Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On A Time To Attack 20140814

Positive. He was really shocked. Then he asked me to manage his trip to iran to speak with president rafsanjani. Rafsanjani gave him Carte Blanche to go for Regional Cooperation system in the persian gulf. It was in 1990. It was not in 19 2000. It was right after the war. He was almost shocked. He came to washington and washington decline. Therefore you can see from the beginning the iranians have been seeking a type of Regional Cooperation. The foreign minister in 1991, 1992, 1995 he paid a visit to all the gcc countries. That time i was in Foreign Foreign Ministry and he raised iranian willingness to establish such a cooperation with their neighbors. But gcc was not in position because of the u. S. Position, opposition. I really dont believe iran is going to have a dominant role in the region which is the conventional understanding care. Iran has more Regional Cooperation with the neighbors including saudi arabia. Jeff, what i said about the u. S. Departure from the region, i never mean its immediate. It is graduate within 10 years or 15 years. This is my understanding the u. S. Is going to have it gradually decreasing control investment in the region which would take five, 10 or 15 years. Its not going to happen in one ear. Ive got time for three more questions. One from a colleague in the front and the woman in a blue vest. First of all thanks a lot for your speech and i look forward to reading your book. My question brings us back to iran and inside the country. Here in the u. S. Its always very fuzzy when people report that president rohan is going to have a hard time convincing the hardliners. Could you tell us what your assessment is of the hardliner challenged that of president rouhani and how far can he go before the tightrope that he is seemingly walking on will snap . If you could make it very simple for you. What is the role of hardliners here in washington . The problems of president obama and congress. This is exactly the same for dr. Rohan in tehran. The radicals, the hardliners in tehran and washington exactly the mirror image. Hello thank you for your presentation. Im International Peace and Security Consultant and i have a question on your position that the u. S. Is gradually, gradually disassociating or disengaging in the middle east. I want to bring you forward two years from now where we have an incoming, its a hypothetical, and incoming republican president in washington. Republicans hold the majority in the two houses and i want you to put your book and its recommendations two years from now and the future and i want you to pay particular attention in your response to the issue of u. S. Commitments to israel. Thank you. I have no doubts about u. S. Commitments to israel. It is israel who has aligned person obamas attempt for peace process. It was not iran. You know better than me how much the u. S. President john kerry invested in a twostate solution and who declined and who oppose the u. S. President and it was netanyahu. Despite all of these facts i know the u. S. Commitment to the security of israel, they have no doubt that the issue is whether israelis are making right policies with the current policies they have in the region or they are isolating themselves and blaming others. This is my issue. Whether we would have a republican president or not, we may have. This is to my understanding and maybe im wrong, for me its difficult to imagine a republican president who would repeat the mistake in iraq and afghanistan. I think they have learned a good lesson. The final question is from adam a former colleague with a near times. My name is adam stolt meant a former times person and independent. Much of the discussion has been framed in geopolitical terms but the question that occurred to me is theres a school of thought espoused in part by people which seized the instability of the region especially in syria is the failure of political systems to respond to environmental issues. So i wondered if you might be able to comment from that perspective and off you also if you accept it. What do you mean . The draft in syria and how that then led to instability and the failure of the regime to respond in a meaningful way. Tom friedman did documentary around this. So i wonder if you could respond a little bit to that and also if you do accept that view do you see opportunity for cooperation between the west and iran in environmental areas . On syria, myself i believe president assad made a mistake at the beginning of the crisis taking the opposition. He could have prevented the crisis, one. Second, today the reality is the Assad Government is part of the integrity of states and nations of syria. Believe it or not if assad today collapses who is going to govern syria . Who has a better alternative . Do we have united opposition . Do we have the united in syria . The fact is when the army in the security establishments of syria still are powerful, relatively united. Compare syria with iraq. What is the problem today with iraq . The u. S. Made a big mistake to dissolve Iraqi Security system at the beginning. For 10 years the u. S. Invested billions of dollars to educate or to train or to organize a new Security System in iraq and you see that the army is weak today to confront the 1000 or 2000 insurgents. This is the failure of the u. S. But i think iranians were wise enough to support a side and his government to prevent the collapse of army and security establishments in syria because no one knows whats going to happen after. On environmental issues. One. I think on weapons of mass distraction for the last 30 or 40 years, the only realistic major success has been the dismantling of syrian chemical weapons. We dont have anything else and this is only because of trilateral cooperation between tehran, washington and us. Therefore you can see if there is a real cooperation what can be the result . No one else could convince assad to give up his chemical weapons because his chemical weapons were against israeli chemical weapons. The refugees, today there is a big room between the regional countries iran and the u. S. And the europeans for humanitarian assistance. You have 9 million people, refugees that are displaced. Perhaps 50 of syria is destroyed. We need the refugees to go back to their homelands. If there is any possibility of cooperation between iran and the u. S. In syria first of all i believe we need to bring the region of powers to cooperation. My idea is our five plus p5. P5, p5 permanent members of the u. N. Security council plus five regional powers. Iran and saudi arabia, iraq egypt. They need to sit together to manage to find a solution for syria. Second, they need to agree on advance. We cannot rely on syrians. They cannot manage. We dont have any real united opposition to negotiate with. Some principles like the integrity of syria, like the rule of the majority, like free elections, some principles i think iran regional powers and go world powers they can agree upon. And then after agreeing on the principles then definitely we would need a transition. Math. We would need refugees to come back. We would need hundreds of millions of dollars in investments for humanitarian affairs. Recently they refugees in syria and then go to a free elections by the united nations. To make sure that this is a free election. And then whomever the syrians it lacked everyone should respect. Adam thank you for that question because it enables us to bring that argument that to the united nations. As i told you before am going to keep hossein here to chat with those who are unable to get your questions asked him to sign books. I encourage you to buy books and i see the publish in the back. Did you find some more books . Excellent. There are more books for sale in the back and i urge you to read the book that i want to thank hossein for being such a wonderful guest tonight in all of you for asking great questions. [applause] former george w. Bush National Security adviser Stephen Hadley gives his assessment of president obama strategy in iraq. He is part of the discussion thursday at the Heritage Foundation live at 2 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. I knew there was a risk in the bohemian lifestyle and i decided to take it because whether its an illusion or not, i dont think it is, its helped my concentration. It stopped me from being bored. It stopped other people from being bored to some extent. It would make me more eager to prolong the conversation. If i was asked what i do it again, the answer is probably yes. Its easy for me to say. The truth is it would be hypocritical of me to say no i would never touch the stuff if i would have known. Because i did know. Everyone knows. The soviet system in Eastern Europe contained the seeds of its own destruction. Many of the problems we saw at the end began at the very beginning. I spoke already about the attempts to control all institutions and control all parts of the economy and political life and social life. One of the problems is when you do that when you try to control everything then you create opposition and potential dissidents everywhere. If you tell all artists they have to paint the same way and one artist says no i dont want to paint that way want to paint another way you would just make them into a political dissident. If you want to subsidize housing in this country and the populace agrees that is something we should subsidize them put it on the Balance Sheet and make it clear and make it evident and make everybody aware how much its costing. When you deliver it through these thirdparty Enterprises Fannie mae and freddie mac, when you deliver the subsidy through a Public Company with private shareholders and executives who can extract a lot of that subsidy for themselves that is not a very good way of subsidizing homeownership. Now Georgetown University professor Matthew Kroenig makes the argument for the u. S. To take action against Irans Nuclear program. He spoke about his book, a time to attack the looming Iranian Nuclear threat at the World Affairs council in washington d. C. This is an hour, 15 minutes. Good evening. My name is stephanie and im the official affairs tractor. On behalf of the council i welcome you to this author series event in World Affairs today program. In november 2013 and accord was signed in Geneva Switzerland between the five members of the u. N. Security Council Germany and iran. This agreement was a preliminary one which would set the path for a more comprehensive deal on Irans Nuclear program and ambitions. This agreement came at a time when there was little hope for resolution to the crisis. Both sides seemed entrenched in their respective positions however diplomacy and negotiation conventional wisdom said was 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 sides have taken steps to demonstrate their commitment to the preliminary deal and to reach a new one in the future. Iran has reduced or halted some of its uranium stocks and agreed to allow International Inspectors into its facilities. The signatories have lifted from the sanctions which have crippled irans economy rate the current negotiations are a continual exercise in trust between the parties involved. Trust that irans activities will become acceptably transparent and trust that the other signatories will keep their word. Given their indepth nature what happens if these talks fail to produce the cooperative agreement that is desired . Again many of ruled out military action as being as bad if not worse than iran attaining a Nuclear Weapon. But what are the alternatives to diplomacy a seemingly endless stalemate that has existed since november. Matthew kroenig author of a time to attack the looming Iranian Nuclear threat challenges the assumption that a military strike is out of the question as well as some other commonly held policy wisdom is related to the iran Nuclear Program. Military action he argues should not be discarded as an option. Matthew kroenig is a Nuclear Proliferation specialist and internationally recognized authority on Irans Nuclear program. He has worked as a researcher and teacher at various universities in the United States. Before accepting a council on Foreign Relations International Affairs fellowship in 2010. Through the fellowship he became an adviser on iran policy in the office of the department of the secretary of defense at the pentagon. In 2011 a standing Nuclear Facility fellow at cfr. His previous book was published in 2010 and his articles have appeared in the washington post, National Interest and Foreign Policy. Most notable is his february 2012 article in Foreign Affairs which became the basis for his current book. Matthew is associate professor and an international fields chair in the department of government at Georgetown University and a nonresident senior fellow of the brin Scowcroft Center on interNational Security at the atlantic council. Please join me in welcoming Matthew Kroenig. [applause] thank you very much for that introduction is stephanie. Its a pleasure to be back here at the World Affairs council of washington d. C. And to be here tonight talking about my new book a time to attack the looming Iranian Nuclear threat. Before i talk about what the book is about id like to talk a little bit about what the book is not. The book does not argue that we should take immediate military action. The book does not argue argue military option is her best option. It 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. Rather i argue it should solve the Nuclear Challenge the diplomacy of possible. There are no serious experts who disagree with this position. Everyone agrees we should try to solve the problem through diplomacy and no one saying we should take immediate military action. No one is arguing that we should give up and acquiesced to iran. Since there is agreement on that question however its not an interesting one. The more interesting question anything 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 with the threat and is not a race prepared to take military action to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons Building Nuclear weapons . Argument ive been making for several years as 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 while its a bad option in many ways its less bad than acquiescing to a nuclear iran. Or to name the book the argument is essentially if diplomacy fails 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 but rather simply presents the stated u. S. Policy for addressing the Iranian Nuclear challenge. Personal comment officials have said several times a nucleararmed iran is unacceptable in the u. S. Will do whatever it takes including the use of military action to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons. I dont believe the argument of 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 on iran policy and that is when i first started to come to this conclusion and stephanie mentioned in 2012 i went marketable in Foreign Affairs were made this argument public for the first time. At that time is controversial because u. S. Government the Obama Administration hadnt taken a public stand on this issue and that many prominent analysts like Farid Zakaria who argued if the policy failed we should learn to live with a Nuclear Armed iran. When i wrote my Foreign Affairs article there are many people disagreed who disagreed strongly with me and Opinion Pieces in public debates including our public debate of the World Affairs council in washington d. C. But then a few weeks later person obama came to my residence. In march 2012 person obama gave an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the atlantic where he laid out his position for the first time he would do whatever it took to prevent iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons and a nucleararmed iran was unacceptable. Not only that it was even possible and a nucleararmed iran cannot be contained. Some people dismiss this as Political Writer trying to look tough. Others question whether obama would be willing to do it but his top officials dennis ross to assist top official on policy for the first few years that the administration gary seymore his top wmd official at the white house for the first few years of the administration boasts boasts a matteroffactly if it comes to that point the present will be willing to use force and i quote them both in the book. Over the past two years or so i think the establishment position has done me near 180degree turn and shifted so much that now those that suggest we can live with a nucleararmed iran are the ones who are dismissed as extremists. Rand paul recently got himself in political hot water for suggesting that it should be on the table as an option. As i see it whats happened over the past couple of years as the foreignpolicy establishment has caught up with this argument ive been making for several years. I would like to think my work and my arguments have played some part in bringing the shift about. The book is not arguing the military option should be a last resort from deterred iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons. What is the book about . In the back of the book theres an endorsement from Edelman Lawton and one of the things i am pleased to have this endorsement and what he says is this is quote the most thorough examination of the issues involved in assessing the Iranian Nuclear challenge. 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. Ive been thinking about the Iranian Nuclear issue all day everyday for several years. I felt i had a lot of information that i was able to convey in the Foreign Affairs article so i wanted to get the information out there and i tried to write it for everyone whos interested in the issue regardless of their political predisposition and what you thought was the best way for addressing the Nuclear Challenge is. That is what i try to do in the book provide a guide to the general public and anyone who wants to learn more about the Iranian Nuclear challenge. In the book i do three things. I talk about the history of Irans Nuclear Nuclear Program and second i talk about the policy options available for addressing the issue and third and finally i talk about what the resolution of the iranian challenge means for the future of international order. What i would like to do tonight is take time to talk about each of those things. First on the history, as many of you may know Irans Nuclear Program Began with a 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 shah and the shahs government to help iran develop Nuclear Energy program. Many people look back and a sister and say what the United States is inconsistent if not downright hypocritical. It was willing to help the shah with his Nuclear Program back then and was willing to help the shah acquired Nuclear Weapons. So its good enough for the shah but not good enough for the mullahs and the United States has change his position. Actually what i argue in the book is the United States is remarkably consistent in its approach with iran and elsewhere. Our approach has always been to encourage the peaceful usage of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Technology but to resist its military applications. That was our policy with the Shalom Center policy today with iran. We are willing to allow iran to have peaceful technology but we dont want iran to build Nuclear Weapons. So these Peaceful Nuclear discussions with the shah came to a in and seven im at the iranian revolution. A new government came into power and the antiamerican government shifted. Irans relations with the rest of the world and irans relation with the United States of the Nuclear Negotiations came to an end and iran under the shah had peaceful cooperation agreements with other western powers and those were torn up. In the beginning irans leaders werent interested in Nuclear Weapons either. He would change his mind in the 1980s. In the 1980s iran fought a devastating war with iraq. Saddam hossein. Saddam hossein dieback and in the war saddam hossein used chemical weapons many times against iranian forces. So 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 ceasefire with saddam hossein something you really didnt want to do. He called the drinking from the poisoned chalice. It was so better signing a peace fire he looked forward to resuming the war with quote atomic weapons which will be the necessity of war at that time. This was 1988 and to get an exclusive interest from irans top leader in developing Nuclear Weapons. It was at that time representatives began to meet with a. Q. Khan this Pakistani Nuclear scientist that you may read about who is about who was with about who was with him in his last 10 years or so ago. A. Q. Khan transfer these doityourself atomic bomb kits to iran from north korea. So these werent the kind of peaceful technologies innocent technologies the United States had provided Like Research reactors. These were tailormade for making material or Nuclear Weapons. So at this point the Iranian Nuclear crisis began and we have been dealing with it ever since for the past 12 years. After talking about the history of the program and going through and talking about the election of president were hahne in the interim deals struck in november that stephanie talked about i talk about where we stand today. How close is i ran to having Nuclear Weapons and does i ran want Nuclear Weapons . Something i teach my undergraduates at Georgetown University in order to Nuclear Proliferation to happen you have the supplyside and demandside and those things have become together. On the supplyside the country must have the ability to build Nuclear Weapons and on the demand the will to produce them. In the book i talk about the supply and demand. First lets talk about the supply how close is i ran having a Nuclear Weapons capability. Weaponsgrade fissile material to create a Nuclear Device to feel it. Second i ran has to be able to reform in explosive device a Nuclear Warhead and two delivered through Ballistic Missiles submarine launched missiles are the platforms used. Some people look at the timeline and those three things and say we have years to solve those problems but thats misleading because really all that matters is the first stage. The reason that is all that matters is because right now the United States the International Community if necessary to take military action could destroy those Nuclear Facilities to prevent i ran from producing weapons grade for some material that once i ran gets the material became sober and i ran can move the material anywhere. We wouldnt know where it is. They could be on the reach of our best bunkerbusting weapons. If we are serious about keeping all options on the table and whatever it takes to stop i ran are real red line has to beat the production of one bombs worth of fissile material. You might hear in public discussions i ran is two months away or six months away. How long would it take . Right now the best estimates after the interim deal and after i ran put these in place as part of interim deal the bus estimates are that of the Supreme Leader made the decision right now to to its First Nuclear weapon it would take roughly two or three months. Now if we get comprehensive nuclear deal the comprehensive deal would reduce irans capabilities and extend the timeline but not by much. In short on the supplyside i ran is almost there. I ran is close to have and the ability to produce Nuclear Weapons. What about on the demandside . Does i ran want Nuclear Weapons . We often hear in public debates we often hear reports from the media that the International Community fears i ran is trying to build Nuclear Weapons but it claims is only interested in a peaceful program. Its told as a key said she said story so what i do in the book you say lets treat this as a social scientist on im a political scientist and we have two hypotheses. One that iran wants Nuclear Energy and to top iran wants Nuclear Power and lets look at the evidence and see what the evidence supports which hypothesis is most consistent with the evidence. So i go through and look at the evidence and what i show his there are 14 reasons, 14 things iran is doing that makes no sense for Energy Program and really only makes sense to build Nuclear Weapons. This makes sense given irans strategic goals. It says its goals are to first continue to for this regime to continue to exist to protect the regime and second he wants to deter foreign attack to be able to deter an attack from israel or the United States and third irans leaders say they want iran to be the most dominant state in the middle east. So those are your goals acquiring Nuclear Weapons make sense. It allows you to deter a Nuclear Threat and acquiring Nuclear Weapons hoped to become the most dominant state in the middle east. Having a few Nuclear Facilities dont help you to do those things. In short i believe irans leaders want Nuclear Weapons and they are close to having them. So we have a problem. So what are the various options we have for addressing the problem . In the book i go through all of the options and i see three options as the most viable. First diplomacy, second deterring and containing a nuclear iran or taking nuclear action. I have a chapter on what i call the nonstarters the options and sometimes people put forward that really wont work. Some people look at the prail real options and say diplomacy might not work but the other two options of military action and deterrence entertainment seem bad so there has to be some other way. What are the other ways that people have suggested . Some say we can stop irans program through covert action and maybe continue to put up cyberattacks and sabotage their facilities and assassinations of Iranian Nuclear scientists. Maybe we can just keep doing stuff like that. The International Community can do stuff like that. Maybe that will stop iran. What i shown the book is these mysterious activities and accidents have been happening to Irans Nuclear program for years but every three months if you look at the iea reports every three months irans capabilities continue to increase. Despite all the stuff that has been thrown out there their program advances. I think its possible it would advance more precipitously that it shows on its own covert action will not second some people argue maybe we can have a japan model as an option. The japan model option is that like japan may be iran could have been advanced Nuclear Capability essentially have everything that needs to build Nuclear Weapons at that wanted to to become a screwdrivers turn or two away but iran wont do it and iran wont turn the final two screws and we would just live with it. I argue thats not a serious option because theres really no reason to believe iran would stop short. Once iran puts a screwdriver to away want to set the point where the west can no longer physically stop if they think theres no reason to believe iran would refrain from Building Nuclear weapons. The japan model quickly would become the north korea model. And third what about regime change . Some argue regime change is an option and usually people are talking about george w. Bush regime change where we take the country but rather with the government help and maybe therell be some kind of new revolution in iran and maybe some new government will come into power that will be more willing to deal with us and well give up the Nuclear Program. I argue that would be nice if we could get is that theres really no sign this government is going to fall anytime soon in the Nuclear Clock is ticking faster than the regime change clock. We will have to make difficult decisions on how to deal with the Nuclear Program before a new government comes to power. Having dismissed the nonstarters again to this years options in the first is diplomacy. As i said at the outset if we could solve this diplomatically that would be her best best option and abet the longest chapter in the book is on diplomacy so again contrary to this idea that some people jump to that i give short shrift to diplomacy or the military option is the best option. So i talk about the history of negotiations with iran from 2002 up until the interim deal. I talk about the various designs a possible conference of deals. I talk about the ideal deal in which iran would have no enrichment capability whatsoever which would be the best deal from the west point from the west point of you and i talk about this limited enrichment deal which is what seems we are currently pursuing. We talk about advantages and some of the disadvantages of them. I think there are real disadvantages that leaves iran six months away from Irans Nuclear breakout capability. I also talk about diplomatic plan b because of this round of negotiations break stanley wouldnt have to resort immediately to military force. It would depend on irans behavior after that. If iran dashed immediately to build Nuclear Weapons if we would have two to three months as as i talked about before but its also possible and perhaps more likely that iran instead of dashing to a Nuclear Weapon would go back to the approach it was pursuing last summer before rohan he was elected slowly building up that of that capability increasing its stockpiles so this would slowly shrink that time in which case we would have a year or so before we had to take military action. I talk about diplomatic plan where we could engage in diplomacy to get iran back to the table 1 more time and try one last time to solve it diplomatically. I also argued in a chapter that we need to be realistic. We all hoped diplomacy will work but it might not. President obama himself has said there is quote the chance of a conference of deal is quote no better than 50 50. His former wmd adviser gary seymour were mentioned or puts the chances are closer to zero and so there has been some optimism expressed in recent weeks that theyre still a sizable chance we wont get a comprehensive deal. Moreover even if we get a conference of deal that would necessarily solve a problem. It leaves iran six months away from a Nuclear Weapons capability. If you get this deal declared an end to the iranian crisis people will stop worrying about iran and economic pressure will be lifted trade blows them World Leaders will focus on other issues and i think in that environment it would be tempting for iran to cheat on the agreement potentially build back up its capabilities and dare the International Community to try to respond. After all it took us 10 years to build a sanctions regime we currently have in place. I worked a sample dismantle that would be hard to resemble reassemble that. Even if we get a conference of deal i think theres a reasonable chance iran would try to sneak out or at some point attempt to build a Nuclear Weapon. If diplomacy doesnt work because we cant get a conference of deal or we get a conference of deal but it breaks down what happens next . This gets to be what is worse question. One option would be to simply give up and acquiesce to a nucleararmed iran that a nucleararmed iran almost everyone agrees it would pose a grave threat to peace and security. First i think it would lead to the further proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the middle east and we shouldnt exaggerate this. I dont think every country in the region would have Nuclear Weapons but over the course of 10 or 20 years or so at least one or two other countries would acquire Nuclear Weapons in response. Saudi arabia, and maybe egypt maybe turkey so somebody might be saying one or two countries are 10 and 28 years but cold comfort if we are in a nuclear crisis. After all i hope to be around in 10 or 20 years from now and i think many of you do too as well. I also think it would lead to proliferation around the world. I think iran would be at risk of becoming a Nuclear Supplier and in my first book a book that stephanie mention at the beginning called exporting the bomb systematic analysis of why countries have exported in the past and to all the analysis suggests iran would be at risk of doing that potentially transferring Enrichment Technology to other countries like latin america and asia leading to further proliferation of Nuclear Weapons around the world that way and in this environment when there is proliferation in the region proliferation around the world i think the global nonproliferation regime or bradley would be weakened. Countries would see the great powers United States wasnt serious about enforcing nonproliferation. I think the regime could collapse and lead to widespread proliferation. Second i think iran would be emboldened and we become more aggressive in its Foreign Policy. We know iran restrains its iran restrains his Foreign Policy because it fears Major Military retaliation from israel or the United States but if it had Nuclear Weapons that could feel emboldened to push harder. It could deter retaliation through the threat of Nuclear Retaliation took a step up its support to terrorists proxy groups and gain a more aggressive course in the region to achieve its goal of becoming the most dominant state in the middle east which is says it wants to do. In the scenario you can imagine the middle east becoming an even more crisis prone region and in a crisis from region with a nucleararmed United States and other potential nucleararmed states we would have Nuclear Crises every few years and the potential for nuclear war. I dont think irans leaders are suicidal. I dont think theyre going to wake up one day and say today is a good day for nuclear war but i do think iran will have geopolitical conflicts of interest with other states with nucleararmed states. They will get into highstakes crises like the United States and soviet union did during the cold war. Think of berlin and the cuban missile crisis. Theres a risk of things spinning out of control. Some people look back at the cold war and say Nuclear Deterrence works. I look back and think we were incredibly lucky. If theres an arms race in the least i think that would be the place where there would be danger for nuclear exchange. Nuclear exchange in the region could well mean the end of the state of israel. Its a very small state. I think israels state arent exaggerating and once iran has Ballistic Missiles which could potentially result in a Nuclear Attack on the u. S. Homeland. So a lot of threats posed by nucleararmed iran. We could put in place a strategy to deal with it a deterrence and containment strategy led to put in place against the soviet union during the cold war that this would require major increase of u. S. Political and military commitments to the middle east. It likely requires signing defense agreements with their allies in the region signing formal treaties with saudi arabia and other gulf states and perhaps with israel. Lets call a spade a spade. This is essentially done is its promising to fight a nuclear war on saudi arabias behalf and israels behalf. During the cold war people asked what the United States be willing to trade new york for paris . Would we be willing to bite a nuclear war if france were attacked . This would mean people would be asking what the United States be willing to trade new york for riyadh and five nuclear war that risks new york is for riyadh is attacked . This is a threat to increase the credibility of the threat and we would do things we did during the cold war. We went forwarddeployed forces in the region and Nuclear Weapons to make it very clear to iran that any attack would potentially result in a Nuclear Retaliation. We would likely have to help israel develop secure strike capabilities. One of the risks of nuclear war would come about because its likely both iran and israel might think they have for strike advantages. Helping iran launch hard on Ballistic Missile cycles to make sure they are survivable so this would be a costly strategy requiring major commitments and its not like iran would have Nuclear Weapons for one day. This is a strategy that would need to remain in place for decades as long as iran had Nuclear Weapons and was hostile to United States. I think even with that strategy we couldnt deal with many threats posed by a nucleararmed iran. I think if the containment strategy we could deter iran from starting a nuclear war. I think we could deter them from purposely transferring to terrorist groups but i think many of the threats we couldnt deal with. I think its likely iran would transfer Sensitive Technology and would we be willing to fight a nuclear war with iran because Enrichment Technology. Irans leaders dont understand that. We couldnt deter iran from being emboldened. And by definition we cant deter Inadvertent Nuclear War and the highstakes crisis. President bush and president obama didnt agree on a lot in Foreign Policy but they both agreed a nucleararmed iran is unacceptable. If thats the case for nucleararmed iran is unacceptable and diplomacy fails that leaves us with one option the military option. In the book i talk about the military option in the military option isnt a good option either. There are many risks to the military option. The question is it worse or better than deterrence and containment if diplomacy fails . First i talk about the israeli option. Many people may think of the military option think israel would do it and not the United States. The problem with the Israeli Military option is they dont have the capabilities to destroy irans key Nuclear Facilities. There are four Key Facilities to aboveground israel could destroy those in two facilities below ground. Even with those bombs theres no way i ran to get the facility at home. Its under 295 feet of rock. The israeli option is not a good option and i think its one thing hawks and doves in the United States agree on the Israeli Military option is not a good one. The u. S. Military option is much better simply because United States does have the capability to destroy irans facilities. This would set Irans Nuclear program back. Its difficult to estimate how much time we are buying. Most estimates use the range from three to seven years but this is a worstcase estimate. These are estimates assuming iran decides immediately rebuild and doesnt encounter significant obstacles. If you start asem politics and geopolitics happened the timeline becomes longer. One of the things i talk about in the book is a look at the four countries historically who have had Nuclear Facilities attacked in nazi germany during world war ii iran had its Nuclear Facilities attacked iraq at its facilities attacked and the israelis followed up with a strike of their own in the United States and the coalition followed up with tricks of their own. In 2007 had its Nuclear Reactor attack from israel. One of the things i point out is in all those cases the countries conducting the attack thought they had limited amount of time but in every case of unforeseen events that were completely unimaginable at the time came to pass that prevented them from developing Nuclear Weapons and of those countries have a Nuclear Weapon today. At a minimum the strike would buy a few years but i think its much more likely that politics and geopolitics would happen and iran wouldnt acquire Nuclear Weapons. There are risks to military action most notably retaliation but its important not to exaggerate those. Many people argue it would lead to world war iii or broader war. As i talk about in the book its hard to imagine how that would play out. First you need to focus on iranian capabilities and iran doesnt have conventional military to speak of. Rather they been investigating asymmetric capabilities. They have been investigating Ballistic Missiles ties with proxy groups and then maybe they could use to cause problems in the persian gulf and potentially close the strait of hormuz. That is what iran could do to conduct Ballistic Missile attacks and it could harass and attack ships in the persian gulf. We also have to ask what would iran do. Put yourself in the shoes of irans current leader. You wake up one morning in your facilities have been destroyed by your countries and pack your military is intact is attacked or foremost objective is to protect your theocratic regime. What do you do . On one hand you dont have to strike back. You would look like a wimp if you didnt strike back. On the other hand he would want to pick a full scale war with United States. The one country on earth that could ensure your military is destroyed and your shame comes to an end. Most iranian analysts assess that irans Supreme Leader would aim for response to try to strike back but not too hard. So i think we could play on irans fears in the book i talk about a strategy the United States could use to mitigate some of the negative consequences of the strike. One of the things i talk about is we could issue a threat to irans leaders and make it clear that if tickets to this point we are interested in destroying the Nuclear Facilities and not overthrowing the regime. If iran strikes back too hard if it poses the strait of hormuz or conducts a major terrorist attack in the United States or the other things we could live with them we would be willing to escalate the conflict. I think in that way we can play on what many people believe is the Supreme Leaders inclination anyway and trade Irans Nuclear program with president obamas leading security challenges to the country for calibrated iranian retaliation. So thats not a good option and we are we are still dealing with taking military action. What i do in the book is the chapter compares the sidebyside. There are many ways to do this in the way i do it is identifying 12 of americas mo most the United States wants to protect the homeland in the United States want to prevent Nuclear Proliferation and combat terror some protect their alli allies. 12 of these entries. Then i go through and compared these scenarios of military strike on iran or containing a Nuclear Armed iran. One of the things i show this there are several interests that are better protected by a strike. A Nuclear Proliferation for example is clearly better protected. There are many interested seem to be pure tossups. Its unclear which option better protected interest. A strike is clearly worse for stability in the shortterm taking military action against another country in retaliation but theres a good argument to be made that over the long term acquiescing would be worse for regional stability as iran becomes emboldened and leads to a Nuclear Arms Race so its hard to say which option is better for protecting regional stability. What becomes clear is there is clearly not a single interest is better protected in the shortterm and the longterm by acquiescing to a nuclear iran. In fact i tell a story about when i was working as an adviser on iran policy and i did a major briefing on this issue. Two Senior Defense and civilian and military leaders at the pentagon. Defense officials like to receive information and power point slides of the file is presentation was a chart showing very centrist. Options interests im sorry that were improved in a various scenario and interests there remained roughly the same and the couple were neutral or yellow and interest harm to the scenario were orange or red depending on the levels of severity. Two things stood out to everybody. First there was a lot of green. A lot of orange and red. The second thing is that everybody in the ram was a nucleararmed iran was noticeably darker. The military strike the risk of a military strike peeled in comparison literally in this case to the risks of a nucleararmed iran. In fact at the end of the briefing the four briefing the foremost seniormost official in a room looks me straight in the eye and said if you are right its a nobrainer. I think thats correct. I think these are bad options and we should try to solve this diplomatically but but if it gets to the point of choosing conducting a limited strike on key Nuclear Facilities is less bad than living with the threat posed by nucleararmed iran. When the Obama Administration makes a statement that a nucleararmed iran is unacceptable i dont think its just bluster. I think its what is in the best interest of the country. I will finish up by telling a short story. In 2006 i was in singapore for conference scenario planning conference. There were policymakers from asia and europe the United States and this conference we considered various scenarios and the idea was to think creatively to have insights and stress and strain our sentience about the way the world work and take these back to our day jobs. One of the scenarios centered around Global Financial crisis. Remember this is 2006 that we had all these educated people in the room all these people who follow the International Economy International Politics and the session was a complete bust. Everybody in the room said this is just impossible. We havent had a crisis like this since the great depression. They were willing to stretch their minds that this was going too far. Then of course Global Financial crisis hit the next year. I fear that the Expert Committee and the general public are in danger of being similarly pollyannaish about nuclear war. I have decided to spend the first 10 years of my academic career studying Nuclear Proliferation because i do believe it poses a grave threat to International Peace and security. I look at the cold war and dont say deterrence works. Are we really willing to bet the security of the International System, the security of the country on the argument that something has to happen in several years and therefore what happen again . I for for one of someone who spent time thinking about Nuclear Weapons would be surprised if Nuclear Weapons arent used sometime in my lifetime. If iran acquires Nuclear Weapons it could be one of the prime candidates for the next nuclear war potentially even one that could result in an attack on the United States. We often say it poses one of the greatest threats the United States that we have to be willing to do what it takes to stop it in an principle military strikes on Nuclear Facilities or proliferating states has to be one of the tools in our toolbox. I think if it gets to the point that the United States must take tough action against iran it would be consistent with americas approach to Internet Security over the past century. The United States has often been called upon to take tough action to deal with threats to interNational Security and the result i think has been General International stability and prosperity for much of the International System and i think dealing with the Iranian Nuclear challenges in a different and now is not the time to shirk our responsibility so thank you. [applause] if you would please identify yourself and your organization. My name is andrew and im with the freedom for sudan committee. I also have a free baluchistan facebook group. I appreciate your nondefeatist and nonappeasement presentation, but other than the military option or the leave it alone option to the tune you spelled out mayor dagon, who ran antiiran covert operations came to washington to prevent present a third option. An option which briefly came to the white house first and try to convince them. As frustrated and went on 60 minutes and presented is what i call the dagon option empowering the profreedom forces in sudan. A page for your buck and you refer to tangentially supporting the opposition and dementia dimension covert operations in a regime change. Really the full idea of empowering people fighting to be free is something we in the United States have not been good at and i think in our culture are military state department or cia culture and i think this is the third option i would like to throw at you. One time we tried it with congress and the grassroots revolted against the c portrayal of the Afghan Resistance in the 1980s which i was involved in that. We won. And that led to six wars. Thats exactly what it needs. I thought i would just throw that you and get your comment on it. Thank you. Good question. I talk a little bit in the book about the iranian and 99. As you were called this is one, to the jet was elected and he was running against this Green Movement and must be and many iranians thought that the green had won the election so many iranians turned out in the street protests. At that time the administrations position was to keep a low profile because when the Obama Administration came in they wanted to try this. They have this dualtrack approach as i talk about in the book pressure and engagement and i started out on engagement. I thought by reaching out to iran and showing they were different than the bush of willing to cooperate and engage in diplomacy that i would convince iran. So the election 2009 the Green Movement takes to the streets and the Obama Administrations first inclination was that stays silent on this. We need the government as a partner and we dont want to embarrass them. I think that was a mistake. I think they should have stood up for a more open movement. We lost our opportunity. After 2009 the Green Movement was demoralized and many of them moved overseas or were in pris prison. We saw in 2013 i think what the election in 2013 last summer shows is a reigning regime is as strong as ever from the regimes point of view so Hassan Rouhani was elected it was granted more moderate with irans theocratic system but hes still a regime insider. He was still on the slate of candidates preapproved by the Supreme Leader so power pass without controversy and without protest to a handpicked candidate of the Supreme Leader. I think what the election shows is the current government is Even Stronger than it was in 2009. I think United States is doing something to encourage democracy. In iran thereve been reports about the ad states in providing Information Technology that would allow opposition movements in iran to communicate and organize so i think there are some steps in that direction. And potentially we could do more but i think we still have the same problem i talked about in my opening remarks which is that the current government is Strong Enough now that its hard for me to see how they fall in time for it to solve the Nuclear Problem for us. We are engaged in these negotiations and the deadline for the next to get this conference a deal is july 20 with the possibility of extension to january 20 and its hard for me to see how the regime falls in that timeframe. They do i think that would be great but i think its unlikely. My name is sam thompson i used to work at the state department with gary by the way on nonproliferation. I was disturbed by the title of your book and then was more encouraged as you progressed and indicated that you were favorably disposed in diplomatic efforts but then as i listen to you you are pretty cynical about the diplomatic efforts and you say even if we proceed down that path i think thats a huge disadvantage. Thank you very much. First you said that i poohpoohed the diplomatic option. To be absolutely clear i do think the diplomatic option is the best option but i think we have to be realistic. Theres a good chance we wont get a conference a deal because president obama says less than 50 50 and as i said if we get a deal theres a possibility it might unravel so better chance for diplomacy wont solve the problem but thats the case i think we should pursue it. One of the advantages of a military strike as it buys time but diplomacy also buys time. As long as this interim deal is in place iran is not making the final to a Nuclear Weapon and if you get a conference a deal its going to mean the International Community needs to maintain laser focus on iran essentially forever to make sure its not responding to any attempt to break out and so i think its fragile but again as long as we can keep that in place we are delaying Irans Nuclear capability and i think thats a good thing. Again i think its the best way forward and i think we have to be realistic that its 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 that north korea is too late. North koreas estimated at between six and a dozen Nuclear Weapons but we dont know where they are so we dont have any military option there. We did have a military option in 1994. The United States and president clinton seriously considered a strike in 1994. Many people advocated for it and some of those people who abdicated for it have said recently that we shouldve taken action in 1994 that north korea has led to many problems over the past 10 years and if we have taken action we wouldnt have to deal with those. North koreas transfer Nuclear Technology and helped syria build a Nuclear Reactor. North korea has been our aggressive and it has attacked south korea and a south korean warship. It shelled a south korean island. North korea is engaged in Nuclear Threats against our allies and even engaged in threats against us. I remember last year a threat to los angeles and austin texas of all places and a few other things. If iran acquires Nuclear Weapons these are things we would have to worry about. Iran would likely transfer Nuclear Technology and become more aggressive potentially attacking instant neighbors and we havent seen the full range of consequences. Its only been less than 10 years. 2006 was their first step so we can still have a nuclear war involving north korean Nuclear Weapons. I think these are all things which aware that with iran and that name main difference is it isnt too late for iran. Its too late for korea and we can do something about iran. In terms of the cost there are a lot of costs and we only have 30 minutes here and i go into that their costs in the book so i would encourage you to look at that. He said if theres any doubt iran would build Nuclear Weapons presently a strike would convince him to go all the way. Many people make that argument. What i argue in the book is iran has made the decision. Theres no way to explain their behavior over the past two years except if they decide to build a Nuclear Weapon. The Supreme Leader has been building up its program for decades. Its naive for us to assume he hasnt thought long and hard about what he is doing and what he intends to do. The second thing i point out in the book is if thats a concern that can be mitigated completely by a timely strike so if we strike tomorrow night and theres a danger that if they are somewhat on the fence that would change their mind. What argument book as we said the time it with what the red lines are. That is when we should take military action. If iran is emerging to 90 and kicked out inspectors at that point itll be clear and if we dont do anything they will build Nuclear Weapons of taking action will be the only thing that creates the possibility of a nonnuclear outcome. Uniting the iranian people. I think thats almost certain the short term it would create a rally around the flag effect. The other thing we know about it is they tend to be relatively shortlived and many people understand avesta policy much better than me from a u. S. Military strategy and National Security strategy point of view that those who know domestic politics very well say the longterm it will create opportunities for operation figures to criticize the government for mismanaging the problem to this point that led to an armed attack on the country that led to iran having its Nuclear Program destroyed and the other thing i would point out is we cant just look at the cost on one side the cost someone stuck a village or the other. We have to compare them so one of the things said in the book is say what does acquiring Nuclear Weapons due to domestic politics . It allows them to differ for an attack and make the argument to domestic publics that they steer the ship of state in the International Crisis maintain a Nuclear Program and one of only 10 states honored to become a Nuclear Power and that would be loved and potentially longer because there is only than one country that will have Nuclear Weapons. Difficult issues here but my own view taking all these issues into account is a strike is less bad than acquiescing. My name is steve davis and im on 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 are the iranian government since that time. Much of it instigated by the United States primarily by the overthrow of the democraticallyelected president. The iranians have a point of view. The iranians ostensibly like other countries