bob einhorn is work for nearly four decades on issues related to arms control and nonproliferation. he spent his early years in the arms control and disarmament agency and was part of the delegation that negotiated the strategic arms control treaty with the then soviet union. he worked in the policy planning staff of state department and of state department and then as deputy assistant secretary for political military affairs before becoming assistant secretary of state of a newly formed bureau of nonproliferation, and the lashes of the clinton administration. wallowing that he spent about seven years at the center for strategic international studies here in washington before returning to the state department to serving the obama administration as the secretary of state's special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control. and since early this last summer, he's been senior fellow with the arms control and nonproliferation initiative, and with the center for 21st century security and intelligence, both located in foreign policy program at the brookings institute. i have asked each

support the president and which the administration success and happy to be here with my friend bob einhorn. >> i think the partnership for secure america, for inviting me. is a special pleasure to be here with nick burns who is one of the best foreign service officers, one of the best diplomats i had privileged to work with over these past decades. since the geneva joint plan of action is agreed in november, there's a kind of dynamic at work between tehran and washington and it goes like this. critics in each capital attack their own administration for having gotten the short end of the stick in negotiations. what happens then is the administrations defend themselves. they stress the benefits to their country of the interim deal and they reassure their critics that in the final negotiations they are going to be very tough and then these defenses in turn become ammunition for critics on the other side to attack the deal. for example, u.s. critics point out that the interim deal doesn't dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. that is correct. it doesn't do that so the administration, the ob

happy to be here with my friend bob einhorn. >> andy, thank you. partnership for a secure america for inviting me. t is a special pleasure to be here with nick burns, who is one foreign service officers, one of the best diplomats i have had the work with over these decades. the geneva joint plan of action was agreed in there's been a kind of dynamic at work between tehran washington. it goes luike there. critics in each capital attack administration for having gotten the short under of the stick in negotiations. what happens then is the administration administrations understandably defend themselves. benefits to he their country of the interim critics reassure their that in the final negotiations very re going to be very, tough. turn hese defenses in become ammunition for critics on taeattack the deal. example, u.s. critics interim deal the o not dismantle iran's nuclear infrastructure. that is correct, it does not do that. administration, the obama administration, naturally to say that in the final deal there's going to dismantlement, a major redu

pass three chapter seven sanctions resolutions and the obama administration led by people like bob einhorn really took the baton. i have always seen this policy be highly bipartisan. i don't discern many differences at all between president obama and president bush on this issue. it is a key issue for our country. i do support what the president is trying to do. until the negotiations over the last six months that have been so ably handled by wendy sherman for secretary kerry, we have not had a consistent, sustained, strategic dialogue with iran since the jimmy carter administration. if there is a probability that the united states at some point could theoretically have to consider the use of force against iran it does make sense to exhaust diplomacy first and to enter into the type of negotiations the president has committed himself to. i support the idea of negotiations. it is consistent in my view with what the bush administration was trying to do. i believe the president was right to negotiate the interim deal. bob can speak with greater authority with that because he was part of the t