Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On A Time To Attack 20140621

For more information about this weekends Television Scandal visit us online at booktv. Org. Matthew kroenig is next on booktv. He says it is critical for the u. S. To take action against iran and its Nuclear Program and argues on the worst kind of diplomacy but the west should be willing to take military action if iran does not comply with the agreement it signed in november of last year. This is an hour and 15 minutes. Good evening. I and the International Program director for the world fair council of washington d. C. The World Affairs to a program, in 2013 and accord was signed in geneva, switzerland, the u. N. Security council, germany and iran. The agreement was a preliminary one that would set the path for more comprehensive deal on irans program and ambitions. Both sides seemed entrenched in their respective positions. However diplomacy and negotiation, conventional wisdom says, were the best way to resolve the crisis. As the alternative, a military strike would be catastrophic. In the six months since the accord was signed both find taken steps to demonstrate their commitment to the preliminary deal, and a new one in the future. Iran has reduced or halted its stocks, and International Inspectors to its facility. The signatories have lifted some of the sanctions which crippled irans economy. The current negotiations are a continual exercise in trust between the parties involved, trust that irans activities will become accepted the transparent and stressed that the other signatories will keep their word. Given the in depth nature, what happens if these talks fail to produce a comprehensive agreement that is required . Again, many have ruled out military action as being as bad if not worse than iran attaining a Nuclear Weapon. What are the alternatives to diplomacy . The seemingly endless stalemate that has existed since november . Matthew kroenig, author of a time to attack, a time to attack the looming Iranian Nuclear threat, challenges the assumption that a Nuclear Strike is out of the question as well as other commonly held policy wisdoms related to the iran Nuclear Program. Military action, he argues, should not be discarded as an option. Matthew kroenig is a Nuclear Proliferation specialist, internationally recognized authority on irans Nuclear Program. His work as a researcher and teacher at various universities in the United States. Before accepting a council on foreign relations, International Fellowship in 2010, through the fellowship he became an adviser on iran policy and the office of the department of the secretary of defense of the pentagon. In 2011, stenson Nuclear Security fellow. His previous book, exporting the bomb, was published in 2010 and his articles have appeared in the washington post, National Interest and Foreign Policy. Most notable, his february of 2012 article in Foreign Affairs which became the basis for his current book. Matthew is an associate professor in the International Field chair in the the part of government at Georgetown University and nonresident senior fellow in International Security at the atlanta council. Please join me in welcoming matthew kroenig. [applause] thank you for that introduction, it is a pleasure to be back here at the World Affairs council in washington d. C. And to be talking about my new book a time to attack one. Before i talk about what the book is about i want to talk about what the book is not. The book does not argue that we should take immediate military action, the book does not argue the military option is our best option, doesnt argue that it should be our first option. I think some people see the title of the book and jump to the wrong conclusion. I argue we should solve the Iranian Nuclear challenge through diplomacy that all possible and there are no experts who disagree with this position. Everyone agrees we should try to solve the problem through diplomacy. No one is saying we should take immediate military action or the we should just give up and acquiesce to a nucleararmed iran. Since there is some agreement on that question, it is not an interesting one. The more interesting question, and i think from a Foreign Policy perspective the more important question is what happens if diplomacy fails . If diplomacy fails to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons are we prepared to live with a nucleararmed iran and the threats that would pose for decades to come and if not are we prepared to take military action to stop here and from Building Nuclear weapons . The argument in my book that i have been making for several years is we should try to solve this through diplomacy but if diplomacy fails we should be prepared to conduct a limited military strike on irans key Nuclear Facilities and that is less bad than acquiescing to a nucleararmed iran and the threat posed my nucleararmed iran for decades to come. To name the book the argument is essentially if diplomacy fails and there will come a time to attack. The second thing the book is not is controversial. At least in my view this argument is not controversial. It simply presents the stated u. S. Policy for addressing the Iranian Nuclear challenge. President obama and other Administration Officials said several times a nucleararmed iran is unacceptable and the United States will do whatever it takes including using military action to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons. I dont believe the argument in the book at this point is controversial. There was a point when it was controversial. As stephanie mentioned in 2010 i worked as an adviser, 201011 work as an adviser and iran policy. I first started to come to this conclusion and stephanie mentioned in 2012 i wrote an article in Foreign Affairs where i made this argument public for the first time. The u. S. Government, the Obama Administration hadnt taken a public stand on this issue and many prominent analysts argued that if diplomacy fails we should learn to live with a nucleararmed iran and contain it like we did the soviet union during the cold war. I wrote my fourth Affairs Article there were many people who disagreed strongly with me. Opinion pieces in public debate including a public debate here at the World Affairs council in washington d. C. But then only a few weeks later president obama came to my rescue. In march of 2012 president obama gave an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the atlantic where he laid out his position for the first time that he would do whatever it took to keep iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons and the nucleararmed iran was unacceptable. Not only that our policy is not to contain a nucleararmed iran but that wasnt even possible, said nucleararmed iran, quote, cannot be contained. Some people dismiss this as political rhetoric trying to look tough. Others question whether obama would really be willing to do it but his top officials, dennis ross, his fifth top official on the least policy for the first few years of the administration, and his top w in the official at the white house for the first few years of the administration both said matteroffactly if it comes to that point the president will be willing to use force and i quote them both in the book. Over the last two years the establishment position on this question has done a 180 degree turn and it has shifted so much that now those who suggest we can live with a nucleararmed iran are the ones who are dismissed as extremists. Rand paul got himself in political hot water just for suggesting the turn and containing a nucleararmed iran should be on the table as an option. As i see it what has happened over the last few years is Foreign Policy establishment has caught up with this argument i have been making for several years and i would like to think my work and my arguments have had some part in bringing our ship about. The book is not arguing the military option should be the first option but should be a last resort if necessary to prevent iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons and i dont see this as controversial. It presents a stated approach for dealing with the problem. That is enough about what the book is not. What is the book about . In the back of the book there is an endorsement from ambassador eric idle men idelmann. What he says on the back of the book is this is the most thorough examination of the issues involved in accessing the Iranian Nuclear challenge and that endorsement means a lot to me in part because that is what i was trying to do when i set out to write this book. I had been thinking about the Nuclear Issue all day every day for several years. I have a lot of information on wasnt able to convey in the Foreign Affairs article, so i wanted to get the information out there and tried to write it for everyone who is interested in this issue regardless of your political position, regardless of what you thought the best way for addressing the Iranian Nuclear challenge is. If you had an idea what the best way is to address this. That is what i try to do, provide a guide to the general public, academics, anyone who wants to learn more about the Iranian Nuclear challenge. In the book i did three things, talk about the history of irans Nuclear Program, talk about the policy options available land addressing the issue, third and finally i talk about what the resolution of the Iranian Nuclear challenge will mean for the future of international order. What i would like to do is take a little bit of time to talk about each of those things. First on the history, as many of you know irans Nuclear Program began with Nuclear Cooperation agreement with the United States in the 1950s under a peace agreement, the United States helped iran set up a Nuclear Research reactor. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the United States was negotiating with the shot and the shys government to help iran develop a Nuclear Energy program. Many look back at this history and say the United States is inconsistent if not hypocritical in its approach to nonproliferation because it was willing to help the shah, but was good enough for him but not the mullets. The United States has been consistent in its approach to nonproliferation with iran and elsewhere. Our approach has always been to encourage the peace use of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Technology including Nuclear Energy but to resist its military applications. That was our policy with the shot shah, but we dont want iran to build Nuclear Weapons. These Peaceful Nuclear discussions with the shah came to end in 1979 with the iranian revolution. New government came into power, antiamerican government shifted, iranian domestic politics, irans relationship rest of the world, irans relation with the United States. Nuclear negotiations came to an end, iran and did the shah had negotiations with other western powers. And at the beginning irans new leaders were not interested in Nuclear Technology either. Irans first leader Ayatollah Khamenei said acquiring Nuclear Weapons was against the tenets of islam but he would change his mind in the 1980s. In the 1980s iran fought a devastating war with its neighbor, iraq. Saddam husseins iraq and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against iranian forces. At the end of the 1980s as the war was coming to an end the Supreme Leader changed his mind and in fact in a letter to supporters explaining his decision to sign a peace fire with Saddam Hussein something he didnt want to do, call the drinking from the poisoned chalice, it was so bitter signing a ceasefire with his bitter enemy. In his letter to his supporters he said that irans military position was hopeless, he had no alternative but he looked forward to resuming the war with, quote, atomic weapons which will be the necessity of work at that time so this was 1980, explicit interest from irans top leader developing Nuclear Weapons. It was at that time representative from iran began meeting with the Pakistani Nuclear scientist who was in the news ten years ago or so, transferred do it yourself atomic bomb kits to iran, north korea and so iran got a jump start on its program because of the pakistani scientist, centrifuge designed, we think the iranians might have received weapons design. Throughout the 1990s and early 2,000s the United States suspected iran might be pursuing a Nuclear Weapons program but that was removed in 2002 when an Iranian Resistance Group Announced two facilities. And heavy water plutonium producing reactor at iraq. And the United States provided research reactors, these two facilities that retailer made for making material for Nuclear Weapons. The Iranian Nuclear crisis began and we have been dealing with it ever since for the past 12 years. After talking about this, the history of the program and i talkedabout the election of president rouhani, i talk about where we stand today. How close is iran to having Nuclear Weapons, does iran want Nuclear Weapons . Something i teach my undergraduate at Georgetown University is in order for Nuclear Weapons to happen or Nuclear Proliferation to happen, there is a supply side, those things have to come together. On the supply side the country must have the ability to build Nuclear Weapons and on the demand side, must have the will to produce them. I talk about the supply and demand. How close is iran to having Nuclear Weapons capability . To build Nuclear Weapons iran has to do three things. It has to acquire enough material to form the core of the nuclear device, that can be highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Second, iran has to be able to form that into an explosive device, the Nuclear Warhead and third it needs a way to deliver that to an opponent, Ballistic Missiles, aircraft, submarine launch, Ballistic Missiles of the platforms that dvanadvance Nuclear Powers use. All the matters is the first stage. The International Community if necessary could take military action, could destroy those Nuclear Facilities to prevent iran from producing weaponsgrade fissile material. Once iran gets the material the game is over. Iran can move that material anywhere. We would know where it is, it could be beyond our best bunker busting munitions and our only option would be to pray that iran doesnt build Nuclear Weapons of for if were serious about keeping our options on the table in doing whatever it takes to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons are real red line as to the production of one bombs worth of weapons grade fissile material. You might hear public discussions around we to months or six months away, those are what those estimates are, how long it would take iran to enrich enough uranium for its First Nuclear weapon. How long would it take . Right now the best estimates are after the interim deal and after iran put these in place as part of the interim deal the best estimates are if the Supreme Leader made the decision right now to the to its first Nuclear Weapons would take two to three months. If we get comprehensive nuclear deal the comprehensive deal would reduce irans capability, extend the time line but not by much. The comprehend to deal as estimated would extend the time line to six months so even if we get a comprehensive deal iran would be six months away in the worst Case Scenario from having the ability to produce Nuclear Weapons. In short on the supply side iran is almost there. It is close to having the ability to produce Nuclear Weapons. What about on the demand side . Is iran want nuclearweapons . We often hear in public debates reported in the media that the International Community fears that iran is trying to build a Nuclear Weapon but iran claims it is only interested in a peaceful Nuclear Energy program and i am often disappointed, it is told as he said she said story. What id do in the book is say lets treat this as a social scientist. Imus social scientist by training, a political scientist, we have two hypotheses, one that iran wants Nuclear Energy, that every months Nuclear Power and the to get the evidence and see what the evidence which hypothesis is most consistent with the evidence. So i go through and look at the evidence and what i show is there are 14 reasons, 14 things that iran is doing that makes no sense for an Energy Program and only makes sense to build Nuclear Weapons. This makes sense given irans strategic goals, iran says its goals i to continue to for this regime to continue to protect this regime. Second that it wants to deter foreign attacks, an attack from israel or the United States and 30 iran and sleet is explicitly say they want iran to be the most dominant state in the middle east. Of those are your goals acquiring Nuclear Weapons make a lot of sense, it allows you to the turf for and tasks to retaliate nuclear war, acquiring Nuclear Weapons help to become the most dominant state in the middle east. Avenue clear Energy Program, having a few Nuclear Facilities doesnt help you to do those things, i believe irans leaders want nuclearweapons and are close to having them. We have a problem. What are the options we have for addressing the problem . In the book i go through all the options and i see three options as the most viable. First, diplomacy. Second, deterring a nucleararmed iran, third, taking military action. These are the only three options. Before i get to those options i have a chapter on the nonstarters that sometimes people put forward but wont work. Because some people get the three options and say diplomacy might not work but these other options of military action, deterrence and containment, there has to be another way. What are the other ways people have suggested . Some say we could stop irans program through covert action, continue conduct cyberattacks and sabotage their facilities and there have been assassinations of Iranian Nuclear scientists so maybe we can keep doing stuff like that . The International Community can do stuff like that and maybe that will stop iran. What i show in the book is these mysterious activities and accidents have been happening to irans Nuclear Program for years but every three months every three month iran and capability continue to increase. It is possible the program would have advanced more precipitously. If it hadnt been for this stuff but that also shows its own covert action would not be enough. Second, some people argue maybe we can have a japan model as an option. The japan model option is like japan maybe iran could have an advanced Nuclear Capability and since it will have everything it needs to build a nuclearweapons if it wanted to eventually be a screwdrivers turn or two away but that iran wont do it, iran wont turn the final two screws and we will just live with that. I argue that is not a serious option either because theres no reason to believe iran would stop short, at the point that they can no longer physically stop it. No reason to believe iran would refrain from Building Nuclear weapons so if the japan model very quickly would become the north korea model. Third, what about regime change . Some argue regime changes an option. Usually theyre not talking about george w. Bush style regime stage where we invade the country but we the government out. Government can stay in power forever, maybe there will be a new revolution, new government will come to power that would be more willing to deal with us, we will give up the Nuclear Program. That would be nice if we could get it but there is no sign that this government is going to fall anytime soon and a Nuclear Clock is ticking much faster than the regime change clock so we have to make difficult decisions how to deal with the Nuclear Program before any new government comes to power. Having dismissed nonstarters i get into serious options, the first is diplomacy. At the outset if we could solve this diplomatically that would be the best option. In effect the longest chapter in the book is on diplomacy some kind of contrary to this idea that some people had to jump to the negev short shrift to diplomacy i give the military option is the best option. I talk about the history of negotiations with iran from 2002 until the interim deal, i talk about the various designs of possible comprehensive deals, i talk about ideal deal in which iran would have no enrichment capability whatsoever which would be the best deal from the wests point of view and i talk about this limited enrichment deal which is what we are currently pursuing, talk about the advantages and disadvantages of that, and it will leave iran six months from a nuclearweapons break out the ability. And we talk about a diplomatic plan because even if this round of negotiations break down we wouldnt necessarily have to resort immediately to military force. It would depend on irans behavior after that. If iran went to build Nuclear Weapons with have two to three months, and would be likely that instead of going to nuclearweapons, go back to the approach was pursuing the 4 rouhani was elected. And increase stockpile uranium. And we take military action. And we could engage in a course of diplomacy to try one last time to solve it diplomatically. I also argue we need to be realistic. We hope diplomacy will work but it might not. President obama said the chance of a comprehensive deal is, quote, know better than 50 50. His former wm d advisor oil mentioned before. And theres a sizable chance, and if we get a comprehensive deal. And something i worry about is we get this comprehensive deal would declare end to the nuclear crisis, people stop worrying about iran, economic pressure will be issued, World Leaders will focus on other issues. And it will be tempting for iran to achieve any agreement and build a nuclear Hart Senate Office building is and dare the International Community to try to respond, took us ten years to build the sanctions regime we currently have in place that was dismantled as part of a comprehensive deal. It would be hard to reassemble that and put pressure back on iran. If we get a comprehensive deal there is reasonable chance iran would try to sneak out or at some point attempt to build Nuclear Weapons. If diplomacy doesnt work, because we cant get a comprehensive deal we get a comprehensive deal but it breaks down, what happens next . This gets to the what is worse question. One option would be to simply give up and acquiesced to a nucleararmed iran and allow rand have nuclearweapons the nucleararmed iran almost everyone agrees would pose a grave threat to International Security. I think it would lead to the further proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the middle east. We shouldnt exaggerate this. I dont think every country in the region with the beat we have nuclearweapons but over the course of 10, 20 years or so at least one or two other countries would acquire Nuclear Weapons, saudi arabia, egypt, turkey blew some of you might be saying one or two countries intended 20 years doesnt sound too bad but that would be cold comfort in 10 or 20 years we are in the middle of an iranian saudi rainy nuclear crisis. Many of you i think it would lead to proliferation and it would lead to proliferation around world. I think iran would be at risk of becoming nuclear supplier. My first book, a book stephanie mentioned at the beginning is called exporting the bomb systematic analysis why countries exported sensitive Nuclear Material and technology in the past and all the analysis suggests iran would be at risk of doing that, potentially transferring uranium Enrichment Technology to other countries, latin america and asia and the to the pro the reformation of Nuclear Weapons around the world that way. When theres proliferation in the region, proliferation around world the global nonproliferation regime more broadly would be weakened. Countries would seek the great power of the United States was serious about enforcing nonproliferation, the regime could collapse and lead to widespread proliferation. Second i think iran would be emboldened and become more aggressive in its Foreign Policy. We know that iran restrains its Foreign Policy because it fears Major Military retaliation from israel or the United States but if it had Nuclear Weapons a good feel emboldened to push harder and deter Major Military retaliation with nuclearweapons through the threat of nuclear retaliation. It could step up its support to terrorist and proxy groups and engage in diplomacy in the region, taking the steps to achieve its goal of becoming the most dominant stake in the least. In this scenario the middle east becomes an even more crisis prone region. In the crisis prone region with a nucleararmed iran, israel, United States, potentially other nucleararmed states we would have Nuclear Crises every few years and potential for nuclear war. I dont think irans leaders are suicidal. I dont think they will wake up one day and say it is a good day for nuclear war but i do think iran will have geopolitical conflict of interest with other states, other nucleararmed states, they will get into highstakes crises like United States and the soviet union did during the cold war. Think of berlin, the cuban missile crisis and in these highstakes crises theres always the risk of thing spinning out of control and a Nuclear Exchange listen look back of the cold war and think Nuclear Deterrence works. I look back and think we were incredibly lucky to avoid and exchange. If there is an arms race in the middle east, that would be a place where there would be danger for Nuclear Exchange for. Nuclear exchange in the region could mean the end of the state of israel, very small state, israels leaders are not exaggerated when they say it is an essential issue. Once iran has Ballistic Missiles capable of reaching the east coast of the United States the department of defense estimates could happen next soon as next you could potentially result in a Nuclear Attack on the u. S. Homeland. A lot of threats posed by nucleararmed iran. The United States wouldnt just except these threats, they would put in place a strategy to deal with it, deterrent and containment strategy like we put in place a deterrent and containment strategy against the soviet union during the cold war but this would increase u. S. Political and military commitments in the middle east, would likely require signing formal defense agreements with our allies and partners in the region, potentially signing formal treaties with saudi arabia, other gulf states, perhaps israel. Lets call the United States promising to fight a nuclear war on saudi arabias behalf, gulf states the half, israels behalf, during the cold war be blessed with the United States be willing to trade new york for paris . Would we be willing to fight a nuclear war if france were attacked . This would mean people would be asking with the United States trade new york, would we be willing to fight a nuclear war that risks new york . In some ways this is an incredible threat to increase the credibility of the threat we would do things we did during the cold war and europe and east asia and deploy u. S. Forces in the region where u. S. Nuclear weapons to make it clear to iran that any attack would potentially result in nuclear retaliation. We would likely have to help israel develop secure a second strike capabilities. One of the risks of nuclear war would come about because it is likely both iran and israel might think they have first strike advantages and helping israel to understand that it has a secure second strike capability help and potentially acquire submarine launch technicals, and Ballistic Missile silos to make sure the Nuclear Arsenal is survivable, and this would be constantly strategy require major increase of commitments, not like iran would have nuclearweapons for one day. This is a strategy that would remain in place for decades. As long as iran had nuclearweapons and was hostile to the United States. With that strategy we couldnt deal with many of the threats posed by nucleararmed iran. With the deterrent and containment strategy we could deter iran from purposely starting a nuclear war. We could be turned them from purposely transferring Nuclear Weapons to terrorist groups but many of the other threats we couldnt deal with that deterrence and containment strategy. Likely that iran would transferred sensitive Nuclear Technology, what we really be willing to fight a nuclear war with iran because it transferred uranium Enrichment Technology, irans leaders understand they could get away with it. We couldnt deter iran from being emboldened, iran would become more aggressive even with the tears and containment regimes and by definition we cant they terre accidental or inadvertant nuclear war in highstakes crisis. They tearing and containing nucleararmed iran is not a good option. President bush and president obama didnt agree on a lot in Foreign Policy but they both agree a nucleararmed iran is unacceptable. If that is the case if a nucleararmed iran is unacceptable, if diplomacy fails, that leaves us with one option, the military option. In the book i talk about the military option and the military option is an to the option either. There are many risks. Is it worse or better than the turns and containment . I talked about the Israeli Military option. Many people when they think of the military option think israel would do it, not the United States. The problem with the Israeli Military option is they dont have that capability is to destroy irans key Nuclear Facilities, their four key Nuclear Facilities, two above ground, is roker destroy those. Israel might be able to get one of the facilities with bunker busting bombs the United States has provided the with those bombs theres no way iran could get the facility buried in to the side of the mountain under 295 feet of rock so the israeli option is not a good option. That is one thing hawks and doves in the United States agree on. Is really military option is not a bad one. The u. S. Military option is much better simply because the United States has the ability to destroy Irans Nuclear facility, even if the soviet come. This would set iran and Nuclear Program back, it hard to estimate how much time, most estimates range from three to seven years but this is a worst case estimate, these are estimates assuming iran decides to rebuild and doesnt to counter any significant obstacles but if you start to assume politics and geopolitics happen, that time line becomes much longer. One of the things i talk about in the book is the countries that historically had their Nuclear Facilities attacked, not to germany during world war ii, iran had its Nuclear Facilities attacks during the iran iraq war, the israelis had a strike of their own and the United States and the coalition followed up with strikes of their own. Syria in 2007 had its Nuclear Reactor attacked from israel. One thing i point out is in all those cases the country conducting the attacks thought they would only buy a limited amount of time but in every case of unforeseen events that were completely unimaginable at the time came to pass permitting those countries from developing Nuclear Weapons and none of those countries have Nuclear Weapons today. At a minimum the u. S. Strike would buy a few years but it is more likely politics and geopolitics would happen and iran wouldnt acquire Nuclear Weapons in a politically meaningful time frame. Now there are risks to military action, most notably Iranian Military retaliation but it is important not to exaggerate those. Many people argue it would lead to world war iii, it is hard to imagine how that would play out. You need to focus on iranian capabilities and iran doesnt have conventional military to speak of. Rather they have been investing in asymmetric capabilities, investing in Ballistic Missiles with terrace and proxy groups and this regular navy they could use to cause problems in the persian gulf and potentially close the strait of hormuz. It could conduct Ballistic Missile attacks, to terrorist attacks and harassment attacked ships in the persian gulf but we also have to ask what would iran do . Put yourself in the shoes of irans Supreme Leader. You wake up one morning in your Nuclear Facilities have been destroyed by your country is intact, your military is intact, your government is intact, your foremost objective is to protect your theocratic regime. What do you do . You have to strike back to some degree. You would look like the wind if you didnt strike back. Would look like a wimp domestically and internationally but you wouldnt want to pick a fullscale war with the United States, the one country on earth that could insure your military is destroyed a new regime comes to an end. Most Iranian Military analysts in the event of a strike iran and Supreme Leader would lead to a calibrated response, try to strike back but not too hard so i think we could play on our own fears. In the book i talk about a strategy the United States could use to mitigate the negative consequences of a strike. One thing i talk about is we could issue a deterrent threat to irans leaders through various back channels and make it clear if it gets to this point we are only interested in destroying Nuclear Facilities, not overthrowing the regime or invading the country but if iran strikes back, and then we would be willing to escalate the conflict, we could play on what many people believe is the Supreme Leaders inclination anyway and trade essentials the irans Nuclear Program, president obama called one of the leading security challenges to the country for calibrated iranian retaliation. That is not a good option. We are dealing with taking military action against another country and another country retaliating. What about the worst question . It compares these options by design and there are many ways to do this. I do it by identifying 12 of the most Important National security objectives, the United States wants to combat international terrorism, protect our allies, 12 of these interests, i go through and compare these scenarios, military strike on iran or deterring and containing nuclear arms iran and how they affect these various interests. One thing i show is there are several interests that are better protected by a strike, Nuclear Proliferation for example is clearly better protected by a strike. There are many other interests that seem to be pure tossups. The United States in this sense that it is unclear this which option better protects the interests. United states would like to maintain regional stability in the middle east. The strike is worse for stability in the short term taking military action against another country in retaliation, but theres a good argument that over the long term acquiescing to a nucleararmed iran would be worse for regional stability as iran becomes emboldened, the Nuclear Arms Race and the region, Nuclear Crises, it is hard to say which option is better for protecting regional stability. And the long term. As an advisor on iranian policy i did a major briefing on this issue to Senior Defense and civilian military leaders at the pentagon. Defense officials like to receive their information in power point slides. The final slide in the presentation was a start showing these options and showing across the various interests, options, interests that were improved in very scenarios were colored green, interests that remain for a freeze the same, were neutral, colored yellow, and interests that were in a particular scenario were colored orange or red depending on their levels of severity. And two things to everybody in the room, first there wasnt a lot of green, lot of orange and red. These were not good options. The second thing that stood out to everybody was nucleararmed iran side of the chart was weaker than a military strike side of the chart. The military strike, the risks of a military strike pale in comparison quite literally in this case to the risks of a nucleararmed iran. At an end of the briefing the foremost senior most official in the room looked me straight in the eye and said if you are right this is a nobrainer. I think that is correct. These are bad options we should try to solve diplomatically but if it gets to the point of choosing conducting a limited strike on key Nuclear Facilities is less bad than living with the threats posed by nucleararmed iran for years to come. The Obama Administration makes the statements that nucleararmed iran is unacceptable and we will do what it takes it is not just bluster. Is based on sound analysis and what is in the best analysis of the country. And in singapore iowa had a conference, scenario planning conference, there were academics, journalists, policymakers in asia, europe, the United States, and this conference was we consider these various scenarios and the idea was to think creatively, have new insights to stress and strain our assumptions how the world worked and we could take these insights to our day job. And one of the scenarios was around a Global Financial crisis. I remember this in 2006. We have all these educated people in the room who closely follow the international economy, international politics, and the session was a complete bust. Everyone in the room said this is implausible. We havent had a crisis like this since the great depression, we learned our lesson. We have policies in place, the Global Economy is different, it is interconnected, globalized. They are willing to stretch their minds that this was going too far. The Global Financial crisis, simply impossible. And Global Financial crisis hit the very next year. The Expert Community and the general public are in danger of being similarly pollyanna about nuclear war. I spent the first ten years of my academic career studying Nuclear Proliferation because i do believe Nuclear Proliferation poses a grave threat to International Peace and security. I look at the cold war and dont stay deterrence works. I think we were lucky to avoid a Nuclear Exchange. Are we really willing to that the security of International System, the security of the country on the argument that something hasnt happened in 70 years, therefore it will never happen again . I for one as someone who spent a lot of time thinking about Nuclear Weapons would be surprised if nuclearweapons arent used again sometime in my lifetime. I think if iran acquire Nuclear Weapons being potentially to an arms race, that would be one of the prime candidate for the next nuclear war potentially even one that could result in an attack on the United States. We often say Nuclear Proliferation poses when it is the gravest threat to International Peace and security we often say it poses one of the greatest threats to the United States but if that is the case we have to be willing to do what it takes to stop addendum principal military strikes on Nuclear Facilities and proliferate in states have to be one of the tools in our toolbox. If it gets to that point the United States must take action against iran this would be consistent with americas approach to International Security over the past century. United states is often called upon to take tough action for International Security and the result has been General International stability and prosperity for much of the International System in dealing with the Iranian Nuclear challenge is no different and now is not the time to share our responsibility. [applause] [inaudible] if you would please identify yourself and if you are with an organization. My name is andrew, i have a facebook group, the non appeasement presentation, and others then the military option or the lead alone option the two you spell out, the mayor who ran anti iran corroborations came to prevent present the third option. An option, he came to the white house, tried to convince them, was frustrated, and on 60 minutes, presented that option, and the democratic pro Freedom Forces in sudan. Paging through your book you refer to if you support the opposition you mention covert operations and regime change but relieve the full, rich idea of empowering people fighting to be free is something we the United States have not been good at and it is not in our culture, military, state department or cia culture. And i think this third option i would like to throw at you, the one time we tried it, when congress and the grassroots revolt against the cias the trail of the Afghan Resistance which i was involved in, we won. We force the soviets, the resistance with our help, that lead to six warsaw pact countries and 15 soviet republics going 3. That is what south asia needs, not just iran but a few regimes down there, that corner. So i would like to throw that you. And get your comment on it, thank you. Good question. I talk a little bit in the book about the iranian election in 2009 because in the summer of 2009 as you recall when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected to a second term, he was running against the supreme mullah and many iranians when it was announced in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won they had thought that the Green Movement at won the elections the many iranians turned out to the streets in protest, many days of protests, you probably remember. At that time the administrations position was to keep the lowprofile because when the Obama Administration came in they wanted to try had this dual track approach i talk about in the book, pressure and engagement and they started on the engage in track and fought by reaching out to iran, showing the rich different from the Bush Administration and were willing to cooperate and engage in diplomacy that would convince iran said the election in 2009 the Green Movement takes to the street and the Obama Administrations first inclination was stay silent on this, we need government as a partner in the nuclear negotiations, we dont want to embarrass them and i think that was a mistake. The 8 states should have stood up for the democratic open movement in iran. We lost our opportunity there. After 2009 the Green Movement was demoralized, many of them moved overseas or in prison and we saw in 2013 i think what the election of 2013 and last summer showed of the Iranian Regime is as strong as ever, so rouhani was elected, a more theocratic system. He is a regime insider, he was on the slate of candidates preapproved by the Supreme Leader and without controversy, without protest, to a handpicked candidate of the Supreme Leader. What that election shows is the current government is Even Stronger than it was in 2009 so i think the United States is doing some things to encourage democracy. Ayn rand there were reports about United States providing Information Technologies that would allow the opposition movements in iran to communicate, to organize. There are some steps in that direction and potentially could do more but we have the same problem i talked about in the opening remarks which is the current government is Strong Enough that it is hard for me to see how they fall in time for it to solve the Nuclear Program, the Nuclear Problem for us. We are engaged in negotiations, the deadline for the next comprehensive deal is july 20th with the possibility of extension to january 20th. Hard for me to see how the regime falls and the new government comes to power in that timeframe. If they do that would be great but it is unlikely. My name is sam thompson, worked in the state department with gary on nuclear nonproliferation. I was disturbed by the title of your book and was more encouraged as you progress to indicate that you were favorably disposed toward diplomatic efforts, but as i listen to you, you are pretty cynical about the diplomatic efforts and you say even if we proceed down that path iran can rake out and within a few weeks or months have a Nuclear Weapon and likely to cheat. You are really mening vol efforts. Why are you as concerned about north korea as you are about iran . What is the big difference here . We have come that north korea has Nuclear Weapons, they will eventually hit our allies with missiles and they have Nuclear Weapons to do it with. And with iran is totally unacceptable. I gather the wild card is i like your thoughts on that. And detrimental affects about the attack. And iran will go full force forward with a Nuclear Weapons program. Any doubt that that was going to be the case will be removed. That will be a prime objective. This would unite the people behind the government, that is huge thing to manage. Thank you very much. First, you said i poohpoohed the diplomatic option is the language you use. I do think the diplomatic option is the best option, there is a good chance we wont get a comprehensive deal. It is possible even if we get a deal that would unravel. Of better than even chance that diplomacy wont solve this problem but if that is the case we should pursue it because one of the advantages of a military strike is it buys time for diplomacy and also as long as we are negotiating, as long as the interim deal is in place iran is not making the final push toward a Nuclear Weapon and if we get a comprehensive deal it will mean the International Community needs to maintain laser focus on iran essentially forever to make sure to detect any attempts to break out and response to break out and so i think it is fragile but again as long as we can keep that in place, we are delaying the Irans Nuclear capability and that is a good thing. It is the best way forward. I think we have to be realistic that it is probably not a permanent solution but we can use it to buy time and should use it to buy time. Second on north korea, i think the main difference between iran and north korea is in israel. In north korea it is too late. North korea is estimated to have between 6 and a dozen Nuclear Weapons but we dont know where they are so we dont have any real military option but we had a military option in 1994. Many people, president clinton considered a strike on north korea in 1994. Many people advocated for it. Some of them said they were right, we should have taken action in 1994, north korea led to many problems over the past ten years and if we had taken action we wouldnt have to deal with those so north korea transferred Nuclear Technology to build a Nuclear Reactor, north korea has been more aggressive since acquiring Nuclear Weapons that attack south korea, attacked the south korean worship, south korean island, north korea engaged in Nuclear Threats against our allies which makes restoring our allies in the region are in engage in Nuclear Threat against us. Last year threatened to nuke los angeles and austin, texas of all places and a few other things. If iran acquires Nuclear Weapons these other things we would have to worry about. Iran would transfer Nuclear Technology, iran would likely become more aggressive, potentially attacking its neighbors like engaging in Nuclear Threats and we havent even seen the full range of consequences from a nucleararmed north korea. It has only been ten years. 2006 was the first test so we could still have a nuclear war involving north korean Nuclear Weapons and these other things we should worry about with iran and the main difference is it is not too late for iran war news koreanorth korea. There are a lot of costs. I only have 30 minutes or so and to going to the other costs in the book i would encourage you to look at that. You said if theres any doubt iran would build Nuclear Weapons, a strike would convince them to go all the way. Many people make that argument. My view is i think iran has already made that decision and there is no way to explain their behavior over the last ten years except if they decided to build a Nuclear Weapon and the Supreme Leader is building up the program decades, it is kind of naive for us to assume he hasnt fought long and hard about what he is doing and what he intends to do with it. The second thing i point out in the book is if that is a concern that can be mitigated completely by the timing of a strike, if we strike tomorrow night then there is a danger that there someone on the fence that will change their mind but what i argue in the book is we should actually time it according to what the real red wines are so with iran is approaching one bombs worth of material, that is when we should take military action so if iran is enriching to 91 , if iran kicks out inspectors, at that point it will be clear theyre going toward a Nuclear Weapon yet we dont do anything they will build a Nuclear Weapons and taking military action will be the only thing that even creates the possibility of a non nuclear outcome. Uniting the iranian people, in the short term would create a rally around the flag affect. The regime would become more popular. The other thing we know about rally around the flag is they are relatively shortlived and many people who understand iranian domestic politics better than me, this is from a more nonproliferation perspective, u. S. Military strategy point of view, those who know iranian domestic politics very well, create a rally around a flat effect in the short term but over the long term it will create opportunities for opposition figures to criticize the government for mismanaging the problems at this point that led to an armed attack on the country, led to iran having its Nuclear Program destroyed. The other thing i would point out is we cant just look at the cost on one side of the ledger or the other. We have to compare them. What to acquiring Nuclear Weapons due to iranian domestic politics . That strengthens the regime. Allows them to deter foreign attacks and to domestic public that they steer the ship of state through the international crisis, maintain the Nuclear Program, only ten state on earth to become a Nuclear Power and that is an effect that would be locked in potentially longer because only one country has given up nuclearweapons. Iran will have them for long time and it will Reach International and domestic benefits of that overtime. Taking all these issues into account, a strike is less bad than acquiescing. My name is steve davis. I am a member of the council here for some years. I live in a house that was built in 1954. We have been in a state of belligerence with the iranian people or the iranian government since that time. Much of it instigated by the United States, primarily by the overthrow of the democratically elected president. The iranians have a point of view. The iranians ostensibly like other countries have a right to selfdetermination. We talk about them as low they are but a pawn on our chessboard. I would like our diplomacy to widen out and include respect for other peoples history and how they view us. We are not innocent in the world. I would like your comments on that. In terms of respect for iranian history or iranian culture something that talk about in the book. And amazing civilization and history. I think i have no problem with the iranian people . Most people in the u. S. Government dont either. The problem is the sponsorship of terrorism and Nuclear Program. That is what the focus is on and what poses a threat to the United States. Iran has a point of view. I completely agree with that. Given irans stated goals of being able to deter foreign attacks and being the most dominant stake in the region, acquiring Nuclear Weapons makes a lot of sense from an iranian point of view. If i ran iranian advisor i dont know what i would be advising. Im an intern in the u. S. Senate. Im from texas and the telecom rick perry is pretty happy north korea put us on their target list. How do deteriorating relations with russia and the status quo affect the soft power calculus for diplomatic action and how has it changed the response to like a shortterm military action . One of the concerns with forging relations with russia is what does to keep unity. We think being able to get the major powers, permanent five members of the Security Council and germany all on the same side, putting pressure on iran and basically abiding by the sanctions, having a unified faith in negotiations has been helpful. So far it is help up in november many people aboard relations with russia continue to worsen. That russia might not be on board with the negotiations with iran. Talking to some of my colleagues who work on this issue, they said so far we havent seen signs that russia is being unhelpful with iran. Theres been some discussion of a possible oil deal between russia and iran would help to alleviate some of the economic pressure but so far that is just talk. Nothing has been concentrated consummated. The crisis in ukraine, i think afresh want to play spore the role in iran they could do that and make a diplomatic settlement even harder. Thank you so much for the talk. Really appreciate it. Im a student in u. S. Foreign policy at american university. Again thank you so much for the comments about the cold war and how that ended, been pretty lucky, very poignant point to make. I was interested to your more about your thoughts demand issue that you brought up. I feel like you could, if you may be to expand on that a little bit more. I guess is the way to the u. S. Can end its geopolitical got those in the middle east work to reduce the demand that again, if you could just address that a little more, appreciate it. Thank you. Well, i guess a couple things come to mind. One is there are different factions with iranian politics and i think a lot of the talk, when i talk of iran as a coherent entity and a fourth also talk about coherent entities but there are different factions in iran so there are hardliners in iran in the irgc, in the parliament who very strongly believe that iran should be most dominant state in the region. Needs to acquire Nuclear Weapons in order to do that. Doesnt want a diplomatic settlement actually see the diplomatic so that with a great states which is what they call the United States as a threat to iran and what it stands for. Iran stands for resistance to the west, resistance to negotiations and a deal as something to be avoided. On the other hand, you do have more moderate forces in iran and i think the current president and the foreigners represent that point of view. I think they think International Isolation is not good for iran. They understand the economy is being badly damaged, and so they would like to get the release any think they are willing to put some curbs on the Nuclear Program in order to get the. The Supreme Leader, the ultimate decisionmaking in the a ring system and so the Supreme Leader is doing all these viewpoints and making the final decision. Historically the Supreme Leader has been more on the hardline camp than in the moderate camp. So i think if i tried to read the Supreme Leader what he is trying to do is take the last advanced in the program is possible and get sanctions relief and i think thats probably what iran is trying to achieve in these negotiations. So in terms of addressing the demand, in Foreign Policy we often talk about using carrots and sticks. Promising carrots for good behavior, threatening sticks for bad behavior. What many people looked at this problem have said is that we really have to rely on the states because and look at benefits theres nothing we can promise iran thats more value than a Nuclear Weapons capability. Theres nothing we ca can promie them the more valuable than escape boat that would allow them to deter foreign attacks, become the most dominant state in the region. So, therefore, the key is sticks. Threatening without a do we will crank up economic pressure and at the end of a take military action. So i think i agree with that point of view that the key to addressing this issue isnt addressing demand because i dont think theres anything we could possibly promise iran thats more valuable than to becoming the most dominant state. We tried promising other things. They have not been interested. I think the key is making it clear we can threaten more economic pain and Indian Military action if they dont accept this deal that they dont really want. Retired u. S. Government. I have two very different questions. First one is more substantive. We keep talking about two or three months or six months and all. Is this based on iaea, where the iaea is doing today . And related to that is, what kind of things are going to get out of this six months, out of his current agreement thats going to be better so they wont cheat the old trust but verify story. The second one, trickier, you might not want to comment on it is, i was pretty sure that obama was heading, you know, i was believing in obamas red line until we had this critical juncture on syria where the congress got the vote and the American People got to fill out opinion polls. So if the diplomatic option fails, who is going to decide . First on the trust but verify issue, we are actually fortunate enough time to have all the common in the Audience Award at the iaea on the iran portfolio for many years, so thank you for coming. I should probably turn this one over to you, but so the two to three months is how long it would take iran if they decided immediately to enriched to 90 the other thing i should mention, talk about in the book, the other interim deal gets is very Good International Atomic Energy Agency Access to the Iranian Nuclear facility. So now the iaea inspectors are visiting the key Nuclear Facilities i believe every day, or close to everyday. And in a comprehensive deal would also want to get that kind of access. Also as part of the interim deal iran to let access to facility weve never had access to before. Just a week or so ago they allowed us access to uranium mining and milling facilities. So we have good eyes on the program. If we got a comprehensive deal that would need to be a part of the. So we would detect quickly if iran were trying to break out. Now, of course, you dont know what you dont know. Its possible that secret facilities that we dont know that. The ie doesn doesnt know about theyre good reason to believe that are not secret facilities, that we do know the full extent of the program. The good news is we get the comprehensive deal that iran tried to cheat we would likely catch them and be able to pair a response to the bad news is we dont have about six months to do it. So i share your concern on syria but it is clear, backing off of it has been very damaging to u. S. Credibility. So i have a colleague who went to east asia recently talking with our allies, talking with our allies in tokyo and she said she was surprised at how often she came up. All they wanted to talk about. The president said hes going to force and he didnt. What does that mean for security can from the United States . Can we count on the United States anymore . We need to take our security in our own hands . So i think because of that our commitments are being called into question everywhere, including on iran. So give the president has said hes willing to use force, and the talk to some of his closest advisers and they swear he says the same thing in the oval office that he says in public, that he really wants to solve this diplomatically, that he doesnt want to have to use force, but that hes not going to allow a Nuclear Arms Race in them middle east he doesnt have to. The problem is nobody believes that. The president does, a couple of close advisers do. I do not having talked to them but my sense is the American Public doesnt believe obama would use force on iran. Ive sensed iranians and the israeliisraelis dont believe t. In some ways thats worst possible situation is the president is willing to use force but nobody believes it. I think in that situation iran might be tempted to cross those red lines and we would get into a war that couldve been avoided if we had more credibility in part to address the issue im talking about about things the United States can be to increase the credibility of the militant option if diplomacy breaks down. Being more explicit about what the red lines are would be helpful. If the president made a clear statement about what his red lines are like he did in syria, i think again if diplomacy breaks down asking congress or having congress provide an authorization to use military force would help to lend credibility. I think also engage in more robust outreach with the friends and allies abroad about this to make sure that its clear that they know we are serious and the iranians see we are taking these steps. I think all those things could help to increase the credibility of the threat and the romans used to say if you want peace, prepare for war. I think that would be the purpose of those. These are the steps you got to go through to prepare for war, but if iran sees it and believes it they might be deterred from crossing the red line. Thanks, matt. This is excellent or i want to offer a couple of nuances. First of all, i like your analysis answer as such, but we all know the story of 1001 nights, when sahara was buying time. Told the stories for 1001 nights, so he doesnt get killed. With the Iranian Nuclear crisis, its a new s. T. A. R. T. But my clock start somewhere in 2002 so we have july 20, depending where you put a line 4001 nights. I think what is happening to us we became a hostage, a second hostage crisis with iran. And iac there is a theme, iran does have a test Nuclear Weapon manufacturing because a small country with limited resources, it doesnt make sense. But they could just to the limit and then they do exactly all this what you talk, how to deal with the middle east and how to embolden, et cetera. This is her difficult for the International Community to deal with because iran claims its their legal right to do x. Y. Or c. Theres no proof that they have violated their safeguards or entity undertakings. The International Community is in a bit of a bind here. When i looked today, two months, three months, six months of first of all what i worked, six months is an extremely small period of time. If you want the International Community to act. We should keep that one in mind. The second thing is that what do we really know about the iranians Nuclear Program . This is based on the numbers we know. There are also numbers which we may not know. And, therefore, this next deal whether its another interim deal or its a longer deal actually has to address that point. To bring clarity to make sure that the iranian declarations are complete. So much like, its a blue heart pumping air for the u. N. That we should not leave it only to the iaea inspections verification. Real transference as president rouhani again was advocating two days ago, really goes much further. It has to be the way it was in 1960s between u. S. And russia where information was provided to the other party in such a way that it was able to verify those statements without going to the country. So this is a new transference, new challenge in my view should be part of this whatever interim deal or final do. I think its a great book but have not yet read it but i will do it during the week. Well, thank you fo for the comments, and thank you so much for coming. You basin at some point that if we do things in a comprehensive do to get even Greater Transparency more than what the iaea provides us that would be great. On this challenge that you proposed of iran stopping just short of the line and staying there, i think that is a possible option but i think thats not longterm stable option. I just dont see why iran would stop short if they got that close. Because again, if irans major goals are to be to deter foreign attacks, just having advanced Nuclear Facilities doesnt allow you to deter foreign attacks. Having Nuclear Weapons and the ability to retaliate with Nuclear Weapons does. To become the most dominant state in the middle east, having an advanced Nuclear Program doesnt allow them to do that. Japan has an advanced Nuclear Program, not the most advanced state in issue. My own investment is that might be a stopping point somewhere along the way but it gets to the point, at some point iran will cross and will not voluntarily stop short but reasonable people can disagree