Simple technologies, fraking, hydraulic drilling and having geopolitical consequences are hard to forsee. Absolutely. And im impressed by the things that dont happen. If we had this confers in 1950, we all would have said energy will be cheap, it will be free by this point in history because we thought e thought Nuclear Energy would be great. It didnt quite turn out that way. Im sbreged as much by the dogs that never bark as the interesting ones that do. Greg, thank you so much. Let me just close this by quoting your boss, general claker, the right man, the right time, you can see by the intellectual quality by which he handles these questions. Best of luck and well help you wfr e where ever we can. Oh, thanks very much. And thank you for doing this. Right. Tonight, on cspan2, live coverage of the Louisiana Senate debate between threeterm democratic incouple bant Mary Landriue and bill cassidy. That will determine the winner of the Louisiana Senate race, a race which has been undeclared since election day in november you e you can watch the debate tonight live cspan 2. Remind us again of where this race stands just a few days before the runoff. Yes, thank you for having me on. Were just a few days out from the election. Tonight is the debate which well have on cspan and on tv. So, yeah, were heading into the final stretch. Mary landriue and bill cassidy joining her in the runoff for that senate seat. You bring up the debate. Thats happening tonight. We appreciate you promoting it for us. What does each side have to do for the debate tonight . You know, theres been some some Little Things that have just kind of been being promoted and a few that are coming out right now that are focusing a lot on bill cassidys time as a teacher and how much work he was doing for su. He had some residents that he working with and everything. As far as the cassidy side, hes been agreeing to only a limited number of debates. This is literally the only debate between the primary and the runoff that hes agreed to. So for his campaign, its been kind of keep your head down and sail through. And we have the headlines bringing those records to that debate. Besides that teaching controversy, keystone excel pipeline has been an issue in this race, especially the votes that happened in the house and senate. What did those votes do for both sides heading into this runoff . I think really, at the end of the day, i think it played a lot better on tv than necessarily even that here, you know, i think that probably hurt a lot more than it helped. Getting to a voter like that. If it had passed, maybe that would have become a really big campaign issue. But it doesnt really seem to be something that people are talking about here. It was like that couple of days or whatever when nobody knew what was going obama. And if congressman bill cassidy wins, it would give republicans 54 seats. What will be the key places to watch on saturday when the runoff votes start coming in. Well, obviously, the new orleans area is really key. Jefferson paris, places where theyve been able to do really well in past elections, etch though theyre kind of republican strongholds. It will be interesting to see if those areas decide to go fully more fully republican. And well be watching both tonights debate and on saturday. Elizabeth crisp with the advocate. Appreciate your time tonight. Yeah, thank you for having me on. With live coverage of the u. S. House on cspan and the senate on cspan2, here on cspan3, we compliment that with Public Affairs events. And then on weekends, we show the 1250th anniversary visiting battlefields, keyevents, american artifacts and touring key siets to discover what arty facts mean. History bookshelf with the bestknown American History writers, the presidency of our nations commanders in chief, lectures in history with top College Professors delving into americas past. Watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. Nuclear talks were extended last week for another seven months after ne gauche yaters failed to reach a deal. At the brookings institution, speakers discuss some of the factors that led to an extension in talks and whether or not a deal can be reached by the next deadline in june. This is an hour and a half. Good morning, everybody. My name is bob einhorn from the brookings institute. Id like to welcome you to this Panel Discussion on the iran yan Nuclear Development program and the recent developments in the last few days in vienna. As you know, vienna agreed to extend the negotiations for a second time. They agreed to seek a political arrangement, a political agreement within about four months. And they agreed to try to final oizize the details of any political agreement within seven months or approximately by late june. During this period, the interim arrangements that were worked out november, 2013, will remain in place. These are the arrangements under a deal called the joint plan of action. And so Irans Nuclear program will remain frozen in all critical respects. The modest sanctions relief will continue mostly in asia. But during this period, the most impactful of the economic sanctions, those on banking and oil will remain in place. Secretary of state, john kerry, gave a press had a press event yesterday in vienna. And the secretary made the case for an extension of the negotiations. What he was ind kating was that for the first time in a while, there was some momentum. He went onto elaborate how the interim deal had constrained Irans Nuclear program. He indicated based on reported on the economic Atomic Energy agency that iran had complied with its nominations under the interim deal. He said that considering how far we had come in a year, and given the potential for reaching a comprehensive deal over the next several months, it would have been a terrible mistake to walk away from the negotiations by the time of the november 24th deadline. The billionpresident of iran in yesterday he was more or less pleased with the extension. He expressed confidence that a comprehensive deal could be concluded he said sooner or later. Others expressed similar views. They seemed content with the continuation of the interim deal at least for the time being. But, at the same time, while indicating that progress had been achieved, secretary kerry remained very frank. He made it clear that to see continued success be far from inevitable. Iran had yet to demonstrate the realism required to close the deal. Anticipate i anticipating critics on capital hill, secretary kerry called on them, critics on the hill, to give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt. Reiterating that, in fact, could be disruptive of the further negotiating process. Congressional reactions have been mixed so far. Some are prepared to give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt. Others have indicated that no deal has been achieved in a year. If we have any hope of achieving a deal over the next several monts, its important that we obtain additional leverage. And theyre call iing in the ne congress where republicans control the senate for the i inquisition of additional sanctions. What is the likelihood that in the coming months, comprehensive deal will be achieved . What are the gaps that need to be closed. What kind of deal would be in the best interest of the United States and of its partners in the middle east. How will they respond to the calls for additional sanctions. And what will be the outcome of this potential clash between the executive branch and the legislative branchs. We have an excellent panel today. Gary, until a while ago, was the most senior white house official responsible for weapons of mass destruction was intimately involved in the negotiations. To my left is David Albright who was founder and head of the stut for science and international security. Isis not that the other isis. The good isis. As you all know, its the goto place to understand the technical side of the iran yan issue, as well as many other issues. We also have ed lavign, a normer staff member of the Senate Foreign relations committee. He knows the hill and better than almost anybody else. Im delighted that ed is joining us today. I may ask a question questions, provide a few comments of my own and then open it up to the audience. Gary, why dont you start off . Thanks, bob. And thanks to everybody for coming today. The first thing i want to do is complement secretary kerry for managing the negotiation. Now, the failure to reach an agreement over this weekend is entirely irans fault. I think its very important to understand that the u. S. Put forward a very reasonable, even generalous offering that would have allowed iran to retain a limited enrichment capacity and eventually build up to a larger capacity as part of its Nuclear Power program. They refuse to give up a sing one of their operate iing infuss and they insist on total and immediate sanctions relief. Maybe this is just sharp bargaining tactics. Maybe as we near the new deadline, well dwin to see the iran yans recognize and not feel compelled to make fundamental concessions on limiting Irans Nuclear weapons capability. In his view, the iranian economy is stabilized, under the joint plan of action. It gives iran a much stronger bargaining position and makes it more able to withstand the consequences if the joint plan of action collapses. If thats the case, in seven months, well be exactly where we are today. So what can we do to put pressure or persuade how many to negotiate in these extreme positions. One is not to offer any new proposals. Im sure that our negotiating team understands that. Second, i think we need to begin to talk to our allies, both Oil Consumers and oil producers, about the need to prepare for the possible ility that the joi plan of action may collapse. The iran yans know that were beginning to make these preparations and that may help to persuade them that they need to make concessions. Now, we need to recognize, i think, that getting russia and china on board with an end to these negotiations and a return to sanctions is going to be very challenging. Probably not possible, especially in the context of ukraine. But up until now, the more important sanctions are the ones that the u. S. And its allies have imposed. Third, id like to see the white house in Congress Work on legislation that would increase u. S. Leverage by authorizing the president to impose new sanctions while, at the same time, giving the iran yans an execution to walk away from the talks. Now, will this work . I honestly dont know. It may be that the Supreme Leader is just determined not to budge. That would be unfortunate where, presumably, iran would resume all the sanctions campaign. Even if we resume the sanctions campaign, this is not going to immediately force iran to capitulate. Maybe over time, iran may come back to the bargaining table. But, in the meantime, theyll be creeping forward with their Nuclear Program. I dont think iran is close to getting Nuclear Weapons. They can begin to build up their stockpiles and so forth. I dont think the u. S. Is close to attacking iran or even isr l israel. I think our best chance of keeping it going is to show iran that, if necessary, were prepared to go back to the sanctions campaign. Perhaps you can focus on some of the remaining gaps and what may be required to close those gaps. What would make a deal a good deal . Yeah, i think id first like to say id agree with gary. In the sense that its iran has not been wanting to make con sexes. The u. S. Has been willing to, in some cases, go too far. And ill talk a little bit about that, in order to try to find an acceptable deal. I think, unfortunately, that was true in july. I was at the end of the negotiations. I ran was not willing to make the concessions there. The same appears to be true over the next weekend. I think from my technical point of view, its going to require a very highlevel political decision in iran in order for this to work. What i would like to do is start with the interim deal itself. Weve been skruting the ie reports for years. It became apparent to us about a month ago with the lags ie report that theres a little bit of fraying on the edges of the concessions irans made on the interim deal. Lawyers can bedadebate whether a violation. I think the current know negotiations are that these things need to be clarified. Theres more binding down of 20 . Or, as pioneered in the july deal, that more 20 ends up in the fuel for the rezej reactor. I expected the deal would have 25 kilograms. Its not much more than five kilograms. Because of the ambiguities and what it means to use the 20 in the fuel assemblies. I think thats another thing where you can strengthen the constraints on the program to get the 700 million a month. Did iran have a Nuclear Weapons program . Is that possibly continuing . Will iran build Nuclear Weapons in the future . I think ifgs a little disappointed. Thats what ive always heard was that the u. S. Position. In a sense, it would be deferred. Iran should satisfy the concerns before there is a deal. I would say its dangerous not to deal with that. I followed the ia activities. I followed the rock et inspections in the 90s. You have to know the history in order to know whats going on now. I think thats true in any area. It gets right to the issue of verifiability of this deal. If the ia concerns are unaddressed, one of the things iran learned is it could stone wall the ia and get the p5 plus 1 to gave. And thats going to undermine the ias credibility. And theyre going to be the principle mechanism to verify any long term deal. So it doesnt make sense to undermine their credit e credibility and to encourage iran to define the ia after a deal was signed. So with sech months, theres plenty of time to settle this. I do think its going to require a very high level decision of iran to do that. It is well known. They differ on a set of ideas. I dont think theres been an agreement on how far the stocks would be reduced. I mean, to have an impact, in a sense, to strepgten the limits on center fuj numbers, youve got to drive those numbers from seven or so tons, or 3 1 2 percent down to a hundred kilograms. I dont think thats been, by any means,ed. And then down the u. S. Has put on the table. Its considered 4500. I think it would strengthen it significantly. Its a very important part of this. Another is whats going to happen to the center fujs that would be declared excess. How do you deal with it if its 4,000 center fujs that are enriching. Youre talking 15,000 or so that are staying in place. How do you make sure that those cant be reoperated or restarted quickly. We dont have a good answer. And i dont think the u. S. Has a good answer. It doesnt seem iran seems to be willing to go down the path in such detail. Its going to have to do a lot more. In those cases, the ie has to do more to assure that they can use the term the absence of ondeclared activities or facilities. Theyre well defined whats needed. And iran has not been so willing to engage on these measures that would be supplementary to the additional protocol. So let me stop there. Okay, thank you. The members of congress probably approach this issue roughly the way you have heard the first two speakers approach it. With a fair amoupt of concern, sometimes cynicism, not really believing that iran chooses to make a deal. If you look at most of the proposals that are made in the last year or so, theyve died in subcommittee. They havent even gotten to full committee, even on the house side under republican control. So when you hear people say that harry reid has bolted up sanctions, dont believe it. Everybody has bottled up sanctions. And the reason is that the bills that have been put forward has been killer legislation rather than very helpful legislation. Its very difficult to be helpful and say we need to have the iranyans end all enrichment. We need to destroy or dismantled all of their illicit infrastructure. Well, if you could get a complete surrender on these issues by iran, that would be very nice. Its just that nobody, literally nobody, is predicting that iran is going to do that. So if you wampbt a piece of legislation that would help, rather than antagonizing our allies and ending our negotiations, you have to come up with something else. It is, indeed, as i say, one other type of proposal that has been made in the past. And you can expect to see more of those in the future, would require similar for arms sales or peaceful cooperation agreements under which congress would have the ability to pass a resolution of disapproval, now, you might ask cant they always do that . The difference is that under those other two bodies of law, Congress Sets up expedited procedures so that they actually can get a vote on resolution of approval and they dont allow implementation to begin until congress has had 30 or 60 days in which to try to pass one of those resolutions. Of course, such resolutions can be vetoed. So congress would still need to have a twothirds majority in both houses in order to impose its will on the president. But you could imagine giving continued ability to compromise if they had something good to propose. So what is it that they can propose that might actually be useful . And here im talking only with myself. I havent found others to get down to this level of detail, just as perhaps our negotiators havent found the iran yans willing to get down to this revel of detail. You could imagine a saxs bill that would say we wont invoke more sanctions unless we cannot get some of the things were willing to sign a deal on with iran. That would be a very difficult piece of legislation for congress, because it would involve giving up more maximum goals. But it could help the negotiations if we backed up our negotiators to the extent that this is how far we can go and we can itch leapt a deal that goes this far. But if it goes further, we may not be able to get congress to support it. You can imagine legislation that would enable them to say that more precisely. The problem with that legislation would be that it assumes iran wants a deal. If it doesnt know, then all of that legislation wont do much good. You can give more help tovt iae. You can give more direction to the u. S. Intelligence and other agencies. You can set up exceptional reporting requirements that say if iran does x, the administration has to report to congress on what its done. There are impressions that are largely in support of resolutions and arms control treaties. Beyond that, you could give the president more sanctions Authority Without necessarily requiring him to use it. So you would give him more swords to hang over peoples heads. But it would still be up to him to decide whether to cut the air. So there are things you could do. I dont think in congress or the administration, anybody has sat down and said lets work on what we can come up with. I think it would be very interesting to come up with. My friends tell me they dont expect much to happen in the lame duck session. So we are looking at next year rather than the end of this year. Im going to open it up to the audience after a couple questions. First, the main reason we dont have a deal yet is because iran has taken a rigid position. An unrealistic position. Its consistent on its very early lifting of sanctions before its even dem strated compliance with its obligations to the satisfaction of the iaea. And i agree with him also in some of the reasons why they havent showed much flexibility. Perhaps they believed that the Obama Administration needed them. Perhaps they thought the president was in a weak position. Perhaps they thought they could muddle through with the economy, a number of reasons. But its interesting that secretary kerry has seen some movement now. There seems to be a difference. I wonder what you think, gary . Whats the likelihood that the president and his negotiators will go to his Supreme Leader and say look, boss, this hant worked. The americans are not going to cave. Thats really the key question. It is the Supreme Leader that is giving the instructions to his negotiating team. It was his public redlines that iran wont give up any capacity and insists on building up to 190,0 0 into, thats, like, 20 times what they currently have by 2031, which his negotiators are operating with. Youre not going to get a deal unless the Supreme Leader authorizes. So its hard to, you know, obviously, the Supreme Leader hasnt whispered in my ear what his views are. But i believe based on irans behavior over the last couple of decades, that hes deeply committed to acquiring a Nuclear Weapons capability. Both because he sees that as necessary to defend iran against enemies, like the great satan. And, as well, to assert irans dominance in the region. And its ability to intimidate its neighbors. But, at the same time, how many has shown sensitivity to the risks of pursuing a Nuclear Weapons program. And we know from history that when the threat and risk has been high enough, hes been prepared to accept limits. It became clear that the u. S. Was bogged dun in both theaters and he calculated that iran was safe to resume. Most recently, president obamas sanctions campaign has been very effective in compelling iran to at least accept a freeze, even though they havent been willing to make more fundamental sacrifices. So it really comes down to the Supreme Leaders calculation of what the balance of power is. Im sure that they would very much like a deal. If they recognized that the only way to get some of the sanctions lifted, theyre going to make them. Up until now, the Supreme Leader has tended to side with those leaders. My main argument is if we can influence that we have to convince him that were prepared to walk away from these ne dwoesh gauchuations. Go back to sanctions. Garys leader touches on an issue that id like to comment on briefly. Thats the issue of whether iran is bound and determined to have Nuclear Weapons, to build Nuclear Weapons. I think its clooer that at least until 2003, they had what the iaea calls a structured program to do experimentation, Procurement Research directed at the design of a nuclear weapon. But something happened in 2003 and i think we have pretty good information, that the iaea does, that they suspended a critical element of that. The actual design of a Nuclear Explosive device. And the u. S. Dell jens agency has held that while iran has insisted on keeping the option open to acquire Nuclear Weapons, it has not yet made a decision to proceed. My own view is that it is not inevitable that iran will make that decision to go for Nuclear Weapons. And i think the purpose of an greemt needs to be to deter any future decision by irans leaders to make that choice. To decide to go from a capability to the actual acquisition of Nuclear Weapons. And i think an agreement can do that by making the process very lengthy, making it very detectable by having very good monitoring arrangements and making it very risky that if they ever caught breaking out of an agreement, they will pay a very high price. So in my view, a decision is not inevitable. But let me move onto another question. And that has to do with this question of breakout. This is not u. S. Administration judge the value of an agreement but it is an important one. Its important in large part because david has written so extensively and persuasively on the issue. That is to increase the amount of time that it would take iran from the time it makes a decision to break out of an agreement to leave an agreement to the time it could produce enough highly enriched uranium to fabricate a First Nuclear device. And in the past david has written that we should seek a breakout time of somewhere between 6 and 12 months. The administration has said publicly that it is looking for a breakout time of around 12 months. Now, my question to david is whether we are headed towards a breakout time. In that book one of the recent developments that has given people some optimism in this regard is the report that iran seems to agree that it can send a substantial amount, even most of its low enriched uranium out of its territory to russia. And according to davids analysis although im going to let him speak for himself, if you reduce the amount of enriched uranium stocks the isgives you some flexibility to agree to a higher number of centrifuges. How do things look like they are shaping up . Do you think that your bench mark is something that is achievable . I think it is. First i should say we dont feel that isis, good isis that were originators of the idea. It flowed from discussions with gary and others that really centered down on what kind of reaction time do you need in order to respond to an iranian effort to go for it. I think Wendy Sherman captured it best in september when she said we must be confident that any effort to break out of obligations will be so visible and time consuming that the intent would have no chance of success. If you say what does that mean in terms of things like centrifuge program then you come up to the concept of breakout. Breakout essentially allows you to convert a desired reaction time into the number of centrifuges and involves fairly sophisticated Mathematical Modeling in order to try to be more realistic and end up with numbers if you want reaction times of 6 to 12 months you end up with numbers that you want to get to the 2,000 to 4,000. Those are driven by limiting the stocks particularly of 20 . Again, its still there. Its quite a large stock. People you converted from hexphoric form to oxide form. Its still there. There has been some amount blended down and thats gone. More than enough for a bomb if you think of netanyahus way of thinking about this. That amount still is there. It is just in oxide form. Therefore it takes longer and thats good. You would have to go back how much will be there in a final deal . We think there will be some. We look at 50 kilograms. That can effect breakout. You do want to drive down the amount. The level of driving down the level of 3. 5 can have a very positive impact on the breakout times. And it gets i think it is one of the reasons why the u. S. Raised their number from around 1,500 to 2,000 up to 4,000 is they feel that if they drive down the stocks significantly then their breakout time will remain at 12 months if but they can go up to a higher number of centrifuges. I think we and my group and u. S. Government agree is that you cant let it go up to 10,000, 8,000 because, again, these centrifuges are making these all the time. They are making so much every month that it wouldnt take them long to stock pile enough to be able to have enough for a much more rapid breakout. So again i should also say that there is a debate under this that why focus so much on the program. Going back to what wendy said is that part of the reason is that you want to limit them across the board. Of course, we are worried about a covert breakout. We think there is an interrelationship. They have lots of centrifuges they have a fairly robust centrifuges manufacturing complex. Even with additional supplementary measures it is expected to get under a deal and we have a hard time knowing there is not a secret production of centrifuges it could go off to a secret site. You want to limit it across the board. Reaction time is the fundamental driver and then you translate that via breakout into limitations on the Nuclear Program and reducing stocks of leu strengthens whatever you get. Thank you, david. Ed, you suggested some very constructive ways that the congress could contribute to the negotiations through additional legislation. Thats not going to be the initial instinct of many members of congress especially in the new congress. I would assume that a number of senators would want to reintroduce some legislation that they have introduced before. That would require the administration to achieve some unrealizable objectives and filling that to impose sanctions that are very far reaching. I would also assume especially based on what secretary kerry said yesterday that the administration would strongly oppose further any further sanctions on the grounds that it could be disruptive of the talks and that it could lead to divisions within the International Sanctions coalition which is necessary to put continuing pressure on iran. I think that might be the initial confrontation. What are the chances that from that initial confrontation will come a real negotiation over trying to get legislation that serves to reinforce rather than to under cut the issue in the process . Notice everybody what we have just switched to. From question of negotiating with one foreign country, iran, to the question of negotiating with another foreign country, congress. They are not that dissimilar. I would say that youre correct, bob, in your guess as to what will happen first. And that is perhaps a cubookie that must be played out and it will put pressure on the administration to marshall Democratic Forces in the senate to prevent the passage of draconian bill. Now, all of you who are used to complain s about republican obstructionism remember in six weeks it will be democratic obstructionism and that will be good obstructionism rather than bad obstructionism if you are a democrat. The democrats will have a lot of ways to block legislation if they choose to use them. What the administration has to worry about is a situation in which Democratic Senators give up on the administration, not so much giving up on iran, but losing confidence in the administrations ability to negotiate well. Or to handle them well. Assuming that the administration is able to convince Democratic Senators that it will do the right thing with iran, what it probably also, i would think should do is say to democrats, look, you have to work with us to kill the bad bills. We will work with you in private to see if there is a good bill that you could come up with afterwards or that you could come up with to pull out of your pocket when you are in floor debate but in some ways to show that we are not adverse to any deal with congress, we are merely adverse to bad deals with congress. So i would think there would be some