Application instead will now have managed access and a dispute resolution mechanism that will allow iran to delay inspections of suspect sites and permit russia and china to obstruct action in the Security Council. Fac and sanctions relief and the so called snapback provisions that the administration wants emphasized as a guard against iranian cheating have been shown to be more words than substance. The president has talked about a huge signing bonus sums it up to 150 billion, and moscow has been very direct. There will be no automatic reimposition of sanctions. I could go on but let me just say that i long to conclude ago that the only real barrier to an agreement is the willingness of iran to take yes for an into the yes the iranian will agree to certain conditions such as not building buildings that they had never intended to build. Instead of no enrichment, they can operate five or 6000 centrifuges under the agreement but to also be allowed to maintain and storage thousands of other machines that could be brought online relatively quickly. R d and to the more advanced centrifuges will go on. Yes, it is better at that the century just are not being connected during the agreement but that doesnt make this a good deal. In fact, this is unquestionably based on what we know a bad deal, and this important distinction often gets lost in the rhetoric. Everyone Everyone Wants a negotiated outcome, including and perhaps more than anyone else, israels leaders. Polls cited by the administration to show that a large majority of americans want a diplomatic outcome. Of course, they do. But the next question is what is a majority support a bad deal . And i think the likely answer is a resounding no. So what are the metrics to judge the outcome to judge whether this is a good or bad deal . I think they are rather straightforward and you think about it. Here are five. Does the agreement deny iran a Nuclear Weapon capability . The longstanding declared goal of the United States and the International Community. Does the agreement once the constraints expire prevent iran from building a Nuclear Weapon in a short amount of time . Does the agreement actually extend the breakout time in a meaningful way . Is the agreement effectively verifiable . And is there a meaningful days of release of sanctions and are they guaranteed snapback provisions . And i think very clearly the answer to each of these questions is no. Of 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 negotiating practice. The basic canon of negotiating onetoone. Instead of increasing pressure on tehran through more sanctions, they released sanctions to end their word keep iran at the table. But whenever it was these very sanctions that brought them to the table. Instead of making clear to iran iran need an agreement more than we, the administration has demonstrated just the opposite. That it is desperate for an agreement. A desperation that irans negotiators have exploded to the fullest as seen even today in the demand for ending the arms embargo. Instead of insisting on full compliance with the interim jpoa, the administration has in effect become irans advocate and lawyer, reinterpreting the provisions of the agreement to keep negotiations going. Instead of insisting that the word deadline means deadline the administration has allowed iran to squeezed further concessions each time the latest deadline approaches and then passes. And most important, instead of holding the line on those key issues that would actually determine whether the agreement is good or bad whether it advances the u. S. Security interests or undermines them the administration has made concession after concession. And the consequences are profound. Any agreement that allows iraq to continue to build its Ballistic Missile force while simultaneously permitting iran to maintain if not expand its Nuclear Capability will undermine u. S. National sigir interests as well as those of our friends and alice in the region and beyond. Iran will almost certainly become the preeminent power in the gulf with a u. S. Pullout from iraq and the drawdown from afghanistan there will be few who oppose irans further expansion. In the past decade irans benevolent presence has grown in syria and lebanon and more recently in iraq and yemen. The administrations suggestion that a nuclear deal will lead to a 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 from a nonproliferation perspective another strategic consequence of a bad agreement is the increased rossbach for Nuclear Proliferation, one like result of irans greater capacity and influence to reinforce by a growing skepticism among our alice about the u. S. Ability and resolve to defend their interests will be decisions by other gulf states to acquire a Nuclear Threshold capability similar to irans. Saudi arabia has already said openly that it will seek what iran is permitted. And how can we then say no to the saudis and others who want to enrich or perhaps even we process . Abdicating iran stamp of approval. After giving the administration is under one of the most important nonproliferation tools dating back to the carter administration. Finally, because the United States and other p5 1 members have agreed to include Ballistic Missiles from the negotiations the message to other rogue states will be that we are not serious of imposing costs for proliferation. This could further increase the incentives for states seeking weapons of mass destruction to acquire Ballistic Missiles as a means of delivery. F. A. R. Bandicoot encourage even closer cooperation with north korea on the transfer of Missile Technology apparatus Nuclear Weapons technologies as well. With tens of billions of dollars in sanctions relief, irans military and its revolutionary guards will have access to more resources for more missiles, for more weapons across the spectrum and for more terrorist activity. A bad agreement will result in a less stable and less safe world. For the regional states, for israel and for the United States. Let me conclude by saying that one didnt need to be present to note even two years ago how this is going to turn out. The Administration Still clings to the old talking points, youve heard them in the last couple of days that it will not accept a bad deal, that he will walk away if iran doesnt meet its demands and, of course, that no one yet knows how this will turn out because nothing is agreed until all is a great. But let me cmid if you find these statements credible given all that we do know i think you are living in the bizarro world. In fact, for me i long ago concluded really quite sadly that a Supreme Leader was less likely to distort the status of the negotiations to his public than the white house was to the american public. The American People as president obama has said deserves the truth. Lets ensure that they did it. Thank you very much. Thank you ambassador. Emerging nuclear deal with iran has significant flaws and risks that could dangerously undermine u. S. National security either directly in terms of the Nuclear Technologies and capacities that patio grants iran, or indirectly in terms of the regional implications to the deal. I like to focus my comments primarily on the regional implications, get into little way of how some of our alice in the region look at this appeal. Although the administration ended negotiations pledging that the negotiation would cut off the path of iran towards a Nuclear Weapon come its become clear that this is more than a diplomatic speedbump that will only delay if not give iran opportunities to cheat on a whole new set of arrangements. The agreement in effect legitimizing iran as a Threshold Nuclear Power and once the restrictions on Irans Nuclear activities expire it will be easier for iran to cross that threshold. Irans Nuclear Infrastructure is left largely intact and its well on its way to developing an International Uranium enrichment capacity that will shorten its spread for a Nuclear Weapon. This fact is not lost on our alice, our friends or frenemies in the region. Youre likely to hedge their bets and take out insurance by working to expand their own nuclear options. The end result could be an Excellent Nuclear proliferation and possible Nuclear Arms Race is the most volatile region in the world today. Irans neighbors see perspective you would allow iran to maintain a huge infrastructure that forced its legitimate civilian needs that include Nuclear Facilities built in violation of Irans Nuclear liberation commitments. And this view would in effect legitimize the operations while imposing very few penalties on iran. And as the ambassador said that sets up a very dangerous situation for potential leverage in the future. Incredibly the administration is offering the ayatollahs and iran today uranium enrichment arrangements that denied to the shah of iran under the ford and carter administrations back in the 1970s. For more than five decades washington is supposed to spread technologies including uranium enrichment even for its allies. It should not make an exception for iran which by doing so in effect they would be conceding the acceptability of an illicit Uranium Enrichment Program and a rogue state and ends up merely haggling over size and scope. Moreover, iran can quickly reneged on its concessions if the ayatollahs decide to do so but sanctions on iran, especially at the u. N. , will take time to reimpose, if they can be reimpose at all. The russians and chinese are sure to bring objections if they see its in their interest to do that. Sophist snapback provision i think is more of a myth than a legitimate institutional arrangement. The elephant in the room that the Obama Administration downplays its irans long history violating its Previous Nuclear agreements. The administration claims that the Framework Agreement provides for an unprecedented and intrusive expection inspection regime but iran has walked away from some of those commitments. Moreover, Saddam Husseins iraq arak was much after the 1991 gulf war but was quickly blocked and circumvented inspections for 12 years until he was ousted in 2003. The administration has sought to ease anxieties about verifying iranian compliance by stressing the role of the International Atomic energy agency, by the iaea only has access to declared Nuclear Facilities and it completely miss irans covert Nuclear Program before it was revealed by the Iranian Opposition groups in 2002. President obama insists that if iran cheats, world will know. But how long will it take to find out that iran is cheating . What will the world do when it discovers that cheating . Look at syria, which the Obama Administration signed a deal with in 2013 trumpeting it as a great nonproliferation agreement in which the assad regime was supposed to distort all of its chemical weapons. Yet today that regime continues to use chlorine gas against its own people with little fear of the consequences. The administrations acceptance of that flawed arrangement and its refusal to enforce its own red lines when confronted with cheating is an extremely alarming all morning president or not least for our regional allies who fear a similar dynamic in the iran deal. The administrations recent actions essentially playing the role of irans large in explaining away violations of the interim accord, its going to convert enriched uranium to the right kind of uranium oxide as noted in todays Washington Post editorial, another flashing alarms on for our allies that will undermine confidence in the u. S. And confidence that will take strong action if iran violates the agreement. Another major problem is its clear that iran come its not clear that iran will be required to come clean on the military dimensions of its Nuclear Program. Pmd and iaea parlance, thats important because its almost impossible to develop a clear picture of the breakout time if you dont know what is the base of iranian factions in which its going to break out. The nuclear deal also gives iran billions of dollars of sanctions really an economic shot in the arm that will bolster one of the most hostile and dangerous regimes in the middle east and boost a threat to the u. S. And its allies. Iran would get 30 50 billion signing bonus immediately and would eventually pocket between 100140 billion of its oil revenues frozen in offshore accounts as a result of sanctions. Moreover iran would reap the benefits of greater oil sanctions, greater oil revenues once the sanctions are lifted. Irans oil Ministry Expects that iran eventually could double its oil exports from about 1. 2 Million Barrels a day to about 2. 3 Million Barrels a day in the future that will give a much greater Financial Resources to finance terrorism and subversion abroad, and its brutal repression at home. The economic payoff for the new clergy would also help iran should reach about the power in its favor and could possibly emboldened regime to become more aggressive in its foreign policy. Allies are also alarmed washington has backed off many of its red lines. Those red lines are fading to think or even pink dotted line. Meanwhile, iran is adding new red lines. Ayatollah khomeini the Supreme Leader last month added a set of red lines that would make a deal impossible. Some have interpreted these pronouncements as a bargaining tactic that it also could spell in the long run i think the death knell of the talks because the Supreme Leaders education goes beyond merely good cop, bad cop and goes right to the heart of one of the problems with the Iranian Regime the fact that you have a government negotiating with the west that could be at any point overruled, undermined and just done an end run around by the Supreme Leader and its important to note that it reflects the interests of irans revolution. That tension between the logic of the revolution and the logic of the state has made a rent always a prickly case for negotiating with. Weve seen it time and again in trying to negotiate with iran. I predict if there is an agreement signed, that may not be the end of negotiations because Supreme Leader will have undoubtedly a new red line about how to implement the agreement. I would think this Supreme Leader may be so adamantly opposed to any kind of flexibility that a good deal with iran may be impossible to get 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 order interest. Israel which is within range of irans Ballistic Missiles has warned that it reserves the right to take them to launch a preventive strike against Irans Nuclear infrastructure if the agreement fails to give adequate safeguards against iran obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. Prime minister netanyahu has warned that disagreement rather than barring the path a Nuclear Weapon is really taking that path. And for israel does is an existential issue. Its not just a question of building some kind of logical legacy. Former iranian president rafsanjani has considered a moderate darkly noted that israel is a one long country meaning it could be destroyed with one Nuclear Weapon while iran is much bigger or it could sustain much greater damage. This kind of rhetoric does not bode well for the future. Israelis argue also that the administration has played a strong hand as the ambassador said releasing sanctions pressures on iran, downplaying the military option and both of these can be effective both 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 agreement by deadlines. Because its learned time and time again the more it digs in its heels, the more it is rewarded. Israel is not alone in criticizing this deal. Saudi arabia whose king boycotted the white house summit at camp David A Knight as a sign up unhappiness with u. S. Iran policy also was unhappy with the trajectory of a nuclear negotiation. Iran has let it be noted within every nuclear concession that iran received and has entered negotiations with france to build civilian Nuclear Reactors that could in the future become the basis of a fullfledged Nuclear Weapons programs. The southeastern not only the possibility of saudis detente but and were greatly jeopardize their National Interest so theyre hedging their bets, seeking better relations with moscow and beijing and making plans for the own Nuclear Program. The united arab emirates, south korean taiwan have greater restrictions put on their enrichment programs and what looks like iran will be able to gain. They may want to be negotiate their arrangements. So this agreement may open the doors to a Nuclear Arms Race because after restrictions on enrichment art these iran will be in a better position to make that final sprint. Even if you send iran will not cheat on the agreement, will not build a bomb after the greatest restrictions are eased prudent governments that they are iran are bound to take out insurance policies in the form of the own Nuclear Programs. And this could spur cascade of proliferation that would include saudi arabia, possibly turkey, egypt, uae, maybe algeria. And i would lead to a multicolored middle east with each country on a hair trigger because they will be lacking secure second strike capabilities so they will do in a use it or lose it situation. If you think the middle east is false and dangerous now, just wait. Even some former senior officials who were involved in formulating the administrations policy on the Iran Nuclear Issue last month warned in an open letter organized by the Washington Institute for near east policy that an emergency may fall short of meeting the administrations own standard of the good agreement. The bottom line is that the Obama Administration now has an agreement in principle with regime that has few principles except to expand its power and its revolution. This emerging deal already has weakened u. S. Alliances with important friends in the region. Its undermined the liability that u. S. As an ally. Gets reduced u. S. Influence and put iran in a position to greatly expand its own influence. It weakens longstanding nonproliferation goals and it could contribute to a very dangerous multipolar middle east. So the picture is not pretty. Mike . Thanks for having me. Thanks to all of you for coming. I cant add any happiness and such into this picture. Ill confine my remarks more to the region and i will take up on some of the things that jim said and emphasized in a little more. The allies of the United States in the middle east, disagree about many consequent of things. But for the last 36 years is one thing they could all agree on that that is the United States is the guarantor of regional order. They have looked to play the role and they have assumed that that role comes with a responsibility namely organizing, orchestrating the containment of iran. And as the allies have watched the u. S. Negotiate this agreement, i think they have come to the conclusion that the United States that president obama has shed his responsibility that has taken the United States out of the game of containing iran. Now, the president doesnt admit that he continues to talk in those terms. When he brought everybody to the camp david summit, the gcc summit here last month there was a lot of newspaper commentary by supporters of the administration that path talk in those terms. Ill get back to that in a minute because if you look at what the president said he has, in fact gone out of the iran containment containment business. Before get to that let me just talk a little bit about the concerns of allies, what the painting as they been watching these negotiations. And then a couple of the arguments that the administration has put out to try to quell the concerns of allies. And why the allies find these arguments completely unsatisfactory. And then a couple words about the consequences of all this. So i think there are four trends that the allies have seen while watching this negotiation. Trends my colleagues have already covered pretty well. The first one is american retreat. For negotiations has been in history of the negotiation has been a history of u. S. Concessions, starting with the interview itself. The interim deal was traded temporary and reversible concessions by the iranians for primary concessions by the u. S. Previous agreed to a sunset clause meaning this would only be a temporary agreement, and exceeded the right to enrich, it recognize iran as a Threshold Nuclear Power. They did it as a first step in return for that massive concessions from the u. S. , it got an agreement by the iranians to temporarily reduce the pace of events of their program. And just for the life of the negotiation at that point so thats just one example. You know all of the other sort of other ones that have been mentioned, the pmd issue, the secure facility out for to come and on and on and on fordow. As when alice look at this, its troubling enough to see the terms of the agreement that result from this capitulation. But the spectacle of the capitulation is equally unnerving. Because it makes them wonder if they are in a pinch with respect to iran will the United States actually be there at the site. To watch the United States whittle down its own position on its own vital interests and skills with a feeling that when it comes to your vital interest they will be even more inclined to whittle things down. So it undermines confidence in u. S. Resolve. The second issue the second trend they see which ive already mentioned is this conceding permanent concession for temporary ones by the iranians. Embodied in a sunset clause in the agreement. That take the troubling because its not just what it says about the nuclear question per se. It also says that the United States is out of the business of containing iran and is now managing its arise. Iran is going to be a Nuclear Power and we will help manage its right to do the two things together to concessions by the u. S. And in the recognition of the inevitable rise of iran suggest that the United States is pulling back and iran is filling the vacuum. This is compounded by the third trend, and the unsettling nature of these, the third trend the new normal that weve seen emerge over the last 18 months in relations between the u. S. And iran. We talk about iran as an enemy. We still Pay Lip Service to that but we now do, we now engage iran in a way that one doesnt engage with ones enemies as jim and bob mentioned. We are serving as irans lawyer in these negotiations, rather than holding their feet to the fire we are coming to their defense against our allies who are criticizing him. Over the last 18 months we have watched severe deterioration in relations between the us and israel between the u. S. And saudi arabia. Its been more visible. You would see they were saying exactly the same thing which is remarkable in another south beard the greatest achievement of the Obama Administration in the middle east as it has brought saudi arabia and israel together faster than anyone wouldve ever thought possible. This friction with our allies contrast with the images we see on our screen daily of smiling minister of iran with a smiling john kerry but the impression of a new era of friendship between the two countries. The administration insists this is just an arms control negotiations only about the Nuclear Issue and isnt looking to build on this for anything larger or anything else. We keep hearing credible reports about much wider discussions between iran and the United States about the islamist dates in iraq and stabilizing area come and stabilizing yemen and how wide is his cooperation. But at the longterm plans with respect to iran. Is the United States starting to think of iran as a partner for Regional Security and no one. At least of the most important thing, which is the lack of response the total lack of response, the dog that didnt bark in the story over the last two or three years in the middle east. The absence of any attempt by the United States to impose costs on iran for its interventions in iraq, syria and yemen. I try in vain to find a statement out of the white house of concern about what i ran assuming and iran has deployed the iraqi militias and area. I am unsure in these statements designed to compose cause. On the contrary when the iranians were running in iraq with their air force and john kerry was asked and said its a good thing. The statements by the United States lot in intervention either ran sent shivers down the spine of our traditional allies. A couple words about some of the arguments the administration is making and then well turn it over for questions. In the interest of time i will have to quickly. Actually i will hit three. One is as bob mentioned the deal itself is going to moderate the regime somehow, that the influx of Capital Development of a mutual dependency between the u. S. And iranians will change the calculus in tehran. As bob said, this is bizarro world. Theres no reason whatsoever to believe the spirit field that we believe this is if you assume the rhetoric and action the rhetoric and action of a action of iranians over the last 30 years has no bearing on what they do tomorrow. I dont know in any field a prediction where that would actually be the case. And of course Human History has someone got 100 billion decided everything they did up until yesterday was totally wrong. I dont even think it requires going into anymore detail than not. The administration has come up with arguments and its been arguing lately saying explicitly they think the iranians will spend all of their new money on butter, not guns. What is the evidence . The direct quote from Senior Administration officials. There is no evidence. They start listing the names of the iranian people and the iranian economy and since the need to do is come under machine wont be concerned about them. They are making things up because they have the obvious factor rain will get much more powerful. Much more about the very quickly. It is unnerving allies and they dont have a good answer and tell how to mitigate it. So theyve made an argument that we are certain the iranians will send the money on butter not guns. Recognizing i presume that this is an adequate argument the president has now come up with a different one which is once the agreement is in place, that will provide a breathing space and then we will start containing iran in the region. That takes me back to my original point. If you look closely at how he is defining containment, his use of the word by allies are two totally different things. When alice talk about containment, they talk about rollback. They talk about imposing costs and may focus specifically on the subversive activities of the revolutionary guard and specifically on the site committees and iraq syria, lebanon and yemen. Those are the activities that are most threatening to those regimes right now. They want the United States to organize the coalition to oppose those that committees. The president has resolutely refused to do this. What he is doing instead he offered to gcc status [inaudible conversations] , to fasttrack arms purchasers to work on interoperable Missile Defense to do counterterrorism cooperation and so on and so forth. What he is offering in response to the allies is he is offering them enhanced conventional deterrence against a conventional attack from the iranians and counterterrorism Security Cooperation of a variety of sorts. None of that is the actual need that is expressed. It is like a doctor offering part medicine to a cancer patient. It doesnt begin to address what they are really concerned about which takes me back to my original point that what the president is doing quite clearly is announced and the United States is out of the containment business as traditionally understood. The results of this are dire but i dont know we are going to see the direct line. Everything i am saying has been obvious for at least a year, probably longer. They have drawn their conclusions and their conclusion is we will just go our own way. We will do our own thing. We will mention it to the americans at a time and place that suits us. A good example of this is the saudi intervention in yemen. Scott is organized in intervention against the iranian, against the houthis. It was to send a clear signal that if you will not organize, we are. They didnt come with a big Public Statement of go in a separate bag for the United States that anyone watching closely could see that. What it means is the United States is now in what i call a machiavellian no mans land. You should be a loyal friend and vicious enemy. When there are conflicts involving your allies, you should take a clear side. If you sit on the fence you are distrusted by your friends who dont trust you at enemies have contempt for you. That is where we are. We are big enough and powerful enough that our friends will not express their disloyalty and even enemies will hide the contempt they have for us. When it comes to determining actions, actions are filled with content and allied factions are filled with distress, which means weve lost any ability to influence and shape what is going on in the region that remains vital to the United States and we can see by watching events we may find ourselves involved in another major war sometime soon. When the war starts we have no alternative other than to use massive unilateral u. S. For us because we dont have allies organized on the ground to meet the threats rising up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for a rich and powerful discussion about this important issue. We do have some time. I will call on you. We will bring you a microphone if you wish. Give us your name and affiliation as a courtesy to our speakers. If you are with the press, make that known as well. One question per questionnaire. Hopefully the second round of questions. If you have a specific person please let us know for the panel in general. No commentary once again as a courtesy to everyone else. Well try to get to as many of those as we can. I see one over there. Thank you for your remarks. My question is whether philadelphia is about the risk of public nation in the region after a deal. I was hoping you could comment on the counter argument that the gcc and other regional parties are more likely to seek technical parity in response to an unsecured iranian programs and in response to one that has been restricted and has stronger inspections. Thank you. Who wants to take back . Im certainly willing to go first. Its a very good question. It goes to the issue of whether no agreement is better than a bad agreement and i think president obama is right when the u. S. Repeatedly said that in a bad agreement. The saudis have been most explicit. They have said they are going to have what iran is permitted, whether or not there is an agreement. So with iran is constrained in some realistic way that would be good. The saudi see this arrangement emerging. There may be a temporary pause in terms of the number of centrifuges being connected but clearly iran is not a threshold state. We have abandoned the goal of denying a Nuclear Weapons capability, which was the goal of the International Community is registered in multiple resolutions. We have abandoned not inside what we will do now is move from two months or three month or three months breakout time to 12 months. That is a fatally flawed notion in the saudi see it for what it is. It is flawed in at least three respects. One, how do you know when the clock begins. Unless iran decides to break out in a declared facility that has iaea monitors. They are not going to do that in iran has demonstrated is a master of denial no one knows that better than saudis. They know better than we do. Geography has a powerful force. Our track record at detecting cheating in Nuclear Proliferation is not very good. The administration can say we will know when cheating begins. Again, if you look at our experience in this over and over again, we have failed. 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 has an enrichment of civility. The debate was only resolved when the north korean invited to come to the enrichment facilities. And showed it in operations. We wont know. We likely wont know the saudis know that. Even if we did know when they start cheating, what is the likely response going to be . It has taken years to get to the point internally to the u. S. To declare russia is in violation of the imf agreement. It took years to get the iaea board of governors to vote on iran violating its safeguards agreement. Even more years for the Security Council to react. The notion 12 months is meaningful in the context of a response is simple fallacy. Third, even if you assume we would know and even if you assume the International Community of the United States would respond in an effective way we dont have the baseline knowledge to be able to assess whether the 12 months as credible. We dont know what progress theyve made on weaponization. They have stonewalled us to november 2011 iaea report that identified 12 different activities associated with possible militarization. So we dont know that. I dont know what the outcome is going to be in terms of enriched uranium tactile in iran. Will it remain in the enriched uranium beyond the 300 permitted kilograms. The radiance has said no. We have said yes. You choose which one you believe. We will see what the outcome is im not. We also have an open question about what happens to the enriched uranium at 20 . Whats going to happen with that . Maybe it will be resolved but we are told it hasnt been resolved as of yet for at least before the last round of negotiations. For those three reasons all of which the saudis are aware of, there is no credibility for four extending the breakout round. We may fool ourselves that we may fool the american public, but we will not pull the other gulf countries. I was in the uae earlier this year. Let me say the sense that the United States is having abandoned the region, the lack of credibility of the administration is palpable. They hold us in contempt. They hold american policy and the same. Lets face it for what it is. That is the message and our performance in the negotiations is one measure of that. The other one mentioned is failing to respond to the red line and the assad use cw. Abandoning mubarak in egypt. It had a profound effect. This is a Fertile Ground for proliferation and i think you are going to see it in the real question is will this lead to the npt regime which is a very important concern. Lets go here and look him over this way. High [inaudible] american university. This is for mr. Doran. He said repeatedly americas allies are looking on us in contempt and the iraqi regime is asking america to intervene with isis and not iran. What you say to the fact in september 2014 alibi they went to tehran and asked to intervene with isis . And also to the fact there has been an overwhelming amount of appreciation in europe, not only with european government, the European Companies and corporations. I will take the last one first because its the easiest spirit of coors european corporations like the agreement because it opens up a new market for them. The europeans have gotten out of the security game. That is our province primarily. The german have a longstanding approach to the problem based primarily on the economic interests in iran. The british are moving and have been moving in that direction for some time. Our policy has speeded the movement. It was put to me very candidly by the conservative french politician last week. The Iranian Nuclear europe and may put brakes on some of the speed by which we been making concessions to the iranian and this guy came to me and said basically we are for having done thats because now we have irritated the Obama Administration and we are at the back of the line for getting new contracts from the iranians. The british were a lot smarter. They helped the obama facilitate his policy and they got themselves at the front of the line for contracts. It is our job to hold the line. Thats what we do in the world. We are not going to hold the line. These countries didnt want to put it first. Let him finish and we will move on. With regard to your second question you didnt exactly characterize what i said correctly. I said that john kerry thought it was a good thing the iranians were intervening in iraq. We should be very concerned about that and i think when iraq if politicians show an inclination to invite the iranians then we should come down hard on them from the point of view of our own interests. We should also recognize iran as subverting iraq and now controls the Security Sector of shiite iraq for a militia is Deborah Mahdi himself doesnt control. We should stand for territory of iraq and National Sovereignty and see iran as the primary threat. One last point. We have to be aware of the effect this is having on all of our sunni allies. The administration is suggesting strongly and saying explicitly iran can be our ally against the Islamic State. It is simply not true. It is not true on every level. Iran does not regard the Islamic State the way we do. The sunni revolutionary powers seeking to take power in the sunni world. It does threaten the iranian interest to a certain degree in southern iraq but it also has created tremendous opportunities to secure his control over iraqi politics and also to sell itself as an ally against the Islamic State. What we have done is created a polarization in the region were sunni allies dont trust us at all and i think our war is simply going to facilitate the rise of iran throughout the region. As a result, we have a coalition of 60 partners that can defeat the Islamic State which is 20,000 or 30,000 guys in pickup trucks and bad attitude. Why cant we defeat it . Partners dont want to defeat it. They signed up to be polite to us. Defeating it means facilitating iranians hegemony over the region. Questions. In a mismatch shoot me with rent for america. He talked about how it got a bad negotiating position. What are some steps we can take in our regional respects because i know obvious way weve taken back sanctions what more can we do to put pressure on iran that would send them into the open arms with russia and china. Well, id say the pessimist i dont think the administration is capable of correcting the mistakes authority made and coming up with a logical coherent negotiating position that will produce an acceptable agreement. That puts the onus on the u. S. Congress to take a close look at what is emerging because each day it seems there is a new element even worse than what we heard before. We need to walk away from the table and let economic forces take their course in iran and even without sanctions committee Iranian Regime itself has so many bad economic policies and corruption and over time political opposition will grow. I am not sure it is possible to walk this back. The inactive time for time for one more question . I testified last month and was asked a question of what can congress do. Congress can do another entree number of things. And theyll have the opportunity and thats an important expression i can ensure to the degree that have been imposed on iran. They can also establish a team be which is a technique in the past because there are outside experts with access to intelligence who can confirm compliance or detect and ensure it is detected. Finally, we need to protect the American People. One of the most important things we can do is continue to emphasize Missile Defense capabilities. Iran is working and has the United States will be held hostage by iran in the future. There were four Things Congress can do. T. Of time for one more question . Coral golovin. One how did we get into this mess in the beginning and the u. S. Is a guarantee of stability. Outside of the Nuclear Issue since we abandon we needed i read and iraq to sell for u. S. Dollars. Looking for peace there is potential for an understanding with economic stability. Breakout mechanized. We can turn people off with the turn of a key and it creates instability rather than stability. Im actually not the best person to talk about it on the economic side but can always move on if we dont have the expertise. One or two observations. I dont know if they go to your point. There is a feeling out there i noticed when i talk to groups that because we are on the cusp of Oil Independence or energy independence, we dont need the region anymore. That kind of thinking as clearly influenced the white house even if not exposed within the documents and so on. The events of the last two years have shown it is simply not true that we are not ready to give up and leave the region because it has a way of following us wherever we go. I dont think that answers your question about the economics of it. We are going to be as scared pores of the global stability and Global Economy and given the fact the region continues to be supplying oxygen into the Global Economy, will be concerned whether we want to be or not. One more question. Last question i promise. Banks heritage foundation. My question is based on two assumptions which are reasonable. Firstly we are going to get a bad deal on the second made the next administration will have to do a lot to shore up u. S. Credibility in the region. Assuming both of those take place, what are your thoughts about the u. S. Extending a Nuclear Security security guarantees are brought among the gcc countries plus jordan and egypt as a way to stop Nuclear Proliferation in the region . I am not talking about conventional security guarantee. Nuclear one. The u. S. Would be obligated to respond back. Thanks. Sure. It is not going to work. Its not what they want. They dont want it and they dont believe that. We just passed on the easy the easier part of the equation which is stopping them from getting a bomb to begin with. We dont have the gumption to go the distance with them on that. The allies have drawn the conclusion we are not willing we are not willing to go the distance. Why are they suddenly happy with our nuclear guarantee . The saudis believe we might trade an American City if it came to nuclear war. They wont believe the guarantee we are getting and they will conclude the only way they can force us to pay any attention to them is by developing their own Nuclear Weapons. By the way with regard to that point it is amazing to me at this on a bomb administration talking points. It is very amusing to watch them shift over time. Two years ago during the 2012 election, three years ago now when the concern was the israeli doubts about the Obama Administration willingness to go with the iranians, the Obama Administration had a process inside the administration and they looked at the problem carefully and came to the conclusion that they didnt stop the iranians and a very convincing way that would be proliferation throughout the region of president obama is a nonproliferation hawk something he regards as the most important aspects of his legacy and so israelis and jewish in america dont worry president obama will take care of it because he knows if he does think the saudis will proliferate. Saudis proliferation in the event of a bad deal was a given with respect to the administration up until yesterday. Not when of the saudis are unhappy with the deal, but that is all proliferate because we will give them a nuclear guarantee. And exposing comments . I say thats an important question for whoever is elected the next president. Let me say security nonproliferation tools we have i think we have friends and allies in the lab security guarantee. The administration has done everything it can to undercut the credibility of the u. S. Nuclear deterrent over time. It is now beginning to change because of russia and president putins aggression in europe and the realization article v is important in an equal realization that nuclear forces, Nuclear Capability had deteriorated to such a point that we must act to do this. I think we are now beginning to take some of those steps. Again this is for the next administration for the capability but the perception of our resolve if we fail to do that it will be not just proliferation in the middle east, but you will find it. I would just make two points. One is that kind of guarantee boils down to credibility and i dont think the administration has enough credibility left to make that powerful tool. I would say it is no coincidence iran reportedly stopped their Nuclear Program in 2003 with the military strike by the Bush Administration did overthrow Saddam Hussein and the taliban and to the east and even colonel gadhafi gave up his weapons programs until the time Prime Minister that was because he expected if he didnt bet he would suffer the consequences from the Bush Administration and i think the libyan disarmament was an often overlooked victory for the Bush Administration that if it hadnt been done would have led to a much greater consequence than the libyan civil war. Finally i would say this is an administration that puts a higher priority on engaging enemies and protect in the interest of his friends. If you do that long enough, youll find more enemies amongst friends. Mike. I had another thought. Related to what i said earlier in my remarks. I think there is a mistake thinking about the calculations of these countries about Nuclear Weapons to think of it in totally symmetric terms, that the saudi desire for the desire of other states in the region to have a Nuclear Weapon is not simply to be chaired the iranians from using their Nuclear Weapon. The problem with the iranian Nuclear Program when the saudis look at it is not simply that they will have this all have this awesome weapon at their disposal. It is that the United States becomes more deferential to iran because in every area because they have this weapon. There is a way in which it is a bargaining chip with the United States about its policy and strategy towards the region. Towards the region in general. The fact we would give them the security umbrella wouldnt give them the leverage they want to read the americans which the iranians have succeeded in gaining. Just a final point to mention libya happened to be involved in the negotiations and i wrote a book in 2009 a littleknown book if everyone were to buy a copy of a triple my sails. But it does show that there is a prospect for good outcomes for good agreements. What we did is we fail to shift over to libya, we loaded the ship with hundreds of metric tons of Nuclear Equipment associated with the Nuclear Program. We also loaded the longrange missiles but we brought it back to the United States. That was a good outcome. Very clean, very good. Libya, iran two Different Cases like north korea is different from iran. But what libya demonstrated was that we have a strategy that brings together all the tools not just diplomacy, the tool of diplomacy with economic sanctions, intelligent tools in the other instruments we can bring to bear in a coherent strategy we can prevail. The panelist on a great job today. Theyve certainly given us a lot to think about. Thank you all for giving us your valuable time in coming here today to talk about this issue. Please join me in thanking them with a round of applause. [applause] and the u. N. Security council approving the broader job no longer sit prize as illegal. Politico was writing about whether a nuclear deal with iran will be announced today. Irans president jumped the gun on twitter and prematurely celebrating a deal with the United States and five other world powers on the regimes Nuclear Program. Shortly after noon eastern time, iranian president Hassan Rouhani that it is diplomacy and mutual coercion and this is a good beginning. 15 minutes later to tweet was deleted. Rouhani with an earlier message from foreign minister chuvash sharif, secretary of state john kerrys counterpart. Triumph of diplomacy means we will all have one and we all couldve lost. Plain and simple nospace needed. We tell you all this because we are expecting the president of iran to come to the campus this afternoon to address the nation to give an update on the talks in the meetings taking place at 1 30 eastern. Clearly its past bedtime. We will keep you posted. In the meantime, Monetary Fund director christine the guard a plastic of the great financial crisis saying it is helping resolve the situation increases that will make restructuring. She gave these are marks of the Brookings Institution where she discussed her organizations will adopt a new set of International Calls for supporting global development. The agenda expected to be adopted at the summit in september to include a debate on issues with Global EconomicStability Development attacks collection. This is just over an hour. Good afternoon everyone. Had the great pleasure of having the managing director of imf with a senate panel i will introduce in a few minutes. Thank you to all of you can also just maybe for the majors are. That is excellent timing. The topic today will be financing for Development Financing for the post2015 development agenda. And we will stick to that because otherwise the world is so full. Of course christine can talk about what she wants, but it is a big enough and important enough topic. Just Everybody Knows of course Christine Lagarde. But real mind you she was before her tenure as minister of trade and finance in france, leading to major law, International Law practice with nature and mckinsey. At the fund but we have seen this despite all the criticism and the debate it is crucial to the World Economy into the world. At the same time, the fund has opened self up much more. I know Christine Lagarde is very tough but engages with everybody and discusses things and this number is close to reasonable debate and that is so important in the field because as we know in economics as many views, many as and not one is necessarily correct. I would like to thank her for being with us in the key issue that goes together with the summit that will take place in new york in september and of course the summit in paris. There has been a huge progress in the world. Theres no question about that. Not for everyone. Even for those with the has been progress, expectations of exploitable spirit modern communications, modern closeness in some sense means that it is good for the economy. Strong expectations meet Strong Demand strongly mr. Make a better life than at the same time one has to deliver and delivery is a big issue of course. So christine do you and then well have that pamela and some discussions. [applause] good afternoon to all of you at thank you very much for her as and for the kind words of introduction. What i thought i will do because i know some of you have on their mind financing for development which is the key reason why most of us are here. I thought i would get, not out of the way but say a few words about greece. The New York Stock Exchange has resumed yet, i will not comment on that. But on greece i will say a few words because clearly significant and Rapid Development and the imf has been adopting a line if not silence but we tried to be mindful of development and not the excessive positions. Id like to say if the imf is involved in this situation, it is because the imf was asked by greece to be involved in trying to resolve this economic issues. Whenever it is involved, it is certainly my view it has to follow its rules, should not bend the rules and should always be evenhanded. There cannot be any special treatment. The third point i would like to make is our loans to countries experiencing difficulties are conditional upon various requirement but all of them aimed at restoring stability, restoring growth and debt sustainability. The context of grace we have always advised the program walk on two legs if you will. One leg is about significant reforms and Fiscal Consolidation as we have a device in the case of ireland, portugal, tsipras and outside the eurozone i find and it has worked. The other is debt restructuring which we believe is needed in the particular case of greece for it to have debt sustainability. That analysis has not changed. It may well be that numbers will have to be revisited, but the analysis has not changed. What has changed is clearly greece is in the situation of acute crisis which needs to be addressed seriously and promptly. Greece is now in areas visavis the fund and the great people have rejected by their referendum response the latest proposal that was made by the institutions and the europeans. So in that situation clearly we remain fully engaged in order to help find a solution that would be most conducive to what i said is to try to help with restoring stability growth and debt sustainability. Those will continue to be the Guiding Principles of how we have to operate in order to help countries. I think i will leave it with the Development Fund going today, tomorrow and the next two days and we will be working as much as we can and i will not take any other questions, concerns in relation to greece. Thats as much as i could say. We will not now move into the topic of today which is bringing never ran in the room the financing for development. I would like to thank the Brookings Institution and say how honored i am with nancy burkle of the center for global development. But like to thank members of the imf in the room is vile and i we have some of our african yours who are here with us and who will be like some of bias in a few days to actually discuss all together the financing for development. As you indicated one of the three key summit in 2016. Back a few days ago i gave a speech about inequality and what i called lifting the small boat. At the end of the speech i mentioned to the audience that we might in 2015 have a once in a generation location to change the music. We have the summit will focus on financing for development. We know it is not a fledgling summit. We have to collectively explore areas of financing and then there will be a september General Assembly of the United Nation which will find a Sustainable Development goal and after that at the summit paris will be the focus on the Climate Change and how the International Communities can come together to address those issues. These three combined can actually help us change the music. Why do i say we have to change the music because i dont want to make any mistakes, when the music changes, so does the dance. We have a chance to collectively take a new approach and it starts with next week how we focus on different financing and allocate responsibilities amongst ourselves. And the window of opportunity which i say is rare we need to take the steps carefully consider them an act. But i would like to do this afternoon with you in that spirit is to explore in this very different and changing Global Landscape but developing countries need to take to support Sustainable Growth and have the International Community including the imf can contribute. Lets turn first of all to the changing international landscape. How have circumstances changed since the Millennium Development goals we adopted 15 years ago. You alluded to that. But trends have emerged . For me three trends that i will summarize for ease of memory. The first v. Is velocity. Over the past 15 manners most systemically important emerging markets have prospered. Many developing countries have become more integrated and as a result there has been a rapid expansion of growth as well as capital flows. I will give you a few examples. Since 2009 developing countries, gdp and trade have expanded a rate of 10 . Since the early 2000 capital flows to developing economies have increased threefold. This is good news. What is not such good news is that has not been shared equitably and that is my second v. Or variants. Velocity went quite fast. More than 10 for trade and growth. Three times the government growth but variants is the second v. What do i mean by that . The better performing economies often underpinned by policies have forged ahead. Sadly, most fragile has been left behind. Over the last 15 years real per capita gdp and nonfragile low Income Countries was lost by 70 . In the fragile country, the same increase has only been 15 . Another important dimension is the high level of income inequality that we find within countries. By the same token they spend less inequality between countries and that is largely due to the emergence of some of the very large emerging countries is china. Within countries, theres been a rise in inequality. My third v. Is volatility. Concepts natural disasters have also sent many countries back. Climate change, for instance represents an increasing problem with poor countries hit especially hard. Since 1990 almost three quarters of all natural disasters in developing countries. The geography, reliance on agriculture, low income structure and bottlenecks can make the poorest countries. Another factor is of course demographics. Aging populations face rising dependency ratios that constrain government finances slowdown in growth. Equally, other countries in Subsaharan Africa can have the benefit of fastgrowing populations with a large number of people if they can rip the benefits of the population called the demographic dividends. But there are conditions for that of course. These three trends together, velocity, variants, volatility has not in the last 50 years remain. Some boasts a builtin speed while others struggle to make headways. They all remain at risk of the Uncharted Waters that lay ahead. Each trend as important with the development and each of those should be taken into account when we look at how we deal with the challenges ahead of us. Making the right choice in 2015 is also going be relying on collective commitments. As i have often heard of some of our developing country members it begins at home. Whenever we talk about domestic mobilization for instance where precisely pointing to that. When we look back over the last 15 years, one month and is those that have assumed the greatest ownership of policies. What does that entail . Coming from the imf you would be surprised if i did not mention macroeconomic stability. In our view this is Sustainable Growth that includes keeping inflation. It includes debt sustainable and also means implementing policies that helps maintain resilience in the face of it or not shocks but often has to do with keeping bosses. Take about Subsaharan Africa for instance. The region demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of the Global Financial crisis. Most countries did actually how problems and used a portion of it. Actually, nearly two thirds of subsaharan countries have recorded 10 or more years of uninterrupted growth during that period. Those countries applied prudent policies and it paid off. Now of course economic policies will remain important especially as the region has new challenges and risks. That is why the imf replace him much and its a macroeconomic policy. Why is that . Stability helps people and generally helps the cool people most. Instability victimizes the poor and the most vulnerable fares. It is deeply regretted and instability as the broad go private investment which as we know is one of the key drivers of growth over time. In our view it is only with stable keel with this analogy that we can raise them waste the sale and chart the course towards inclusive and Sustainable Growth. So much for macroeconomic stability. What are the priorities if those foundations are solid . I mentioned briefly mobilizing revenues is going to be a priority. It is imperative. In about half of all developing countries, the tax ratios are below 15 15. If you compare that with the average oecd countries 34 . The situation is even worse than fragile days. And it can be fixed as has been demonstrated by some countries by implementing simple broadbased and fair tax systems the situation can be turned around. The recent imf study examined 126 lower middle Income Countries between 1993 in 2013 and have found supported programs with revenue conditionality helped countries increased tax revenue by one percentage point of gdp. The same conditionality is work consistently applied for three consecutive years tax revenues by 3. 5 Percentage Points of gdp. There is something to be proud of what is important. It is important because revenue generated can actually be spent on matters that will actually make a difference and spent on health and education. It has to be spent on the right policies of pores. Pores. Of course