We have a pretty good idea of what the agreement will be. I wonder if you can get us a sense from a Nuclear Point of view of what you are looking at . Thank you for the great introduction. We really appreciate all the great work you do. I am going to stay off camera. I just had an eye procedure. With that, Irans Nuclear program has been advancing quite rapidly under president s watch. It is good to go over some of the advances since the original record. They seem to be exploiting the administrations will and makes to lift sanctions. Edits just waiting for an extreme amount of concessions when the deal will be too good to pass up. Since biden has been in office, it is now 60 purity. They have enough enriched uranium to make more than five Nuclear Weapons and they have installed at least 1500 of their faster centrifuges at highly four to five highly four to five underground sites. They have been reducing monitoring of their activities while openly extorting the ia for access to camera footage. So now they are threatening that they are close to the Nuclear Threshold. I think that thread to come in from Senior Iranian officials means they are close to atomic weapons. They are able to step over this threshold. We take that to mean they are very close and they could do so without being stopped. Whether that is true, we can debate it. Probably they are not right there get yet. I think it is worth heeding the warning. You mentioned that iran has a deadline of tonight to answer whether they will rejoin this deal. I am not sure the European Union plans to enforce that deadline. Iran does not like these sorts of deadlines. One of the most troubling concessions we have heard is that the European Union is offering to close the safeguards investigation relating to irans noncompliance. The board of governors previously did this in 2015 in order to pave the way for the original deals implementation. I think that is a huge warning sign we have major concessions ahead and we will probably never get answer about irans violations. Before i move on to our colleagues, can i ask you a few followup questions . Yes. Can you define for us what we mean when we say a Nuclear Threshold state . My colleague and i have been looking at this. They have all the technical abilities to take the step to make atomic weapons before being stopped. If they diverted enriched uranium we cannot bomb it in time, we could not stop there centrifuge facilities. I think there is still time to act even with economic penalties in order to deter them to take the final step. But the window is getting shorter as we waste all these this time with talks. The other question i wanted to ask you is about their npt violation. You said this is a warning sign that they are not coming clean about the evidence of their violations of the npt. The ia has investigated Irans NuclearProgram Since 2002. In 2015, the world powers agreed to close this probe before it was finished and iran had truthfully answered and come clean about it. The investigation was removed from the agenda. In 2018, the Israeli Mossad stolen archive from a warehouse. This showed photographic evidence, technical planning, plans for Nuclear Weapons production facilities, all up until 2003 when it seemed the spotlight of the International Attention propelled them to downsize, to not produce Nuclear Weapons. The ia is investigating some of the sites in this archive and and asked iran to access to three sites in 2019 and 2020. Iran delayed, removed evidence, sanitize the sites. They want to know the reason for the presence of uranium that it detected and where it is today. This has to do with iran complying with the npt. That is a fundamental legal obligation separate from a political agreement. So we risk that iran will not explain what he was doing. We risk not being able to figure out if they have ongoing activities today. Ok, thank you very much. Rob, lets turn to you next. Lets get your analysis and what you think the Biden Administration is doing let me put it to you this way, i think that andrea mentioned being very careful not to go beyond the facts. She said that the European Union made this proposal to me cap the ie eight. Since the proposal was put forward, we have not heard anything from washington that there is discomfort with this. What do you think is happening here . We have had the step taken by the European Union. Then we have Salman Rushdie attacked by a man who seems to be at least inspired by the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the calls against Salman Rushdie. We have had attacks on plots against the number of americans by the iranian regime. Just as we are going to air right now, i saw on the news that our essential Operations Force in syria was attacked by every mean affiliated iranian affiliated militias. No sign whatsoever that the United States is going to move away from these concessions to iran in the nuclear arena. How do you think the administration is framing all of this and why do you think they are doing it . Thank you for the opportunity to speak with all of you today. Let me start first with how the region perceives the approach because that is equally important. There was a conflict in the current u. S. Approach. We are hellbent on returning to the other way. This has led our partners to be confused and frustrated because we are abandoning them to their own devices without u. S. Support. This intrinsic conflict has eroded the trust and confidence in our partners and allies in the region. This obviously is a problem. The result of this is our partners are seeking to diversify their dependency on the United States for security concerns relative to iran. This pushes them closer to china and russia. This will come to our expense and to their expense. This is not the time to do it as we recover from the pandemic and the Global Economy is edging toward recession. In any case there is a historic disruptions to Energy Global markets. All of that is at risk because of our current approach. At the end of the day in terms of negotiations, the administration believes that if we increase irans capabilities, we will get to some new balance. This is the same approach the administration they have taken toward israel and palestine, where we would decrease israels capabilities and increase the palestinian position and this would bring us to some sort of detente. We are seeing this play out at the strategic level. We have subordinated all of the policy decisions to that. The problem is that belief is based on flawed assumptions. If we listen to our partners in the region, at the end of the day they are left to deal with the consequences. Our inability to check irans capability. I would not be surprised if they were to get to the point where they would attempt to test within the next six months because our track record has been 100 wrong. We have never been able to anticipate any emerging threat. I think our loss of visibility and her lack of visibility in so many areas of irans program are key here. Which is why andreas point about npt violations is a current issue. If in fact they never stop their program, it is important to know that. It is a matter of current relevance. If we are going to take an agreement with iran, we have to make sure there was some level of trust. At the end of the day, i think we are likely to see a couple of things. First, there was likely to be an arms race grown. The likelihood of regional conflict is important. Because of that, i think we should take every step to support israels efforts to normalize and support israels relations with those who have normalize diplomatic relations. I think it is critical we do so. It would safeguard our interests and bears as we enter a. Of period of instability. When you say that we should be facilitating the strengthening of the abraham accords, are you stressing primarily the military value of normalization or do you see this as part of the bulwark . They are interrelated. Our approach is to build an economic relationship between countries that have shared capabilities. Sorry, one second. Let me just say you are the Senior Advisor to President Trump on the middle east. The Previous Administration approach of which i was a part, our approach was to connect these countries on an economic basis. So they would defend that interest because it was tied to their economic interests. The logic was economic first, security second. You look at it in contrast with egypt and jordan, it was a Security First approach. It cost the United States a significant amount of resources in order to maintain it. Our approach was decidedly different and it does not cost the United States. I think it will be more durable as a result. I think it has to be invested in what is already created. I think the expansion is logical. I think we should prioritize it without a doubt. One other question for you. I think a lot of people, you mentioned there is this belief in the white house that by strengthening iran we are going to get to some kind of equilibrium. This is hard for a lot of people to grasp, including a lot of diehard democrats. The administration does not come out and openly say that. You can glean that here and there, but how do you think they have arrived at this notion that this is the way to reach equilibrium and we will achieve it and it will be good for the United States . At they first it comes from frustration of having such a significant presence in the region. There was a recognition that it was not sustainable to have a significant u. S. Presence in the region. Second, there is a question about our enduring National Security interests in the region. Third, i think there has been a lack of enthusiasm for our supportive traditional partners and allies in the region. You tie all that together and it is a desperate search for alternatives. I think it is valid and wise to pursue alternatives. I just think those that adhere to this belief landed in the wrong place. They did because it does not support the region. If you listen to our partners in the region, we would hear from them that this approach is not sustainable. Looking for alternatives is not a bad one. It enables them to wield much greater capability by integrating with each other. An extension of the normalization efforts with the with israel is to deal with a host of threats much more effectively. I want to get your view on where this equilibrium notion comes from. Can you give us a little bit of a sense of the israeli point of view. How do you see the israelis reading this . Thank you. I am delighted to join you for this call today. I think the answer to that question is pretty dense. To robs point about the region, i think that when the countries in the middle east look at the United States since 9 11, basie they see a collection of middle east policies that are up and down. I think the inconsistency of it is part of what has driven their thinking and their decisionmaking until this point. What we are seeing now is exactly the hedge and that rob is talking about. You see them talking more with china and russia and each other. It looks like everyone is speaking with each other, including with iran. I think israel is different in the sense that israel is also speaking to its neighbors, but it can speak to iran. The other countries have been doing that. Israel has to rely on the United States in ways that i think the other countries also do, but with fewer alternatives and it has to rely on itself. I think this crashed into the domestic policy of it was real right now because domestic policy of israel right now because the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have been working very hard to prove who they are not. The model they are using is that the netanyahu government took this confrontational approach with the Obama Administration, we are not going to do that. We are going to take a cooperative approach. What they are doing now is, look at the tremendous success we have had. The israelis are saying they convinced the americans not to delist. I think the u. S. Decision not to delist and so far that it is valid it was based on u. S. Considerations. There were a couple of times when white house spokespeople were asked how much influence the israelis were having in decisionmaking. The answer was zero. They are not in fact influencing bad decisionmaking. I think there is also historical revisionism going on in the sense that in israel, but also in the United States, people talk about netanyahu and his approach to the nuclear thing as if he started with that speech in congress, he started with the confrontation. I heard people say why is the Prime Minister making the speech . It is so public. Why does any give his concerns behind closed doors . But the israeli policy did not begin with this public confrontation. It ended with this public confrontation because the Prime Minister did make these arguments, did make them quietly and behind closed doors. The result was that israels concerns about the nuclear deal were ignored and cast aside and the deal got progressively worse. The administration at the time misled the israelis about what in fact they were even doing with iran. So i think that is part of what is going on in israel right now. At the same time, the israeli Prime Ministers have all consistently said that they opposed the jcpoa. They think it is a bad deal. Do you agree with robs understanding of where this equilibrium notion comes from . Do you have any thoughts . For me, it is the strangest thing. Because the Evidentiary Base for the existence of the equilibrium is incredibly absent in the mind of everyone except those who believe in it. But they make no effort to show how it will happen. They just seem to somehow know it. I agree with both of you in that i think during the obama years, the president himself was explicit about this notion. He talked about sharing the region, he talked about balance. I remember president obama gave an interview with the New York Times where he talked about how one of the problems was netanyahu was too strong and if only this would change, the whole dynamic would change. I think obama had a revolutionary vision for the middle east. I dont know that biden shares that vision. You certainly do not see those kinds of quotes coming from President Biden. To what extent does the circle of advisors that they share half that revolutionary view . What helps us understand the approach, it was interesting because this i saw as the jcpoa was being negotiated, you would hear this much more explicitly from European Countries than you would from the u. S. Administration i think because of political digestibility of it. The approach was, you lay out the terms of the jcpoa to a neutral audience or an audience that is learning about it for the first time and they actually cannot believe it. You lay it out and you often are met with skepticism. How is it possible that they agreed to do this . Thanks. Andrea, back to you. I put words in your mouth a minute ago when i was talking to rob and i said that you said this was the capping the iaea. This i mean the concessions regarding the possible military dimensions of the program that have been presented to the iaea and it is actively investigating the suggestion for the proposal from the e. U. To close the files. I wonder if you could walk us through the current director of the iaea seems to be pretty keen on pursuing these investigations are to have you imagine if the iranians except proposal he will respond and the board of governors will respond to him . I think on the investigation i have very surprised when it comes down to it washington and europe would force a showdown with iran and say you have to provide truthful answers before the deal can be reinvented. They set a president in 2015. They got away with it then. I think in tehran this says unless the probe is closed they will not restart a new deal. To your point, it does seem a very tough position. He said there is no political solution. At the same time, what is he realistically able to do with the board of governors . I am still asking contacts whether they think there is more he could do. Whether he could say we will revisit the questions. I dont see any other option. If he is really gung ho about it but to resign. I dont think that is likely to happen. He may try to the case has been closed for him. It is troubling for efforts. It is a state sponsor of terrorism we know for a fact because the Nuclear Archives had a crash Nuclear Weapons program. They plan to keep it going and they would be able to get away with it. They could continue progress on weaponization and delivery while in the jcpoa. This 60 to which they have enriched the uranium, correct me if im wrong, but there is no technical or nonmilitary purpose hind i am saying if the iranians wanted to have a fig leaf to hide behind, there is no would admit purpose for doing that other than a bomb. Am i wrong . When need 60 enriched reactors. In the past they might go to 60 as a step toward going higher or to make fuel for nuclear submarines. They dont have that technology at all. It is a pretext to go further. One of the things that has been interesting to me is there is more and more not directly from the highest officials but people around them there is more and more talk about getting a Nuclear Weapon. They are not even hiding behind the fig leaf of the nonexistent fatwa anymore. Is that right . That is right. The font while mentioned supposedly the print the Supreme Leaders have said for them to make Nuclear Weapons that but no one has ever seen the fatwa appeared it was never apparently published peer there is a website about it but they took it down. Go ahead. What was interesting was if you go back to the iaea reports up to and through 2015, it was like pieces of a puzzle and so the iaea has been careful and they write in legalistic language about what they have and what they dont see. You get these sentences like what we see is consistent with the l a terry Nuclear Program but it does not come out and say. You always felt like you had these pieces of a puzzle. When you get the Nuclear Archive member the first time i looked at the material and i was like this is a solution to the puzzle. Youre looking at the whole puzzle completely. Youre looking at the designs and plans for an Iranian Nuclear weapon. To andreas point, the difference between what the iaea can do now and what they could do in 2015 is different. In 2015 they did not have the archives. Second, the uranium they discovered and the investigations are open about our particles the iaea itself has discovered. I think the threat to the independence and the professional side of the iaea is very would you agree with that . Absolutely. I know you have been working this issue for years. Totally agree. It is a very negative prospect that with this moment you shove them to the ground once again. Andrea, if the director were to resign or to be publicly seen to be capitulating to pressure from the greatest powers on earth, this would have a deep demoralizing effect on people working at the iaea . Is that how you would read it . I would say so. They have done quite a bit of work from 2022 from 2002 to 2015. They dont have any reason to get access to sites. They dont have any pressure on iran to answer their questions. They may not get iran to meet with them. It is a real problem. This is an amazing story. There is no the thing i find most amusing about it if i can be amused by this sad story is that all of the suppose it justifications for the jcpoa back in 2015, that the Obama Administration put forward, they have pretty much all melted away. We are not getting a more moderate iran. The chance we will find an equilibrium in the middle east is about nil. There is nothing the administration can point to two and open minded, fairminded observer to say we are going to get equilibrium as these guys get stronger. The regime itself is pretty much openly saying it is going for a bomb. And yet we are plowing right ahead. What do you see at this point . Are you totally demoralized or do you see a way forward by which we can stop this from happening, this being iran from achieving a Nuclear Weapon in the next few years . I have doubt and reservation about our ability to do that through negotiations alone. I would say at the moment i dont think there is a viable path forward to prevent what iran seems committed to do through our current course and the pursuit of a return to an expiring deal. I think we have eroded our deterrents. All the observable facts no longer have deterrents. I dont think we can adequately defend our own interest in the region let alone our partners and allies. Recognizing Global Markets are incredibly important to the economy, the Global Economy we help create and we are the chief beneficiaries of. Matter how you look at this, we are definitely at five minutes to midnight. The question for all of us is what do we do at this point . Whether or not iran answers a response you text at midnight and i dont think they will. It is in their interest. We are getting to the point where we are going to have to pursue alternatives. It comes down to addressing this threat with our partners and allies in lockstep. Not pursuing an alternative path. Not pursuing one independent of our regional partners at arm and arm but arm in arm with our regional partners. Need to starve iran the resources it is taking advantage of to threaten the United States on u. S. Soil. I think at this point we need to restore military deterrence and insurer in their minds we are not going to hesitate to use the military instrument if we have no other resort available. I think we are getting very close to that point. Jonathan, with our partners and allies in the region, look at our policy and demoralized by it. How do you think they are going to respond . Is there any possibility with regard to the israelis but not only them, is there any possibility of some of them stepping up and taking increased action against iran in the absence of an american effort to restore its deterrence as rob is describing . Before i answer that, to your question about part of the advantage of the deal melted away, it reminds me of the folks who used to defend the soviet union as it was crumbling. Communism is fine. They just doing it wrong. The jcp is terrific. Trump did this. They never fully enjoyed the benefits. It is the same kind of sort of silly nonargument. I agree with rob by the way. I think in some ways i feel like whether or not an agreement is struck in vienna whether or not they go back to the jcpoa, it is a question i would love to hear andrea address. For all the talk about returning to the jcpoa given all the progress they have made, is there even a return to the jcpoa . Even if there is, it feels like in any case, the United States and others are going to have to start looking at what is next. Even if you go back to the jcpoa tomorrow, the problem with the jcpoa was always at does not solve the Nuclear Problem and it is getting more urgent. What is the next step . I agree with rob. So far we are not hearing that. To your question, mike, israels consistent policy across governments come across Prime Ministers has been israel will not allow iran to get a Nuclear Weapon. What that means i think i will leave the israelis to spell out. But i think in many ways the absence of the United States posing a credible military threat makes a military threat from others much more likely, not less. Andrea, perhaps you want to respond to what jonathan said and i have a related question but go ahead and respond to jonathan if you will. Sure appeared i think it is a great point the deal really cannot put back irans progress into a box. Seven years have gone by. I think israel is estimating under a revised deal, the breakout time which is the amount of time it would take iran to make enough enriched uranium for Nuclear Weapon, it would be four to six months rather than the Obama Administration claimed it was a year. Also, the jcpoa would put a cap on the amount of enriched uranium iran can possess. They have made so many advanced centrifuges and it would be forced to put it in storage. They could overcome these caps more rapidly if they wanted to pick the deal allows the program to expand over the next few years. They could make it more they could make more advanced centrifuges. So the threat will expand under the deal. It is not like a soviet arms control agreement where we are putting a cap will have to renegotiate at the end. There is a lot of room to grow. Andrea, my last question to you with respect to the Nuclear Threshold. They have right now the capacity to enrich uranium to weaponized levels within a matter of weeks if i am not mistaken. What do we know about their ability to put the material into a warhead and put a warhead on Ballistic Missiles . How what are the reigning assumptions in your community and what facts are those assumptions based on . We know a lot more based on Nuclear Archive materials. We have seen they have done quite a bit on weaponization should they have a nuclear design. They had a series of bottlenecks in the position process they have not overcome in 2003. Because it would be so secretive, activities are ongoing, very little is known. I think they have to extrapolate and guess what the progress would be. They have not seen too many signs of what is going on. We know that an scientist was overseeing an entity. They were carrying out the weaponization activities. The u. S. Sanctioned them in 2014. They sanctioned additional entities and people in 2019. We are saying we dont know if the weaponization program continues. We see evidence of a going on in the Nuclear Archives planning to continue it. I think that is what David Albright would say. They could probably explode a Nuclear Device within six months. Whether they would want to acquire more enriched uranium, i would say yes. Theyre probably one more than enough for five weapons which is what they have now. It depends on how desperate they are. How quickly they would want to go forward. They certainly seem to have time to go forward if they want. Rob, you have set in the seat. You have sat in the seat where you have had to advise a president on this issue. A president who was not eager to get into a conflict with iran. I think it is fair to say. If he had an obvious way out of conflict, would have taken it. If we were to put you in a room with joe biden now and you were to advise him knowing full well all of the political pressure on him not to go down the conflict route on a democratic president on a curve on a progressive base even more than it was on donald trump, what are the simple steps that you would advise him to take to begin to restore the credibility of the United States and the credibility of the deterrence you mentioned a minute ago . The first i think in the most important is to safeguard u. S. Interest in the region which is an obligation. We need to introduce Efficient Capacity back into the region we have in assiduously pulling out uninterrupted for the last 10 years to the point where we probably have the least amount of capabilities in the middle east we have had in decades. At a time when as we were talking about now, risk is increasing and not decreasing. First and foremost we need to reintroduce capabilities sufficient to protect and defend our own is stressed. Our own interest. A lot of our interests are physical infrastructure to military and diplomatic alike. Also our partners and allies economic assets. So that has to be defended and we cannot currently do that adequately. Number two is in order to over the long term make this feasible so the u. S. Is not there in perpetuity at tremendous expense, we have to invest in making our partners and allies a lot more efficient. Not just individually which is prudent and these are paying customers unlike a lot of our commitments in other parts of the world. We need to integrate them. It is the difference between putting individual players on the field and putting a team on the field. Theres no question in anyones mind is that we need to put a team on the field just as we have done in europe and in instances in asia. I think that is what where to safeguard our interests. That is if we were to pursue a negotiated path to a return of the jcpoa. We still have to address this enormous gap in our risk and restore credible military tariffs. Second is all the facts now support the conclusion that there is not going to be a diplomatic resolution to this problem even if we returned to the deal as andrea pointed out, as jonathan mentioned in other exports have, the blanket is still too short for the bed. We will have to come up with a way to reconcile this and there needs to be a plan in order to do it. All of the consensus judgment as concluded iran response to two things. Existential military threat and significant economic pressure. Those things are intimately related. Only under those circumstances will they reverse course on a significant decision of this magnitude and we have withdrawn both. We have to return both of those to obtain an outcome that meets our interests and our partners and allies of the region. If we dont take those steps to reintroduce capabilities and begin to reapply pressure to get iran to change its course, we are going to be left with a circumstance where at the conclusion of a test we have to assume they can deliver the weapon they have tested and they would have this like it of impunity which i think the current Supreme Leader knowing his time on this earth is running thankfully short is mindful of the fact he thinks the fragile Israeli Coalition government heading into elections again and a u. S. Government committed to negotiations, he may well be judging is the best chance he will have to ensure regime survival by obtaining a weapon. It worked for russia. It works for north korea. Did not work in ukraines case where they promised to give up their weapons, did so and are reaping the lack of security the west provided them. All the lessons are pointing us to pay close attention to the fact i ran may well be committed to pursuing a path to developing a weapon. We should assume that is the case. I was going to make this your last word but your comments part a question in my mind. Your comments sparked a question in my mind. There is a view in the middle east Analysis Community not one i ascribe to but that i ran does not actually want a bomb. It just wants to be one turn of the key away and actually having the weapon is going to cause more problems than not. Are you saying i hear you saying two things. One, of course they want the bomb. But also, once they have the capacity to test, they will test. They will not see any downside to testing. Is that right . Look, they are eminently practical. I understand the argument. I also do not agree with it because the benefit of having a capability is proving it. You have to be able to prove you have the capability. If there is doubt, than it is not deterrence. If you have a weapon capability and dont test it, it is speculative. That doubt could cede action should what they are keen to do is prevent anyone from attacking them. They have seen the only way to do that is to possess a Nuclear Weapon should that has worked for north korea. It works for russia. It works for other states in the same predicament. I think in their minds it would ensure regime survival. They dont want to get the turnkey. I think at this point they have concluded it does not meet their objectives. Because our position wax and wane with the change of the administration, their goal is to ensure survivability through possession and demonstration of a capability. Jonathan, let me the same questions to you. If i could get you in the room with President Biden and again, understanding fully the pressures he is under, what are some of the steps you would like to see him take . Host i think my i think my answer is very similar to robs. One thing i think is very important even in advance of the president s trip to the region, there was all this talk about putting together a regional air Defense Alliance looking at the missile and drone threat out of iran and i think the defense piece is important. I agree with rob if you can get a team out there instead of just individual players, i think that is more effective to i think the incorporation of israel into syncom is a positive development. If the United States could facilitate the greater coordination and cooperation of air defense, that is a positive thing. My concern is the u. S. Was talking this up and the israelis were talking this up in advance of the president s trip but it is so focused on defense and there was so little talk about deterrence as rob was talking about that i worry about the messages. The message that now we have to come to terms with the Iranian Missile threat and that is how it is. It is worse than that because the u. S. Is pushing a return to the jcpoa and jcpoa lists same missile embargo in lifts the missile embargo on iran 14 months from now. You and i were talking about it. It looks like a drug dealer offering to open a rehab clinic. We are going to pump the market full of we are going to boost the Iranian Missile threat but we will give you some Missile Defense along the way. It strikes me as sending a very dangerous message. My advice would be you have to strengthen the defense method but you also have to strengthen the deterrence message. I think the message rob was talking about and examples he gave were very apt. I think the iranians look at qaddafi and a look at Saddam Hussein and they look at the ukrainian example and they draw conclusions. Also very frankly, they look at taiwan which has its own Nuclear Weapons program which had its own Nuclear Weapons program in the 1980s the unit states pressured them out of. Look where taiwan is today. Look at how we are talking about taiwan today visavis the chinese. No analogy is perfect i dont mean to suggest these things are all cookie cutters let apply but if you are i ran, you are iran, i think the conclusions they would draw would be very alarming. If i am talking to the president , i would say i understand the political pressures you are under but the path you are on now is going to make not just war more likely. It is going to make a Nuclear Arms Race more likely. Now is that time not to follow the lead of progressives in your base but to actually lead by showing them this is the way toward a safer, more secure and more peaceful outcome. Just to everybody feel really good, let me remind them that Rob Greenaway if i am not mistaken, your entire career was spent in the middle the middle east as a military officer. Correct. When Rob Greenaway says our current career military officer before he worked in policy, when he says our capabilities are at an alltime low, that is the opinion of a very serious and knowledgeable expert. Andrea, as our distinguished guest, you get the last word here. You can give some advice to joe biden or you can leave us with whatever thoughts you have on your mind. I would just like to give people the warning that estimating iran will get around to get 75 billion under the first year of the jcpoa alone. Georgia 75 billion 275 billion . Oil revenue, lower import cost just during the first year. There. There is a lot of inflation out there. Could be more paired without meaningfully adjusting the nuclear threat, halting the or stopping any attacks on our troops and partners in the middle east, among other reasons for not giving a terror sponsoring state access to funds. I would suggest to President Biden, back out now. Get the policy correct this time. Dont go for what is easy just because it will delay a bomb by a couple of years while he is in office. Let go of this obama legacy issue. We have to address the iran threat holistically this time. Thanks to all of you for joining us and thanks to all of you out there listening. This has been a very informative discussion. Not very uplifting. Im not leaving in a better mood but i guess not all hudson events can today the Un Security Council meets to discuss security and safety concerns at the Nuclear Power plant which came under russian control shortly after the invasion of you rain. Live coverage begins at 3 00 p. M. Eastern and also on our free mobile app or online at cspan. Org. Former Vice President mike pence joined senator Chuck Grassley and other gop elected officials at the iowa state fair. Mike pence declined to say if he plans to run for president in 2024, saying he was focused on supporting republican candidates in the midterms