Transcripts For CSPAN2 Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20240622

I think if they take a little bit of a deep breath and what the rule says and what it does, they will see that we follow their call to reduce the uncertainty that was in the system by providing the rule itself. Not just for help that the economy economy and the businesses and manufacturing and agriculture to do Service Tourism and recreation to depend on the clean water to do their job. These are all streamline opportunities. All of the certainty that this will provide a. They have a better direction for they dont have to talk to the federal government if they are not polluting or contaminating the stream or the wetland that is important to protect. The Clean Power Plant is an opportunity for the United States to show significant leadership. I begin talking about the repurposes Global Action is not only necessary to protect Public Health and the economy and national safety. But to get the benefit and the opportunity to move forward on climate. Its proposed by the clean power will cut Carbon Pollution from the power sector 30 below 2005 levels of. Including the Utility Industry to cover sector already invested about 100 billion a year at the normal cost of doing business maintaining how they generate and deliver power. They plan to use those investments. When they do they will unlock the investment and create new jobs. We used three times more wind energy and forth over it in fact the Fastest Growing jobs and the economy last year were in the solar sector. Because the u. S. Is now taking very seriously its moral obligations to act on Climate Change we are leading an International Effort that is more robust and promising than ever before. You all know we did a joint announcement last fall in with the u. S. And china in the commitment we agreed to double the pollution reduction while china agreed to limit their omissions for the first time ever. If last week, brazil joined the two countries once again making the commitments to double down on the efforts to reduce the d4 station in the amazon. Now since three of the Worlds Largest economies have stepped up, we are confident that other countries will as well for the first time in quite a while that the world will reach a Global Climate agreement later today and change that future for our children forever. A future that will be safer that will be healthier and more economically robust for everyone. So, thanks again for having me. Lets get the party started. [applause] thank you for the remarks. So, to pick up where you left off in terms of the more global stage compared to the climate policy. Your name and you named a couple of signs of progress of the ways in which we have the momentum going into the talks. I wonder if there is anything else you would like to see happen between now and then to ensure that momentum carries through and ends up in an agreement. Spinning i think theres a couple of things that needed to happen. The president laid out the Climate Action plan with a recognition that if the u. S. Took strong action others would follow. And in fact, if we dont take strong action, we know that we are not going to get a Global Action to result. So i think one of the things we need to make sure of is that we keep on target with all of the commitments that the president made so we are sending the expected signal that not just the seriousness but the fact that we can get it done. So im looking forward to finalizing a heavy duty for the substances that look at high Global Warming potential taking the field of play. So its now an interagency review. In the methane reduction we are doing our part. This is where the state department is focusing its attention. They are not going to talk to the big emitters and understand how to be able to reach a solution here that moves the entire world forward. I think frankly the dynamic of the discussions are going in and much better direction than we ever did before because we have the technologies and solutions that can allow everyone to benefit in the clean cover strategy and clean new technologies available that arent so much about making the big guys played good about convincing the smaller countries that their actions will also pay off of them in a similar way. But this isnt just to support their effort to commit sure that they integrate the thinking of how you deal with carbon climate and how you develop your Economic Development strategy. That is where we will be convinced to include everybody. You talked about as he put it where monitor diplomacy. You described it as putting in their monitor on i thought that was an interesting point. And i wondered if you had ever kind of thoughts on that or ways in which the administration is reaching out directly or indirectly to fill that support behind the scenes. We have a lot of efforts beyond the talks to be able to work with other countries. For example the commitment in china is now on the table and weve been talking about it oneonone with the actions that need to be produced to make those agreements real so they are on the table and they are already bilateral agreements. We are working in india to discuss because they are recognizing that the air quality issues like beijing are part and parcel of the larger economic problems that they need to deal with. So china is now embracing the climate challenges together to look at how they can build the environment as a foundation. As so the United States has been doing this for decades. That is how we do our business. And so we are doing it in india and we are certainly discussing with brazil other efforts. We have to counsel work thats going on the climate and clean air work that is moving forward. We have our global methane initiative. So, under what is the big radar screen where you look at these Big International agreements there is a continuation of all of the work that we are doing bilaterally in these different initiatives to make the countries released or internalizing the challenge so that its not just seen as an actor that fact fix but its actually part of how they are going to grow. To move domestically a little bit you talk about the mercury ruling last week. I think that its on peoples mind. When you talk about how it is a very narrow decision and that it wont have an impact on the Clean Power Plan and the mercury rule still in effect, but can you talk about what happens next . Tenth epa adjusted rules or go back in time what needs to happen or is it back to the drawing board . Its back to the dc circuit. This has happened to the agency before. Its going back to the dc circuit to understand what they will want to see happen and in the meantime it continues and it will be complied with. I cant predict what thats going to be. Its could be a variety of things. It could be very simple. It could take a while but i think that he was even doing that. Is there anything in the ruling that you saw that might take that or suggest how the carpathian individual that challenges to the power plan or was that narrow enough . The court seemed to go out of its way to narrow the decision in so many ways so they they made a just above the single provisions that they said the Congress Really told us to treat this differently. But they were not sending the signal of how to do the cost or the signal that is related to anything else. So it was litigated and was dismissed. We have to go back and take a look at how they want to address the narrow cost and we will do it in the same way for the mass cost effectiveness Economic Analysis is needed for its software in a similar way and it will take direction from the circuit on what they want us to do next. So they went out of their way to limit this. How detailed it could have had broader implications but adjusted into. And i think they did that for that reason. To talk about the twopart question, there is a fair amount of opposition at home in terms of the governor from indiana say the state would not comply if the governor from oklahoma scott walker. Can you talk about your response to those kind of objections and whether the final rules take that into account in any way and i would be curious to hear you talk about the flipside of that. I think that theres been a lot of states that have cut the emissions while growing their economy and there should be more successful reason that regard. There are some governors that have sent some signals. To me it is very limited at this point and. Its the very outraged that we did in that sort of i think that helps generate the kind of comments. There may be governors that are making statements. The statements are not filtering down to those that continue to be said to look safe to look at how the states are operating at how the states might think about how to design or plan what is effective for them in making sure that the reliability and affordability is maintained and that it becomes a part of a growing economy. And so, some of the states that are vocal are already benefiting from some of the solutions that you would want them to have on the table for the Clean Power Plan. One of the ways we did this is to look at how the energy world was transitioning. And commit sure that it is solely focused on reducing pollution and in this case Carbon Pollution could stay in its lame, and instead of trying or even thinking about leaving what Energy Choices we want people to make instead we focus on the pollution reduction and provide flexibility to the states on how to get there so that epa wasnt tipping his hand on the Energy Policy issues but instead recognizing that the world is changing regardless of the power plan and the best thing that we can do is recognize the change to provide the flexibility that would work in the face of that energy transition. We are not generating the energy right now. That is being generated by the businesses in the communities calling for the Carbon Pollution reduction generated by the dozens. Those are being generated by the businesses that want to do business and the path to reduce the Carbon Pollution and its being generated by business, by the cost of renewables. I am old and i see things change. In the climate discussion its different than the one weve been having ended about the solutions that are on the table. And what technologies you might want to think about that help address this. And at the same state it wants to reject the power plan like the those best in the position to benefit from a Clean Power Plant in future. I know that we ought to get two questions. We have two more and then we will open it up. On that note of the Climate Change discussing it showed 46 of americans say Global Warming is a very serious problem of which is a horizon of 13 Percentage Points in the spring of 2013, but that shows a full quarter of americans say it is solid evidence that the average temperature has been increasing over the past few decades. How do you explain the continued divided divide in the country on the climate and i think that there have been some very visible efforts to try to deny the science. I certainly think that there are many more people than i did understand the world is changing and i think they see it and feel it. I can remember the day when the Weather Report was in the middle of the domestic and International News and it took about a minute and a half. It wasnt the news. When you go on the news today the first thing you will hear about is the weather. So there is a dramatic difference in the way that people perceive the ability of the climate. We need to make it very clear we need to get more people speaking about it. Those people are great and being looked at to make it personal for peoples of the understand it. Thats why it is cyclical in my opinion. I think it is very difficult to say it is for political reasons. I think that they are able to make the case that this is a factual occurrence and that its most important for the poor. The low income minorities but cant get out of the way of the climate impasse and its also i thought hopeful in saying that it is an opportunity and how we shift the economy, and how we do that in a way that is more inclusive so that people can get into the system. And i think that that was a great message and the way that we build on the efforts to make this an inclusive discussion the more that we do things like the reports that doesnt just appeal to people that are worried about asthma but also to the economic sectors like the oyster industry, the shellfish industry folks who care about the economy, folks that worried about wildfires and how much that is going to be destroyed. People want to do cold water fishing. And they will see that they are gone into the fish goes with them. It is to make it a more understandable into personal issue and that is what we have to do. Its to get out of talking about the climate and how we protect the family. And its our responsibility to do that. Last question for me. What is on your todo list for whenever you find time to escape . What what am i not doing in boston that i should be doing . That is a good question. I like to do that and i certainly would like to spend some time with my children. My understood daughter is planning to get married, and actually helping her do that is my responsibility. But at least shes indicating that it is true. I am going to get to that. Theres lots of things going on that i really worry about after the obligations. [laughter] i guess we will take questions now. Yes. Right here. In the Science Magazine i have a question about the Science Behind the proposed rules in the groundbased standards. Specifically a letter that you received last month for the members of congress all of whom were physicians saying that the lack of correlation between an increase in asthma and a decrease in the ambient levels of smog indicate that there are no Health Issues and therefore the standards shouldnt be tied. How do you respond to that and do you feel it is a logical argument or is there a flaw in what they are saying backs its not any group of voices on this. We rely on a standard process to look at the purity of science to make sure that its transparent and to do the job we need to do with cleanair science advisory committees and making sure that we have a really robust process. It takes years to develop the standards to look at the wealth of information and science that we have. It is one of those National Ambient Water Quality standards just have a wealth of Science Behind it and i think we do a good job of integrating the science together and proposing a standard talking about the implications of correlations between that and the Public Health impacts. And im very confident that weve done the job the way we are supposed to and have received the input of a fellow Peer Reviewed transparent process provides. While i aspect of the comments and will certainly take them into consideration, the agency is going to lie on the tried and true science and the process that has been working for us in the decades to provide the advice that i need in a setting that standard. Questionable for here. My question is about the economy. We talk about the job creation but i am more interested to know what you think that the strategy for Americas Technology leadership. The government has invested billions in the energy technology. So where is it really made in the United States. Theres very little manufacturing left in it. We have taken call off the table. They lead on the window. What is the role of the United States . Its great that we have these installers but what about the innovation that we make for ourselves . That has been an issue the president focused on and the department of energy focused on. I think that one of the most courageous things is saying the president is going to leave but we know that for Technology Innovation have to follow that but we dont have the solution for all of this. We can move and take a large leap that we know we are not where we need to be to address the Carbon Pollution at a level that is going to take our kids future. So he is recognizing that investment and innovation and manufacturing jobs in the u. S. Is where we need to go. He honestly put this out on the action plan with the idea that we would be sending a signal to our economy that we shouldnt note any longer to be feeding the technology to other countries to develop and instead of the u. S. Took action we could be the ones that develop those technologies. We could be the ones that manufacture them and so that is a challenge for us. One of the reasons the power play and was looking out to 2030 is to send not just a shortterm signal work commitments but an absolute longterm investment commitment. We need to change the way we do business. Its going to take time. I think that everyone would agree with you that if we could take that on. If we could embrace the challenge, not as an environmental requirements but as a fundamental to how you grow the economy in a way that has to be low carbon because thats what the world is demanding more and more each day that we could win economically. If so i totally agree with you that the challenge is not just to get the costs down but to make sure that we benefit from the Jobs Associated Manufacturing Products and developing the technologies. No country is better at this than we are. But other countries have recognized the challenge earlier than we do. So we have catching up to do. Right now we have a plan that is sending all of the right investment signals. If you look after the solar announcement that is for the express purpose of making sure we not only make sure everyone benefits in the low carbon future but we start sparking the technology in the United States. Is that showing signs of life and do things like the factory yes right here. s i heard your point of saying that the ruling will not affect the epa that but what assurances do you offer people here and importantly a broad set of these rules will stand and be enacted after 2016 given the opponents will be emboldened and given that few you could have a republican president that will just not implemented them like we saw with george bush before. I think the First Assurance is that the president realized that the best that he could do was to develop a plan that rested on the tried and true tools that are available to him that the congress has provided to the administration. So i dont think youll you will find anybody that the larger the Clean Air Act hasnt been effective and that we dont know how to actually implement it. I dont think that the ruling is actually runs contrary to that. We have done a great job in the air toxic standard and we will get the reductions back in that role even though there is work to be done. We will have plans in place at the state level and we will also have the back step that we can call upon and hopefully very small circumstances. And the asked to take regulatory action in order for this to be any different than how we have designed it going to have to make the case that we were wrong and epa will make sure this is legally solid technically active and relies on things like it always has. You know how to defend losses. For crying out loud. It will absolutely be litigated. Something i would talk about that would not be. So either you plan to expect litigation. Maybe i dont but we do. Very good at writing and defending. Clicks in the back right here. Maybe right behind. Thanks. Tomorrow in the senate there is the hearing in the focus of the hearing, the us actually cant meet the targets that obama has set for 2025. I am curious ever reach out to say we really need this amount of production . The promise the world this amount. You need amount. You need to get that through the regulations that you put in place . If not how can the white house tell the world that we can meet the 26 to 28 percent reduction that they had planned . The thing that i think the i think the president is most respectful of command i mentioned this before the authorities in the tools that Congress Gave us. In no ways the president the president asking me or the agency to do anything other than to plot apply our rules as we them and to identify what kind of reductions will be achieved with the application of our tools as we are supposed to apply them. Any other would simply not be acceptable. So i am not designing the Clean Power Plan royalty it to a particular level. I am realizing the tools available in doing it bottom of his we always did and entertaining what those deductions are likely to achieve which gets factored into a strategy. But, look, the president made it very clear when he designed and rolled out his action plan. The United States has never felt compelled to identify the strategy that would make you when a longterm goal and use before we could identify that has a reason or excuse. I mean, we have to get that. This is static. Static. Most of what we see in terms of the rules are projecting what will happen in ten years, 15 years, 20 years. To say today that i cant envision a future is very different 20 years from now that gives me an opportunity to achieve these reductions as long as im focused and we can use our policies and tools as we go along and generate Technology Innovation and send the right investment signal. If you said to me 20 years ago when the world look like it does today theres no one here that would have projected the Technology Innovation. The world is changed. Actors dont even know what the world looks like without cell phones and laptops and google and apple. You know its unfathomable. For anyone to for anyone to say that in 2030 i cap project the exact way that i think i need an limit that is pretty shortsighted. And is not looking at the history of the country and is disappointing that anyone take that approach. If you dont actually move off when in a marathon you clearly will not win. That we can all agree on. You never know. Here with the washington examiner. A couple of the themes. You said that there is a barrier. But as the state intimated to you but the cart ahead of the course. Secondly you mentioned that you have the fifth process. Im wondering whether you believe you can legally call on Building Blocks three and four and if you cant whether states will be required for individual target just using Building Blocks. Blocks. Clicks let me answer the first one to fund the last first. Remember, we get 4. 3 million comments. Many of them were related to the Building Blocks themselves. And also related to how we consider complying and things like how quickly we accept the changes to happen in the energy world. And so all of those comments were thoroughly reviewed and continue to be digested. And so i cant really speak to any specific outcome other than i know than i know that we are going to big changes on the basis of the comments we received. And so i dont think its worthwhile to go through the Building Blocks at this time but rest assured people have some incredibly thoughtful comments. It has been a robust process we did leading up to the proposal. It paid off it paid off in terms of having an incredibly measure, that will really benefit this. And it will benefit in many ways. Including ensuring that reliability and affordability are maintained in the benefits that we had hoped for will be achieved. So im pretty excited. I forgot what your first question was. Zero, yeah. Thank you. I have not spoken actually to the state of the National None of them have expressed concern for me. I wanted to explain one more thing. It was a while ago that we did this. 2011 in the normal course is three years for compliance the compliance window, traditional compliance windows already over. An extra year. That will be coming up. So a lot of the changes are already happening. Not unlike the Clean Power Plant. We can do it in a vacuum now the energy world works in the transition of the energy world. So now recognize that investment in existing code units was actually waning because the facilities were noncompetitive. What you had was a lot of small units our out there that were not being run. They were run. They were not competitive, and there were likely to be retired at some. And that was an opportunity for many of this to make a final a final decision. The decision will not be reversed. Even going to be viewed by a permanent problem. A solid cost as we did end of the Supreme Court just told us to look at an earlier in the process. They didnt vacate the rule. They see this has a significant longterm problem. And looking at a very different future than they were. They are designing this strategy with the future in mind. Theres a wonderful synergy with our looking at the design and make sure we take advantage of that moving forward. Wasnt on . Clicks put your hand up so i can see. Cns news. 82 percent is met with those fossil fuels. How does that fit into your picture . I think we recognize that. The utility world. Often in the transportation sector. The imminent. Thats why put out the vehicles. Not just reduction in Greenhouse Gases that encouraging to be done away that actually save people money making it more efficient. I will tell you the first couple years and looking at the success of the program as to whether or not the domestic car industry is doing well. They actually doing better. In fact were getting lots of investment in manufacturing and job growth. The way in which we move forward. Just proposed the second rule be released. Ensuring that they will again face significant money the potential, 1 billion metric tons. His big opportunity. The urbanization that always looks that not how we work across countries to regulate the airline industry. And so we have recently put out a proposed endangerment fighting as well as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking which is basically saying we know that this International Organization is likely soon to come out with the standard, an International Standard that looks a commercial aircraft. We want to be prepared to be able to take action on the standard and adopted so that the decisions indicate that, yes, the Airline Factor produces gases that actually constitute a threat to Public Health and the environment. And we put out a rule that tease up discussions to move forward with the standard that would allow them to implement the International Standard. I could go on and on but epa is in no way a one trick pony. We had never been just looking in one area and delivering pollution reduction that would protect Public Health and the environment. We look at pollution across the sources that emitted. But i think that with Greenhouse Gases the opportunity here is not just that we look at Public Health and the environment in a traditional way covered pollution offers us tremendous opportunities to actually get substantial production in ways that people will embrace. If you look at the Clean Power Plan you are looking at the types of generation that will benefit consumers everywhere. The type of economy that will be more sustainable and viable in the future. The tremendous opportunities continuing to look at the beneficial opportunities are so that we can send the right investment signal to really make the us not just reducing where we can and protecting and adapting to climate but really once again a significant leader in energy future. Final question. I. The question is related to india. They dont have access to electricity. That all have access. The countrys hungry for growth and economic opportunity. In the pollution is really high. Residents dont like it over a lot of issues. I i can go on and on. During the context what kind you see to reduce Carbon Emissions . There really hungry for growth. How in concrete terms terms, to help the government implement advanced technologies quickly and also the trade. They remain an opportunity for the us to continue discussion. Having those cultural discussions. I know the us and india continue to talk together. I indicated that epa want to talk to india about a handle on the air pollution so that we could do the kind of work we have done in china. Talk about their quality challenges and work with them to figure out how they could address that and engage the people so that there is a transparency that brings you the energy you need to build a Better Future and continue to work on that. One of the most interesting things about the technology that ive developed that im taking advantage of the low cover future a lot of them are not needing to have the centralized system that we once relied on and that would not translate effectively to the challenges in india. In other words, distributed an opportunity in india to doing everything i just not just from producing energy and a zero carbon way but can also be used for Drinking Water so that that is not holding them back while you are developing a low carbon future. I think the challenge we have is hopefully to do what we continue to struggle to do here. To connect to connect dots that we have not effectively connected. How could sola not be an opportunity. How could that opportunity not provide you great opportunity to do more things and look up at what opportunities it provides for Water Supplies as well. We have to connect those dots and have to work with others to again not think about the environmental considerations as window dressing but to really build them into the foundation of the thinking im constantly probably dismayed but have to continue to go up to talk and talk about some balance between the economy and the environment. It is not a balance. Our economy has consider the environment now we are growing that economy. That is why china is catching up why india has challenges moving forward because it has not been entered ago. Maybe it is because we have the luxury to think about it more effectively but we need to use our Technical Assistance and our support to countries that have not have the ability to think like that for that dont understand the Technology Choices available for that have not effectively integrated the thinking and how they are moving Forward Command we need to do that now. Think that is with the state department is doing as we speak and hopefully that is what is going to come out in december. Clicks great. Thank you very much for coming out. Thank you all. Appear with the administrators. A member of the press only stick around for a little bit. Sign up for our email newsletter. [inaudible conversations] okay. Oil and gas relief. Not alone. Ready . Actually, the only thing is to continue to build on what was already done. Want to do an additional operation. This is pretty standard. Technology guidelines that are talking about. Fairly Standard Practice agency to do that. The states will look at issues. Opportunities moving forward pretty routine behavior. This week. The allegation that the epa was too dependent. It is supposed to be a hearing on epa rules. Well see what the discussion is. What about the charges . It is on the environmental group. The nontransparent fashion. Clicks we dont believe there is any basis for that. Could you talk about the impact of the budget cuts on your research will be . We have significant budget challenges that we are going to be talking about a little while should that move forward. It actually significantly cuts the core function of the agency not just areas that people might focus on like dont implement the Clean Power Plan, the clean water rule move forward with play nose on standards which are all in there as part of the budget process but for me they are significant challenges certainly the white house is weighed in on. For me the most important thing is that we have over the past three years reduced our staff level for over 18,015,000. We did this knowing that they would need to get leaner and do his job more effectively. They then everything we can to be a leaner and more effective agency. We do not have the level of protections for clean air, clean water. Cleaning up, transforming those in the economic opportunity. These are standard things the agency has done forever. Taking away our core budget does not just impact claim power plants. It definitely impacts our ability to protect their direct Public Health. Just a cleanair. Congress people us all the time. Ghostbusters will answer the phone. We have to go. Thank you. Interagency reviews. Congress will soon consider programs in the annual interior environment spending bill and how it could affect of our regulations. Talk to a luppercaseletter reporter. The house is back from the july 4 recess and back to work on spending bills. The 2016 interior and environment spending bill. Covers energy and the environment. You wrote before the break the house lights to consider all but interior spending amendments. What are some of those items . We are expecting to hear a lot of amendments from both democrats and republicans. We will get a lot of amendments from democrats who want to strike from the bill policy writers that are mostly at the end. Thats why we got to wait until after the break. We should expect to see amendments focused on making sure the interior department can continue to regulate cracking on public land. Theres also interest in making sure the interior department can regulate the implication of ivory that is become a big issue in terms of the sale of ivory being used to fund terrorist activities overseas. Also, a lot of focus on just the general spending level from these agencies being doled out. Epa Administrator Gina Mccarthy earlier today mentioned how constrained the agency has been over the last couple of years. This bill would cut current levels for epa by about 9 percent. The appropriations subcommittee chair tweeted a couple days ago about this measure. The bill includes a number number of provisions to stop unnecessary and damaging Regulatory Overreach by the epa. What are some of those provisions that the republican chair of the subcommittees is talking about . The two biggest regulations that he is likely referring to call one provision that would prevent the epa from spending any money to implement our carry out their final letters of the us role in that was a regulation that was recently finalized to essentially define the scope defined the scope of what a regulation in the United States. Whether they can regulate a stream versus a stream that is ephemeral only occurs when there has been rain. That is one thing. The the other thing is the Clean Power Plan. On that issue you mentioned gina mccarthy, color of the Christian Science monitor. The legal footing of epa rules after the loss the Supreme Court decision on those energy standards. What does she have to say . Emphasize the Supreme Court ruling was narrow. It really did the cost leader in the court found that epa shall consider sooner. The mccarthy sooner. The mccarthy said that really had no bearing on the Clean Power Plan. Considering custom the getgo. Funding levels they want to see a new budget deal and thats what youre going to see a lot of is if republicans continue to try to enforce a spending bills over there whether it be this bill or a different spending bills. If they are not going to go along with it until there is a new budget deal. So they have a big problem in the spending levels. Host you can read more at cq. Com follow her at twitter. Thanks for the update. Negotiators working on a deal with iran over their Nuclear Program have extended their temporary agreement until friday so the talks can continue. Here he pitched foundation and former george w. Bush Administration Officials discussed the Ongoing Nuclear talks and how they are affecting the politics of the middle east. [inaudible conversations] good afternoon and welcome to the here to child they should and be douglas and sarah auditorium. We join you on the website and would ask everyone here in house to make a courtesy check that cell phones have been muted. You are always welcome to send questions or comments throughout the presentation. Simply email speaker at mac heritage. Org and we will post for future reference. Hosting the discussion today is doctor peter brooks a senior fellow for the National Security affairs here at heritage. Prior to joining as he served as the Deputy Assistant secretary of defense of the george w. Bush administration on the republican staff of the committee on International Relations in the u. S. House of representatives who worked with the Central Intelligence agency as well as the state department and private sector defense firms and active duty in the u. S. Navy. Please join me in welcoming doctor peter brookes. [applause] i guess it is good afternoon now. Welcome to the Heritage Foundation to discuss the Nuclear Negotiations. I guess that deadline like the red line is a deadline except when it isnt. With iran and the latest round of talks the news reports in vienna this week indicate that theres still a number of rough patches on the road to the agreement between iran and the p5 plus one and the talks will go until the end of the week maybe. These include hot button issues for Iran Research and Development Inspection of the verification regimes and question about the prior work on a nuclear war among others. To complicate matters further is pushing for the punitive sanctions to be lifted on the Ballistic Missile program in addition to the sanctions placed on tehran due to its nuclear transgressions. If that isnt enough they are also asking for the end to the weapons embargo on iran which is deeply troubling considering groups like hezbollah. After they reached an agreement by tuesday the correct decision found the agencies for the briefings and hearings before the path can be implemented by the administration. Of course getting the nuclear deal with iran doesnt address the other problems that we have in tehran including the middle east meddling and its sponsorship of International Terrorism. The United States and its partners came to iran to close the deal. To investigate this further weve joined today by the Hudson Institute the former secretary of state ambassador joseph and the Heritage Foundation philips to the risk rewards that might come from an agreement. Let me introduce the panelists before we get started as our time is limited today. The ambassador holds a position of the scholar. Until march of 2007 the ambassador theatre secretary of state. From 2001 to 2004 he served on the National Security council for the special assistance for the proliferation strategy and homeland defense. He was in the National Security studies for the Counter Proliferation Research at the National Defense university. Earlier in the the commission to the commission the ambassador said the Nuclear Testing the Principal Deputy secretary defense for interNational Security policy, deputy secretary of the forces and arms control policy and planning officer at the mission of nato. Also the assistant professor of International Relations and Strategic Study at the school of law and diplomacy at Tulane University college. Jim phillips is the Research Fellow at the middle Eastern Affairs at the douglas and Sarah Allison studies at the Heritage Foundation and is a Foreign Policy specialist from the International Terrorism since 2008 at the Research Service in former fellow at the Eastwest Center to testify many times before congress. The institute served in the white house as a senior director for the National Ticket accounts will to middle east issues including the relations and u. S. Efforts to contain iran and syria and the Bush Administration as the adviser in the state department and the Deputy Assistant secretary in the pentagon before coming to hudson bike was a senior fellow at the brookings institution. Hes also held teaching positions at princeton and central florida. Ambassador joseph can you start us off you can either do it from their work onto the podium whichever one you wish. Good afternoon. Its always great to be back here at heritage. So, let me first thank the organizers for the invitation to speak here today on a very timely topic of iran and the Nuclear Negotiations. I have been speaking and writing on the subject for more than two years and watched the negotiating position evolve you use that very kind word default in one direction. For this hasnt been a matter of compromise but the give and take of normal diplomatic negotiations. This is a matter of concession after concession on both of the major and minor issues negotiated. The outcome was clear whether or not there is an agreement. Iran would be recognized and accepted as a Nuclear Weapons threshold state. It wouldnt be limited in any way. They were explained away often in the most convoluted fashion. No longer would iran be compelled to abandon its program that would only be constrained to extend the break of time to build that they can think of that are on the Ballistic Missile. Its been signaled by secretary kerry and other named an Anonymous Administration sources as often for the friendly reporters. You are likely very familiar to most of these. Now that responsibility is of the iaea to have been stonewalling on these issues. No longer would iran have to come clean on his activities before the agreement goes into effect. But remember the head of the iaea described these activities as alarming. Abandoning that demand for the inspections once considered effective for the verification instead we will now have managed access. That will allow iran to delay inspections and prevent russia and china to abstract the action of the Security Council. The phasing of sanctions in the smith act provisions that the administration wants emphasized against iranian cheating. Some say 250 billion. I could go on but let me just say a dialogue concluded to go to the only barrier to an agreement with the willingness of iran to take yes for an answer. The iranians will agree to certain conditions such as not building buildings that they never intended to build. Instead of no enrichment iran would be limited to operating five or 6,000 centrifuges under the agreement that they would also be allowed to intervene and store thousands of other machines that can be brought online relatively quickly. And the rnd and building ever r d and building ever more advanced centrifuges would go on. Yes, it is better at the centrifuges are not being connected during the tenure of the agreement. But that doesnt take this a good deal. In fact, this is unquestionably based on what we know. And the distinction often gets lost in the rhetoric. The large majority of americans want a diplomatic outcome. The likely answer is a resounding no. What are the rhetorics the judge whether this is a good or bad deal . They are rather straightforward. Here are five. Does the agreement the ninth of capability . The longstanding declared goal of the United States and the International Community. Does the agreement once the constraints expired prevent them from building in a holier weapon in the short amount of time . As the agreement actually extend the breakout of time in a meaningful way . Is the agreement effectively verifiable facts is there a meaningful phase relief of the sanctions and or their guaranteed snapback provisions . I think the answer to each of the questions is no. A reality that is becoming apparent across party lines. So how did we get into this mess and have no doubt, this is a mess. The answer is very clear. The administration has violated every rule of the negotiating practice. But the basic tenets of negotiating 101 instead of increasing the pressure on the sanctions commanded her to in their words they keep iran at the table but remember it was these sanctions that brought them to the table. Instead of making it clear that iran needed an agreement more than we the administration demonstrated just the opposite that its desperate for an agreement. A desperation that the negotiators have exploited it to the fullest as it is seen even today in the demand for ending the arms embargo. Instead of insisting on a full compliance in the interim, the administration has an effect become the lawyer reinterpreting the provisions of the agreement to keep the negotiations going. Instead of insisting that the word deadline means that line the administration has allowed iran to squeeze further conceptions each time the latest deadline approaches and then passes. And most importantly instead of holding the line on those key issues that would actually determine whether the agreement is good or bad, whether it advances the security interests and undermines them theyve made concession after concession and the consequences are profound. Any agreement that allows iran to continue to build its Ballistic Missile force while simultaneously permitting iran to maintain if not expand its Nuclear Capability will undermine the National Security interests as well as friends and allies in the region and beyond. Iran will almost certainly become the preeminent power in the cold. With a u. S. Pullout from iraq and the drawdown in afghanistan there will be few that have opposed the expansion technically in the past decade. The administrations suggestion that the deal would leave it to the more moderate iran is sheer fantasy. All you have to do is listen to what the iranians are saying. For me personally because i approach these issues on the nonproliferation expect to become perspectives another consequence is the increased prospective one likely result of the capacities reinforced by the growing skepticism. Its in the capability similar to iran. Saudi arabia has already said openly that it will seek what iran is permitted. It is for you to be reprocessed. After giving the stamp of approval. In other words, the administration has undercut one of the most important nonproliferation tools dating back to the carter administration. Finally, because the United States and other members have agreed to exclude Ballistic Missiles in the negotiations. They have the mass destruction to acquire the Ballistic Missiles as a means to delivery. For iran iran and could include closer cooperation on the transfer of the missile technologies as well. With tens of billions of dollars in the sanctions for the military and its revolutionary guards will have access to the resources for more missiles and weapons across the spectrum it more terrorist activities. A bad agreement would result in a less stable less safe world for the regional states, for israel and for the United States. But we conclude by saying one didnt need to be proceeds to know even two years ago how this was going to turn out. The Administration Still clings to the old talking points you heard in the last couple of days it will walk away if iran doesnt need its finance. Let me say in my view if you find the statements credible given all that we do know, i think that you were living we were living in the bizarro world. In fact the leader was likely to distort the negotiations to his public than the white house was to the american public. The American People as president obama said that deserved the truth. Lets ensure that they get it. Thank you very much. Thank you, ambassador. On the deal with iran that deal with iran and has significant flaws and risks that dangerously undermine the National Security either brickley in terms of the Nuclear Technologies and capacities that deal grants is gone or indirectly in terms of the regional implications to the deal. I like to focus my comments primarily on the regional implications and in the way the allies of the region look at this deal. Although the administration ended in the negotiations saying this would cut off the path of iran towards the Nuclear Weapons, its become clear that this is a diplomatic speed up the flow only delay if not give air on opportunities to cheat on a whole new set of arrangements. The agreement delegitimize is the Threshold Nuclear Power and once the restrictions on the Nuclear Activities expire it will be easier to cross the threshold. The Nuclear Infrastructure is left largely intact and its well on its way to developing an industrial enrichment capacity that will shorten to the Nuclear Weapon. This fact isnt lost on our allies or friends in the region who are likely to hedge their bets and take on veterans by working to expand their options. The end result could be an excellent Grade Nuclear proliferation and possible Nuclear Arms Race in the most volatile. The neighbors to see the prospective deal would allow to maintain a huge infrastructure the huge infrastructure that far exceeds its legitimate needs. This deal would in fact legitimize these illicit obligations. As the ambassador said that sets up a very dangerous situation for the potential collaborators in the future. The administration is offering the ayatollah in iran. Its enough 40 and carter administrations. More than five decades washington as opposed to spread its sense of Nuclear Technology including the iranian enrichment even for this allies. It ends up traveling over the size and scope however iran can win at john its concessions if they decide to do so. Especially if they will take time to reimpose. The russians and the chinese are sure to bring objections if they see it is in their interest to do that. And the institutional arrangement the elephant in the room but the Obama Administration downplays is a long history of violating its Previous Nuclear agreements. The administration claims it is for an unprecedented regime that iran already walked away from some of those commitments and iraq was the subject after the 1991 gulf war but circumvented inspections for 12 years until he was ousted in 2003. The administration sought to ease the anxieties about the compliance in the rule v. Atomic Energy Agency that the iaea only has access to declared Nuclear Facilities at a completely asked the Nuclear Program before it was revealed by the Iranian Opposition groups in the 2002. President obama insists if iran cheats the world will know that how long will it take to know what role the world do . Look at serious find the deal in 2013 trumpeting to the great agreement in which the regime is supposed to destroy all of its chemical weapons just today that regime continues to use chlorine gas against his own people with little fear of consequences. The administrations acceptance of the flawed arrangement and its refusal to enforce its own red lines when confronted with cheating is an extreme yeller big press event not least of which for the regional allies that fear a similar dynamic in the deal. The administrations recent actions essentially play the role of the lawyer in explaining the way the violations of the accord failure to convert to the right kind of uranium oxide as it is noted in tuesdays Washington Post editorial are another flashing alarm for the allies that will undermine confidence in the u. S. And confidence that it will take strong action if iran violates the agreement. Another major problem is that its clear that iran its not clear that iran will be required to come clean on the military dimensions of the program. Parliaments are important because it is almost impossible to develop a clear picture of the breakup time if you dont know what is the base of the actions for which it is going to break out. The deal also gives billions of dollars to sanctions relief and economic shot in the arm that will bolster with the most hostile and dangerous regimes in the middle east. Iran would get 30 to 50 billion signing bonus immediately and that eventually pocket between 10,040,000,000,000 editorial that is frozen in the offshore accounts as a result of the sanctions. Moreover, they would reap the benefits of the greater will sanctions once they are lifted. They could essentially double the oriole experts from about 1. 2 Million Barrels a day to day to about 2. 3 million in the future and much greater Financial Resources to finance terror beside subversion abroad and its brutal repression at home. The economic payoff of the nuclear deal would also help iran shift the regional balance of power in its favor and could possibly embolden the regime to become more aggressive in its Foreign Policy. Analyzing the region are also alarmed that washington has backed off many of its red wines. The red lines are fading to pink or even pink dotted lines in between while iran is adding new deadlines and the Supreme Leader last month added a set of red wines that would make a deal impossible. Some have interpreted these pronouncements as a bargaining tactic but it could also spell in the long run the deathknell of the talks because the Supreme Leaders intervention goes beyond the good cop bad cop. The fact that you have a government negotiating with the west that could be at any point overruled, undermined and done in a runaround by the Supreme Leader and its important to note that he reflects the interest of irans revolution and the attention between the logic of the revolution and the logic of the state has made iran the case for negotiating and we have seen it time and time again to negotiate with iran. And i predict if there is an agreement signed, that may not be the end of the negotiation because the Supreme Leader will have deadlines about how to implement the agreement. And i would say the Supreme Leader may be so adamantly opposed to any kind of flexibility that a good deal with iran may be in double to ticket until after he has left the stage. From the viewpoint of many u. S. Allies and friends in the region, this agreement looks like a looming disaster for their interest. Israel has warned that it reserves the right to launch a preventive strike against Irans Nuclear structure if the agreement fails to give adequate safeguards against iran obtaining in weapon. Minister Netanyahu Netanyahu has won the disagreement rather than borrowing the path to the Nuclear Weapon thats really paving the path. And for israel, this is an accidental issue is not just a question of building some kind of a political legacy. They are considered a moderate and they are a country that could be destroyed with one Nuclear Weapon while iran is much bigger. This kind of rhetoric doesnt bode well for the future. Israelis argue also that the administration played a strong hand weakly as the ambassador said relieving the tension pressure on iran and downplaying the military option, and the effect of these is to release pressure on iran to not only come up with an acceptable agreement but to come up with any kind of an agreement by deadlines because its learned time and time again the more it is to be rewarded. And israel is not alone in criticizing the steel. Saudi arabias king boycotted the white house summit camp david in may as a sign of unhappiness in the policy also was unhappy in the trajectory of the Nuclear Negotiations and theyve let it be now they will known they will demand every nuclear concession that iran receives an eccentric negotiations with france to build a civilian reactors but code in the future become the basis of the fullfledged Nuclear Weapons programs. They fear not only the possibility of u. S. And iranian detente but that would jeopardize the National Interest with moscow and regime and they are making plans. The United Arab Emirate had greater restrictions put on their programs than they would be able to gain and if they might want to renegotiate their arrangements. Since they opened the doors to the Nuclear Arms Race because after the restrictions on the enrichment. Iran will not cheat on the agreement or will not build after the greatest restrictions were eased they are bound to take out insurance policies in the form of their own Nuclear Programs into this could spur the cascade proliferation that would include saudi arabia possibly turkey, egypt, the uae maybe ill sharia sharia and that would lead to the multipuller or the middle east with each country on a trigger because they will be lacking secure secondstrike capabilities, so it will be the loser gore use it situation. So if you think that the middle east is volatile and dangerous now just wait. Even some former senior officials are involved that are involved in formulating the Administration Policy on the iran issue warned that in an open letter in the institute for near east policy the emerging deal may fall short of meeting the administrations own standard of the agreement. The bottom line is the Obama Administration has an agreement in principle with the regime that has few principles except to expand its power and export its revolution. This submerging deal already has weakened weakened the u. S. Alliances with important friends. Its undermining the procedural liability of the u. S. As an ally. Its reduced u. S. Employment puts iran in the position to expand its influence. If we can do longstanding nonproliferation goals and could contribute to a dangerous multiple are the least. So the picture is not pretty. Any added happiness and sunshine to this picture. I will just confine my remarks more to the region and take upon some of the things jim said and emphasized that a little bit more. The allies in the United States and in the middle east disagree about many consequential things. But for the last 36 years covers one thing they could all agree on and that is that the United States is the guarantor of the regional order. And they looked to have to play that role and they have assumed that comes with the responsibility of orchestrating the containment in iran. As the allies have watched the u. S. Negotiate this agreement they have come to the conclusion that president obama has to shed this responsibility and that he has taken the United States out of the game of containing iran. The president doesnt admit that. He continues to talk in those terms and when he brought everybody to the camp david summit last month there was a lot of newspaper commentary. If you look carefully at what the president said the company has in fact gotten out of the containment business. But before i get to that let me talk just a little bit about the concerns of the allies at what theyve been watching and thinking as they been watching these negotiations. And then a couple of the arguments the administration has put out to the concert of the allies and why they find these unsatisfactory end up in a couple of words of the consequences of all of this. So, i think that there are four trends that the allies have seen by a watching this negotiation. The colleagues have already covered this pretty well. The first one is the american retreat. The negotiation has been history of the negotiation has been in the u. S. Concessions. Starting with the interim deal itself that was traded by the iranians for the permanent concessions by the u. S. The u. S. A great sunset clause meaning that this would only be a temporary agreement and it exceeded the right to enrich and it recognized iran as a Threshold Nuclear Power can and it did that as the first step. And then it returned to that concession from the u. S. , its got a agreement to temporarily reduce the pace of the advance of the program into just for the life of the negotiation at that point. So, thats just one example. You know all of the other ones that have been mentioned. The secure facility and on and on. When the allies look at this, it is troubling enough to see the terms of the agreement that result. But the capitulation is equally unnerving. But it makes them wonder if they are in a pinch with respect to iran will the United States be there at their side . To watch the united United States United States pulled out pulled out its position on its own vital interests makes instills you with a feeling that when it comes to your vital interest they will be even more inclined to whittle things down. So, it undermines the confidence in the u. S. Resolved. The second issue, the second trend based which ive already mentioned as this conceding concession embodied in the sunset clause. Thats particularly troubling because it is not just what it says about the nuclear question per se but it also says that the either the states is out of the business of containing iran and is now managing its rise. They say that iran is going to be a power and we will help manage this. So the two things together with the recognition of the inevitable rise of iran suggests the United States is pulling back and filling the vacuum. This is compounded by the third trend of the unsettling nature of the development is compatible into the third trend, the new normal that we have seen emerge over the last 18 months in relations between the u. S. And iran. We still kind of Pay Lip Service to that. But we now engage in iran in a way that one doesnt engage with ones enemies as jim and bob mentioned. We are serving as a lawyer in the negotiations rather than holding their feet to the fire we are coming to their defense against our allies. So we watched of a severe deterioration of the relationship between the u. S. And israel and saudi arabia. Its been more visible because the minister has been more vocal in expressing his concerns dealing with this. But i think that most of the allies in the United States and the region have exact leave the same feelings about this that the professor has made. They just decide to deal with the problem differently. They decided to grin and bear it and to be polite and not openly express their opposition. But if you are quiet off the record discussions they are saying the same thing which is remarkable in and of itself. The greatest achievement of the Obama Administration is that its brought saudi arabia and israel together faster than anyone would have thought was possible. This friction contrasts with the images on the screen dalia and with a smiling john kerry giving the impression of a new era of friendship. They insist this is an arms control negotiations only about the Nuclear Issue and issue if it isnt looking to build on this for anything larger detente or grand bargain or anything else. But we keep hearing credible reports about the discussions between iran and the United States and iraq that stabilizing young man and we wonder how wide is this cooperation and what are the longterm plans with respect to iran and is the United States starting to think of them as a partner for the security and so on. That leads to the most important thing which is the total lack of response. The dog that didnt bark in the story of the last two or three years is the absence of any attempt to impose a cost on iran for its interventions in iraq syria and yemen. What about the fact that iran is deploying the militia and about what its doing in yemen and so on. The statement level of actions designed to impose the cost. On the contrary when they were running in iraq with their air force and john kerry was asked about it and said it is a good thing comes with those kind of statements by the United States lauding intervention into neighboring countries send shivers down the spine of our traditional allies. Then we can turn it over for questions. I will hit two of them very quickly. One could actually i will hit three. As bob mentioned the deal itself is going to moderate regime. The influx of capital the development of the mutual dependence of the u. S. Is going to change the calculus. This is bizarro world. There is no reason to believe this. The only way you can believe this is if you assume the rhetoric and action over the last 30 years has absolutely no bearing on what they are going to do tomorrow. In the field of the prediction where that would actually be the case when in the accordance of Human History has has someone brought in 100 billion decided that everything they did up until yesterday was wrong and they are going to change the course . I dont think it requires going into any more detail than that. The administration has come up with this argument and has been saying that they think that they are great to spend all of their new money on butter not guns. This is a direct quote from the senior Administration Officials. What is the evidence of this . They start listing all of the needs of the iranian people and the economy and since those needs exist of course the regime is going to be concerned about them. They are sadly just making things up. They have an obvious fact iran is going to get much more powerful and wealthy very quickly. It is unnerving the allies and they dont have a good answer how to mitigate it so they made an argument that we are certain they are going to spend the money. Recognizing i think i presume that this isnt an adequate argument the president is now come up with a different one once the agreement is in place that will provide breathing space and then we will be able to start containing them in the region. If you look at how hes defining the containment from his use of the word are two totally Different Things when they talk about the containment they talk about the little back and imposing costs into their focused on the subversive activities of the revolutionary guards and on iraq and syria lebanon and yemen those are most threatening to the regimes right now. They want the United States to organize the coalition to oppose those activities. The president has refused to do this. What he is doing is instead he offered to fast track purchases to work on the interoperable Missile Defense to do counterterrorism cooperation for what he is arguing in response is he is offering them in hand convention will deterrence and counterterrorism Security Cooperation of a variety of sorts. Sports. None of that meets the actual need that is expressed. Its like a doctor offering heart medicine to a cancer patient. It doesnt begin to address what they are concerned about. But the president is doing is announcing the United States is out of the containment business as it is traditionally understood. I dont know that we are waiting to see the direct line of the causality. Its been at least a year or probably longer and they have drawn their conclusion that we are going to go our own way and we will mention it at the time and place that suits us. They organized and informed the United States one hour before they went in to send the signal if youre not going to organize pr. It didnt come away from that statement that anybody watching closely to see that. What it means to sum up here is that the United States is now the machiavellian no mans land because thats what you should be a loyal friend and a vicious enemy. When there are conflicts involving your allies you should take a clear side. If you are sitting on defense than you are distrusted by your friends who dont trust you and your enemies have content for you and thats where we are. Now we are powerful enough and our friends will not express their disloyalty and the enemy is sometimes cited for contempt they have for us but when it comes to determining their actions they are filled with contempt and our allies actions are filled with distrust which means we have lost any ability to shape whats going on in the region and the way that it remains vital to the United States in which we see by watching, we may find ourselves involved in another major war sometime soon and when that starts we will have no alternative other than to use massive unilateral force to meet the threats rising up. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. Please raise your hand if you have a question and we will bring a microphone if you wish. Please bring your name and affiliation as a courtesy to the speaker. If you are with the press please make that known as well. One question per cluster and hopefully we will get a second round. If you have a specific person please let us know were for the panel in general please, no commentary once again as a courtesy to everyone so we can get as many questions as possible and we will try to get to as many of those as we can. You were speaking about the risk of the proliferation of in the region after the deal and i was just hoping you could comment on the counter argument that weve heard that the other powers are more likely to seek for one that has stronger inspections. Thank you. Who wants to take that . [inaudible] im certainly willing to go first. Whether no agreement is better than a bad agreement i think that president obama is right when hes repeatedly said that he is repeatedly said that as he moved towards a bad agreement. The the saudis have been most explicit. They have said they are going to have with iran has permitted. Whether or not there is an agreement. Succumb if iran is constrained in some realistic way i think that would be good. But the saudi see this arrangement for what it is. The centrifuges being connected but clearly iran is a threshold state. We abandoned the goal which was the goal of the International Community as it is registered in the Security Council resolutions weve banned we said and did that and said what we are going to do now is move from two months or three months to 12 is. That is a flawed notion and they see it for what it is. I think in at least three respects. Number one how do you know when the clock begins unless of course iran decides to break out of the facility that has the monitors. But they are not going to do that. And iran has demonstrated its a master of denial and exception. No one knows better than the saudis. They know the iranians better than we do. Geography has a powerful force that is a powerful force. And our track record of detecting cheating and Nuclear Proliferation is not very good. Now the administration can say we will know when cheating begins. But again if you look at our experience in this over and over again we have failed. The most profound, some of the most profound intelligence failures have been exactly in this area. Just look very recently at our assessment of whether or not north korea had an enrichment facility. It took years and it was that debate was only resolved when the North Koreans invited an american scientist to come to the enrichment facility and showed it in operation. Point number one, we wont know we likely wont know. Number two, even if we suspend this what is the likely response going to be . Its taken years to get to the point even internally for the u. S. To declare that russia is in violation of the agreement. It took years to get the board of governors to vote on the safeguard agreement and for the Security Council to react so the notion that its meaningful in the context of the response is a simple policy. And third even if you assume that we would know it even if you assume that the International Community or the United States for that matter would respond in any effective way, we dont have the baseline knowledge to assess. They stonewalled since the report that identified 12 different activities all associated with possible militarization. So we dont know that coming and we if we dont go at least i dont know what the outcome is going to be in the end which uranium stockpile. Will it remain in iran as the uranium beyond the 300 permitted telegrams. They said no and we said yes. But we said what the outcome is on us. We are told it hasnt been resolved as of yet or the before the next round of negotiations. For those three reasons all of which they are aware of there is no credibility of the notion of extending the breakout time. We are not going to fool the saudis or the other countries. I was there earlier this year and let me say youre right. The sense of the United States as having abandoned the region and the lack of credibility of this administration is palpable. They hold us in contempt. They hold the american policy in the state. But sees it for what it is. Thats the message. And our performance in the negotiation is one measure of that. The other one i think was mentioned and that is failing to respond when they had a profound effect on the United States. Abandoning the park and egypt. We can make arguments either way but it had a profound effect on how we are perceived. And this is a ground for proliferation and i think you are going to see it and the question is will this lead to the end of the regime which is i think very important concern. Lets come. In this way. One, two three. American university. This is for you. You said repeatedly that americas allies are looking at us in contempt and that regime is asking america to intervene with isis and not iran so what do you say to the fact that in 2014 they went to tehran and asked to intervene with isis and also the fact that theres been an overwhelming amount of appreciation and respect not only with european governments but European Companies and corporations. I will take the last one first because it is the easiest. Of course they like the agreement because it is opening up a new market for them and theyve largely gotten out of the security game. That is our providence province primarily. But the germans have a longstanding approach to the problem