was the goal warfare, ideological warfare and the number two was economic warfare. number 3 was a strong military.

you had to have all three of them, you could not just rely on one. with respect to iran, the jcp away itself, when you think about it, with an analogy to the cold war, we went to three different ideas of how to relate to the soviet union. one of them wasn't a taunt, one of the most containment and the eventual strategy adopted by the reagan administration was victory. the jcpoa is detente, that is is.ly what it the same criticism of what we saw under the to taunt of the soviet union, and what we see playing out with iran on the jcp oa. core, the reason weather is hesitancy especially in europe, to impose even non-nuclear sanctions, which are allowed under the deal, we have not been europe do that, is because the crux of the deal was about the legitimization of and normalization of doing business

and talking to, and being friends with the islamic republic. that somehow it will normalize the regime and bring them into the world. it has not happened and it will not happen. so in addition to economic warfare strategy, which starts with the central bank--by the way, the idea of economic warfare is not to punish the iranian people, that has never .een the goal of our sanctions humanitarian exemptions have always been made to all of our sanctions for food and medicine and agricultural products. the regime to target and its lifeblood. this is the same central bank funding all of the regime's activities in area, yemen, the oppression of the iranian people -- in syria as well. when iranians are going to the streets and say, stop it with yemen, stop it with syria. focus on me, focus on iran.

it is the central bank doing that there we had so there is correspondence between our action on economic warfare and the sanctions, and supporting the demonstrators and protesters and what they are saying. but in order to wage ideological and political warfare, you need to couple a direct targeting of the regime and its corruption, where they are hiding assets. one of the easy sanctioned designations that plays into this, -- two of them are -- the supreme leader's business and there is one of them -- supreme leader's empire is one of them. it is outrageous. after seeing what the repression has look like in iran, the worst human rights situation with protesters in the streets, the fact that we have not impose sanctions on the supreme leader. 's assets is crazy. is crazy., -- that

number two, we have the iran international public broadcasting, the satellite provider that is basically the government hub of their propaganda machine. irid, their subsidiaries, press tv and others, they record forced confessions under torture of some of these protesters in jail and put them on tv for propaganda purposes -- yes, i have committed treason against the regime. they do it on iran broadcasting an international broadcasting as well. we allow it to happen because as some sort of site deal in the new. nuclear deal, we waived sanctions on the irid. and as much as oil is the lifeblood of the economy, irid is the lifeblood of the propaganda machine in the regime. so far, the administration has

continued the waivers and hopefully, the president this on may 12 or the day after as part of what he does. because frankly, we should not on may 12, we impose sanctions in a way where this is just about tearing up the nuclear deal. there is a way to do this combined with the political warfare, ideological warfare that says, this is about standing with the iranian people. host: did you want to say something? oubai shahbandar: yes, a quick argument on that. one of the things brought to me administration, arguments being made by this current administration is that the united states and its military assets in iraq and syria and the arabian gulf are vulnerable to retaliatory attacks by iran, if the iranian government or the iranian regime felt that it had no other recourse but to lash

out in a massive way, using it proxies, not necessarily directly against u.s. military assets and personnel. that is still very much a worry for this administration. anbar who ares in especially surrounded by iranian-backed militias. in syria, president trump ordered an airstrike against an iranian backed militia in eastern syria. backed,rs that were which it included by the way, iranian. trainers and advisers who were there on the ground. it happened on three separate occasions after the airstrikes in april last year against the , in response to the chemical attacks on those people. which are enabled by the way by iranian scientists and iranian

know-how, via north korea. post event or an iran lose european support if they started lashing out? wouldn't they catch that in their response the day after? the memo that went to the nsc, -- the escalation to the attacks on syria, i would think iran would hold back on showing europe what we already see. ill me if i am wrong here, think the jcpoa, in this case, the u.s. assumes all the risk along with our allies, along with israel, while europe reaps the economic benefits in the nuclear deal. i think that would anchor t tehran in its reactions. what do you see suleimani doing

in baghdad the day after? oubai shahbandar: that is the million-dollar question. so far he has not done it. host: again, the iranian elections were on the same day we were supposed to walk away -- i think it is the same day that we get leverage. go with ease $500 billion economy were an act costs $.50, -- where an egg costs 50 since, or would you like to go with a trillion dollar economy let the united states? oubai shahbandar: iranians, through asymmetric warfare -- let us say they wipe out all u.s. trading outposts in syria. the u.s. reaction, with more than likely be disproportional. of it is a big game brinksmanship, who is going to

blink first. host: they would lose european support, just like about? none of these: problems can be addressed the way we want them are addressed, as long as that regime is in power in tehran. even the washington post, some years ago, said, if you want a deal with the iranian nuclear program, regime change in tehran is the only way. host: it is. how do we get there? michael ledeen: would know how to do it. host: we have been listening for 56 minutes and i am still trying to figure it out? michael ledeen: if you just replay what we did with the soviet union. if we can defeat the soviet empire, i mean, iran is a tiny factor of that. it turns out domestic population, if they are willing to side with us, that might be part of your 10%. the odds were against us in the soviet union.

in iran, we have about 80% of the population probably, who are willing to side with us, but we have to lead it? richard goldberg: i would just note, it is very timely as it was in the news, one thing should not do if we actually toe the intention to try rollback the regime in the region, is prematurely withdraw u.s. forces from syria. our presence there, the leverage it gives us is critical. it would be tremendously an iranphic to have rollback strategy to bring people home from syria very quickly and cede the territory to iran, to russia, to hezbollah, that would be catastrophic regardless of what the president does on may 12. host: how do you see sanctions impacting the iran ballistic missile nuclear program.

dust do yourtailing see them curtailing their program? michaela dodge: we already impose sanctions on iran in january and i think there continues to be room to cherry the iranianget ballistic missile program entities that provide materials for ballistic missiles. i also think there is further room to foster our missile israel,cooperation with our missile defense partnerships with other countries in the persian gulf as well. so we do have options that we ive been working on, and don't see the ru iran deal altering the dynamic, regardless of whether it stays or doesn't. what the iran deal did for the was mistake missile program

it gave opponents of missile defense can argument, that now that we have the agreement, iran is no longer a threat. so that we do not long longer have to worry about iranian ballistic missiles. that is demonstrably false because the have been continuing the program, may have been continuing proliferation of the stick missiles and used them as instruments of state power. and they will continue to do so -- proliferation of the mystic missiles, and they have used them as instruments of state power -- proliferation of ballistic missiles. if you have been watching iranian activities and you don't realize that iran is a hostile power to the united states, that is such a self-delusion that it

does not matter whether there is the jcpoa or not? richard goldberg: i think in addition, there is a key point thatwe just heard today ,ngela merkel will be coming after the french president here, all of these as efforts to get the president not to impose sanctions. one of the key elements that the president outlined was missiles. . there was a question of what kind of missiles we are talking about and what the penalty is for continued development of those muscles the conversations that the europeans -- continue development of those missiles. the conversations that the europeans want to have is intercontinental ballistic missiles. we know that that is what iran is working on, it is today. but they don't even want to talk about what the other -- about ballisticher nuclear

missiles which they already have, things that can wipe out u.s. bases, what about saudi arabia and certainly israel. the question you would have to ask the european leaders, if i were the president is, why is it ust you are willing to have rollback or sanctions to futuristic testing of an icbm? you chancellor merkel, germany is unwilling to tie the same snapback of sanctions to a missile that can create a second holocaust, that makes no sense. it is outrageous. missiles, cruise missiles, should be covered by a snapback of sanctions. if you're unwilling to do that, then i would stay in berlin, and not bother coming to washington. host: that is a good point. i have a question about -- you talked about the current

situation in iraq, the land bridge. and he talked about the upcoming fight, what is run wants to do with israel. i would like to ask -- what iran wants to do with israel. a lot of us believe it is an upcoming war between israel and iran and iran has the mustard of the capability to actually punish israel -- has demonstrated the capability to actually punish israel. and south korea, they have a deterrent in place. and when the deterrent is reduced, you have what we have now, a bit the rice north korea. i would like for you to talk nuclearizednew car north korea. learned aan has

valuable lesson from north korea. what would iran due t in response to a nuclear attack on their nuclear facility? the answer is that it would decimate israel with strikes. i would like for you to talk about where i run is now with their proxies, there a list of missile capability, and why is ngrael ok with allow rockets back and reach israel -- you can range israel, saudi arabia, european countries with that, i know it is a long question but basically, where is iran now in this returned? and where do you think it will be if the jcpoa stays in place. and if the jcpoa goes away, how does it impact? michaela dodge: so in the case of north korea, north koreans

see nuclear weapons as a guarantee of the regime's survival. the sure that is one of intentions and the desires of the iranian leadership, to have that same guarantee, because what we have done with u.s. going back to libya, is we sent a message that effectively said -- if you give weapons anduclear ballistic missile programs, we are free to come and get you, essentially. but if you have a nuclear deterrent, our options are much more constrained. the other component of that is, payne, one ofeith the foremost thinkers on nuclear deterrence, he would always say, big ideas are too big to hide.

the case ofans in iran is, we know what their big idea is, they want to destroy israel and the united states. big ideas are too big to hide, he always give examples of hitler's mein kampf, in which he very systematically outlined plan. he would look at it in 1922 and say, this guy is crazy, he can't possibly mean that, yet he managed to announce that plan the action -- an planenact his land -- he managed to en hisact plan. countries have different definitions of rationality, they have different motivations, and they have different goals. that is something that we lose ?ocus on

richard goldberg: the last one is really important. the rotted regime it may also be convinced that the u.s. and israel are bent on the destruction of, not iran as a country, but the iranian regime? oubai shahbandar: the ayatollah equates the two. -- is survival of his regime the survival of his regime and the iranian revolution means for him, the continued existence of iran as a state, he equates the two. this is regardless, and to be completely bipartisan here, this perception, regardless of whatever the actions of the presidenttes, -- obama in 2014, according to reports and first revealed by the wall street journal's, j solomon, sent a letter to the ayatollah to try to reassure him of limited u.s. goals in the

region. that the u.s. would begin airstrikes in syria but only against the rebels, not for in the ayatollahs proxies in syria, not to threaten the assad regime. this is according to reports of by obamaletter t to the ayatollah khomeini. this was to tell them that the u.s. had limited objectives in the region and not threatening the iranian regime's interest in the region, let alone the existence of the regime itself. i am highly doubtful. it might have actually enhanced the ayatollah's paranoia. so regardless of who was in office, both the iranian regime, and also the russians by the continuouse in the

american policy, whether you have president obama or president trump. that is how i run perceives american intentions to be -- that is how iran perceives americans intentions to be. stuck between perceptions of the other side. now, iranians, because of their perception of american policy being geared to weakening the iranian regime's and this is regardless of whether it was president bush, president obama or president trump, they are building in a set of redundancies through their proxies on the ground, through forward missile production facilities in syria and possibly in lebanon. so it is not necessarily far-fetched to believe that the iranians would also similarly be involved in the building of a covert nuclear

facility that we are not aware be a contingency plan that has not began operation yet. going back real quick on a relevant world war ii analogy here, is that if it middle east if you remember, when hiller was first coming to power, when he moved into the valley, theed rhine allies, france and england, decided not to act, because partly, due to an assessment that overestimated the capabilities of the then german air force, which was still very there washe 1930's --

this general psychological dislocation by the allies that they would be able to react and london, at a time when the german air force did not have the capability. europe was lost for six years because hitler's was able to bluff his way gradually to expanding his territory. at a time when militarily he would've lost any conflict with the allies had they started to react early enough. this goes back to my earlier point, that while the nuclear deal might have averted conflict at that time, it may very well be setting the stage for a wider conflict in the region, at a time when iranians have 20,000 battle hardened proxies in syria, who are very well-equipped and motivated, who have scored many battlefield victories. it is a very dangerous and combustible situation, both for

u.s. forces in syria and iraq and their allies? richard goldberg: i did want to give a bit of a counterpoint. i think that is right, some of the exploratory possibilities, but two important things to think about as far as may 13, right? 13.october, but in may historically, the iranians do want to face off against the u.s. directly in military conflict, it is not in their interests and they have shied away from that. from reporting on the ground within iran and syria, it is known that such a threat of escalation has changed iranian behavior. reliance on the proxies is what iranians prefer to do. secondly, there is a tension here in the day after strategy of the iranians, the people need

to think about and understand how it plays out. on the one hand, there are a lot of different things that iranians could do to raise the u.s.and try to deter continuing down the path of re-imposing sanctions and really trying to roll them back in the region. but at the same time, they want to play the victim card, right? wrong,nt to say, we were we were supporting the nuclear deal and the u.s. walked away, it is so wrong, they are violating the deal, europe should be with us, let us stay in the deal together and try to get around u.s. sanctions -- we are still good actors here, you can trust us, we want your money and your investments ---we see it playing out already in the e=may 12th by the iranians or they are talking about how on the one hand, they will stay in the deal and get

around u.s. sanctions. at the same time, we have this nuclear blackmail threat that we see, where if you leave the deal, we are racing to the bomb. well, which one is it? and by the way, i thought there was a fatwa against building a bomb? michael ledeen: just one thing, the war is won. one of these people who keep saying, if we sign, or if we don't renew, there will be war, that is all crazy. the war -- we are in the war. war is happening today and has along.l the have killed an awful lot of americans and by the way, as far as i know, they are still paying

big reward for the kidnapping of americans, the iranians are. host: everything they are doing requires money and the sanctions limit a lot of that. supporters of the jcpoa, we have seen a lot of their warnings as well. in the new york times, there was recently a story saying that if we walk away from the deal, iran will use its proxies to destabilize iraq, syria, yemen and lebanon. they are already doing that. but if we walk away, they will move towards a bomb -- you that.y doing they can either get one in 10 years, or if they cheat, get one in six months. one of the other things is that under the jcpoa, and richard i about this,ou europe has been hesitant to invest in a run. why would that change if we walked away? what would change if we walked away? richard goldberg: i think if you

look at the recent history, there was an uptick in investment going on in iran from europe led by germany, who are by far away, their number one in exporting and importing from iran. you have the italians, the french, this -- and the dutch -- the spanish and the dutch leading the way in increasing imports of iranian oil or trying to export into the iranian markets. that was hit by a positive in october, when the president decertified the nuclear deal and started making threats of -- maybe i will get out of the deal, worst deal ever might not we've the sanctions anymore. that caused everyone to stand still and say, what is going on with all of our transactions, will they get caught up in u.s. sanctions, what will they do? that has led to currency collapse which has led to a lot of destabilization the we are

seen in the last few months. but clearly, the business community, once the assurance to go forward. they want the signed contracts, they want to go in. some sort of mechanism allowed after may 12, there was an ap report this week that one of the possibilities team considered is to not waive the sanctions, bring back the central bank sanctions but then create exemptions for europe. that is worth than the status quo because, it would give a flying to europe, until at such a time that iran decides they don't want a deal, it would give them a go sign. the president would really be enriching iran instead of doing whereas, if there was a true reimplementation of the sanctions, despite the european threats of blocking and trying to evade, the way that

our sanctions work today as opposed to how they did in 1996 is such that if you were a private corporation or financial institution being told that you would face of the will cut off from the u.s. financial system entirely. -- i mean, you cannot have a business relationship with the u.s. bank, nobody can go to their atm and get money from their bank account will they are here, you would be against trying to violate u.s. sanctions, no matter what kind of gore runs you were told our -- ways you were told to get around the books. response is that the iranians would do something to remind the european's these are bad people. and it is not worth it to use our capital to try and evade sanctions.

and by the way, the council will not be unified on this. just because paris, berlin and from want to get into iran, doesn't feel that the eastern , sinceels the same way they are the ones being targeted by the increasing range of iranian missiles. so it is not a pretty picture for the europeans, despite their bluster. host: it is a compelling case for the hybrid military and conventions program in iran. shahbandar: the center in nuclear plant that about six months away from becoming operational, that we discussed earlier, and was struck by the iranian air force, the syrian scientific center is also in charge for ballistic

missile adoption and design in conjunction with the north koreans and with the iranian revolutionary guard. so when we talk about instances where the iranian air force has hit these facilities, these facilities are sprawling complexes which don't just include research and production of missiles, but could also potentially include every mds, usually chemical weapons ,roduction and storage -- wmds usually chemical weapons and storage. such sites are considered conventional military use and to be exempt from international inspection -- there is no such thing. the center is modeled based on the iranian model. in fact, the iranians and north korea helped build the site in syria. the reason why these facilities

are contumacy struck by the -- our consistently struck is because hezbollah has a part to play. -- the weather the iranians and syrians and north koreans perceive this facilities is in a wholly different faction than the purely binary system that we have, which says, that makes verification in the long-term very problematic. host: we started a little late, so i would like us to extend seven minutes or more of questions. i would like to have these panelists have two minutes to close after the series of questions. sound good? great. let's see here, here are the rules. you to identify yourself, you wait for our presenter with a microphone to come up and then

you ask the question. try to keep it to questions and less so i'm statements. thank you? >> my name is ruthie blum and i am a writer who lives in israel. weeks, the three saudi crown prince called thanllah khomeini worse hitler's -- ayatollah khamenei worse than hitler's, appointed.lton was does this indicate to any of you that there may be a covert ?ilitary operation underway the mantrasay that from the obama administration was a run deal or -- was the iran deal or war.

michael's point, it was the iran deal or war. we were already fighting iran with their proxies. we sent back there nuclear program two decades they were air campaign by the u.s. and israel. iraq is now looking to purchase s400s, and those are not from the iranians, they are to defend iraq airspace. but there is a deterrent in lebanon was hezbollah. that would be part of any campaign. if the iranians are smart, and they are, they are looking at everything you just mentioned as an indicator of what is to come. their intelligence is advising their generals that these are the things taking place now. the decision-makers are being put in place, airspace is being cleared and we are starting to see a rock response with the 40s to turkey s-

and iraq. i would believe those things you just mentioned. whether we do it or not, as long as they think it is a capability, going back to richards point, it is a threat. >> and i think what you are seeing, is accidentally, several years later, president obama has earned his nobel peace prize. but he did so by sending one of the worst deals in history. what a mean by that is that by going ahead and entering the jcpoa and reading the middle east to iran and all the things we talked about are happening, the reason why we think on may 12, the president may reimpose sanctions, the moderate sunni arab states in the middle east led by saudi arabia woke up and said, you know what, we have more in common with the state of israel than we do with anybody else in this region. .

and what divides us, is far less than what unites us. now, mostrs from after the arab-israeli conflict, the issue of the palestinians is not a burning issue on the streets of most arab capitals. we learned that after the recognition of jerusalem. everybody thought the entire middle east would blow up, and in order to have a new regional security architecture that encircles iran, and also at the same time, takes on sunni extremism, which is something the crown prince has pledged to do, and is doing, that is something that could lead to a. very new dynamic in the middle east. the one hangup is that there is this thing called the islamic republic and the are sunni extremists and terrorists. and in order to have that new world order in the middle east, work there is arab-israeli peace, normalization of ties between the saudi arabians, and

bahrain dialogue. but i think that jerusalem and riyadh see their world very similarly right now with smith wrote that they face and the crown prince has taken a lot of -- the crown prince has taken a lot of -- very similarly right now with the threats that they face and the crown princes taking bold steps right now. oubai shahbandar: the iranians are successfully bleeding out saudi arabia and its allies in yemen. their proxies are outflanking the sunni state and at the same time, the sunni states must themselves are divided, both between the ongoing crisis axieen qatar and the saudi

s, and between the sunni arab states and turkey. within this division, iran is able to unify its forces successfully and play off the infighting amongst the sunni counterbalance. ei gives anlah khamen order, it doesn't matter if the fighter is iraqi, afghan or whatever, they follow those orders on the battlefield as if there was a direct order from the lord himself. in the case of the sunnis, different story. so i think when it comes to leaning more on the sony states to counterbalance -- the sunni arab states, in order to counterbalance iran, or relying militarypetual presence in iraq and syria, yes, i think it is the right way to go. as an analyst, i commend the trump administration to place more pressure on the son

sunni states. but they are a long way away from the type of unity and action in organization that the iranians have been able to establish in the past few decades. we have dodge: operations going on as we speak, i hope so, and i hope they will be successful in what their objectives are. michael ledeen: let us keep in mind, that the self-proclaimed smart people in both the israeli and western capitals always will tell you, if you only knew what was really going on -- and they are doing their thing. host: and again, everything was just talked about is happening under the protections of the jcpoa. series of three questions. you.ank

i am a member of the national iranian american council. my mind was boggled listening to the discussion today. my question is for mr. ledeen. the jcpoa was the most comprehensive nuclear deal the u.s. has made in its history. for the iranian people, it was a goodwill gesture and they were hoping that it would lead to some economic prosperity for a iran. thinking that the u.s. is not complying with that is probably 57% of iranians went to the poll and selected their president instead of opting for regime change. if the u.s. will not honor this gesture, anwill initial step for iran and the united states to develop a relationship, why would they even bother to ask you all for help for regime change?

all they have to do is look at the neighboring countries and see that every jury why would they want the united states to income for any sort of help in the region change? wait for somebody, please. morano, ands lewis i am unaffiliated. accountability -- the capability to occupy north american landmass. what will victory look like for them? i am a student currently in

the east coast. i have a question open for all panelists. how would you reimpose sanctions on the region cannot impose that on the people? especially considering their the gc poa.er how would you impose that any regime and not the people? >> and the gentleman in the hat. >> a simple question, nobody mentioned the united nations in this discussion. the ballistic missile testing or gone in iran, doesn't that violate some kind of agreement with the u.n.? anything.n. ever done and taken any action, or is it silent in letting iran test

ballistic missiles along with its ally, north korea? >> we have more questions. iran?e we betrayed the other, was what kind of threat is actually on the united states? we will go with you, michael. question, but more of a provocation. i am sorry wasted your time to voice the line of your friends in tehran. -- the reason why people look to us

for help, support, guidance and caring out a resolution against the regime is because they hate the regime. please sitoken, so there, quietly. >> that never works. >> what does victory look like for the iranians? the u.s. withdrawing from the world arena and becoming in isolated country. and speaking on behalf of the , andom around the world start challenging the tyranny wherever they sit forth. , physicalally domination of north american landmass. but -- what victory always looked like. one final line, peace, which is

what we desire. ofce is not the opposite war, it is the result of war. war isppens when a fought and one side beats the other. and the winning side imposes terms on the loser, and those terms are called these and are generally hammered at a peace conference and sometimes it takes the form of a peace treaty. the language tricks us into thinking that it is something more. think rich talked about this in targeting the supreme leader's assets. >> and thou will tackle to questions at once. i've been honored to work and support in democracy efforts, and i worked directly with many

iranian citizens and political ethnic andand religious minorities who are tormented and thrown in jail and threatened with death, for many, many years. i will say you and i do not speak on their behalf, because i have heard their voice and what they have asked for is our support. -- i was in forget the congressional office and working in perpetuation -- in , and can we appropriate money for the democracy program in support of the iranian people. it was a couple of years ago, and nyack came in my office and iran you have zero of the democracy program because it is bad for the iranian people to provide any funding for their democracy efforts. it will hurt the people. tot go from 40 million down

zero. , havingo think about studied the soviet union, how many times people said during the cold war, do not at sanctions and work with the the regime because will take it out on them and they will suffer for it. and if you asked them if it was the right thing to do, i ask you to do that because he will tell you, absolutely not. with respect to the sanctions -- we, the iranian people do not target the people. we have no quarrel with them. based on the use of the iranian people and their attempted connections to the west, this is a society that should be and wants to be friendly to the u.s. when we target the central bank of iran, and target government banks, and the

supreme leader's empire, this is about the lifeblood that keeps the islamic oppressing its people. always say to the people, the central bank of iran sections are coming back, this is the bank that is paying people to come to the streets to shoot you. if we go after the supreme leader's assets where doing that because he is stealing your pocketbooks. that is what this regime does. this is about the corruption and oppression and all of the illicit activities that comes from that. we talk about missiles, terrorism, regional expansion. a nuclear program. these are symptoms of a disease, and that disease is called oppression, it is called the islamic republic. had the jcpoa from the trump administration and there was protests of having him here.

i am a football fan and i wanted eagles the philadelphia and the texas stadium. anti-isis me of being and rigc. i asked can you condemn the regime for what has done to the people? and he deflected and couldn't do that. i don't know how night can represent the people being oppressed by the prestige. -- not be able to condemn that. >> when we speak of normalization and did well, if you look at the consequences, the original consequences, especially in syria as a result of not only the deal but the process of negotiating a deal.

what -- one of the consequences is the legitimization of a use ofble deniable advanced chemical weapons. when the deal was signed with president obama and president putin for us to get away with the use of chemical weapons against his own people, those weapons been used time and time again. and, their jim has been able to concoct a deniable story every single time. imagine the worst case scenario here where, let's look at a scenario where hezbollah and rockets tomodified launch a chemical weapon strike in haifa. an assassination, a because story that even has a

concession -- confession video. they spent it all up, and this dangerous and unforeseen byproduct of the desire to reach a deal with regardless of consequences and regardless of you wants aspirations in syria. regardless of consequences and regardless>> you want a stao close? the problem with the un security council is a cannot agree with anything when you are securityhere council resolutions about the iranian listed missile program, but their enforcement is inexistent so to speak. the u.s. is imposing sanctions unilaterally. >> would you like to make a final comment? >> was an extremely good

discussion. >> would like to be respectful of everybody's time. thank you everyone for coming to the hudson institute today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> president trump was a roundtable discussion in west virginia. fancy live coverage today at

2:25 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up this afternoon, a discussion with terrell mcsweeney on facebook's privacy practices following allegations that mckay data from can which i like a gain access to millions of facebook profiles. lefkowitz begins at 3:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. today former mexican president and nigel farage, former united kingdom independence party leader debate nationalism and globalism and it takes place at the university of maryland. live coverage starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. facebook ceo mark zuckerberg will be in capitol hill next week for two hearings on the way facebook handled user data. the company says outside as they have gotten information from as many as 87 million facebook users. mr. zuckerberg will appear at a joint hearing in the senate judiciary and commerce committee

on tuesday, april 10, and she spent think will have live coverage getting at 2:15 p.m. eastern. and on was able appear before the house committee with live coverage beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. this weekend on c-span, saturday at 8:30 p.m. eastern, the 50th anniversary of 60 minutes. and at night 30 p.m. eastern, hillary clinton at rutgers university. sat at 1:45n two, p.m. eastern, that annual national like writers conference in brooklyn. professor,ay, yell author of the best-selling book, about a bookalking on tribalism in america. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 10 a.m.

eastern, the 50th anniversary of the assassination of dr. martin luther king jr.. p.m., the at 5:10 author of lincoln's war secretary talks about edwin stanton, president lincoln's assassination, and aftermath. this weekend on the c-span networks. c-span wenth on feature our student cap winners. students to choose a portion of the u.s. constitution and illustrate what it is important to them. our second prize middle school winners are dhruv pai and carina guo -- 8th graders at takoma park middle school in silver spring, maryland. where c-span is available through comcast. in their winning entry titled "first amendment and social media regulation", they tell us about the 1st amendment. take a look. >> the first amendment is the most important thing in the house