Transcripts For CSPAN Iran Nuclear Negotiations 20140803

And looking ahead at what might change between now and november that ultimately gets us the type of deal we hope for. What i would like to hear from our witnesses who have been across the table from the iranians, given the underwhelming concessions achieved today, as what you have learned over the last six months that leads you to believe we can reach a comprehensive deal in the next form of. Now i think that everyone knows where i stand. I have been skeptical of the iranian sincerity from day one. I cannot say that i am any less skeptical today than i was six months ago. I do not believe tehran has had a change of heart about its Nuclear Program. If it did, i would think that the whole militarization aspect of it would be part of something that has not been negotiated. It would be up front, i think it shouldve been up front from the very beginning so that we could define truly the nature of these negotiations in a way that the world would not just suspect iran was pursuing Nuclear Weapons but would know it. I do believe that the iranians want relief from sanctions. That is why there at the table. I also believe we have the leverage in this negotiation and we should use it to get a good deal. If not a good deal, then no deal at all. On that, i will say that i have joined with the Administration Many times and secretary sharman has on different occasions publicly and privately said that no deal is better than a bad deal. But lately i hear refrains from the administration but if no deal, what . That would suggest that if we have no deal there are those who suggest that is a choice between hitting some type of a deal or having to go to a military action. I reject that as a choice. I believe there are significant interim steps in between that lead is far from that ultimate conclusion. And, i also get concerned when i hear if no deal, what . Beause that implies you have to get a deal no matter what. I believe there are those in the disarmament community and the editorial pages who suggest that those of us who want to really make sure that we get a good deal, somehow have this penchant for war. I find it particularly amusing as it relates to myself. I was one of the handful of people who voted against the war of iraq, for example. At a time when it was overwhelmingly popular to vote for war. As someone who has followed this for years, from my days in the house of representatives until the present, i know that the iranians have gotten us to up point that by defining the International Community, we now accept things that we have never thought that we would never have thought were acceptable. Levels of enrichment. Changing the facility, not closing it. Changing the nature of their plutonium reactor. They have succeeded in moving us well along the lines of what they ultimately want i defining the International Community. Including the present president of iran who has boasted about, that while he was moving that program along he was able to keep the west from significantly sanctioning iraq. With past as prologue, i think my skepticism is well worth it. What i want to know is whether you believe in extension will give us a good deal, a deal that alters Irans Nuclear heading, postpones breakout, dismantles irans Illicit Nuclear infrastructure, puts us in place with a monitoring regime, and calibrate sanctions related to specific and smart including a resolution of the dimension of irans i am not looking for talking points today. I want to hear from the panel i want to hear from the panelists, why they think another four months will make a difference. I want to hear what happened at the negotiation table that brought them closer to a deal if only they had another four months. Let me close by saying what i have always said. I support the administrations diplomatic efforts. I have always supported a bipartisan, two track policy of diplomacy and sanctions. At the same time, i have always believed that we should only relieve pressure on iran in exchange for longterm, firefly a bold concessions that would fundamentally dismantle Irans Nuclear program. And that any deal structured in such a way that bills will be running should they start their program anytime within the next 2030 years. I also want to be clear today that i do not support another extension of negotiations. At that point, iran will have exhausted its opportunity to put real concessions on the table, and i will be repaired to move forward with additional sanctions. Thank you mr. Chairman. I want to say that i think those are excellent opening comments and i think there has been bipartisan concern about where iran is. Actually, looking back over our notes, we look back at the hearing we had an october 2013. Where i think wendy and david both were here, and we talked about the extraordinary effort internationally that had been put into place to get iran where they were. I think this statement you mentioned, and hopefully this will play out in this way, but irans compliance with Un Security Council resolutions would be the ultimate test as to whether they really were willing to deal with us in the appropriate way. I think all of us wish you well, and all of us, i do not know a soul here who does not wish to see this resolved in a diplomatic way. We have had numbers of briefings. Classified, some unclassified. I will say, in fairness, the chairman is right. I mean, in each case, on the important issues, wait until the we feel the goalpost moved. In march, of course, the issue of enrichment was basically agreed to. In a be very difficult, i think, to walk that act. But then, on so many other issues that are related and tied to that, we see the goalpost again continue to move. I know that davids testimony today has done a good job was sanctions. He is going to talk about the relief that iran is getting during this next fourmonth extension. I think all of us are concerned that and rightly so. I think the chairmans remarks speak well for most of the committee, candidly. I hope that today you will publicly admit that there will be absolutely no more extensions. None. No matter where we are, at the end of this fourmonth. We will either come to an agreement or not. People are very concerned about a series of rolling interim agreements. Secondly, i hope you will commit, as john kerry said, to congressional bias. I hope you will agree to some format that gives congress the ability to weigh in on this deal. I know you said the sanctions cannot be weighed waived without congress waving in weighing in. Congress playing a role in one of the biggest issues that this restriction is going to deal with relative to reaching an agreement relative to nuclear issues, i think congress can be an important and valuable backstop to the administration as they negotiate this. I know congress has sent out very strong signals about what we believe is an acceptable arrangement. Take you for being here. I appreciate your service to the country. I appreciate the updates we received by phone and in person. All of us want to see success and are all very concerned about where we are at this moment. Or the record, your full statements will be sent. With that, madam secretary you are recognized. Good morning. Thank you. I am pleased to be here along with undersecretary to discuss the status of negotiations related to her rounds Nuclear Program. You have my written statement will stop i will summarize key points. Esther chairman and members, our goal is to prevent iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. The diplomatic process we are engaged in is designed to achieve that goal peaceably and durably. We have a basic metric. One that cuts off all of irans potential paths to a Nuclear Weapon. The plutonium path with the current reactor. The path with the underground facility. The path of breakout with the enrichment plant. And the path that would occur in secret which we will deal with intrusive message measures. We will only provide relief to a ran after it has provided verifiables steps as part of an agreement to maintain the capacity to tighten the pressure if iran fails to comply. I cannot tell you today that our diplomacy will succeed, because i am not sure that it will. I can tell you that in the past six months, we have made specific and study process. We have narrowed the gaps. We have identified the areas where more hard work is required. We have had productive discussions about how to reduce the dangerous and about the disposition that of stockpiles of enriched uranium. Nothing has been agreed because nothing is agreed until everything is a great. We still have substantial differences, including the question of an richmond capacity. As you know mr. Chairman, there is a limit to how detailed i can be and still maintain leverage for the goals we seek. The bottom line is that although obstacles still remain, we are moving in the right direction. For that reason, two weeks ago the parties agreed to extend deliberations for four additional months. We agreed to this extension because we had seen significant progress in the negotiation room and because we can see a path forward. However difficult to get to a comprehensive plan of action, we will use this time to get to that comprehensive plan for making sure iran does not obtain a Nuclear Weapon, and for making sure the plan is peaceful. I know for a fact a year ago Irans Nuclear program was growing and becoming more dangerous each day. That is no longer the case. Last december, we reached its essence on a joint consent cents consensus on a joint plan of action. The joa has blocked each of the paths around would need to go down to build a Nuclear Weapon. Many observers doubted around would keep their agreements under the joint plan. But it has done what it promised to do during the past six months. The result is a Nuclear Program that is more constrained, more transparent, and better understood than it was a year ago. A program that has been understood for the first time in nearly a decade. Sanctions for iran will remain limited to amounts that will do little, if anything, to enhance arounds eighthseeded economic problem. We strive to negotiate a comprehensive, longterm plan. We will never rely on words alone when it comes to iran. We will insist commitments be monitored, verified, and in terms of access and inspection be thoroughly spelled out. Our goal is to structure agreement that will make any attempt to break out of such an agreement so timeconsuming or difficult that iran would be stopped before it could succeed. Speaking more generally, i want to emphasize that speaking on one issue does not require silence on others. The United States will not hesitate to put pressure on iran when it is warranted. Whether it is in relation to its abysmal human rights record, its outright hostility towards israel, its retention of prisoners, mr. Chairman and members of the committee on this issue we are united in our goal. We are determined that iran will not create a Nuclear Weapon. By our allies and partners, and by the council, we believe iran has come by this in a serious way. We are now in the process of determining whether the end we seek can be achieved by a diplomatic process. That effort is worthwhile because a positive outcome would be referable. It would ease anxiety and and had stability in the middle east. It would reduce the likelihood of a nuclear arms race. It would contribute to the security of israel and to our partners throughout the region and it would make our own citizens safer between now and the end of november. We will continue our pursuit of these ends. It is with those higher purposes in mind that i respectfully thank you and ask you again for your support will stop i thank you for the opportunity to be here. I will be as specific and detailed as i possibly can, mr. Chairman, in this open session. Chairman mendez chairman menendez, thank you for this invitation to appear before you today to discuss the extended joint plan of action. I will focus my oral testimony on our efforts to maintain intense pressure on iran to achieve a successful resolution over its Nuclear Program. The ever mounting pressure they will face in the joint plan of action. As we seek a comprehensive longterm resolution to the communitys concerns over Irans Nuclear program. When we announce the joint plan, we said we did not expect the relief package to material to materially improve irans today, as we start to implement the extended jp a, iran remains in a deep economical. The value of irans currency has decreased by about 7 since the jpl a was announced last december. It has lost about 120 billion in oil revenues. It lost about 120 billion in the first few months. It stands to lose more in the next four months. Irans Economy Today is 25 smaller than it would have been had it remained on its pre2011 growth trajectory. When we just when we entered into the jpoa, some argued that irans economy would rebound. Our sanction regime remains above and irans economy continues to struggle. We remain confident that four months from now, our sanctions will continue to bite and irans economy will continue to be in distress. It may provide iran may pale compared with what iran needs to dig itself out of the deep economical. Firms have good reason to remain reluctant about doing business in iran. The overwhelming majority of sanctions remain in place. Iran remains to be cut off from the International Financial system and is largely unable to attract foreign investments. Iran is still shut out of the United States, the Worlds Largest and most vibrant economy and is precluded from transactions involving the dollar. There are nearly 680 sanctions. Developed with partners around the world. Throughout the. Throughout this time, we have all actually reinforced the sanctions. How important maintaining the pressure will continue to be during this extension joint plan of action. Since this was started, we have imposed sanctions on more than 60 people and businesses around the world. For supporting terrorism and abusing human rights. Throughout this time, we will continue to make certain through word and deed, that banks, businesses, brokers, and others understand that iran is not open for business. And iran will not be open for business unless and until it assures the International Immunity of the peaceful nature of its Nuclear Program. While this four Month Program will provide additional time and space for negotiations to proceed, it will not change the basic fact that iran has not receded. Over the next four months, my colleagues and i and treasury and throughout the administration will continue to echo obamas message. Thats we will come down like a ton of bricks on those who seek to evade our sanctions that will provide our negotiators leverage as we explored the longterm resolution against Irans Nuclear program. I am happy to respond to any questions. Thank you. Before i get to the negotiation questions, i do have a question for you madame secretary, about the detention of a Washington Post correspondent in tehran. I understand he is of duels citizenship of the United States, and his wife, arrested at their home last tuesday. Since their arrest, no one has heard from them. Two u. S. Citizens working as photographers are also being held. To my knowledge, and no charges have been brought and the detainees have no access to legal counsel. Can you tell me what we are doing in this regard . Thank you for raising this. It is a great concern to all of us. We are concerned about Robert Levinson also, who has been missing for a very long time and we believe is in iran. We have used appropriate channels principally the swiss to make known our concern about this detention of american journalists it the wife, and the additional photojournalists. There is no reason for this to occur. I read with interest the Washington Post editorial, for which i entirely agree, we are a country that believes in press freedom. This is a reporter who has been reporting for some time. He had been invited and a with us, and fact, during the negotiations. We call on iran to release all of these people. To help us in every way to return Robert Levinson home as well. Thank you for raising this. We will use every channel we have, mr. Chairman, to continue to bring citizens own. More than raising it, i am concerned when u. S. Citizens are detained by the iranian government. I do not understand in the case of this reporter, because reading his articles, it seemed rather, i will not say favorable but certainly balanced in his reporting. So in the midst of negotiations how is it that iranians detain u. S. Citizens for what is, from all apparent purposes, nothing of any great consequence . I do not get it. I do not get it. I do not get the ayatollah talking about 190,000 centrifuges at a time when we are trying to reduce the centrifuges. Even if you do not have a timespecific 100 centrifuges 100,000 centrifuges is he on the pale of what we need. We understand very clearly that actions like these undermine whatever negotiating is going on at the table. Let me ask you, with reference to something that i think should have been a condition of precedents that you and i have discussed. Which is the military the possible military of irans military or graham. I look at it as a measurement for the future. If you do not know what irans military program was, you do not know through which point they have progressed that will cause us concern that they are at a point may be farther along than anyone suspects and a short jump towards being able to militarize their Nuclear Program for Nuclear Weapons. So and i think the world wouldve looked at these negotiations and a total different way if that had been established up front. My understanding from public reports, forget about private briefings, is that too they are incredibly reticent to come clean on this issue. So, what options are on the table for directing the possible military dimensions of irans program . And, will you insist i do not think this is giving away a negotiating posture on access to persons places, and documents for the iaea to make their decision . Thank you very much mr. Chairman. We absolutely agree that possible military dimensions of irans program must be addressed as possible as part of a possible agreement. As you know, there is a protocol under way to do that. It has been difficult. Iran has been reluctant to come forward with the kind of information about people places, and documents did they not say they are missing a deadline . They are indeed. There is an august 25 deadline coming up for considerations. We have been in close touch with the general, because in our dealing with possible military dimensions, and a comprehensive agreement we want to make sure we do not undermine the independence of the iaea, but use the negotiations as leverage to get the compliance required while at the same time ensuring that the iaea can do its job and that we do not interfere with that in an inappropriate way given their independence. That said, i agree with you. If there is not ask as to what the iaea needs to know about irans past, it is difficult to know there will be compliance in the future. Habits will ultimately get resolved. We have not reached a resolution on the issue. It is a serious issue. It must be resolved as part of a comprehensive negotiation. I agree with you. But let me ask you, with reference to assuming a good deal that we can all embrace what is going to be critical after 20 years of deception is monitoring and verification regime. Which is why i call for longterm inspections and verification regimes. Some call that the suggestion of a deal breaker. I do not get it. It seems to me that if you deceive for 20 years and you it advance your program to a degree that we are now accepting some degree of enrichment, that we were told iraq was going to be dismantled these by them are by us, now we are accepting all of these things. Longterm verification and monitoring agreements are very important, not a dealbreaker but a dealmaker. What monitoring and verification measures beyond the additional iaea protocols are we seeking in a final agreement . And what types of verification measures are being considered to halt the procurement of teaproliferation sensitive goods as well. Thank you. Trance parents he transparency and monitoring is very important. One of the areas of greatest concern is action. If there is a Covert Program, one must know it in time to take action. To stop it from happening in the first place. In the joint plan of action, the fact that we can now have managed access to centrifuge production to rotor production, to uranium mills, gives our Intelligence Community and experts the kind of information they need to know whether something is being sent over to some other place and is in the pipeline as it is required to be inspected. So, in addition to modified protocol which is absolutely critical to a comprehensive agreement, and i believe iran understands that, on each of the measures that will be agreed to we will decide whether in fact an additional element of transparency of monitoring is needed for the duration of the agreement. The duration of the agreement we agree with you ought to be quite a long time given how many years of concern have been raised by the International Community. In some cases, that will be access to sites. And some cases, that will be other technical means of verification. We will go element by element and make sure that there is in fact a specific monitoring and verification measure that matches up with that. Let me ask you a specific question i asked before that i will turn to senator corcoran. Her sons places, and documents. Is that an unreasonable x dictation. Persons laces and documents. Is that an unreasonable expectation . They do not go ahead with their capacity somewhere else and we find it three years later. Three years might be too late. We will do whatever the iaea at requires for verification. In the past they have required persons, places, and documents. I think they see the places and documents is the most important because they want to have direct access and look for themselves. The persons issue, as you know, is an issue for iran but is on the table and is of great concern for us. Their concern, to be very blunt and open, is that if you name individuals, those individuals might find that their lives are quite short. I think there are ways for them to create access to individuals in secure facilities that would guarantee their lives would be extended. I agree. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Sherman, is the administration an agreement that november 24 is the end of these negotiations . There will be no more negotiations . We either reach an agreement by that date or this negotiation is over . Senator, i have learned in negotiations that it is very difficult to say what will happen at the end of any given time. If you ask me where we would be at the end of the six months that just proceeded, i would have met had a hard time predicting we are where we are today. Our intent is to end this on november 24 in one direction or another. What i can say to you is that we will consult congress along the way. I greatly appreciate that congress has permitted classified briefings during active periods of negotiation. We will continue those classified conversations and what november 24 comes, whatever decision we make will be a joint one with the United States congress. You understand the concerns i do. Indeed, we did not we made a conscious decision not to go for a sixmonth extension, which was possible under the jpl a4. Under the jpoa. We are concerned about talks for talks sake as much as you are. Is the chairman alluded to, and many others have alluded to, if the inspection. Is short of 20 years or so, we have not done much. Right . In other words, if we do not have a full inspection regime if this agreement does not last for a long time, we have dissipated all of our leverage for something that really does not matter. What is the minimum length of time that is being discussed for an agreement of this type at present . We believe the duration should be at least double digits, and we believe it should be for quite a long time. I am not going to put a specific number on the table today because that is a subject of sensitive negotiations. I am happy to discuss with you in a classified i think you understand the concern all of us have or something that is not very long term. You believe they are agreeing to all of the obligations in the jpoa . I do. One of the areas we talked about a little backandforth, is they agreed there was an agreement they were not going to export more than one Million Barrels per day. They are significantly above that number. I guess i just ask the question, if they are significantly above the number they have agreed to how are they in agreement with the jpoa. You can verify to be true, we believe it is one point 4 million. So how are they in agreement . Actually, i talk to our experts yesterday, because i believed it would get asked today. It is our assessment, having in most of the data, though not the last one he days of july, we will be in range of 11. 1 billion barrels per day, which is in fact, what we said would be the aggregate amount. Some of the public data that is published includes two elements that are not part of the assessment. For those countries that are still allowed to import iranian oil, the aggregate amount at which they were at at the time of the agreement, it does not include some of the public data. That pushes up the number. Some of the public data includes the oil that is headed to syria. That pushes up the number. Indeed, iran gets no money directly from the oil they give to syria. They get no economic benefit. So if you take out the i think that for what it is worth, the subtraction of i forgot what they called new math when i was a young man but it is a very creative way of not counting all of their exports. We disagree strongly with those numbers. To give out what you just said. They are shipping oil to syria. Lets say it one more time. They are shipping oil to syria instead of sending them money. Theyre working against us in that regard. And you do not count that as an export. I just find that to be ludicrous. We do have other sanctions through other channels for that export of the oil to syria. We do take Enforcement Actions on that export. Let me ask you two more questions. Secretary kerry was in and said on april 8 that the administration was obligated under law to come back to congress for any relief of sanctions on iran. Any agreement with iran had to pass muster with congress. Can you confirm that is the case . Will you come to congress priorities for writing any relief with a comprehensive agreement . If not, why not . Senator, we believe strongly that any lifting of sanctions will require congressional legislative action. Lifting. But you can wave. I want to get real, because you talked about resolve a couple minutes ago. I want you to clearly state to me, will you or will you not come to congress before lifting whether it is a waiver, a temporary waiver, a ski down the road whatever no way will you lift any kind of relief on iran after this next agreement is reached or not reached without coming to congress . We cannot list any sanctions without congressional action. We can as you said, suspend or waiver, under the werent legislation. We will not do so without Congress Without conversations with congress. If youre asking if were going to come to congress for legislative action to affirm a comprehensive agreement, we believe, as other administrations do, that the executive branch has the authority to take such executive actions on this kind of a political understanding that might be reached with iran. I cannot tell you whether we will i understand article two of the constitution, but i want to go back to what youre saying. You came and had a conversation with us, you and your representatives, and basically told us you are extending the agreement. That is a conversation. So i just want to go back and want you to clearly waving, suspending, you told me you do not have to come back to congress and i want to clearly state you to clearly state on the wavering or suspending of any sanctions, the cars you have the right to do that, you say youll have a conversation, the conversations have been this is what were going to do. That is a very unsatisfactory place for us to be. You are saying you cannot be any more clearer other than coming to us and having the conversation, and a few telling us what youre going to do. Senator, the United States congress and the United States senate has oversight authority. Has legislative authority. You are free to decide what action you think is appropriate for any executive branch his vision by any administration. I understand those prerogatives quite clearly. I will admit to you that you will not be surprised by reading in the newspaper a decision or judgment we have made, that we will keep you completely informed about what were doing in these negotiations as we have throughout these last six months. Thank you. I know my time is up. I think the world understands that is a zero commitment. It is not in keeping with what secretary kerry said on april 8. I know the goalposts keep moving. I think you can continue this hearing as evidence to why we have so many concerns. Again, we wish you well. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Both of the individuals here today, i thank you for your service to our country. These are extremely challenging issues. Going back to the start of these negotiations and the negotiation for the original agreement i think we got off to a rough start in congress and the administration. It caused, i think, more division then perhaps wasnt the best interests of this country. I want to thank you and acknowledge that i think im a particularly in recent months, the cooperation between the administration and congress has gotten much stronger. The openness of the briefings, i think, have been of a much higher quality. We thank you for that. The input from congress has been pretty direct. I think the administration has done a commendable job in keeping our negotiating partners together in the Community Despite the challenges of international events. I think we have made a lot of progress. I want to knowledge that. I could not agree with you more that the objective is the visible ability assuming we have an agreement, the visible ability to determine if that agreement is not being adhered to. As you point out, the ability that it would be timeconsuming to get back to the ability to produce a Nuclear Weapon. That is certainly the goal. I think we all acknowledge that a bad agreement is worse than no agreement at all. The language we have been using is pretty clear about that. The language that you have used that if there is a failure here, there will be tougher sanctions and tougher isolation is absolutely accurate. I want to followup, november 24 would not be the end of this process. If i understand it right, if youre Successful Congress and the administration have to Work Together. It does not end the process on november 24. The sanctions will not be removed at one time. There will be, i assume, a transition. That will necessitate congress and the administration to be on the same page on this. I encourage you to use the same process you have used during the last few months, which i think has been a much healthier process he between the two branches of government that share the same objective. We have shared the same objective since the beginning. I hope you will continue to do that. I want to talk about the one part of your statement that you mentioned that we will also put pressure on iran whether it is in relation to the human rights record, its hostility towards israel, or its retention of political prisoners. This is going to be a lengthy process. Of course, we are focused on extremely important priority for the United States and that is nonnuclear we weapons in iran. NonNuclear Weapons in iran. We have to use every tool that we can to deter them and to put a spotlight on the things that they are doing. You then said you will not be silent. I assume silence means more than just words. That we will take actions in other areas. And that nothing we are doing in these negotiations would compromise our ability to speak out about these other issues that are critically important to the United States. Ask they will continue in place. Were have been quite clear with iran that if we get to encumbrance of agreement there might be suspension and then after a. Of time and after verification by the benchmarks perhaps lifting. Where it comes to our sanctions they will stay in place. It is quite concerning, the that iran takes in the arenas you just mentioned. Who can imagine the detaining an american journalist helps these negotiations . In the past i know it has been in the news. Hamas creates many of its own rockets these days a lot of the original supply came from iran. The security of israel is not only tied to this Nuclear Agreement is also tied to the horrific rain of rockets that are coming down on israel today. All of these areas we need to have vigorous enforcement of our existing sanctions and take whatever actions we can to mobilize the International Community to and them these actions and insist they stop. I might point out we must be together on this. It might be the preferred practice to use the Waiver Authority that you have rather than changing the underlying law in the event we have to act weekly if there are problems in compliance rather than waiting for congress to pass a new law and get that to the administration. There are advantages to tactics being used at the end of the day. I agree with senator corker, it is critically important we are together on this at the end of the day. I know that you agree. We need to make sure that that occurs. I want to ask one question about the challenges you might be having today considering europe and United States are working for sanctions against russia. They are one of our negotiating partners in regards to iran. Is that cause any challenges for you . I hope youre able to have more than one relationship at a time. Is that affecting our ability to speak out with a unified voice in regard to iran . Thank you for that question. The answer is not in the least. Our efforts to addressed the geist idolizing activities in destabilizing activities in ukraine have not been impeded one iota by the important work that secretary sherman are undertaking in vienna. We have been pursuing a very powerful and calibrated strategy to impose pressure on russia with respect to its activities in crimea. We have been working very closely with our counterparts in europe and elsewhere to coordinate these actions. There have been press reports of additional sanctions yet to come. Stay tuned for that. We have not encountered any difficulty in terms of working with our partners or ourselves to impose pressure on russia. Thank you. I havent had the experience with this like the chairman has. We are talking about moving goalposts. I do have a lot of experience with negotiation. I want to have a clear understanding of what my goal is. I also want to understand the goal of the party as i am negotiating with. The goal the World Community was expressed in the United Nations resolution. Can you state with that was . There been more than one Un Security Council resolutions regarding Irans Nuclear program. It is to make sure that they do not get a Nuclear Weapon and that their program is peaceful. Wasnt a goal to end of the Enrichment Program . Actually, the language is that they should suspend enrichment. It does not stop it. If it urges that they suspend enrichment until there is assurance on behalf of the International Community that the program is entirely peaceful. Even anticipating that they could resume if they did provide that assurance. That said, the position has been that the preferences that iran not have an Enrichment Program grade that remains the case. In every negotiation i remind iran that that is the case. They can get anything they need on the open market. They dont need an indigenous program. At the end of this comprehensive agreement, there is the potential for a very limited Enrichment Program for reticle and specific needs under intrusive mechanisms of monitoring and verification. There is no reason if your goal is to have a peaceful nonweaponize, there is no reason to have enrichment. You can obtain these materials on the open market. That is correct. That is true of virtually every country in the world. There are several countries that do happen to have Enrichment Programs. Of some of our close of closest allies. We have relaxed sanctions but the economy is still suffering. I want to get back to motivation of iran. They have suffered horribly in terms of economics. They will continue to enrich. Wouldnt this be easy for them to just solve this problem by stopping enriching . Im trying to get to a point here. What is motivating iran . We can talk about a peaceful Nuclear Program. That is not their aim. Lets show some clarity in terms of what their objective is. Senator if we all were not concerned that iran wanted to obtain a Nuclear Weapon we would not be in these negotiations. They would not of been going on for some time. Of course we have concern. Up until 2003, the United States said we believed iran had been attempting to get a Nuclear Weapon. The Intelligence Community assessment is that after 2003 that program ended. Of course we have that concern. Why do pretend publicly that they will enter an agreement that is a peaceful program . That will never happen. They are doing it because they want to have that threat to be able to weaponize the Nuclear Program. Why not be honest . When it be clear about what their motivations are . I dont think we delude ourselves of all. What we are trying to do is cut off every pathway to a Nuclear Weapon. We will cut off through plutonium and their reactors. We will cut off in rich during him. We will cut the pathway to have color a Covert Program. This is not about being an illusion about them. This is about verification. This is about monitoring. This is about assurance to the unit International Community. This is not about trust. In a negotiation you want to maintain leverage. I will stipulate that there is still treasure from sanctions. The fact that we agreed to their Enrichment Program gave up leverage. Senator we made a judgment and the president made a judgment that we could say that there was the possibility for a limited Enrichment Program mutually agreed under strict limitation with intrusive monitoring for a long. Of time to in fact do with the International Communitys concerns about the Nuclear Program. As a result of that, that brought about the joint plan of action. That joint plan of action has insured that we have that in testimony. I have heard that. If this fails on november 24, what them . We will have serious decisions to make. We will have consulted with you all along the way. A lot of that was in closed session so i can provide detail to you. We will decide what judgments we need to make. There is no question we have said that they will not reach a copper heads of agreement the cuts off their pathways to a Nuclear Weapon. It gives the International Community assist assurances they want. Wouldnt be smart now to declare what would happen to create more leverage . I can assure you that in our negotiations with iran we are quite direct about what will happen and what could happen if we cannot reach a comprehensive agreement. They have no doubt about the United Statesresolve. Thank you. Thank you both for being here today. Thank you for your efforts to reach a copper heads of agreement with iran. You talked about the economy and iran. Shortly after this was announced, there were business delegations from various countries that went to iran to talk to them about prospects for business in the interim or after a deal was reached. I wonder if you can talk about what we know about any of those discussions and whether we are still seeing the number of trade delegations continuing to go to iran . We are not seen as active a low flow as we did in the initial days after the joint plan of action was reached. We were very clear at that time to our partners around the world and others that talk if it moves into the consummated deals we will take action. We did in fact take a series of actions during the joint plan of action to make it very clear that we will were not just an idle threat. They were very serious about continuing to enforce the vast architecture that remains in place. Can you delineate a couple of those in detail so we know and have an idea of what was done . Our response to the trade delegations . It was not we had a number of outreach opportunities to governments to make sure to them that we did not think this is a great time to be engaging with iran even in conversations. Many of these delegations were from private businesses and not governmentsponsored. We did this through tablet messaging as well as sanctions that we took. No one was confused that we were going to sit back and allow sanctions violations to occur without responding. We took action and that was conveyed very clearly. If we dont reach a deal with iran, to what extent do we expect our allies and other partners to be involved in enforcing sanctions . It is difficult to predict the future and how this will play out. I dont have any doubt on two scores. If we dont get a deal we will enforce our sanctions very vigorously. The truth of the matter is because of the significance of the United States i economy if there is not a deal that sanctions pressure on iran will be maintained and intensified your actions of the United States alone. I am also confident that we will be able to continue to rally the International Community to the objective that people have subscribed to. It all working together to achieve resolution. There was complete by am to the notion that this will track approach would give you a fan. Right way to the area. I agree that we are committed to seeing those sanctions stampley. I am concerned about the rest of the International Community. Especially europe and turkey and some of our other allies. What i can say is in the runup to the negotiations, we were quite successful in persuading even somewhat reluctant allies to the wisdom of the approach. If we are not able to reach an agreement with the iranians, the utility of sanctions with the opportunity to negotiate will again be persuasive to our partners around the world. Mrs. Better than iran developing a Nuclear Weapon. We will have work to do. I am optimistic that we will be able to bring together the International Community to impose more significant pressure on iran if that is necessary. Are we seeing russian fallout from what is happening in israel and gaza . Is that having any impact on our negotiation . We have not to date. I cannot say it wont in the future. So far all of our negotiating partners of been very focused on what is happening in the negotiation room. That is not to say there is a discussion of ukraine or iraq or when we go back what is happening horrifically in gaza and to israeli security. Everyone has stayed very focused on what is happening in the negotiating room. You talked about monitoring its and continued inspections one of the metrics are we looking at to determine if this is a good deal for us or not . As i mentioned the metric is if we have cut off every pathway to a Nuclear Weapon and whether there is assurance that it is a peaceful program. Have we cut off the plutonium pathway . There are two pathways. One is plutonium and one is enriched uranium. Thirdly, if we have cut the pathway to a Covert Program. There is no way in any country to 100 guarantee that there will be no curve or covert effort. You can have enough intrusive mechanisms to assure yourself that if there is a Covert Program that you will know about it in time to stop it or that it will never get underway. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have urged that you do something about getting past the americans getting released. I was critical because you kept without getting this. I want to ratchet up a little bit. You have cut billions loose without getting those three guys released. Do americans a favor. Tell them next time youre not going to give them any more money unless they cut these three people lose. I guarantee you they are going to do that. You are talking about three people that we really need out of prison in iran. Try it. Just try it. See what happens. I am willing to bet you they will cut those three lose in return for the money that you have available to give them. I want to move to talk about sanctions. There are a lot of us who were critical about a temporary relief from sanctions. We have lots of concerns about it. Those concerns have not gone away. You made a statement that i find interesting. You say that our sanctions will be able to impose the difficulties on the iranian economy. With all do respect i think that is incredibly naive. If they sidle up to the russians and the chinese they can do just fine. I dont know how youre going to get this genie back in the bottle now that you have had this relief. I cant imagine what that phone call is going to be like between president obama and mr. Newton putin. I think this is going to be very difficult. I hope it does not fail. I hope you are incredibly successful. I hope that in november the iranians say they have changed their ways. I hope you get there. Given the history with this country, i have reservations. I wish you well. I think you need to be thinking more deeply about how youre going to put that genie back in the bottle. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses. I support the ongoing efforts to ensure that we eliminate any pathway for iran to acquire Nuclear Weapons. I remain concerned about an unresolved issue in these negotiations. The future of the enrichment facility. The ongoing ability to enrich uranium and the military dimensions of the program. That is why i joined chairman menendez calling for a robust and thorough inspections regime. We also called for a full disclosure on the military dimensions of the Nuclear Program. I am convinced that if there is success in negotiations in november or after we will be in a difficult. Where over many years we and that sustain sanctions and have an inspections regime. Over 20 years the temptation of the iranians to cheat given their past history and their destabilizing efforts in the area will be very strong. Secretary kerry spoke about finding a different purpose for the enriching facility. What purpose could they have for a facility constructed and configured . I will say as much as i can in the session. There is agreement that it will not be an enrichment facility. The only enrichment fellow so the facility will be if there is one all. Many ideas of and put on the table. Some of them we could agree to. Some we could not agree to. That is the subject of negotiation and i am happy in a classified session to tell you specifically what the different options are. The jpl a requires iran to submit to intrusive inspections. Have they had full access during this time . Have they been accent denied access . They issued a report in which they said that iran had complied with all of their obligations. They had all of the access that it asked for under the jpoa and could verify that the demands have been met. We were in close consultation with them. They put together what they thought they would need in terms of budget to meet those additional obligations. The International Community came forth quickly and supplied all of the money that was needed. If we are able to get a copper heads of agreement and i am not sure if we will or not yet they will need Additional Resources and i would expect the International Community to come forward. Any additional budget is small potatoes compared to the cost of iran having a Nuclear Weapon. I suspect you could find sign me up as an enthusiastic funder. Given irans past activities of supporting terrorism in the region and the worst sorts of regimes. I think we should be investing heavily in an inspections regime. That turns me to the subject we have engaged in over sometime. I asked about the burden of facing your office. You have had a number of sanctions programs expand from 17 to 40. Their more recent developments. The largest and most complex of these is against iran. I want to commend you for the work that you have done. It has made this possible. I asked if he needed more resources. It you said the president s budget was sufficient. We advocated for Additional Resources. The you currently have the resources and the staff you need . I am concerned that we will have great difficulty keeping together the sanctions regime over the long haul, particularly if there is relief after an interim agreement expands. You have done a great job so far in keeping a group of unlikely allies at the table. Dont you need more resources to do this . Let me express my appreciation and the appreciation of people beckett treasury for your kind words and support. Outside of this hearing, it is noted how much you support our work. In terms of the resources we do have sufficient resources. In we are not in this alone. We work with the state department and element of the Intelligence Community. The effort with iran and russia it is an interagency effort. It we have the lead in designing implementation. We draw on the resources of many to do this. We are stretched. The last time we spoke about this we acknowledge that people are working flat out. That is true elsewhere as well. We do think that we have the resources we need to insure that our sanctions programs are effectively implemented and will continue to do that. I would like to see that we have invested everything we can. I dont want you here in a year telling us that we did not invest enough. I think there is a real chance we will be reimposing tougher sanctions on iran and i hope we have the resources to do it. Thank you for your testimony today. I want to thank you for holding this hearing and both of you for being here and the work you do. I know you have difficult work to. This entire thing is a disaster. This is a dangerous National Security failure in my opinion. I want to examine what the goals were a both sides. I think ours were transparent and clearly stated. We wanted to prevent a Nuclear Armed iran. That is why we went to this. We want iran to prove that they have changed their behavior. We want them to be a responsible member of the International Community. Their goal was different. I have said this in the past. They went to this with the simple goal. They wanted to achieve the maximum sanctions relief they could get without having to agree to any concessions. I want to examine what we have given up just to get a joint plan of action. We have implicitly agreed that they now have the right to enrich at any level. I know we can pull that back. We have walked away from the Security Council resolutions. They have a right to enrich. That is going to be the baseline for any negotiation moving forward. The second thing is they have enjoyed real relief here. It is the indirect relief that they have gotten. The increases in Consumer Confidence and businesses in their economy. It stopped the momentum. There was Real International momentum on sanctions. That route them to the table. That momentum is stopped in its tracks. It has made it more difficult to reimpose sanctions in the future. The task of doing that has now become more difficult. We have left untouched the Missiles Program that they have. That Missile Program is a longrange rocket that will be able to reach the United States or other laces in europe. That is what they are headed towards. They are a state sponsor of terrorism. Nobody uses terrorism more than data. Lets look at their point of view. They now have achieved a right to did not exist. They stopped the momentum on more sanctions. They made future sanctions harder. Theyre not concerned about us taking military action. They view that as a near impossibility. I know we will hear talk about this is contingent upon other things. A Nuclear Program has three components. You have given them an acknowledged right to keep that. Weaponization has been outsourced. They wont show with a dinner the past. We talked about the missiles remaining untouched. If they violate any component of this it will be based on our ability to do two things. Find it and punish it. We are dealing with a government that has consistently had a secret program. You can think you will have inspections all over the place. The world is distracted by another crisis. On reimposing sanctions the russians just shut down a commercial airplane. They just killed 300 innocent civilians and we have had to drag our allies kicking and screaming just to increase sanctions a little bit more. How hard will be to reimpose sanctions on this thing if it falls apart . The danger here is frank. We will wake up one day. They have had a secret weaponization program all along. All they have to do is flip the switch. They have a long way and range weapon they can arm. We will have a country that has spread their influence of terrorism so they can attack those who seek to impose sanctions against them. A country that will have a Nuclear Weapons. Think of north korea but motivated by radical islamic leaf. All of these rockets that are landing in gaza, many of them came from iran. I think we hope and wish that this works out. I think there are few who think that it will. I am sad that we are going to be wrong about. This is what i dont want to see. I dont want to see us fall into a situation where sanctions are no longer an option. War is a terrible thing. It is a horrible thing. Nothing worse than war is crazy people with a Nuclear Weapon they can reach the United States of america on a rocket. That is the only thing worse than war. I hope i am wrong. I fear that someday soon we will wake up to the reality that they have done a north korea on us. They can hold the world hostage and there is little we can do about it. Could i have 30 seconds to make a statement . I have to go. It has become obvious to me that this is really in every aspect a treaty that is being considered with iran. It requires the advice and consent of United States senate. I hope we can move forward with legislation that would require that. Senator boxer. Thank you for holding this hearing. I would have questions for the panel. My staff has told me that my questions were responded to. I have to say that some of the language i just heard from senator rubio brings back the rhetoric of days past. We dont want the smoking gun to be a nuclear cloud. I think the whole issue that we face is so complicated. We have to support these diplomatic efforts. So none of that does come true. The whole world is watching. This is an opportunity to prevent them from acquiring a Nuclear Weapon. I have said many times that we have an obligation. We are here now to test this window of opportunity. I think the administration has been honest about it. The president himself said there is a 50 50 chance. It may not work out. All the hyper rhetoric may be something that we turn to and more. Right now we have an obligation to test this window. I think it is in our National Interest and the benefit of the kids of the world and in the interests of our allies in the region like israel. I think our language should reflect that although we are very skeptical we are supportive of this opportunity. Israels security is threatened on so many fronts. We also know about the rise of isis in syria is a terrible threat. The opportunity as we move in a bad direction i dont think it should be lost. I know how hard negotiators have been working on a copper heads of agreement. Comprehensive agreement. I understand and i want to be on the record. Im not going to force the administration into a corner by dictating an outcome. Weve got lots of time to do that. I think trying to attach language to other bills is a clean bill. It should not be burdened by this incredibly sensitive and complicated matter. I want to be clear. I have written my own letters. I have said any final agreement must be airtight. It must be verifiable. It must be longlasting. We cannot accept anything less because we cant trust iran and we all know that. If they walk away from the table, it will be a sad day for them to. We will all come together and support a robust and International Response that includes restoration of any sanctions an additional sanctions on iran. Let everyone here know that all options have to be on the table should they continue to with their program. The next four months are critical. I hope and pray that they will result in a comprehensive final agreement. This is a historic chance. We could let it pass us by or we could all Work Together and be very clear that it is worth a chance. We see how easy it is to go to war. We see that all over the globe. May i hasten to add that some of my colleagues i have heard in six to 10 cases say go to war. We need to resolve these issues and war is the last result, not a first resort. This is an opportunity that we have. I do not want to go over how hard it is. I share the 50 50 point of view. It could go one way or the other. If we can have it going the right way i think we should be very supportive. I think it is very important to Keep Congress informed. I think some of the complaints that we here are legitimate complaints. We know it is hard. We know there are details. We know you are working 24 seven. We are all in this together. It used to be that Foreign Policy stopped at the waters edge. It is it isnt that way for whatever reason. That means it is even more important that you let us know every twist and turn. At the end of the day i dont think there is anyone who would turn away from a solid verifiable agreement. There arent any of us that will use all of the tools at our disposal if there is no agreement. It is important for you to keep us informed. That is my statement and i thank you. Thank you. I appreciate this hearing and the testimony. I am among those who believe we ought to test every opportunity. This may not bear fruit. It is incumbent on us to test it. I applaud the end administration for doing so. I want to talk about couple of numbers that came out. You mentioned the sanctions relief that they have taken advantage of. I got a three to 4 billion figure. Is that the expectation or what they have realized so far . I know the original estimates were 8 billion to 9 billion. How much will be taken advantage of . The three to 4 billion figure is our top and estimate of what iran may enjoy in terms of sanctions relief in the next four months. That is comprised of its own restricted assets that it will be getting access to over the next four months and then some figures for additional chemical sales and auto exports. We estimate that will be worth about 500 million altogether. The low end of that is about 3. 3 million 3. 3 billion. We will see how it turns out. The initial six months, our estimates were that they would enjoy 6 billion to 7 billion in terms of its relief. That was overstated. Our best figures is are about 5 billion worth of relief. No relief on the chemical suspension. Very little in terms of autos. There is an interlocking nature of the sanctions that are out there. One key fact is that they remain cut off from the International Financial system. It is not sanctioned will to engage in chemical sales it is difficult to find Financial Institutions will do that. There at the table because of the effectiveness of the sanctions. It is largely because it has been iran versus the west rather than just the United States. It is important keep our allies on board. Do you have a concern . If we were to not extend or continue with these negotiations that are allies may cut their own deal or move on without us . Listing to some of your colleagues i wrote down without diplomacy we wont keep the sanctions together. This is your point. We certainly should not have proceeded with an extension if we did not think there was significant progress. We should have called it a day. By having seen some progress and headed in the right direction and seeing the possibility that we might get to a copper heads of agreement we thought it was critical to take diplomacy to the very last possible promise that we might get to a copper heads of agreement. That does keep the International Community rely united in the enforcement of sanctions. If our partners saw that we were going to cut diplomacy short those sanctions would afraid much more quickly. We dont have any guarantees. I dont know the we will get to an agreement at the end of these four months. I do agree with your point. Without going the extra mile, we would have a much harder time keeping the sanctions together. Thank you for making that point. I am concerned that when the sanctions freight if they fray, the euro unilateral sanctions very seldom work. We have to keep the community together. I think it is important to explore the diplomacy avenue as much as we can. Is there a concern among the iranians that when we get to the end of this the ability to deliver on sanctions is in question . Will the Administration Come back to congress for relief of these sanctions or what is going to be the mechanism at that point if an agreement is reached . Let me start and let the undersecretary,. I can assure on wrist that congress that this is a congress constant state of conversation by the iranians. They are aware of congresss authority. We have been very clear that initially there will only be suspension of any of our sanctions. The lifting of sanctions for which we must return to congress for relief will only come when certain edge marks are verified and are reached. This has to be an agreement that is adorable. Durable. I think the iranians do understand that if an agreement is reached and is verifiable that we will follow through with sanctions relief. I hope they understand that if we dont region agreement sanctions will be enforced and additional sanctions will be added. I think both sides need to be understood. Did you have something to add . In the course of this plan of action we are committed to certain suspension of sanctions. One of the things we have done is to reinforce the sanctions that are in place. We will fulfill our commitments on the relief side. We will take seriously what we have committed to. As we go into these negotiations they understand there is potential light at the end of the tunnel if they take the steps necessary. We have been working hard on both sides as you describe. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. There has been a lot of discussion among proliferation experts. It is critical that the current negotiations succeed in preventing iran from developing a weapon. Even if under a final agreement they retained and enrichment capability i am concerned this could still raise fears in the region. It has been reported that saudi arabia and jordan are interested in pursuing Nuclear Agreements with the United States. How will we convince these countries not to demand the right to enrich uranium if we allow iran the capability . Thank you. There is no question that our consultations with partners and allies in the region is quite critical. We want to ensure that we do not have a player information cascade in any way, shape, or form. If there is an agreement with iran and they do have a limited domestic row graham, program it will be subject to intrusive monitoring situations. The United States is not recognize that any country has a right to enrichment. That is not a right. We will vigorously enforce that perspective. I want to comment on the iranian government claiming that they will need an industrial scale capability to generate nuclear power. And a final agreement the program would be consistent with practical needs. This is a country with the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. They flares off waste that is the equivalent of 13 Nuclear Reactors of natural gas each year. They could use that to produce electricity. I urge you to keep in mind as you negotiate about their practical needs. This is a duplicitous scheme that they are playing. We should be deeply skeptical that there is any legitimate civilian purpose in this. I want to continue to make that point. The agreement that we have with the United Arab Emirates includes a commitment not to enrich uranium. It also allows for the agreement to be renegotiated if other countries in the region get more capable terms. If jordan or saudi arabia demand the right to enrich in response to the iran agreement they could make the demand as well. That is part of the agreement. Could a final agreement cause a player of ration cascade in the region plug reparation the cascade in the region . We are aware of the risks of any agreement that allows any country to enrich. We dont believe that any country has the right. We believe that fuel is available in the open market. If we reach a copper heads of agreement and that is not a sure thing at all, there is a program that must be very small. It must be very limited. Iran has talked about fuel from russia. Russia could continue that commitment. Iran does not need to have an Enrichment Program to provide that. We agree with your concern. We believe this should be a very limited and small and Practical Program under intrusive monitoring it would be a disincentive for anyone to have a similar program. The vietnam agreement has allowed vietnam to enrich. I think it creates a precedent that is much more profound. Are you concerned that turkey or egypt would want to create their own Enrichment Programs . We hope that no one goes down this road. We are trying to create incentives to do otherwise. We think that they have much more economical ways. I would not encourage any country to go down this road. We want to make sure that we have in place compliance with iran should we get to a copper heads of agreement. This is a great risk. This could be transferred into other companies countries. We are very close to reaching that cascading point. We have held that to a number of small countries. It uses Front Companies to obtain materials on the global market. These are complex operations. They violate u. N. Security counsel regulations. If iran tames further sanctions relief and expands international trade, what challenges with that pose to disrupt this facilitation and Procurement Network to exist today . That report is exactly right. They do continue to try illicitly to acquire material through these networks. We continue to identify and disrupt those networks when we find them and of taken back over the last several months to disrupt some of those networks. If there is an agreement we want to ensure how over the course of this longterm agreement that we are able to continue to ensure the security counsel resolutions are respected as the agreement rolls out. Given their will a final agreement include it so we can be sure there is no clan destine activity . The final agreement will include them being satisfied that the possible military dimensions of irans program have been addressed. So that includes the inspections . From the iaes perspective that is certainly where they are today. Thank you. Senator corker. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you for the hearing and all your work and i thank the witnesses again for being here and for those in the listening audience one of the natural questions one would ask is what are the gaps now between where we want to be and where we want to close . Weve obviously had those kinds of q a in another setting and obviously we realize in an open setting that is not a good thing to have discussed. But i do want to say, i know senator flake mentioned he believes this is an historic opportunity. I think all of us really does want to see a diplomat solution and everyone appreciates the work that all of you are doing. I think when it came out and basically acknowledged enrichment, you saw pretty strong responses from all involved. We just went through some onetwothree agreements with other countries. Here we are pushing our friends to not enrich and yet we open these anything shigses acknowledging enrichment. So there are a lot of concerns. We wish you success. I will close by saying in spite of the fact that we want you to be successful i heard what you said today. In essence you said theres no deadline. I know i know you have to fudge a little bit because you dont know whats going to happen. But in essence it was said theres not a deadline. You hope theres a deadline. Our intent is to end this the 24th of november. I know you talked about double digits minimal length and maybe thats better said in a classified setting but i want to say again unless its really long weve done nothing. The goal posts are moving a little bit. Even relative to what you are saying you are going to do with congress the acknowledgment that in essence youre going to have a conversation. I received a phone call this morning and had a conversation about the violations which weve known for a long time. I read about it last night in the new york times. Thats not exactly the kind of consultation its not lost on us at the end of this although it coin sides when the discussions began. They end on november 24, which is likely beyond the ending of any luck session that may occur lame duck session. That doesnt go lost on us. Again it appears to me what what youre saying that youre going to do whatever you wish to do, youre not going to consult congress, you dont believe thats your responsibility. Youre going to have a conversation with us but were not going to have the ability even though we put these sanctions in place by the way it was my amendment in banking that pushed this to multilateral types of sanctions which you pursued. But what youve said today is that congress is relevant relative to raising concerns not relevant relative to whether this is going to be an approved by congress or sanctions waived. I just think that is something all of us who serve in this body this is the biggest agreement, if we enter into one, and in essence congress is playing no role other than raising questions. Mr. Chairman i hope there is some way we will figure out to deal with that. I think that is a major laps in our responsibilities and i thank you for your continued concern about this issue. And i thank the witnesses for their work but the goal posts are moving. With all due respect, senator, i take the prerogatives of the United States congress incredibly seriously as does president obama and secretary kerry. And we do not believe it is merely a conversation. We believe it is a consultation. We believe you have oversight authorities. We believe you have legislative authorities. We have worked very closely to provide you with real time information often in classified sessions because there is an ongoing negotiation which we are very appreciative which you have permitted. We will continue to do so. It is in our interests that Congress Know what we are doing every step of this negotiation. And it is very critical that the United States of america be one congress and the Administration Working together. If we are to achieve a comprehensive agreement. And then to carry out that agreement over a sustained period of time that gives us all of the assurance that every pathway to a Nuclear Weapon is closed off and that their program is entirely peaceful. And i agree that we all share the same goal. Senator paul has returned. Thank you very much. Secretary sherman how significant is it that the iranians have now converted their 0 stockpile to 5 25 stockpile to 5 . Wheff they have done is saluted it or ox diesed it. And under the extension they are going to take 25 kill grams, about 25 of what they have of the ox diesed up to 20 and turn it into metal plates for the Tehran Research reactor, which means the likelihood of it being reconverted back to enriched uranium is extremely low. All of that is very important. They will in addition as a result of this extension ox dies all their up to 2 stockpile which is over 3 metric tons. And although it doesnt have significant what we call swoo, separate work units, which is the way we talk about the energy in this material, in a Breakout Scenario it would be significant. All of that said we are of course concerned about their up to 5 stockpile. That is cast under the jpoa. But we will want to deal with that stock pile and every other kind of stockpile they have as part of any comprehensive agreement. But youve called it significant evidence of compliance converting the 20 that 5 . They have ox dised or diluted their entire up to 20 stockpile and the iaea has said they have met their obligation. What is the administrations position on mends dezz kirk bill to institute more sanctions . And i believe also part of the bill is that there would be no right of any enrichment whether or not this would be persuasive that encourages them to do what they need to do or whether or not it would push them away from the table. We believe at this point it would push them away from the negotiating table. And quite importantly it would probably push our colleagues away from the negotiating table. So although i have Great Respect for the chairman and for senator corker and for all the members of the u. S. Senate and i believe the intentions here are all absolutely right on, which is to keep the pressure on iran, to do what is necessary here to give the International Community the assurance were looking for and to cut off all the pathways to Nuclear Weapons. The administration believes quite strongly that this moment and this negotiation additional legislative action would potentially derail the negotiation. And that iran is quite clear that the congress will pass legislation at any moment that it is deemed absolutely necessary to do so. Can you quantify how much this going from 20 to 5 delay it is breakout time . Is that quantity final . Does that make it six months . What i prefer if i could is in terms of specific breakout times and elements to have the nnls community brief that in a classified setting. But it delays it . It obviously has to be a step in the right direction. Every element we can deal with helps on breakout. But until we get a comprehensive agreement we will not have a durable agreement that will give us the kind of assurance were looking for. And its another significant step . It is an important step because the ability to turn it back into enriched material is that much more difficult. Yes. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you both. Let me conclude with a summary thoughts and we all appreciate your service. No one here questions that. It is only because of the porps of the issue that everybody feels as they do. Let me just make a comment on there is a difference and i think weve gotten better at this. But notification is different than consultation. Notification is when you tell us we are doing xyoz. Consultation is when we are doing xy and z and what do you think and how do you incorporate some legitimate views so that if and when you get to a final agreement people will have a sense of confidence on that. So i just urge you to think about not just telling us what youre doing, but consulting in a way in which there is input taking place that when it is can be agreed upon can be incorporated. Secondly, on the sanctions i heard your response. I will just say once again for the record the problem of course the iranians know we will pass sanctions if they dont agree. Its the lead time that will be necessary. Every sinchings that i have authored with other colleagues has required a minimum of sixmonth notification to the International Community and to businesses, and then the process of setting them into enforcement. And enforcing them takes longer. Unfortunately, that amount of time is greater than the amount of time for breakout if the iranians determine that they want to break out. So thats the fundamental conflict i have about saying we can wait. But the consequences of the impact of those sanctions will be less so. There would be no greater thanksgiving gift than for you to be successful. For our country, i believe for the iranian people, and for the world. But the concerns here i think are very legitimate. In our next panel which is going to come up, which is an excellent panel, i look at the testimony of mr. Hinerman, and one of the things he says in his testimony as the Iranian Ambassadors recent letter to the ieea demonstrates iran continues to challenge the agencys right and obligation to verify the correctness and completeness of the declarations of the agreement, the legality of the board ds resolutions, and the secretarys practices of reporting its findings in its reporting to the board and the u. N. Security council. That letter was just june 4th of 2014. So you say to yourself wow, theyre challenging basically everything theyre doing and yet were in the midst of negotiations saying that on some of the key questions weve discussed like the military dimensions of their program were going to get there in four months. Maybe theres something going on but youre not meeting until september. Secondly, i appreciate what treasury has been doing. But even despite what youre doing, part of the challenge that we face is that, yes, irans economy is bad but its better than it was. And that is part of the positive sentiment created by virtue of the joint plan of action and its extension, which is helping in my perspective to create some modest growth. You know g. D. P. s expected to grow at 2 . Thats modest but its a huge improvement over irans Economic Performance in the fiscal year when g. D. P. Contracted by 6. 6 . Inflation is beginning to go down the First Quarter of 2014 so the rate of inflation dipped below 20 . Certainly less than half of the inflation it was at 45 . The real has gone up in its value the stock market has gone up in its value. So there are consequences for positive consequences for iran, negative for what we consider the continuing pressure to get them to do the right thing. Finally, i spept a fair amount of time reading and i wont talk about which of my friends in the press with their editorials but i went back and read years of editorials about north korea. And my god it was amazing to me that the language that was used about the aspirations that we were seeking in north korea is the language i dont know if its the same editors but it is the language that is being used now as it relates to iran. And to be very honest with you, if there is an example of that no deal is better than a bad deal, from my perspective its the Frame Work Agreement that was devised with north korea because it failed to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, it limited inspections to a singular nuclear complex, and we all thought it was success. Then we later learned that north korea repeatedly cheated on the deal then they quit the deal and detonated their First Nuclear explosion. We cant have that as relates to iran. So i am glad to hear you say the iranians Pay Attention to congress, they want to Pay Attention of congress they should let go of every american they have hostage. That would send a message. And secondly, only because the stakes are so high that the passions are so strong. And so we have a deep respect for what you both and those who work with you are doing, and we have a mute tule goal. I believe we have a role to play to help you with that goal. You may not always like it. But i think at the end of the day it is positive. With the thanks of the can he this panel is excused. Let me call our next panel. Dr. Ali hinner nan, a senior fellow for research mr. Michael sing who is the senior fellow and managing director of the washington institute. Chairman mends dezz, Ranking Member corker, members of the can he thank you for inviting me to address this hearing. Since 2002 we have experienced many adverse actions taken by iron iran. They have not suspended their activities they have not cooperated. The complementation of the jpoa has proceeded well but the negotiations have also seen head winds. The iranion sent its letter in june demonstrates that iran continues to challenge the agencys right and obligation to verify the legality of the solutions and the secretarys practices in reporting its findings. Due to the fact that iran has been running parts of its Program First clandestinely, reporting obligations and disregarding Security Council resolutions, the onus of proof bears heavily on iran to show its program is entirely peaceful. I have recently published with others principles if the agreement should follow. I highlight some of those basic principles. The first one. It is important for the agreement to minimize the opportunities for violations and delays to achieve compliance. The first requirement is that iran provides a complete declaration of its past and Current Program which then will serve as a clear baseline for the verification and monitoring. Another Important Program is the Nuclear Program. An example of what would create an unstable and high level situation is for instance suggestions that involve lowering the amount of enriched uranium in iran while allowing the increased centrifuges in order to increase the breakout times. Keeping the stocks exceedingly low would be impossible in practice. This would lead to larger enriched uranium stocks compromising the goal. Experience is from various agreements in 2003 also demonstrate the importance of unambiguous space lines for monitoring of irans undertakings. Ambiguous leads to slippage. With regard to the practical needs, i would pass them here but u they are in the written text and go straight to the effective verification. Finally, perhaps we can pursue and reduce but also features which we dont know. They must provide warnings of completeness of declarations, establish the total number of centrifuges acquired by iran and the size of its enriched uranium stocks and confidence in its activities including assurances of their efforts. A Long Term Agreement must establish the agreements. Moreover, milt the iaea has right to conduct inspections on those under their existing agreements when appropriate. Iran has to provide unconditional and unrestricted access to all areas. Adequate verification also requires iran to verify its efforts to key proliferations for its Nuclear Program. If not stopped, iran could basically acquire such items for clan destined activities. To ensure they have legally binding authorities to conduct the work the agreement between p 5 plus 1 and the u. N. Security policies. Irans most serious verification remains in its unwillingness to verify its Nuclear Program. For the ieae to conclude its only for peaceful use this is not possible unless iran satisfies them in this area. Unless properly addressed it would be difficult to conduct a meaningful verification. This took place in south africa from 1993 until 2010 until they were able to conclude that all Nuclear Material was in peaceful use. The simple fix is for iran to remove the current stock and replace with not enough to hold the reactor. With this change will will be no need for heavy production, and heart water could be set up. Iran has also resisted making concessions about what to do with the centrifuges that would exceed a cap on the total agreed number of installed centrifuges. If not removed and rendered harmless iran could within months reconstitute operations and create a sizeable breakout capability. Adequate Response Time is the last point. An agreement must include sufficient time to mount response to violations. The key part of monitoring the Member States can use these reports to complement their findings from their activity. The breakout time doesnt include a lot of time to produce Nuclear Weapons the production of uranium is the more difficult and time consuming portion of making a Nuclear Weapon. Once iran has enough uranium at its dispostal, material would go to cover sites for the weaponization efforts which could be a small in size without vizzible evidence. In summary it will stretch over many years especially so for a program that has been clan destined. It took for medium sized in European Countries with the comprehensive agreement implemented about five years to conclude that all Nuclear Material was for peaceful use. Forth coming cooperation could set a tone for the country to have a Nuclear Program, meaningful system with enough authorities endorsed by the council is needed to support the program. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman mends dezz and Ranking Member corker thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. I am a strong supporter. I have been involved with the talks since their inception. I am concerned that we are not close to a true diplomatic resolution. In fact if we have a deal it is likely to be one which in fact post pones a real resolution and weakens our ability to achieve such resolution. If we have a deal in this next four month period im concerned its going to fall short of our minimum requirements. Its not likely to require iran to dismantle anything including those facilities it built illegally. It would in fact probably permit iran to engage in more activity than it engages in today. It probably wont require iran to come clean on its past weaponization activities or give inspectors access to military sites. It wont deal most likely with ballistic milssles which are in such vexing threats. And it would allow iran in a matter of years to be free of any constraints. And what we get in exchange is a commitment not to build Nuclear Weapons but of course the very reason were engaged in this process is that iran has violated similar commitments in the past. We would also get enhanced inspections but i do think we are placing too much stock in what that would achieve because they would be hampered by the sheer size of their program we would leave in place under such a deal and by irans refuseful to come clean on its past work and the absence of a clear willingness on the part of the u. S. Or International Community to enforce those inspections requirements. And i think the more program we leave in place the less likely the International Community is going to be to punish incremental cheating on those obligations. The Iranian Regime as both of you know plays a major role in destabilizing the middle east and supporting terrorism. Frankly the arms embargo in place which would address its provision of rockets to hamas that comes from resolution 1747 which is the resolution that could get lifted. This sort of deal were talking about would leave tremendous Nuclear Capabilities in the hands of that regime and embolden and enrich. It would have other negative implementications it would give others to match Irans Nuclear capabilities would undermine our nonproliferation agreements globally. And i think frankly would damage our own influence and prestige which are already pretty damaged and this is the issue i think upon which those things will be most judged in the middle east. How have we reached this juncture that we are at right now . If you look at the jpoa in exchange for temporary reversible steps by iran we have made major concessions they have been seeking for a long time that it could enrich uranium indefinitely and any restraints would be temporary. Nothing is agreed until anything is agreed . I think things are more complicated. It would be difficult to take back these negotiations. Theyll pocket and use them as a base line for the future. We havent put forward a threatening alternative. Our sanction threat has been undermined and we have not responded to that increase in exports. Our military threat has been undermined because of the paralyzed indecision in which we faced syria iraq, ukraine and elsewhere. I think it was in error for us to stray from what had been our previous approach which is dismantling for dismantling. They dismantle in exchange for the dismantling of sanctions against it. Sometimes our own officials have portrayed that approach as max mallist but i dont think it is. In fact it is reasonable because iran has no need for those fuel cycle activities which we are asking it to forego but it does have a need for sanctions relief. A deep need. I think we should be prepared and we are to accept a civilian Nuclear Program in iran on the condition that iran import its nuclear fuel. The only way we should be prepared to live with this is one we see evidence of a broad shift by iran and its not in evidence today given their support of terrorism and to come clear on what theyve done in the past. The question is how do we make a good deal one which advances interests more likely. We need to adopt a if i rememberer line and enhance our leverage by making those. I think we can do that. We can sanction our threat by a unified message by a white house and congress that more sanctions will follow. I think action on that is required now. I think we need to act more energy jetically in response to what appears to be dispation as some of the members said of the sanctions and increase in oil exports in particular and i think we can strengthen our military thet which is critical here by sending clear messages and backing up that message with adequate defense and diplomatic and intelligence resources by taking further steps. To count that impression that iran gets a free pass as long as these talks are going on. And i think we can strengthen our weakened alliances, which have withrd to a point we shouldnt have allowed. I worry we have become captive to this sort of false choice between a flawed deal and prospect of a military conflict. I reject that. I think our true choice is a deal that will set back our interests and holds out hope of advancing those interests. Thank you both for your testimony. You bring up important points. You wrote in an article recently that negotiations in vienna have shown that the principle driving the positions of the p 5 plus 1 are markedly different than those of iran. And can you explain the two sets of principles you are referring to behind the p 5 plus 1 and the iranian positions and why those two sets of positions make it more difficult to reach an agreement . I think if we look at history not the last 11 years, negotiations have been going 11 years. This is the story of now 4 nourks and not 1,000. And look at what has been the driving force in iran. They have they want to maintain and save their Nuclear Program in a form of what it is today which will include uranium enrichment and it will probably include also the capabilities of produced plutonium and heavy water reactor. This has been through the hardships. You read the statements made by mr. Rue hani in 2005 when he left the office how he explained how he was able under those difficulty circumstances to preserve the Enrichment Program by suspending it for a while and how he was able to rescue the uranium conversion program. So then we look to talks of today when Supreme Leader says we want to have 190,000 centrifuges and produce uranium fuel for a reactor. Its clear that the bottom line is Enrichment Program has to survive. Then you look the challenges they are facing if they want to produce the nuclear fuel. The first thing is the mere fact they dont have enough uranium in their soil to support such program. So what good is then for you if you are able to do enrichment if you cannot find soil from your own uranium from your own soil . So then when you look, technology which they dont yet have, the sole reason is they want to preserve the program from the social perception. And then the other side of the gulf is we dont want to have any Enrichment Program with iran because of a number of reasons. So i think this is what i meant in this writing. This is a very different starting point. Ub fortunately, now the situation is that the leader set 190,000 is a big number. What do you read into the letter that i referenced before to the secretary sherman that is in your testimony by the Iranian Ambassador questioning all of the iaeas authorities in this regard . Well, this is is it buying time, extending the period . What is the intent . From your experience at the iaea. I think this tells me that the agreement will be there whatever will be negotiated now hopefully in the next few months, when it comes to the implementation then they step in and starts to talk with iran how to do these things in practice. And since these are the same people who are part of the negotiations they are still posturing the old language which was there. So the negotiations will start in head winds and every action they try to take could be challenged by this. Ok, its not in your Legal Authority to do this and we will end up with the implementation problems. So youre saying that even presuming that the p 5 plus 1 negotiators can reach an agreement in four months, that then there will be a whole nother set of negotiations as to how in fact those agreements will be enforced . This is the practice. Let me ask you then, what lessons should we draw from the failure of the Framework Agreement with north korea as we deal with this one . Yes, i was part of the this in 1994 and i think there are several lessons. The first thing we learn here is exactly the same. Challenging the authority of the them because sir you remember that north korea was about to leave the npt and they said they are not bound with the safe guards agreement and therefore they didnt have any authority to do certain things. And they challenged every step in that process what they did in practice. I will give an example. We were not even able to use the word inspection because inspection is in the agreement and therefore you cant use it. I dont think iran will take that line but it will be an uphill battle, it will face head winds as we have seen difference in views and the implementation of this frame for cooperation between iran and iaea. Very recently he challenged some of the statements and actions taken by regard to the military dimension. It was a very different interpret ration. This is what he said in public. So when i hear secretary sherman say, well, they will have to satisfied the iaea, that can be based upon irans presence that actions lilt gated for some time in terms of what the iaea believes is appropriate for verification and enforcement on all dimensions including the possible weaponization elements. While the sanctions releaf is suspended. I think this is a good remark. The only thing which i would say that this needs to be enshrined to this agreement in such a way that it becomes legally binding. And when one is not in compliance the noncompliance has consequences. Let me ask you one final question from your experience at the iaea. Is a good model the South African model which ultimately admitted in 1993 to possessing a Nuclear Program with military dimensions and then showed unprecedented cooperation by allowing anywhere any time inspections . It took them 17 years to get a clean bill of health. But is something along those lines appropriate . I think that is probably less of a program than we are talking about in iran. But whats your perceptions of that . Its less of a program, it was program, but more of a program. They had much more material than had been declared and a history of a program of enrichment. And one of the stumbling blocks was the 17,000 barrels and it took a long time. But why it was successful is the government had changed their view. They have given up their Nuclear Weapons program. They wanted to close that chapter in the history of south africa. And in order to do that they needed someone to certify that and that organization was the iaea. So the cooperation was there. Once they did disclose it in 1993 it was easy to go because the whole government was set up to help them to complete its mission. But if that change doesnt take place in iran that they want to come that they come clean want to come clean from their past, its going to be difficult as it was in korea. So even though in this case south africa had determined as a government that it wanted to end that chapter in its history wanted to end its Nuclear Program, it took 17 years to get a clean bill of health. With a government willing and wanting to end its Nuclear Program. I think thats pretty instructive when we say long term verification and enforcement agreement. Its very different between where iran is at and where south africa was at. Senator corker. Thank you both for being here. I listened to some of the complications relative to having this negotiation after the fact and i know thats the way it has to occur. But i wondered we keep pressing about the full transparency of what their program was about in the past. And relative to what iaea would be doing in the future, how important is that to understand fully what their program was in the past . You dont need to know every nut and bolt from that program. But you need to know how far they go for two reasons. One reason is that its part of the Risk Assessment how much unknowns you tolerate when you agree with the number of centrifuges, if you allow them to have a certain centrifuge enrichment capability. Thats one reason. The second reason with your unknowns is that you certainly dont want to know how far they got and you want to see that they are not reconstituting the program. So therefore you need to know what was done where, it was done and how it was done. And this exactly took place in south africa. Still in 2010 the iaea inspectors visited some of the military sites to confirm that those actions are not reconstituted. So i see it as a very important in setting the baseline so that a reliable monetary scheme can be established. When you do that, how do you know that when people are sharing with you what they were doing in the past, how do you know that that is in reality what they were doing in the past . Its actually a number of things. You normally call it multioons list. You look at what the people tell you you look at what they have been doing. Do they make sense . Do they fit to the Nuclear Program . Sat that point in time when they do those experiments. You can indirectly confirm it by seeing the equipment which they have bought for that and some other event which is have taken place. So its like a mosaic where you have bits and pieces all over and which then will have some caps but from that you can establish a relative cohesive picture what has taken place. And then there should be no outliars and no inconsistencies. I think especially with a question like iran that has multiple fallows and arrangements with entities that sometimes are a part of government sometimes are not, how do you know that there isnt some clan destined program . And iaea goes in and inspects but how do you have assurances especially with a country like iran that theres not some other activities taking place and what kind of abilities does the organization have to actually figure that out . They have its own authorities and its own practices and skills. But it heavily draws also from the support of the Member States. Actually this is the reason why i wrote to my testimony also the importance that they report in a very transparent way what they have seen, what they have been told, what is where, so that the Member States can which have their own means to find some of those details or have formed their own picture about the Nuclear Program, can see if this consistent with what they see and what iran tells. And therefore the reporting is the important thing. Thats why if this meant quite a lot when the ambassador in his letters said that he doesnt like the way they put some technical statements in the report because this is one of the keys to success of the iaea, and then only can they serve its Member States if it has that information. Thank you for your testimony and the answers. You know, the goal posts continue to u move as we talk about where this deal is going but i just want to give a hypothetical. Lets say the administration ended up in a situation with 3,000 centrifuges, no arac, no fordo, and very intensive intrusive inspection. How would that affect irans behavior in the region, how would that affect their ability in the future, how would it affect the neighborhood . Well, its important to note first of all that sort of deal doesnt seem to be in prospect because of some of those details ive got that. I appreciate your testimony candidly and feel very aligned with much of what you had to say. But lets go back to again we have unfortunately seen the goal posts move. But lets just say that hypothetically thats where things ended up. Talk to me about the response. I think that a lot of it will depend upon not just the sort of particulars in the deal but the context as well. Look, some of our allies are not happy with the concession that is we made. They would like us to have not made those concessions. But i think that if we had a sort of part of the p 5 . Thats a hard question to answer because some of our allies in the p 5 plus 1 may not be happy with those but theyre unlikely to say that publicly. I think some of our allies have been more outspoken in the way they feel about that. And so the risks there i think is to our position in the region. How do folks perceive the nature of the agreement. Therefore i think the context of our policy in the region is important to how allies and otherless judge it. Do they view this as an expression of american resolve or an expression of american weakness . So i think if we have the right sort of policy context, what are we doing in syria . In iraq . Are we repairing our alliances in the region . We can influence how folks see that agreement and we can especially very importantly influence how they view our willingness to actually uphold the agreement. In my view i think that that concession we made about conceding enrichment, conceding any number of centrifuges to iran that is not a good thing to have conceded that we shouldnt have done that. And i think that thats a view that is widely shared in the region. But i think the context is very important. So to improve that situation, to improve how its perceived we can take certain steps. The last question i will have. You alluded to the fact that we started off in a not right place and i think people are concerned about where we began. And but you said in your testimony that you felt like we could get to a good end still. And so with where we began and where we are, how would you go about doing that . I think that the reality is we are where we are in the negotiations. So the question before us is how do we take the situation and make a good deal out of it and make the best situation out of it. First i think congress has a role to play in that. I think there has to be broad buyin politically for this to succeed in the long term. I think its important that congress will have a role in lifting sanctions the next administration will have a role in upholding this agreement. So you have to have that buyin and i think thats important. I do think that from where we are now, we should be focused on those principles which dr. Heinman articulated but we should consider that any final sanctions re leaf again be dependent not just on these particular steps but on evidence of that broader strategic shift by iran, evidence that iran is going in a different direction and therefore more trust and more confidence that they will actually uphold their side of the bargain. And then frankly again i think we can take steps on the other side. Because remember for a state to agree to a deal isnt just about whats in the deal. Its about whats the alternative and we need to make steps to make that alternative look worse from irans perspective. That means strengthening the credibility of the sanctions threat, the military threat. And if we do those thn perhaps we can influence irans perception of what is a good deal. Thank you both. I know its a lot of trouble to prepare testimony and be here. We all benefit greatly from it. I thank you both for being here. Typically about noon things kind of clearing out to other meetings but i know people are paying attention and read your written testimony. So thank you. Thank you senator corker. And sometimes our second panels with all due respect to the first panel is as important if not more insightful. So let me ask you one final set of questions. Iment to revisit doctor something you responded to senator corker which to me is not insignificant. Basically you said when the Iranian Ambassador among their complaints to the iaea was complaining about the way in which the iaea was issuing its reports to its members states that the reason that it is important for the iaea to issue its report to its Member States in the manner in which they are doing is because then Member States can use their own intelligence and information to judge whether what the iaea has been told is along the lines of what they know from their intelligence, or is deviating significantly from it. In which case in this case iran if that were the case would not be coming clean. Is that what im hearing you say . This is one thing. The other thing is the Member States can do their independent judgment how long well iran complies with the requirements. So its not insignificant when the Iranian Ambassador says i dont agree i think youre not reporting correctly. It may look like an insignificant element but it can be very significant if Member States are going to make a judgment whether there is a forth coming iran in this respect. And this complaint has been there about the last five years from the iranians. It started to arise somewhere around 2007, 2006. So its been quite some time there. And its repeated, repeated. And i personally thought that with this new team there in tehran that this kind of language disappears. But apparently its not the case. One final set of questions. You argued during the interim agreement the United States made concessions to iran including uranium enrichment. What other concessions do you feel were made . How do you judge what iran did in response under the agreement . How do you judge the concessions defined as concessions versus what iran did . And you also in response to senator corker said we need to strengthen our sanctions regime or our military threat. What are examples of what you would suggest would do that . On your first question, look, i think the whole underlying dynamic of the negotiations has changed in a fundamental way. When we were crafting resolutions in the 2000s and we got a number of resolutions, the point was to address these violations of its International Obligations and put the burden on iran to demonstrate its peaceful intent. Now i feel that underlying framework has shifted to this question of providing irans practical needs or satisfying its purported rights in a way that is safe and monitored and so forth. Thats a very important shift and one of the things theyve tried to do in addition to undermine the credibility is to show it stood up to the u. N. Security council whose legitimacy is also impuned. So that in itself the kind of change is an important change in itself. When it comes to the particulars, i think we made that vital concession on iran enriching indefinitely which is something theyve been seeking since the inception of these talks in 2003. We conceded that any constraints that iran is under will be temporary in nature and perhaps quite short in fact in nature. So iran will be treated like any other state at the end of this process despite again those obligations. We have granted some implicit legitimacy to those facilities which remember it constructed in secret and in violations of its agreements. Which now will remain in place and not be dismantled i think. Weve not forced iran to address the weaponization question or the Ballistic Missile question. So all of these are significant concession that is we have made in the course of these talks. On the second part how do we bolster the credibility of these or else, as it were. I do think its important that there be a clear message to iran about what are the consequences for not reaching a decent agreement by the end of these talks . And i think that should be a unified message. Heres an issue where i think theres strong bipartisan agreement in the United States and i think that the messages were sending should reflect that strong bipartisan agreement. I do think its very important that we continue to enforce vigorously the sanctions already in place that havent been suspended. Im concerned for example by reports that chinas oil imports from iran have increased 48 . If you look at the First Six Months of 2014 compared to the First Six Months of 2013. Yet there hasnt been an appreciable response. Now, part of that is conden sate but im not sure why that should be important to u. S. Policy maker because thats a technical loophole in sanction that is could be corrected. When it comes to military credibility i think thats harder because weve implanted in the minds of folks around the world the idea that were a lot less inclined to address situations like those in syria and iraq and elsewhere, in a sort of forceful way. We didnt enforce the red line in syria. We havent done much of anything frankly in syria to uphold our state policy. Weve respondd in similar ways to iraq when it comes to ukraine, for example, i think our response has been relatively modest compared to whats actually happening there. And so part of i think the answer is addressing some of these situations around the world in a more purposeful and more decisive way. I think we need to stress our continuing commitment to this region. I think the messaging often that we send out is that while were pivoting to a different region we may not have an interest in this any more because of energy independence. I think we get that message straight. Since especially 2011 i think some of our alliances in the region have suffered and i think we need to again rebuild that Security Architecture which once enjoyed. So i think theres a number of steps on either side of the ledger when it comes to enforcing that credibility. But without that or else i dont know why iran would be motivated to accept a restrictions on its activity. One thing that is very clear to me is that military assets that did not exist or werent in position in the region are placed in the region which should send the iranians a very clear message that if in fact we cannot strike a deal and if sanctions ratched up sanctions dont get them to rethink a break in negotiations that thats what happens that there is a real credible threat because those assets were not in the region prior to this process. They are in the region now. And i would hope that would be some sense of a messaging to them. With the thanks of the can he for your expertise and i hope we can continue to call upon you, this hearing will record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow. With the thanks of the can he this hearing is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2014]