Transcripts For CSPAN3 Atlantic Council Forum Examines European And Middle East Views On Iran... 20170926

They are followed by another panel looking at the regional implications looking at the agreement. This is hosted by the Atlantic Council. Its just under three hours. Thank you, ambassador. You have been a wonderful supporter of this program and a wonderful guide for it. Thank you all for coming. I guess theres some interest in this issue today, judging from the size of the crowd. Throughout the history of the Nuclear Negotiations with iran going back to 2002, when Irans Nuclear activities were revealed, europe has played a pivotal role in these negotiations. They began with the e3 and the European Union at a time when the Bush Administration refused to talk to iran and called it a member of the axis of evil. Over the years, the u. S. Became more involved in the negotiations, but the european role has remained crucial. And now, with the jcpoa increasingly challenged as the ambassador said from washington, rather than iran, it may be up to the europeans again to save the deal, and if possible, build on it. So we are delighted that we have today with us four extraordinary diplomats, many of whom have a lot of personal experience dealing with this issue. Im going to introduce them in alphabetical order. I see jetta has appeared. The ambassador of france to the United States, a career diplomat. He has graced us with his presence in washington for three years now. He previously held numerous positions within the ministry of foreign affairs, among them ambassador to israel, frances permanent represent to the u. N. , and the french negotiator on the Iranian Nuclear issue from 2006 to 2009. Sir kim derrick presented his credentials in january 2016, just after the jcpoa went into full implementation. And his career spans three decades, has been primarily focused on National Security issues and European Union policy. He served as National Security adviser for the uk. He led the National Security team on issues ranging from the rise of daesh and iraq in syria to russian aggression in the ukraine and the Iranian Nuclear issue and he also served as uk permanent representative to the United Nations and eu adviser to the Prime Minister. David osullivan is with us today. He is the ambassador and head of the European Union delegation to the United States. He was posted here in november 2014. As the eus top diplomat to the u. S. , he oversees the bilateral relationship with the u. S. And the direction and work of the eu delegation. He also was chief operating officer of the European External Action Service and he was really responsible for helping to establish this new eu diplomatic service, so im looking forward to hearing his remarks. And finally, last but not least, peter has served as german ambassador to the u. S. Since april 2014. Prior to that, he was the ambassador to the u. N. Hes also served in madrid as private secretary to the foreign minister and was ambassador in lebanon and in cypress. We could not have asked for a more distinguished panel, and believe me, it was not easy to get all of these people here at this time. Were also delighted that cspan is covering this, and we ask you all if youre in the tweeting mood, to feel free to tweet at aciran. Let me invite our panelists up to the stage. [ applause ] i have to say, i wish there were another lady up here, but what can we do. Gender balance. Gender balance is not here today, but we do have great expertise. I would like to begin, and this isnt a way to make up for the fact we had a similar panel two years ago before the jcpoa went into implementation, and we did not have the eu represented. So because we do, and because the eu has played an amazing role, and perhaps some of you heard the remarks of federica who chaired a meeting of the joint commission on the jcpoa last week in new york, im going to ask ambassador osullivan to begin. I guess the basic question for you and for all the panelists is, are you prepared for a president ial decertification of the jcpoa . What will the eu do, what will your governments do if President Trump does not certify the agreement and he tosses it into the lap of our congress . Well, thats a leading question. First, i thank you very much for being here, and im delighted to be here of course with my british friends and german colleagues. I should emphasize that hes are the three Member States of the European Union who are most active in the negotiations and have played a pivotal role, but this agreement has the full support of all 28 members of the European Union and is fully supported by the European Union in its whole. You referred to the remarks, and i would like to touch on those because there was a meeting of the joint commission at ministerial level in new york, and i think its important to recall what federica said at the end of that meeting. The first was to recall what this agreement is about. It is an agreement about Nuclear Nonproliferation. It is designed to make sure that iran will not ever have Nuclear Weapons. That is what it set out to do. That was the purpose of it. That was the basis of the negotiation. And it has achieved that purpose. This is one of the most comprehensive nonproliferation agreements ever negotiated with unprecedented scrutiny and monitoring of the arrangement in ways that frankly have never been seen before, so its a groundbreaking nonproliferation agreement which we believe, if fully implemented by both sides, will effectively make sure that iran never obtains Nuclear Weapons. This is in itself a remarkable achievement, and would have the opposite would have hugely negative consequences for the region. The other point to bear in mind is, as you said, this is not a bilateral agreement. Its a multilateral agreement, and indeed now an agreement which belongs to the international community. It has been enshrined in the u. N. Security council resolution, and it is now a public good of the Global Community. And it is the Global Community that expects all parties who have signed up to this agreement to implement it and to do so fully. And the final and most important point is that indeed, the agreement is being implemented. There was absolutely no disagreement about this point in the ministerial meeting last week. Iran is fully living up to its commitments. Its been certified eight times by the International Atomic Energy Agency and it has been confirmed just recently again. So this agreement is delivering on a very, very important objective which is to insure that iran does not possess Nuclear Weapons and the view of the European Union is that this agreement is a success, needs to be maintained, nurtured, needs to be strictly scrutinized to make sure that everyone, and that includes all of the people who have signed up to this agreement, deliver on their commitments in order to make sure that this Global Public good of nonproliferation in the middle east region is maintained. You didnt answer my question. What will you do if the u. S. Walks away . I dont answer hypothetical questions of that kind. We have to see no. Barbara, lets be frank. There is a debate going on here in the United States. Federica said europe would continue to abide by this agreement. We will continue to abide by this agreement as long as the agreement remains in force and continues to function. We are fully supportive of this agreement, and we believe that this agreement, the eventual demise of this agreement would be a major loss. And by the way, we will perhaps want to talk later about some of the other issues we have with iran in the region, but i can think of no regional issue we have with iran that would not be even more difficult to handle if iran possessed Nuclear Weapons. So difficult as some of those issues are, one of the most important contributions of this agreement is to take Nuclear Weapons out of the equation. Your president , mr. Macron, has come up with an idea for some sort of followup negotiations, but it seems those are predicated on the jcpoa surviving. Theyre not a substitute for them, are they . First, of course, i do agree to everything that david just said. The negotiation of the Nuclear Agreement has been conducted in isolation from other issues. And it was done on purpose. The issue was complicated, so critical that we didnt want to be deriving quid pro quo between Nuclear Issues and other issues. It is a nuclear deal. But isolation works both ways. Which means that nothing in the agreement is preventing us from facing the challenge, the challenges i should say, by iran on other issues. Exactly what my president said repeatedly in new york. We have, i think, we are raising a lot of questions about what iran is doing. You know, in syria or as for support of terrorist activity or the missiles. And we have said that we are ready to work with our allies, allies here and allies in the region to be up to the challenge. The second point is what is called the sunset clause which means not 2025 right away. Its more 2030. The first thing we have to emphasize is that contrary to what i have heard in some circles, after this agreement, iran will be a full member of the mpt and will implement the additional protocol, which means that iran will not have the right of getting Nuclear Weapons. I think its a very important element. And if you have was conducting activity inconsistent with the mpt and protocol, we would be, of course, in a position to impose back sanctions. So we are not going suddenly in 2025 or 2030. We have rules. There will be there is a treaty that we have Strong Military instruments and they will be there. Having said that, what my president said on this last point was that we are ready to discuss with our partners what will be the situation, what does it mean in terms of culture, of technology, to us and iran, which we have the right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. What does it mean in terms of security . Of course, the basis is the full implementation of the iran deal as it is. Ambassador kim, sir kim, if i may. Your Prime Minister met with President Trump last week. I understand he did not reveal his decision to her, but perhaps you have a good idea of what hes going to do. What is your sense of that . And how will the uk react . First of all, thanks to the Atlantic Council for organizing this event, which is extremely timely. Yes, the Prime Minister and the president had about 50 minutes together on wednesday afternoon in new york. They talked a lot. They talked previously only about a week beforehand on the telephone, and they have a very good personal relationship, so it was a very free and easy flowing conversation. They spent probably half the time on iran. The president , youre right, did not say what he was going to do on the 16th of october. But he did explain at length what he doesnt like about the deal. And why he thinks its deficient, its flawed. And the Prime Minister agreed with him on iranian activities in the region, on what theyre doing in terms of supporting hezbollah, supporting the houthis in yemen, supporting assad in syria. And the importance of pushing back on all of that. And she put forward some ideas which we will follow up on how we can do that better than we have done. But in terms of the jcpoa, she explained again why we support it. We should, by the way, its about our National Security. We think we are more secure because of this deal. And thats why as long as the iranians continue to comply with it in the view of the iaea, we will continue to support it. Youre also not quite considering the question, so i will toss it down the line. Are you prepared for a decertification by the u. S. . What would that imply, and not just for the German Government and congratulations, by the way, on the reelection of mrs. Merkel, what would it imply for german businesses who are going back into iran in fairly significant way now with the release of many of the u. S. Sanctions. Thank you, barbara, for having us here and the Atlantic Council. Thank you for following this over the years so closely. Such an important issue. Its very high on my mental agenda, but i have met also germany after the elections is also something that keeps my mind spinning. And now, let me just say what our National Position is. And the eu position. We are interested, and this is actually our high priority, in the continued success of the Iranian Nuclear deal. Thats a position thats a very high German Foreign policy and Security Policy position. This nuclear deal is worth preserving. It prevents iran for the foreseeable future, to acquire a nuclear bomb. Its a plus for regional security. Its a plus for global security. It cant be said enough. This is the most intrusive, the most comprehensive inspection verification regime in the world that this iranian deal created. And iran, also important to note, according to the International Atomic agency, complied with the deal. Now, those who would like to walk away, im not saying the u. S. Administration has decided to walk away, but those who want to walk away or advocate to walk away, they will have to think about the larger issues. First of all, of course, yeah, there has been a danger that iran regime affects election activity. Theres a danger there will be a Nuclear Arms Race in the region and beyond. And thats very important, it goes beyond the iranian issue, that it weakens the nonproliferation regime that we have established over the years. Last but not least, what kind of signal would this send to countries like north korea . It would send a signal that diplomacy is not reliable. That you cant trust diplomatic agreements. And that would affect, i believe, our credibility in the west when were not honoring an agreement that iran has not violated. So, you know, let me say two sentences more. Those who advocate walking away from this agreement, im not saying that this administration has decided to walk away, but there are people in this country, interestingly, not in our countries. Theres no challenge, if i am correct, in our respective countries to this agreement. Its just the u. S. And for historic reasons, u. S. , but those who advocate to walk away from this agreement have come up with an alternative how to prevent in a peaceful way a resuming of Iranian Nuclear capabilities. And military capabilities. And those who advocate to renegotiate, and there are some who do, have to make a case whether renegotiation is possible and whether renegotiation will deliver better results. I think that is we dont think it will be possible to renegotiate it. And we believe there is no practical peaceful alternative to this deal. Last sentence. We respect that this administration is reviewing the iran file. The respectful respectful, its a natural thing to do for a new administration. We share concerns about irans nefarious role in the region, irans missile program, et cetera, and we can talk about it, but on the basis of complying with this agreement. We have one more and then we have very experienced experts in the audience. Im going to turn to them quickly. In terms of the meeting that took place last week, my understanding is that basically each side stated its position. That there wasnt very much interaction between Rex Tillerson. Is that correct . Did you get any sense from that meeting that there was hope for the joint commission to remain an important decisionmaking body in the jcpoa, or is it likely to be simply overtaken by events in the United States . Well, i wasnt there, so i cannot give you details of the nature of the exchanges. I think you need to understand the function of the joint commission is to simply monitor and oversee the implementation of the agreement. The conclusion is the agreement is being correctly implemented and its Going Forward in the way in which it was intended. This is the crucial, crucial issue here. This is such an important agreement, but we all agree its correct implementation is fundamental. There are other discussions, other issues which are out there, and we know as a number of my colleagues have mentioned, these are important. They are important politically for the United States, for the rest of us in the region. But i repeat, dealing with those issues against the backdrop of a successful implementation of the jcpoa, which puts Nuclear Weapons out of the equation, is a very different situation than trying to do so in a situation where iran could once again be pursuing the acquisition of Nuclear Weapons. Considering the debate which is ongoing in washington, d. C. , i think during this meeting, there was a very clear message. Going into the duration of what peter said, coming from iran, from china, and russia, saying no way. There wont be an opening of the agreement. The agreement is working as it is. Let me ask you, then, whether you sensed any willingness to have followon negotiations or other discussions within this format or another format. Your president also has a very Good Relationship with donald trump. And seems to be and thanks to us, youre going to military once more. Maybe we can combine bastille day. Did he have any do you see this as a way to keep the u. S. In the jcpoa, and really for all of you, and ill direct this to kim and also to the ambassador. From the very beginning, you have been telling this administration, keep the iran deal. Do you have any sense that your message is getting through . Youre asking me . My chancellor was an absentee last week in new york. Because she had some campaigning to do. So she was not there in person. I think she will speak with the president on the iran issue in the coming days. So there is nothing more i can say about the results. Okay. I wouldnt say that the president believed she had convinced the president to stick with it. As i said earlier, he said he wasnt going to say at that meeting what position he would eventually take. But if he and the Vice President there and Rex Tillerson were interested in our ideas about ways in which we could push back against iranian activities in the region, whether its in lebanon, syria, yemen, or iraq, and interested in our ideas about using political powers, inspection powers in the jcpoa more effectively, and in starting at some point in the context of the agreement, talks with iranians on what was mentioned on the sunset clauses and what comes next. So yes, there was good engagement on those issues. But do i think we have changed the president s mind . I think well wait and see what happens on the 15th of october. Okay, with that let me open and race to the microphone, say your name and ask a question, because we want to get as many of these in as we can. Do we have someone . Yeah. Right here. Thank you so much. Right here. Hi, thank you for doing this. Rachel oswald, congressional quarterly. In the event the president defies iran, the backstop could be republicans in congress. Do you have outreach to them, including majority leaders. The Republican Party in the house and senate. Is your message to them basically the message that you have stated today . Is that directed toward a particular ambassador . Anybody. Just to say, we have been talking to figures in congress in senate and house for months now about this. And we have been intensifying that in the last few weeks. Its not about saying to them, extending to them why we support the deal, why we think its in our National Security interests to be sustained. And why we think it has had such a profound effect on Irans Nuclear program. So its about going through all of the details, all the substance, explaining why we think what we think. And yes, we will certainly continue to do that. And as the crunch point arrives, well do a lot more of it. Were also doing it in this format. We are meeting, the interlock barbara, thanks for hosting this excellent panel. Whoever wants to take it, the Trump Administration seems to think if trump decertifies and passes it to congress, that even before congress may pass new sanctions, they will have more leverage on you all to either agree to renegotiate or it seems toughen proposals you already are saying youre willing to talk about by way of followon agreements. Is that correct . You wont be giving more if trump decertifies . Or giving less because youre angry at him. Ambassador osullivan. Look, its not that we dont want to answer the question. We would like, as kim and others said, we wait to see. We wait to see what happens, and we see what to see what is the political explanation of what happens so we can better understand what people are trying to achieve. But as far as were concerned, the agreement is working. There is no need to amend it, to renegotiate it or change it as long as it continues to function effectively, and thats the unanimous position on the european side. On the other issues, as has been said, were open to discussing with the u. S. How we can address those. We on the european side, iran is one of the countries against whom we still have the third most sanctioned country in European Union activity. So we still have sanctions on human right, on the Ballistic Missiles issue, and even on the Nuclear Issue because we havent lifted all of our sanctions until the final implementation of the agreement. We share the concerns about these issues and as federica said, you would notice at the press conference, if it is deemed helpful to have a multilateral discussion of these issues in a similar format, why not. But its important not to mix this with the correct implementation of an agreement which has its own logic and its own objective. I want to add, this certification, its an issue, its your issue. You know, what matters for us will be the consequences of that. And it will be to the congress to decide, so were not going to criticize the president for certification or decertification. Thats your problem. One point on this, which is that what you have noticed or i have noticed over the past two or three months is a genuine and really quite serious intensification of contacts amongst us europeans but also with the experts in this administration on how to increase the pressure on iran, on what we might do about the sunset clauses, what we might do about intensifying inspections, and what we might do about what iran is doing in the region. So in a sense, what this administration has been saying since it came into office has changed the climate already on iran. So its succeeding. And we would say that its intensified discussions, it makes decisions on the way forward on all of these issues, but lets keep the jcpoa. That way, you both keep the nonproliferation basis for going, but you find ways collectively of working on iranian activities in the region. Can i add something . He said rightly so that we share a lot of the american concerns, regional behavior, stu mentioned this, the nefarious role iran plays in syria, et cetera. What we mentioned, were talking to iranians about this. And in a pretty robust way. We all have embassies there. Thats a plus. And as far as we are concerned, as germans, we have contacts across the board of this very diverse iranian political spectrum. And society. So we are actually doing our utmost with our tools that we have in equally putting pressure on iran. One could argue if the u. S. Decertifies or walks away in some way, its losing the leverage it has not only over iran but over you, yes . Because its more forward leaning position. Again, decertifying is not the threshold. But if the u. S. Will walk away from this agreement, it would lose tools to monitor and inspect and would lose tools over transparency of what is happening on the ground. That would be a tremendous loss. Right there in the middle. Yeah. Behind you. There you go. Thank you very much. Your relations with iran have significantly improved since the signing of the iran deal two years ago. If the Trump Administration leaves the deal unilaterally, how would that impact your trade and diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic . Anybody . Could i just say, from our point of view, not really. Uk iran trade, i think it was about 200 exports to iran, about 200 million. Which is Something Like 1. 3 of our total exports. And not significantly more than we exported ten years ago. I think we have more in london than we sell to iran. We havent had a huge boost in maturations. We have an embassy, they have one in london. We have exchanged ambassadors. And of course, the objective here is to take things further and develop a stronger relationship. Irans activities are one of the constraints on that. There are other constraints bilaterally, but the idea there has been a huge boost in relations as least as far as the uk is concerned, isnt the case. 5 billion in iran. I think i want to remind our american friends that when we started to impose sanctions on iran, the u. S. Didnt have any trade with iran. So it means that because of the relationship between the two countries, it means that sanctions actually, the burden of the sanctions have been carried by the europeans. You know, really, because we had normal, you know, really normal trade relationship with iran. So you know, its not with russia also. I remind also my american friends that our trade with russia, its much more important than u. S. Trade with russia, so we are carrying the burden of the sanctions. You know, because behind your question, there is always this idea of saying, we have shown in a very, very strong way in this crisis that we were not their companion. And after having signed the agreement, we are simply going back to trade relations, to a normal trade relationship with iran. You know, thats, i think thats a normal part and a logical conclusion, consequence of the agreement. So i think that if there was if there was a crisis, well see what is the consequence. Our companies are making their decision on the basis of their own calculation of their interests. And one or two american companies. American companies also, you know. I want to corroborate what he says. In our case, our economic relations go back decades, if not centuries. I think German Companies have dealt with iran even in the dynasty before the shah came in. So those were very strong, very strong bonds. And we have suffered. German companies have suffered billions and billions and billions of dollars because we imposed, the eu imposed sanctioned. Thats something not to be forgotten here. Now, we normalize the situation, and again, i want to support what you said. You know, dealing with iran after the lifting of the sanctions is a legitimate and desirable goal for this jcpoa. Why . Because it potentially binds us closer together, of course, its Good Business. So you know, as for boeing, its Good Business to sell airplanes to iran. Thats a logic. But the other logic is we hope and believe that in the end, it will be conducive to a better relationship to iran to have it in the International Economic fold and not sideline it and not bring it down economically, because this is a very vibrant civil society. Its a very young society. With more than 50 of the population are under 30 years of age. Its a country of the future. You cant just wish it away. Its there to stay. And we want this iran to gradually move to our values, to our world view. And trade is an instrument, and interaction in society is an instrument, and we think its a good thing. Gal right here. He had his hand up too. Everybody we have lots of time. Great. Thanks for putting this together. I have a question for ambassador, since you have such a long experience and memory on this issue. As you said, if President Trump fails to certify under the iran Nuclear Agreement review act, that is our problem. Many of us recognize that. There will be a debate in congress, and one thing it could do is reimpose Nuclear Sanctions. But then it becomes your problem because those sanctions will have an effect, a secondary sanctions on european firms. One of the things that the eu did in the 90s in connection with the iran sanctions act then was to put in place a regulation that protected european Banking Institutions and companies from those sanctions. So my question is, is that an option that you have in theory . In the event those secondary sanctions are reimposed, even if iran is still in compliance with the Nuclear Elements of the agreement . Well, frankly, i think i could say, you know, i dont answer hypothetical questions. But unfortunately, usually i answer to hypothetical questions. Even if i have instructions not to. You know, really, first, what would matter at the end of the day is whether the u. S. Basically will walk from the agreement. And so the question will be if sanctions are reimposed and which sanctions. There are a lot of different scenarios, whether it will in fact be working out of the agreement. And that it will be to each of our countries and together to decide it, and there will be, im sure, that the iranians will go to the joint commission. There is a joint commission about checking or discussing the implementation of the agreement between the ec3 and iran and they will complain about saying thats against the agreement. So there will be a discussion. After that, there will be also, which is important, what consequence iran will draw from it. What will be extremely embarrassing for us, i suppose, and more than embarrassing, is if iran says im not going to implement the agreement anymore because the u. S. Has not held up its side of the agreement. That will be the real 1 million question for all of us. Will the strong allies of the u. S. , but also we are committed to this agreement. We are seeing the agreement is implemented right now. Theres lots of critics of the deal that say youre no of not renegotiating the deal is not no. Theres this sense that if you, if we dont if the u. S. Doesnt pressure you to come to some sort of agreement on things that they dont like about the deal, the sunset provisions, the fact it doesnt cover Ballistic Missiles, regional things, they dont get you to agree to how to deal with those things now, youre going to get all squishy because youre going to get much more economic relations with iran and you wont do what we want you to do in ten years, so we need to get you to do it now because youll get squishy later. I can actually quote an email right now. All right. Thank you. Enough said. These are prominent critics say you have to cruiuse the cree threat to get the europeans to do what they will not do which is deal with these issues now instead of punting them off a decade. At that point iran will be close to a lethal state and you guys will be squishier. Who is the squishiest person on the panel . I dont know. Was there a question mark at the end of that . We should say that mark has been a harsh critic of this agreement from the very start and has yet to come up with a substitute for us that would work. Globally we said it was a good agreement. Now, opening an agreement it takes two to tango. As i have told you nor the chinese really are saying there could be a reopening of the negotiation. I dont know why the iranians would say to reopen negotiation so you can impose on me more constraints. Frankly, doesnt make any sense. Reopening the negotiation, its a nonhstarter and trying to ge it is a dead end. Its very clear. Even if you try, youre considering that of the status, i dont know what for the u. S. But even if we were ending, caving in to the friendly pressure of the u. S. , were not the problem in there. It will be china, russia and iran. Dont try to look up on the europeans in this matter. We have an agreement. We are engaged by this agreement. Theres also a question of credibility. How you want to have an agreement as was said if were going back on our own commitments. I want to add something. This was the agreement with difficult partners, most difficult iran but difficult as china and russia. We have multilateral experience here with negotiating with those partners. You can never get the deal with this group of countries that would satisfy you 100 . Its always less than perfect. Anybody who says we get the perfect deal with those kind of partners is just dreaming. This is just in the logic of a multilateral negotiating process with the countrys divergent interest. It was a very difficult accomplishment. You should never underestimate what kind of skills, political, patience, pressure and intellectual capacity went into that deal. Its one of the most complex ones. Ones you start to unravel. The europeans want to sit by for a decade and do anything about the other things thats wrong with iranian policy unless theres some crisis that generated. Its not the way things are. We are coming all the time to this administration with ideas and policies. Talked about mr. Macrons ideas. Talking all the time about ways of doing this. Its much more in a way much more immediate for us because what happens in syria played directly into refugee flows into europe. What happens in yemen can have the same effect. These problems are on our doorstep. The idea we would just sit by for a decade and must make money on trade need to be forced into taking it seriously. These issues matter to us on National Security more than you can imagine. Remember how things were in september 2012 when they had 19,000 centrifuges. They had 8,000 kilograms of enriched you uranium. They have shipped out 14 tons of it. They stripped out 13,000 of the centrifuges. They have concreted over. These are real and huge advances as product. No wonder we all support it and think its important to our National Security to maintain. I would add that i think mark is frustrated because he knows that any position of sanctions without european buy in is not going to be effective. Its only when the United States, the European Union joined with the United States, stopped importing iranian oil and impose strict sanctions that iran really felt the pain. I think hes looking to recreate that and its going to be very difficult, if not impossible to recreate as long as iran is abiding by the agreement. Thank you for putting together this excellent and timely panel. I was fascinated by the assessment that these threats have caused it. Are those conversations about pursuing additional negotiations and trying to find Diplomatic Solutions to those issues. Mindful of the fact we have only seen remarkable change has been coupled with a western change in policies as well or was it used in the washingtonian sense it means pressure, sanctions, military action in a limited sense. Whats the assessment of being able to survive if it will be coupled with more tensions between the u. S. And iran. Its more likely to be the former than the latter. These are complex issues. We have european National Security interests in bringing more stability to the region and addressing these issues. Its all about taking the Nuclear Issue out of the equation and having a discussion about how we push back. Sometimes it may involve some sanctions. We do have sanctions on these issues. Sometimes it may involve diplomacy. Its a multilayered strategy that we need to address these issues. They are complex and not always simple. We believe they must be addressed and should be addressed but that this should not cut across the issue of this agreement which is fundamental to changing the basic dynamic as kim what different measures from the tool box you use to try and address the other issues on which we also have similar concerns. I want to correct the point. It has nothing to do with certification or noncertification. France has had this conversation about alien policy middle east with the previous administration. Really the problem that we are facing in the middle east is geopolitical imbalance not by iran but invasion of iraq and with the syrian crisis. There is a general geopolitical imbalance. And in a sense, iran is taking really is using it, as i think any regime would do it in this position. So the question that we have, the basic question that we have is to define new balance in the region. Of course, it has to be read in a different aspect of that. For instance in syria and so on. But as we have said, the negotiation of the agreement has been in isolation from other issues. The isolation is going both ways. Nothing in the agreement is preventing us from raising the other issues. France has been doing it for at least since the signature of the agreement. Three quick points. I think its a mix of a series of different areas of policy. One is obviously we need political processes to resolve some of the conflicts in the region of which yemen is obvious with the crisis that started when the houthis backed by the iranians are the main problem. We need to put more energy into that. Second, i think there may be more things we can do down the sanctions route. For example, if you look at the way the irgc is using its proxies across the region to take forward iranian policy, we wonder if there are things you can do if you know more about the financial flows that are financing these activities around the region and the things you can do with sanctions there. Third thing, quickly, we need collectively strategies. Coping with success. As we push isil back in syria that leaves a vacuum, a space. Do you want assads forces backed by iran in that space or are there alternatives that we can work out . That is one of the instances around the region that we need to Work Together for a political strategy for the country and what the iranians might be able to do in the future. Thank you. Right here. On the aisle, thanks. Thank you, everyone. Question, if the congress decides to reinforce the Nuclear Sanctions what will your response be . Are you ready to impose its own laws protecting european firms doing business with iran . Thank you. I think we all sort of talked about that before. I mean, it is not clear that congress would reimpose sanctions. We would set up a process of 60 days in which they can decide what to do. We have, as was said earlier, the blocking statute which was adopted in reaction to sanctions originally against cuba which does offer Legal Protections to European Companies which are threatened by the territorial nature of u. S. Sanctions in certain circumstances, and i have no doubt if this scenario materializes, which is not clear it will, the European Union will act to protect the legitimate interests of our companies. I repeat we wait to understand what is going to be decided, why it is decided and what is the political logic of this in terms of the whole discussion we have been having about the agreement and wider issues with iran. Lady back there. Wait for the mike. Right there. Thanks so much. Felicia schwartz from the wall street journal. Do you think the Trump Administration is so concerned about sunsets that they might be able or willing to lift sanctions more to get the iranians to address those concerns . Do you have any sense . When you listen to the rhetoric of the Trump Administration it is all punitive and there is never discussion about any further incentives to the iranians to broaden the agreement, lengthen the agreement and so on. Have you had in your conversations with Administration Officials any inkling that they would be willing to have more for more so to speak . No. Short answer is no but not to rule out whatever options might be in the future. Short answer to the question is no. But this is a conversation which is quite a long ways around. I just wrote an oped for politico with a senior fellow here basically suggesting that, that there would be negotiations but if the United States wants more, theyre going to have to offer American Energy companies the ability to go back into iran, for example, or to reduce the impediments to people using banks, european banks going into iran, perhaps restore the dollar as a means of transactions in iran. To expect iran to do more and offer nothing seems ridiculous. Right over here. I actually have two questions. One is, is the u. S. Already in violation of the u. N. , of this jcpoa agreement in the sense that they promised as part of this whole deal that they will not engage in any activity that will preclude iran from benefitting economically from jcpoa, and they dont seem to be abiding by that . Thats the first question. The second question is regarding all these other regional issues that keep being the last time i checked, with respect to syria, assad regime is still the official sovereign government sitting in the u. N. Representing syria, and for all these other countries to walk around and say this government has to do this, were going to take all these areas north of daesh is going to vacate, theyre going to do Something Else with it. This is this is, to me, a statement in complete violation of the u. N. Charter. Territorial integrity of syria has to be observed. And you know i just dont understand how we can sit around. I will throw that to you since you have been at the u. N. I dont think the u. S. Has violated this agreement. It has stuck by this agreement. It has not violated the agreement, and we hope that it will stay that way. On the regional issues, you mentioned syria and that assad has still a representative in the United Nations. Thats the reality. We were sitting together when the civil war broke out or when peefrl protests against the assad regime morphed into a core ethnic and civil war, and we were, if i may say so, both hopeful at the time that the days of the assad regime might be numbered. It has not turned out that way. So we still have a bleeding syria, and the reality is that assad still rules it and is represented in the u. N. You might deplore that, but we could not with all our efforts, best efforts, diplomatically and politically, change the game. Thats one of the most probably tragic failures of the coalition of states who are involved in recent history. And the most terrible humanitarian catastrophe that we are witnessing in our times with dramatic consequences for the neighboring region. But i just say this in a kind of deploring sense but this is the reality we have to deal with. Just to back up peter on this point. Assad may still be the syrian representative in the u. N. , but this is, remember, a leader who has bombed and used chemical weapons against his own people, who has so misruled his country that there are millions of people now forced to flee the country as refugees, millions more displaced inside the country, hundreds of thousands killed by this conflict. There might be some kind of neutral emotion around international law, but in no way can you describe them as a legitimate and acceptable leader of syria. This is for ambassador araud who was involved in innegotiations. Its not perfectly clear to me that decertification means walking away from the agreement. And i wonder if you could elaborate on that and perhaps the role of our congress. Everyone keeps saying it would be tossed to the congress for 60 days. Et cetera. What exactly does that mean . To be frank, i think you have to know yourself what is your legislation. Really, i am an outsider, you know, really. And always surprised by this country. You know, i love it. So satisfactiocertification, ac the law f i read the newspapers correctly, every 90 days, the president asks to certify the congress, that actually its complicated, there are several aspects, and its from this basis that the sanctions have been raised. If the president doesnt satisfy it is sending back to the congress to take a decision on the sanctions. All other decisions and has to do it in 60 days. So it would be to the congress. So we will be there to observe when the congress decides or doesnt decide. I just so happen to have a sheet of paper here provided to me by ed levine who worked on the hill for how long . 35 years. He reminds us that you dont need this legislation to snap back u. S. Sanctions. Congress can do it any time it wants. It doesnt need the congress to toss it. The president can decline to certify for any reason or no reason at all apparently. He can simply say i just dont like the deal. It triggers a 60day period during which legislation would receive expedited consideration. The sanctions could be introduced only by the majority leader or the minority leader. Thats interesting. Lets see. I will. Okay. If a senator were to refrain from introducing legislation but why did it say Kevin Mccarthy . Oh, the majority leader of the house. If senator mcconnell rejected it, then Kevin Mccarthy could act. Also could prevent legislation from being introduced during the 60day period. If however they go forward with this, it receives expedited procedures, which means no debate on a motion to proceed, no amendments, et cetera, and only ten hours of debate in each house. So there we have it from the horses mouth. So yeah, decertifying certainly raises a lot of questions about what would happen. But we would have to see what Mitch Mcconnell would do, what representative mccarty would do. And not clear at all at this point what they would do. Congress is a little busy with some other issues in case you hadnt noticed. Lets go to somebody way in the back. Gentleman all the way back there. Yes. Thank you very much. My question is for all the ambassadors. We had some terms in the past like rogue states, and we can talk about people who are creating danger to the world peace. And sometimes there has been talks of preemptive wars against those who are endangering the world peace. Now, my point to the ambassadors are we have seen an agreement which has been worked on for two years and proved by all the major powers of the world, approved by the Security Council, and now with the one party only comes out and says, oh, i want Something Else, i want more than this, dont you think it is creating a danger, a precedent to any future agreement for any peaceful agreement that all of a sudden somebody can come out and say, oh, i want more. I dont agree with this. So dont we should i mean, from European Countries, im expecting, dont you think we should have a more active role rather than a passive role when you see a kind of potential for endangering the world peace . And this can be a bad precedent for any future agreement with countries, suppose for north korea, if they claim, oh, you make the agreement and then after four years somebody wants to oppose it . Ambassador osullivan, i dont think you have answered. Absolutely not. We have been actively engaged in molding and shaping this agreement and bringing it to fruition. And we are, as i have said and my colleagues have said, were active on the other issues. Were not naive about the other issues which are there apart from the Nuclear Issue, and were very active in helping to address them. The key thing for me is that this administration is reviewing its iran strategy. And i just hope that all the elements will be put into this reflection, and whatever decision is taken in the coming weeks, reflects a strategy which works out how we go forward on all of these issues. How we keep iran from not obtaining Nuclear Weapons through the implementation of the jcpoa and how we can better address the other issues which we do not the importance of which we do not deny, but which as as been said, require more complex and issues because theyre not limited just to the issue of iran but to the whole context of the region. I think that having a strategy in the context of all this is absolutely crucial, and we look forward to hearing what the administrations stratedge in dealing with these issues is. I think its important to put the merits of the discussion on the iran deal in our global context as i mentioned briefly in my introductory remarks. I hope that we can make that case in the future when we discuss this with the administration and with members of congress. Whatever we do with iran will have repercussions of our global order, of nonproliferation regime. And we should also not lose sight of the relationship to north korea. And what kind of message this sends to north korea and our efforts to eventually come to a, you know, a pathway towards an arrangement on the north Korean Nuclear threat. We have a double track approach there. Pressure track, but also not excluding that eventually we might start a discussion process there with this country. And if we renege on that iran deal everything will be more complicated. I think that is the global context and current Security Threat context that we should never lose sight on. All the way in the back there. Wait for the mike. Thank you very much. There is the jcpoa and then there is the u. S. iran relations. U. S. iran relations have deteriorated tremendously just in the past week in the wake of President Trumps relatively or largely strident remarks at the u. N. General assembly and president rouhani today asked for taking legal action against the u. S. , for u. S. Activities in the west asia region. So the question is what kind of role can americas european and Atlantic Partners play in insuring that this downward spiral doesnt lead to a flash point or some kind of altercation between the u. S. And iran . Thank you. How about you . Again, what is important and what we have done, all of us, including Prime Minister may when she met President Trump, what my president said to President Trump was to tell our american friends that we share their concerns. They have legitimate concerns about the behavior of iran in the middle east. And i do think thats the best way and we have this concern before. In spite of the certification, as i said. And so we have offered to work with our american friends. We have offered to work with the american friends on that. My president met also president rouhani, and he expressed the same concerns to president rouhani. He told him very clearly that, for instance, the missile, the way the iranians were testing intercontinental missiles didnt make any sense and could be considered as a threat. So lets have this conversation and lets make it not a u. S. Versus iran. Lets show that actually there is a general very wide concern about it. We did the same with the iran deal. The europeans started the negotiation. And during all negotiation we have been very keen on showing that it was not the u. S. Versus iran. The west versus iran. It was really a global concern. I think that is what we should do right now. Right here. Can we get the microphone . Thank you for this amazing panel. My question is, my Nuclear Technology has been curtailed. You dont want the iranians to develop missile technology. What happens if the iran iraq war, Something Like that erupts again, if im sitting in iran, i wouldnt want to be completely defenseless and not be able to defend myself. During the iran iraq war, nobody helped iran defend itself, so why would they not develop their missile technology. Why this missile talk is coming into the Nuclear Agreement talk. Does eu share this preoccupation with irans missiles . Yes, we do. If iran says it is for deterrence. We have a Security Council resolution that speaks clearly about the missile tests. We think it is inconsistent with this Security Council resolution that iran is launching those tests, those missiles and is undertaking those tests. Also in recent days that is not helpful. That has been part of the recent escalation. Lets not forget iran has its domestic politics in a big way and there are forces that want to torpedo that Nuclear Agreement, forces that are close to the revolution of guards. So its not only the west who has domestic political discussion. Iran has two and we dont want the Hostile Forces in iran to get the upper hand. I think that is also one reason why we have to be cautious in our rhetoric. Right there. Microphone. Its coming down. There you go. Edward levine, center for arms control and nonproliferation. While the iran Nuclear Agreement review act does allow the president to decline to certify for just about any reason he might have, its reasonable to expect that he would try to justify such an action if he were to take it. And while other countries may not have domestic groups that are concerned about iranian compliance, there is no lack of groups in the United States that have pointed to certain iranian actions and suggested that they are noncompliant with the jcpoa, be it on the way they handled heavy water or the number of centrifuges that they allow to spin, which seems to be more than their own proposed plan for developing new centrifuges. How do the European Countries size this up . And is too little being said to address directly the concerns that some american groups have raised . I think we are extremely vigilant. You mentioned the heavy water issue indeed. Iran twice surpassed the threshold of 130 tons by a little margin. The International Atomic agency discovered that and the iranians corrected that. That really testified to the functionality of the system and of the monitoring and inspection regime of the International Atomic agency so that the agency in seven consecutive quarterly reports certified that iran is in compliance. Sure, go ahead. Lets be very clear. At the meeting last week nobody suggested that iran was not in compliance. There was full agreement that iran is in compliance with the agreement and the agreement is functioning. I think this is very important to be clear about this. There has been no evidence of there was the heavy water issue that peter mentioned, but these issues have been addressed, and we have mechanisms for addressing complaints that may be there about the way in which the agreement is being implemented, but so far, the conclusion has been that so far this agreement is being respected. Its very, very important. Its very, very important to put that on record, that we are not dealing here with a debate about the compliance with the agreement. We are, it seems, dealing with other issues around the agreement, but not with the fundamental respect of this agreement by all parties until now. Time for one more question. Who shall it be . All right. Right there, next to you. Youve been very patient. International center for terrorism studies. In followon negotiations after the ten years, would you see the value in working towards reimposing the limitations on irans enrichment capacity . For instance, to, you know, go again for the oneyear breakout time . So far ahead. At the end of the agreement . My understanding is i mean, iran will be a normal member of the Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty at the end of that. In which case it can produce as much enriched uranium. Would part of the negotiation be to reconsider a negotiation to work towards some kind of negotiation limits . At the expiration of the agreement as i have said in the beginning, iran will be full member and there will be monitoring with the additional protocol. The question would be whether the Nuclear Program of iran makes a syrian sense. For instance, if iran was immediately producing enriched uranium without any use of enriched uranium, immediately, we would be in a position to say, wow, we could reimpose sanctions. Thats the way. Iran will have a full height of the civilian use of nuclear energy, but only the civilian use of nuclear energy, and they have to show using enriched youranian has suvivlian use. If the United States or other countries want to extend or increase the restrictions on irans program it would have to offer something in return. Apparently that has not yet happened. We are out of time. Ambassadors, thank you so much. Thank you all for coming. And in a half an hour, we will reconvene to talk about how the region thinks about Irans Nuclear program, so get a cookie or a cup of coffee and please come back. Thank you very much. Terrific, thank you. Ill just wait a minute for everyone to move up a little bit. You can move up, those of you who are in the back, if you like. I think we have some more space up here