ms. slavin: any thoughts on the unity of the three? ambassador westmacott: i agree. ms. slavin: one other and then i will open to the audience. the impact of the sanctions on european economies. as you pointed out, ambassador westmacott, it is a fact that the europeans agreed to stop buying iranian oil, by and large, stop investing in iran, cut act trade massively, that got us to where we are in many respects. how much of an impact has that had on your economies? if for some reason there is no deal, can you hold the line on sanctions? can they persist in the eu given the eagerness of many of your companies to go back. >> the u.s. companies as well. ms. slavin: they have other problems. ambassador araud: not more or less than the european companies. ambassador westmacott: i think iran is a country with immense potential, and lots of areas. people say to me, i cannot understand why you guys are negotiating with those iranians. that you do not seen many iranian shiites that she has stepping onto planes and blowing them up. but your onions want to come with a green card and m

ms. slavin: did you have a question? >> i want to ask about the -- [inaudible] ms. slavin: bring the other one over, if you would. >> is this better? i will ask a question which will give you the opportunity to get in trouble with your governments. obviously we have to be thinking about what if's. assuming the deal does not go through and blame can be laid legitimately in iran's door what do you see as viable options? you know in israel and the congress, there are going to be loud voices calling for some kind of military action. and alternatively, if the deal does go through, and can be verified, what opportunities do you see created in the middle east, much of which is in chaos, but could benefit from this agreement? ambassador araud: i will not answer the first part, it is quite hypothetical. in a sense, the sanctions would remain enforced. the questions would be to increase the role of sanctions even if, as peter said, we are close to the high mark of the sanctions. as for what would happen after an agreement, in a very hypothetical way, looking at the crystal bal

ms. slavin: any comments? ambassador wittig: that is true but the npt envisions the right of countries to enrich for civilian purposes. we are the only country in that 5+1 configuration that is a nonnuclear country. so we know what rights come with it. that might also have contributed to show the iranians were not imposing, the five nuclear countries are not imposing something on them. it deprives them of rights that others have. the question of whether there will be a nuclear arms race hinges very much upon the kind of verification and how that is designed and how this works in practice. if we can create inclusive credible viable inspection and verification, that would, i think, take away a lot of grounds for engaging in an arms race. ambassador westmacott: if we get to that point, hopefully the other governments will not be looking for exact parity. they can have a program with a year's breakout over a period of a decade. it should be whether they have confidence that iran is not going to have nuclear weapon