Transcripts For CSPAN3 Regional Politics Of The Iran Nuclear Agreement 20170926

Thank everyone else who has just arrived. Im barbara slavin. I direct the future of iran initiative. We just had a fascinating discussion with the e3 ambassadors and the Eu Ambassador about the iran nuclear deal. And the challenges that are currently being presented to it from the United States. So were now going to look at the attitudes of the region toward the iran nuclear deal. Were going to examine whether there is support, strong support for the agreement, reservations about the agreement, concerned about u. S. Policy or support for u. S. Policy on the part of some of the main regional players. And im really delighted. I have three fabulous panelists to discuss these issues. First, were going to hear from hussein, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in washington. Arab gulf states. Its a modifier of the states, not the gulf. Okay. Okay, the arab gulf states that are across the persian gulf from iran. It doesnt say that either. Its neutral on the gulf. Hussein is a longtime friend. Im sure many of you have read his commentaries. Hes truly an expert on the region. Hes a weekly columnist with the national, which is based in the United Arab Emirates. He previously served as a senior fellow at the American Task force on palestine, and Communications Director for the american arab antidiscrimination committee. Then were going to hear from another dear friend who is executive director of a foundation at washington, d. C. This is the Turkish Foundation which has been very active for the past dozen years, ten years . How long now . Seven. Seven years. Yeah. At a time when, of course, turkeys policies have been very dynamic. He also served as assistant editor of inside turkey, an academic journal published. He holds a ph. D. In middle eastern, south asian, and south African Studies and a mastered degree. If anyone has attended the events, they know these are really interesting and give a lot of insight into how turkey sees the region. And then finally, we are really pleased to have ambassador hussein wasabi in here to talk about how iran is viewing all of these new challenges to the jcpoa. He is middle east security and Nuclear Policy specialist at princeton universitys Woodrow Wilson school. He served as irans ambassador to germany, head of the Foreign Relations committee of Irans National Security council, and spokesman for iran in its Nuclear Negotiations with the e3 from 2003 to 2005. Hes written a number of books on u. S. iran relations. His latest book, iran and the United States, an insiders view on the failed past and the road to peace, was released in may 2014. And hes just come back from several weeks, yeah, in iran. I think he has a very good sense of how iranians are viewing the debate thats going on in this country and in the region and in european capitals. So, let us begin. We have the impression, certainly have gotten the impression from some of the statements that have been coming, particularly from saudi arabia and from the United Arab Emirates that they are very happy about the shift in approach of the United States. They like the Trump Administrations approach to iran. They thought that president obama was much too soft on iran. That he didnt understand the dynamics of the region. Mmhmm. I guess the question is, do these countries, and well talk about the gcc as a whole, is is not monolithic, but lets start with saudi arabia and uae, do they want the jcpoa to continue . Or do they want it to be scrapped . Okay. Let me begin by saying thanks very much for having me. Its great to be here. And great to see old and new friends on this panel. Youre right, first of all, that theres a pretty interesting set of diverse opinions on a range of topics within the gcc. I think the jcpoa is one of the areas, the most contentious International Issues in which you find a relative consensus that is not is not disrupted by the confrontation between the quartet and qatar. In other words, there was a consensus before the standoff began, and the consensus remains now. And the consensus is still there. It includes, i think, saudi arabia and the uae as well as the other four gcc countries. So youre quite right that saudi arabia and the uae in particular and the others also to some extent as well, are happier with the Trump Administrations approach towards iran and its more confrontational attitude, with its willingness to put u. S. Differences with iran both in terms of irans regional policies, specific regional policies and conduct and pattern of behavior, and the disagreements between washington on the longterm goal, the vision of the future for the middle east, to the forefront. Both immediate, chronic issues, so acute issues were being lost, and the longterm chronic issues were both getting locked during this second half of the second term of barack obama under a kind of miasthma of good will coming out of the jcpoa, and thats why they were nervous about it. However, having said that, they did all collectively agree at the 2015 camp david summit with the Obama Administration, the gcc u. S. Summit, to endorse the negotiation, after being very uneasy about them. But they got sufficient reassurances at the time, and they did collectively endorse the negotiation. And then in august of 2016, at the Foreign Ministers meeting which john kerry attended, they endorsed the jcpoa itself. In both cases, this was sincere. And it was based on two understandings. First, that they had received assurances from the United States that were sufficient to assuage their concerns about the jcpoa, and ill talk about those in a second. But also, that they felt that having achieved what they could, they were not going to be able to stop either the negotiations or reverse the agreement itself. And therefore, they would have to, you know, sort of do what they could with the reality rather than take the israeli attitude of actually urging that the whole thing be undone. Now, having said that, their worst fears, and its not just that theyre happier with the Trump Administration. Its also that they were reassured towards the very end of the Obama Administration by what not only what was happening under the jcpoa, which has reassured them, being implemented successfully. And it has not reversed irans progress towards a nuclear weapon, and this is a good thing from their point of view. In other words, the fear this will be ineffective is more or less assuaged. They believe it is being effective. They do not share this view of certain people in the United States that its not effective. They think it is effective. Secondly, the bigger concern, which was that this would be the initial stage in a broader between washington and tehran that would come at their expense, thats very important, the last part. At their expense, with iran receiving a wide range of benefits and green lights and carte blanche. Without having to adjust its policies. Without having to adjust its regional attitude. It did not happen. And the attitudes from the United States towards iran on its regional policies and its missile testing, but especially its regional policies, started toughening before trump took office. You look at the last statement from u. S. Gcc joint meeting in i think it was in november or october of 2016. The word terrorism reappeared. Iran supported terrorism. That was gone for the middle part of the second obama term. In american statements, jointly with the gcc toward iran. It was back, and it was back because the United States was making no progress in going further with iran on other issues, as the supreme ruler kept saying, he wasnt interested in discussing them. In other words, the worst fears of the gulf countries about what the jcpoa might be heralding on other fronts did not materialize. In addition to that, i think its sort of important to note that the jcpoa, while it does address concerns that gulf states have about irans emergence as a Nuclear Power and all the impact it could have on their other concerns as was discussed by the ambassadors here, in other words, the point that ambassador osullivan made, right up front and clearly, which is on any problem they have, its much more difficult to deal with a nuclear iran than a nonnuclear iran. Thats obvious and simply true, so thats a good thing. But the big concern, unlike the United States and perhaps europe, and certainly unlike israel, the gulf states concerns about irans policies were never primarily about its nuclear agenda. What they have been most concerned about is the spread of iranian influence and hegemony inside the arab world, not simply into areas where there are welcoming shia majorities that have longstanding ties with iran like lebanon and parts of iraq, but beyond that. Into places like syria, which are a sunni majority and where it is not possible to argue as some people have that this is all just a leveling out of the region and everything is taking its natural shape and all that is absurd if you look at the iranian hezbollah rule in syria, you cant possibly defend that kind of argument. And that process has intensified. Iran is not only strengthening its position in various places. Iraq is shakier than it was but very powerful. But it seems like the possibility of a permanent iranian controlled land bridge to lebanon and the mediterranean through parts of syria beyond the ability of even assad or any regime in damascus to approve or disapprove of, but its simply controlled by iran, is a real possibility. A gamechanging one, a remarkable transformation. So these kind of concerns, i think, remain upper most in mind. Because of that, let me just answer your question very, very briefly. What they want visavis the jcpoa, is for it to be rigoro rigorously enforced. Thats the word they used and the word that the Trump Administration was using until recently. Rigorously enforced. I think they did it. I think they need to hold iranians to their agreement, and then use all other forms of leverage, including robust nonnuclear sanctions and confronting them in all kinds of different ways with regards to maritime security, with regard to arm shipments and other forms of support from iran and from hezbollah to the houthis with regard to irans malign, malignant role in syria. And a range of other issues that we can discuss. Missile development too. Let me just quickly, to follow up, so a crisis between the United States and iran, which would be precipitated by the u. S. Walking out of the jcpoa, thats not something they would welcome . Theyre content with the poor state of relations as they exist now . Well, i dont thats not the right way to put it. But i think their concerns would not be primarily addressed in any constructive way from their point of view, as i understand it, by a walking away from a jcpoa which is being properly implemented. From their point of view, that would be a net negative because what it would mean is that a restriction on iran would be lost. Leverage on iran would be surrendered, and iranian hardliners will have pocketed this reality. They will have done away with the International Sanctions regime under obama and had their, you know, had their obligations under the jcpoa removed under trump, all for nothing. All gaining the arab states nothing at all. And in fact, removing their leverage. This, to them, i think, does not seem like in the negative. Now, just a little caveat. If you were to broaden the aperture and say overall do they want a more confrontational attitude toward iran, i would say yes. But does a blow up over the jcpoa get them closer to where they want to be . As far as i can tell, the answer is no, and they dont think so. The word content is an interesting one. It was used in the recent evaluation. Good paper on saudi arabias potential Nuclear Ambitions for the Nuclear Institute for science and interNational Security. It basically said that they dont have any, but they might if iran went back to an aggressive nuclear program, and they used the word content, regarding the attitude toward the jcpoa, and i think thats right. Okay. Qadeer, turkey and iran have a very different sort of relationship. Theyre not always on the same page regionally, but we do remember that turkey and brazil tried to negotiate a nuclear deal with iran when a u. S. Effort fell apart in 2009. Lately, they seem to be on the same page when it comes to kurdish issues. Still some disagreements perhaps over the fate of the assad regime. What is the attitude in turkey toward the jcpoa, and how are they regarding this rather significant change in tone from washington toward the deal . Thank you, barbara, for inviting me to this discussion. I think its a very important one. I would say that broadly, turkey doesnt quite like any kind of insertion of any new layer of instability to the region. It doesnt work for turkey when you have militarization of crises, conflicts, because thats not where turkey feels more strong. Thats just a broad point. But uncertainty and instability seems to be the ongoing theme in the region. And once you feel like isis appears to be set back, you have the referendum for independence. You have, while syrian conflict seems to be winding down, you have the efforts to create autonomous area which is a problem for turkey. Similarly, gulf crisis, again, pops almost out of nowhere. So these kind of elements of uncertainty and instability is a problem. So if the Trump Administration is definitely looking to confront iran regionally, as was talked about. I think turkey should have some of those concerns, regional concerns about irans activities. But theyre on the same side regarding qatar . No, exactly. For different reasons, but is the Trump Administration going to confront iran regionally with or without the agreement . Right . That seems to be the question. So if they abandon the agreement without a clear policy, thats going to create new problems for the regional powers. Under this kind of pressure and threats by the administration, iran seems to be kind of reaching out to turkey in particular, but others as well in the region. But this wont be easy because of syria, what happened in syria with turkey and iran found themselves at opposite ends of a conflict. But as i said, turkey is concerned for the extent that its called iranian expansionism. It is a serious problem for turkey, but the nuclear deal itself does not, whether that is canceled is a concern to see how that broader policy is going to develop. If you remember in 2010, turkey, as you mentioned, actually, turkey was involved in a nonpermanent member as the u. N. Security council to try to find a middle ground between the west and iran, and even tehran, which ended up hurting turkeys relationship with the u. S. In particular, because the u. S. Wasnt happy about that deal. I wont go into details, but we had a whole debate for about six to nine months, Something Like that, about turkey turning east, leaving the west, et cetera. That ended sharply with turkeys stationing of the nato radars in the eastern part of turkey. That shows actually turkey was just as concerned about iranian capabilities, missiles and others, like the west, but it was trying to find a diplomatic solution. And it argued at that point the sanctions would lead to military action, which would lead to war. Again, that element of instability was not in turkeys favor. With the arab spring and just skipping very fast to syria, when syrian uprising turned into a conflict and eventually a regional proxy war, turkey and iran found themselves at opposite ends. And there, again, there was an element of uncertainty in the sense that we didnt know what the u. S. Wanted to do exactly. And u. S. Policy was reduced to counterterrorism over time. Im not criticizing it. Im just observing it. So that, turkey kept seeking leadership from washington which never came. And then you find now turkey negotiating, trying to negotiate with russia and iran through the process. So on the ground, theyre quite supporting the opposite groups. And they have very different aims in syria, but at the same time, theyre keeping their diplomatic track alive. Both for turkey to protect its narrow, relatively narrow interests in northern syria, but also to find a solution and end the conflict in syria. One more example, the gulf crisis, as i mentioned at the beginning, there is a serious disconnect between the president and the National Security team that was just too obvious. And these mixed signals a very worrisome for Regional Policy in general, but turkey as well. And turkey had a very strong relationship with qatar, but it also has strong relations with saudis. So it tried to find a middle ground and tried to negotiate that initial lift included turkeys space to be removed from qatar, so what you found turkey doing, trying to they also met the iranians. Right . They tried to negotiate. So turkey, you find once again, trying to eliminate that element of uncertainty to calm down the crisis. And at the same time, again, you have mixed signals on that nonclear policy from washington on this. Last thing, today, this krg referendum is being held. Iran is strongly opposed to it, turkey is opposed to it, the u. S. Officially is opposed to it. Many in the region doubt that. They think theyre playing some sort of game, but im just stating that. Im not arguing for it. It is causing quite a lot of anxiety in the region. For a different reason, for iran and a different reason for turkey, that seems to be a bit of room for sort of working together against this kind of this referendum, but again, turkeys relationship with krg is very different than irans relationship with krg. If the nuclear deal is canceled by this administration or they dont certify it, are we going to go back to sanctions and war, part of a u. S. iran standoff where you have sanctions and war versus diplomacy options, which it has been several years, many years actually under the Obama Administration, that ended up producing this agreement, which is not perfect, obviously, but what is going to replace it . Right . Thats a worry. And if its going to lead to a sharper confrontation between the u. S. And iran and confronting iran will mean actual fighting on the ground in syria, in iraq, yemen, elsewhere, things are going to be unstable. So going back to my initial remarks, turkey wont be happy about that instability. Well try to calm down that, but that doesnt mean turkey doesnt think that iran needs to be contained or confronted regionally. So i would say that the turkish policy towards the nuclear deal, which is not the top of the agenda, to be honest, at this point between poid and krg and Northern Iraq and northern syria, but it does have a bearing on what the u. S. Wants to do in the middle east and in particular in terms of the iran policy. Im just curious, president erdogan met again with trump, i believe, yeah . Yeah. This past week. Does hejcpoa at all, or is he too busy . With the europeans, its always high on the issues they raise with trump. To be honest, i dont know what they talked about specifically, but from the reports, what we know from other advisers, the priority is the u. S. Support for poid, the arms support for the poid and opposition to the krg. Those are really the top agenda items. I thought it was interesting this morning that apparently half of the 50minute conversation theresa may had with trump was about iran. Which seems rather a lot. Hussein, welcome. Thank you. You have just come back from iran recently. I remember when the election was going on, there were actually some iranian friends of mine who said, oh, trump will be much better than hillary. And we really, you know, hillary would be much tougher on us than trump would be. How are people reacting there . How concerned are they, whether this agreement is going to last . How confidence are they that the europeans, regional partners will maintain support for the agreement if trump does not . Thank you, barbara. First of all, let me go back to the main issue of the panel which is jcpoa, iran, and the region. Iran has 16 countries. Eight are nonarabs and seven arabs. All nonarab countries, they have been supportive of peaceful management of the Nuclear Crisis, and they are supporting nuclear peace. Pakistan, afghanistan, armenia, all of them. You have seven nonarab countries. Iraq is not member of the gcc. Iraq has been supportive of nuclear deal and peaceful diplomacy with iran. Then you have six gcc countries. Out of the six, iran always has been against saudi arabia diplomacy on iran. They played a crucial role on the negotiations. They played a very constructive role. Qatar, kuwait, always they try to stay somehow in between. The most hostile have been saudi arabia and emirates. We dont have actually independent country like bahrain because that means saudi arabia. Thats what i would say, just two countries. Political insecurity is alive in saudi arabia. And making the most business with iran. Practically emirate is partner number one. The official trade figures is between top five. Unofficially because its billions of dollars of goods for iran. Theyre number one. Therefore, nobody knows what they are doing. But its important to understand out of these countries, you have two countries against jcpoa and other issues. It is not all about the region because everybody here is talking about the region, they think it is only saudi arabia or the emirates. That is not the case. Second, saudi arabia, emirates, policy before the deal and after the deal remains the same. First, always they have been looking after the Nuclear Crisis of 2003, they have been looking at 2003. They have been looking military strike against iran. You have hundreds of before the deal. They have been pushing the u. S. To attack iran. Even during president obama. Even with obama was looking engagement with iran still they were pushing obama to attack iran. Therefore this has been the first strategy they have been looking for before the deal and after the deal. Second, the maximum possible solutions. Short of war. It really has remaped the same. No change. Third, zero road for iranen. It hasnt changed. The same. And fourth, zero engagement between iran and the u. S. The extremely afraid the iran and u. S. Thats why they hate obama. And they love trump. Because obama was for engagement and arabs only talking about the two country. They were very much afraid. That obama would go beyond nuclear deal. And fifth is zero defense capability for iran. Because they want whenever the situation is ready to invade iran. Like they did. They thought this is the best time in our country invaded. And only saw the arabia pay 97 billion to invade. To dismantle iran. Therefore, i would say with these fife sustainable strategies, before jcpr and after, i really dont see any chang changes practically. I believe they have a very clear strategy. And of course you cannot expect iran to embrace such nice neighbors with such a policy. The part two is about what they ambassadors they said. The key issue of Trump Administration is about iranen regional behavior. Am i right . Right. The am bas dar say they have joint understanding. About the regional behavior. And the key issue always is israel, saudi arabia is about iranen influence. Its extremely important to understand how iran view all of the u. S. , the west, and gcc on regional stability. First of all they say it was an arab country invidiading iran. Killing injuring hundreds of thousands. Second it was the United States of america who attacked iraq. The root causes of all crisis in iraq is the u. S. Attack. It was not iran attack. Third, it was the u. S. Attack of afghanistan. And 50 is in the hands of taliban. After ten, 13 years. 16 years. And terrorism war has been expanded initially because of the two American Military strike in the region. Who invaded libya . Does iran have any influence in libya . It was the u. S. Europe, nato, and gcc. And what is the situation of libya . It was another war who is attacking yemen . Saudi arabia, the u. S. You can see the wars you see afghanistan or yemen or iraq or libya. All has been cureuated by the u. S. And regional allies. This is exactly what iranens are concerned about. The regional behavior of the u. S. , the west, and gcc. You need understand what is the reality. Who created the wars . It was iran . They have stayed true ally states from total collapse. Syria and iraq. Without iran help, iraq would have collapsed in. Hand of isis. Syria would have collapsed. Who supported the terrorists to bring a regime change in the two countries . Who attacked arab countries . It was iran . You can see how did the views are very different. It would be really good to have a realistic dialogue. Between the region mall powers and International Powers to discuss the source of problems in order to find the solution to problems. The u. S. You read about thousands of articles they say saudi arabia, saudi money is the source of isis, you hear President Trump before election say saudi arabia is the source of number one source of terrorism. Obama created isis. After election. Saudi arabia is my main partner. We really dont understand whats going on in this country. The president in just some month. Some month ago saudi arabia is source number one of terrorism, after hes elected says saudi arabia is my partner number one. Therefore iran believe me they everyone we talk in iran they believe the u. S. Saudi arabia deal all behind the terrorist groups. And the u. S. Does not want isis to die. And they you can find a lot of documents in the u. S. Side also. You have hilary hearing congress say that the u. S. Had role from isis. You remember. And Everybody Knows about september 11. You have not seen one single iran yan to be involved in any terrorist activity in u. S. The terrorist country number one is iraq. Therefore, this is something very important. There is no difference in iran, under regional issues. Iranens are. They view the u. S. , saudi arabia, arabs, the same. There is no difference. On trump youre right, there are some iranens they trump vs. Hilary because they believe if trump is elected it would under mine the u. S. And this would be dangerous to iran. Trump is doing the same. Do we need anything more . I this i that covers it. Ill come back to you. You should react to some of the things that the other is saying. I would love to. My understanding of the way saudis feel certainly about iran regional activities. These are iran countries and should keep their hands out of it. Iran should have nothing to do. Okay maybe arab countries. Saudi arabia has right to attack yemen. Attack every country. Has right to invade. Obviously the saudi didnt attack yemen. I wont get into a debate with you. Okay. So, let me just say i think what we got from my good friend was an excellent explanation. Second half of the remarks about how iran in general see the world the middle east, their neighbors. That was an accurate summary of iranen attitude. It was useful. In that regard. Although im skeptical theres no diversity of opinion. On this. That would amaze me. Ill take theres no big diversity of the opinion. Im skeptical. Okay. Lets stipulate theres no difference of opinion. First part of his remarks which was a summary of policy. Unless we were to describe it as a consensus iran interpretation. In which case it might be accurate. If it were to be taken as an actual summary of the policy of the country, it was a characterture. Particularly on for example zero iranen role in the region. That is not the saudi arabia policy towards iran. Zero defense capability. What they are afraid of with i think reason is the emergence of iran as a regional hedge with a set of aloins that give it a disproportionate weight in the region. And take the influence very far afield from any area in which it could legitimately claim to have either majority indigenous support. Or a compelling immediate National Security interest. For example, far off parts of syria. In the list of wars, that you mention. I think you gave an accurate summation of the way many iranens view it. It would be hard to talk about kind of a list of grievances about who has done what in the region. And not include irans role in syria. In the past few years. As a an extremely problematic one. Legally, morally, politically etc. Otherwise one is lying to the legal and political reality. In yemen we can agree that this is what war would be best resolved as soon as possible. And that it has not gone well. For the coalition. However, it was pursuant to a un security counsel resolution. And the relative merits of the government. Is not really open to question. If you go back to the security counsel resolution. Its important the legitimacy of the goal of the intervention is hard to question. The lane which has been pursued is very easy to question. Those are two different points. So really just the my response is, very useful for the point of view from explaining iran world view and consensus. Not so helpful in as an actually accurate summary of the policy. Towards iran and saudi arabia and the uae. At all. Two different things. Turkey is somewhat in the middle, here. In terms of its interpretation of iran activity. I heard diplomats say iran is a status quo power. I have heard iran diplomats say they understand they have an ideology role supporting groups that are oppressed. Fellow shia and so on. How does turkey see it . There is some con fluns of interest now. On the curtish issue. But in general, as a former imperial power itself, how does turkey see what iran is doing . As i mention, there is a diversity of opinion. In turkey. But broadly, they are concerned about what they some call iran expansion. Which what it means is proiranen maly sha groups in syria. Specifically within the pkk. Theres an iran, proiranen branch. That for many analysts in turkey that was particularly influential in the break down of the peace process, and in iraq, they dont think that iran has been helpful in making sure the sue neez were part of the political system. The break down of policy as a whole they dont think iran played a very constructive role in that. These are some of the complaints and that would go against ambassadors description of the iran view. But, as i was saying, initially in my remarks, turkey has always both competed with iran and challenged them at times. But at the same time found ways to Work Together because they recognize theyre there to stay. They do have conflict of interest on a variety of issues. And of course the u. S. Iran war potential one, would be extreme. Or a war between iran in the gulf would be highly destabilizing and it would be against the interest of the region. Including turkey. So, i dont think they think of iran as innocent as that was described. But of course they see it as a legitimate regional power. They did actually in the iran nuclear deal, they did argue for irans right for enrichment. They thought this was given by npt and needed to be protected. As a principle. Some probably thought in the future turkey would have to also develop similar capability. So, i would say its a bit more sort of lets say sophisticated than say iran is all bad and iran is all good. On the fear of regional or the u. S. Or countries on the rise of iran influence, of course one part of the iranen influence is because of the natural situation of iran. Geographical situation, 80 million human resources. Very strong leadership, also i believe part of it is because iranens they are very much well trained how to resist the u. S. , how to resist the sanctions, thats why iran perhaps is the only country in the region which is independent of security. Is not neither dependent to the u. S. Or russia. Iran is totally independent on its security. But the big issue which nobody pays attention, is the other part why iran influence is increasing i believe this is because of failures in the arab countries. Dysfunctionalty of arab regime. Corruption. Dictatorship. For decades. Its really the reason the arab war, if i do not say arab war, arab league has collapsed practically. They dont have even they dont have a united gcc today. You can see crisis between saudi arabia. How this. We dmot have neither a gcc as a United Organization or arab league. They all collapsed. The dysfunctionalty the corruption. Of democratic structure of the countries, leadership for decades is main one of the main reasons of the collapse of arab war. And they do not like to mention this reality about themselves. They only they try to blame iran because of the problems in their own country. Theres a difference of opinion about whether the relationship between the crisis of the arab state which is very real, and the growth of iran influence in the area is which is the cosalty. Is iran simply saying are you saying. Of course not. The question in a country, is iran a kpa. In syria, in iraq in yemen, perhaps including the United States and elsewhere. Or is it saving syria. By supporting mr. Asad. Is he the savior of syria. The trick is enter in between. Is it . Thats the question. Whats the relationship that policy and the relative functionality of the states. Thats a very interesting question. I should point out that many countries in the region and the United States has supported Freedom Fighters. In a variety of conflicts around the world. And one mans Freedom Fighter is another man easter ris s terror know. Thank you. This question is for ambassador. First of all welcome back to council. My question to you, what steps positive steps have you iranens taken towards the saudis to reduce the tension that has been going on for a long time . As you know, the saudis are spendsing millions of dollars in washington to pretty much hold the Foreign Policy of trump. So what are the steps iran has taken to talk to the saudis and resolve the conflict . Thank you. There has been official approach. Before the add mrt tor came to teheran. And the iran responded very positively. And the only visit kuwait. And discussed the main issues the gcc, they are concerned about iran. Kuwait have been really ready to go for a broad dialogue between iran and gcc. Saudi arabia stood against. Foreign minister of kuwait came to teheran with the mandate of gcc. Already agreed what issues are the main poirnt of concern. Where they did not expect iranen constructive or positive reaction, when iran reacted positively then saudi arabia backed off. This is an official side. Unfs unofficially since 2013 many second tries. Between iran, gcc, saudi rain. Obama and keri tried a lot. They all know very well, this is not my claim, if you asked japanese, european and Obama Administration. Trump doesnt want. Obama really wanted. They all know iran was ready, constructive, participated at high level. Seriously. But all was blocked because of saudi arabia. Saudis feel they have lost the game in the region and want the u. S. To put all pressure in order to weaken iran to reach to a point of balance. They are waiting to see when the u. S. Pressure on the iran would weaken iran to put them in balan balan balance negotiation in order to iran. I dont think it will happen. You can see since 2011 the saudi position in the region is weaken and weaken and theyre losing more and more. And iranens are getting gaining more and more. If they want to continue, thats the game. However, officially and unofficially. I know for foreign administer has been ready to have the same platform. On the nuclear. He has been ready and is ready to have the same platform with iran and gcc. Six plus one. Some countries they really love it. Saudi arabia is not ready. Can i say that specific exchange involving kuwait. Under lies from the point of view of the gulf countries and not just saudi arabia. Emphasized one of the biggest problems. In dialogue between iran and the gulf states. Which is essential. I must say it ought to be everybodys goal get everybody around the table and start talking. That should be the end goal. But. One of the biggest problems is that the arab side in this does not feel they speak to a unified iran interlocketer. Iran has one set of policies over here and another set over there. This wing of the government has this attitude. And another wing of the government has another attitude. And the they talk to the president. And the foreign minister, they are talking to one iran. If they are dealing with the talking to another iran. Thats the problem. When the kuwaitens were discussing face to face with president , they got one set of responses to the conditions. That the gcc laid down. Necessary conditions. When they received the written response, which they thought looked like it was written by a committee of people who didnt see eye to eye. They got a difference response of some of the specific points. Things the iran revolution was a unique event and could not be any way did not have relevance. Very different answers in those two moments. That reaffirmed that really big concern. They dont deal with unified entity that is absolutely. That is a big problem for them. Other than that, though, theres a lot of what he said about the concerns. That the gulf states have about the relative imbalance in the dialogue is right. Hes not wrong about whos willing to sort of jump into talks right now. And who isnt. Youre right about that, that is true. Can i i understand there will be an exchange of delegations just to look at embassy properties. Ko consulates. We remember the ambassador was trashed after the execution. Saudis agreed to send a delegation to examine the property and see what has to be done. Iran will look at its embassy and consulate. This is not out of the question. We have seen positive signs recently. And the hoj of course. Its very important. If you ask saudis and others is this about relations or just. Its just the haj. There is no just the haj. Since the founding of the second state in the 20s. Iran saudi relations the haj is always a major issue. Since td founding of the second state. This is about relations. And its a good thing. Can i ask about the organization of islamic conference . Meets in istanbul recently . Does it play any role in this . Is it strictly between saudi and iran to work out . Im not sure if it ended, but the term is in turkey and iran during the gulf crisis spoke with that voice also. In addition when talked about sort of saudis being the big brothers and trying to find a solution. But these International Organizations broadly including the un, i feel like theyre not as effective as they used to be. But sort of trend going downwards for internationalism and more sort of nationalist policy. I mean, trump advised that had to other nations that the un as well. They did russia wasnt there. Germany wasnt there, who else wasnt there . The three out of p 5 plus 1 was not at the un. Thats an important trend to also consider. Couple of things reminded me of that. When we talk about part of the delegation exchange of delegation and trying to find a common ground, is because the u. S. Does not have sort of policy that okay heres my iran policy and everybody align. Or heres my iraq policy. Some consider that as a good thing. Because its forcing the regional powers to come together. And try to find a solution. Within themselves. Then you see u. S. Coming back and saying hold on a second. Here are my interests. And we were discussing this with the u. S. Withdrawal from iraq. With the friend of mine in dc. When he said you really want to get out. We dont want to be there. Etc. I said thats not going to be true. Soon enough youll be saying heres my interest im coming back. And that happened in june 2014. With isis. Taking over. All of a sudden u. S. Said no this unacceptable. We have a policy now. On isis. Which then pushes all regional actors to have to adjust to it. Right . So some things that they may have worked out between themselves could be actually destroyed, or it could lead to new openings. But this is going to be a factor going forward. What how the u. S. Form lates its Regional Policy and specific theory of iran policy. The regional powers none of them is Strong Enough to quote on quote dictate. Of course many will argue u. S. Is not Strong Enough to dictate it either. But its much stronger than anybody else to dictate its terms. So this element if the u. S. Coming to the region with mixed signals and sort of confused policies, theyre going to have more problems not less. Yes . My question is it relates to a term that i keep hearing. And thats iranen what does that mean . I remember long time ago, russians, chinese used to complain about russian. Or veet na meez. In the contest o. Region, what does it mean . Roughly speaking, means influence of well beyond the normal diplomatic and trade leverage the countries would have. In other words the ability to essentially if not dictate to another government, at least very strongly influence its internal policy. In particular its defense and Foreign Policy. To take in example right now the iranen role in syria is hedge monic. Because the syria regime is no longer independent of iran influence. It is so dependent on iranen organized fighters, whether they be irgc fighters, brought in very large in your opinions from afghanistan by iran to fight in syria. At the syria regime would have fallen probably or come close to falling. In 2016. If a joint search military search by iran backed forces that is iran forces, and iraq forces. All under the broad leadership of iran and iran backed groups. In syria. In conjunction with Russian Forces in the air and the intelligence level in other have not intervened to safe this blood soaked, blood drowned dictatorship. Perhaps the most evil regime in the world. As far as the un goes, represented cambodia during the entire genocide. Who sits at the un is not really a great test of moral legitimacy when it comes to this amount of blood and guts. Thats what it means. Its a good example. And particularly given the context of what asad rule has meant for syria and what cost it has imposed. You know, it puts this into perspective. In addition to which the reasons why this is so important, have to do with securing a similar relationship that iran has with much of another one that is controlled. Which has a direct relationship with the irgc. And with creating a direct as i said land bridge, not only between iran and lebanon. That is, also to the mediterranean. This is crucial. Independent of the wishes of the regime in demas kus. That is a goal thats close to realization. That can be described as regionally imperial and extraterritorial. Its pred pretty extraordinary. Im not sure that cuts it as a word. I believe syria is not really a good case to discuss. Im sure not. Because everyone knows in this room who recruited its countries. Tens of thousands of terrorists from all over the world. Bringing to syria and iranens they have been supporting asad, its army to fight this tens of thousands of terrorists. From the u. S. , europe, all over the world. This is a fight between these two groups and everyone knows who was who funded, who gave weapons, from which borders they came. This tens of thousands, some hundred ten thousand. Look at saudi behavior over the. Its a very good example. Thats totally in hand. Full influence. Look at saudi behavior towards. It was totally hedge mony. Saying saudi arabia doesnt respect our integrity. Sovereignty and wants us as a puppet. This is a very good example if you want to know what do they mean. All right i wouldnt dispute okay. Lets take more questions. The gentleman here. Say your name, ask a question. Id like to address this to the ambassador. I see this is a very sympathetic question. Id like to hear your view. From the speech at the yined nations, he was emphasizing the fact he had been elected. The leader of the country to represent a moderate position and therefore that indicated that a majority of the people who voted were supporting such moderate behavior as he out lined. At the same time, it would seem also true that there are various elements and the revolutionary guards, of course previous president going back who see themselves as somehow guarantors of the purity of the revolution. And really are have a slightly different concept and of course this speeds in with point being made perhaps the most active. So given theyre actually is tension, even at the highest level of the society, how do you see this as playing out in the future . Do you see these groups as converging . Or like a struggle or the moderate ts going to prevail and others not . I truly agree that iran is a very diversified society. Its very different from saudi arabia. We have a real parliament. No one can dissolve. Even the leader cannot dissolve the parliament. They have been opposing in many cases the therefore they are completely independent. The judiciary is not in the hand of government. However, we have reforms, you have conservatives, moderates, in many ways like what you have here. Even you have here a congress challenge the government. Nobody, europeens even didnt know who is talking on the behalf of who in washington. Who is deciding . And jcpra is a good example. Today nobody knows who is going to decide on what. The iranen constitution has a very powerful structure for Decision Making. I really do not believe what my friends were saying about the Decision Making system in iran. We have National Security concern. They speak of parliament is their president is there, the head of judiciary is there. Intelligence administer is there. Army is there, they are all there. When they decide of course the leaders would confer. Then this is a national decision. Nuclear deal is excellent example. The nuclear deal was more disputed in iran than the u. S. Everyone who knows iranen domestic situation they can understand. They blame the foreign administer as betrayer. Puppet of the u. S. In the parliament. It was a disaster. But at the end, when the National Security console decided and the leader confirmed, up to now you cannot see anything from the iran side on this decision. You can see a lot of failure on the u. S. Side. Therefore the question is more about the u. S. Forget the region because their system is one man. And even about the u. S. We have more problem. Young man right here. Congratulations on your la times article. Great read, interesting read. Considering at the jcpla came in without a single fired shot and angry donald trump tweet is remarkable. My question is, from the washington perspective, do they see this deal more from the go political sense of iran so called behavior . Rather than this actually being a nuclear where . Whos they . Directed to anybody. And just briefly, what kind of advice would you give to policy makers in washington who are going through these negotiations towards the october 15 deadline . I dont think anybody understands Donald Trumps views on a lot of issues. He prides himself on being a great negotiator. He claims the jcpra was not well negotiated and could have done better. Followed the negotiation closely realize there were a lot of compromises that had to be made on all sides. In order to get a deal. I remember discussion over for example the duration of some of the restrictions on iran enrichment. They wanted 0 restriction. U. S. Wanted 20 years. They settled arnds in the middle. This is the way negotiations go. Trump wants to put his own stamp on iran policy. Iran policy has been officially under review now for how many months . Since trump came in . Seven. Right. I had heard the review had been completed that the interagency process resulted in a recommendation to continue to certify the jcpra while working on strengthening other means of dealing with irans regional activity. I heard that two weeks ago. The administration hasnt yet announced its decision. And President Trump certainly in his comments at the un made it sound as though he was not going take the advice of his National Security establishment. Unlike the iran system which does tend to reach a consensus decision. It seems he is not going to accept that. We are all waiting to see. It is one thing to say iran policy will not be hostage to the jcpla. This has been the critique. But, to create a new iran policy without a jcpoa seems to me very unlikely to succeed. And instead we will have another crisis with iran. And no way of really containing Irans Nuclear program as we currently do not. My advise has been obvious. Which is keep the jcpoa. If you want to talk to iran about other issues, talk to iran about other issues. We have dhchannels to do that. The state department hasnt shone much interest. And if you were here for the earlier discussion, i asked the european ambassadors whether the Trump Administration had offered to put anything new on the table in return for iran concessions on some of the other issues. And they said no. In my view i mean i think anybody who has ever negotiated anything you know you have to offer something if you want something in return. So were all still waiting. Well see what the policy is when its unvailed. My advise is listen to your friends. Your friends maybe telling you different things. International allies. The if u. S. Listens to the closest in europe. It will keep the deal. Youll get a similar answer. Closest allies are in europe. Japan. South korea. Theres one big dissenting voice. In israel. Well, even in terms of israel and we should have had someone here representing israel. Probably. Theres the israel National Security establishment which tends to be in favor. Youre right. So a lot of this politics. Optics. I would like trump to be able to declare victory and say he achieved a tougher u. S. Policy towards iran that he stiffened the spine of the europe ps and declare victory. That would be my advice to him. Even achieving that would be even better than saying it. So, lets say october 15 comes, trump doesnt recertify the jcpoa, secondary sanctions go back in place. And lets thats not automatic. That sanctions come back. Theres a chance they could. Right. Lets say it doesnt get recertified october 15. And they talk about reimposing secondary sanctions. How is that likely to play out if europe and with u. S. Partners what would be the state of play . Maybe you werent here for the earlier panel. I would encourage you to listen to the tape of that. The web cast of that. Let me ask in terms of region. Would turkey stop trading with iran if the u. S. Congress reimposed secondary sanctions . Well, sanctions created a lot of problems for turkey. Turkey tried to distinguish within un sanctions and u. S. Sanctions. And said they didnt recognize the u. S. Sanctions. And Obama Administration gave several for turkey. Because there were already turkey was buying oil and gas. From iran. The preexisting sort of agreement. That sort of then there was the Solutions Like go trade and. Which got people into trouble. But, i think if the u. S. Goes for a iran of sapgs sanctions, i think turkey will look at the situation and see what it can implement, what it cannot. Because i think look theres no real trust between turkey and iran. Its thats true for u. S. And iran as well. I dont think that jcpoa is perfect. I dont think iran, obama policy to make it the central piece of his iran policy was not well received. I think he saw it as an opening for the future. And he thought that the administration would move onto a broadening of relations with iran. But i think the main thing here whether Trump Administration cancels it or not, doesnt cancel it and goes for sanctions. Again were going to come back to the same question we asked during Obama Administration. What are you trying to accomplish here . Some authors criticize that the time obama policy is being too focussed on sanctions, not having not leaving room for diploma si. Which came later. So if youre going to go back to an unproductive dynamic without a clear goal, the u. S. Goal, in terms of what is trying to achieve. I think you would find a partner in turkey if you wanted to confront iran in a certain way. And a limited way in syria. And in iraq. Where it comes closest to i think being called the i really dont like that word. I think its loaded and its difficult to describe. Anyway, if turkey has been complaining about irans role in the region. Its activities in syria and elsewhere. So sanctions, no sanctions is a very limited narrow discussion. And it needs to be broadened. It needs to be the u. S. If i know the secretary of defense tillerson and others in the National Security team, they do understand iran well. I think. But what kind of policy do you want to implement . What does it mean to confront iran . Those remain unclear. With or without the nuclear deal. Is that going to muf move the region to another whole new stand off . Warships and the gulf, you know, war inside syria. And in the iraq. How its going to play out is important. We do talk about confronting iran and many regional actors. Gulf, turkey. Could potentially be part of that. Its not clear what u. S. Is going to do about that. My old friend from the state department used to say if you dont know where youre going, any road will take you there. This gentleman here. Thank you all. My question is for the ambassador. Can you say your name. Im with the European Union delegation. This past week senator mccain issued a statement praising the release of one of the leaders of the in iran who has been imprisoned for a decade. I was curious if you have thoughts on the future of the rights of the over the coming years. Especially in light of the shifting dynamic in the region . Frequently has addressed this issue. Even last week this speaker of judiciary said iraq has no problem with the minority right. If there is a problem because of the illegal or security issues, which it is not only about the high. Its about muslim, other even about the majority of muslims. Have been arrested. It doesnt mean every is arrested is definitely innocent. Pause hes minority. Hes not really the case. I dont know about the cases. The security or judiciary cases. But the position of judiciary is clear. They say we have respect all rights, if anyone has been arrested it is not because of civil rights. I could add theres a long time practice of discrimination against baa highs by the islamic republic. They discriminated against in housing, employment and this is well founded. Thank you, very much. If you allow me to make a comment and question. Quickly. The comment is that our similarities between asad and trumpment i remember once iran foreign minister was in a foreign trip and the middle of the trip, he fired him. I remember. And the man in the white house in the past eight months has fired comey. Once he invited him and said you are nice police chief. And next day hes fired. He fired his chief of staff. Fired his National Security advisor. Fired his spokesperson. This is sad that we are all sitting here for the talking about the future of this agreement. All representative of less than fovts like europe unions all in favor. And everybody is waiting if this man wants to tweet yes or no. I hope he had a sort of logic in the Decision Making of the government. So nobody is arrest in something totally unknown. Do you have a question . My question for the two ambassadors of turkey and saudi arabia. The one my question, how do yo justify this contradiction . Turkish people not people the government of turkey was inside of the enemies of asset. They were supporting isis. Same thing with saudi arabia. They were supporting isis. And speaking of hedge mony. And the gentlemen tried to translate or explain the word. Means to dictate your policy in power. Who was dictating this policy . Who was supporting Saddam Hussein during eight years of war using chemical weapons . Weve got it. Let me give the gentlemen a chance to respond. These are starting with fair policies in the middle east. Okay. Okay. Do you have any comment . Ambassador for turkey. I would love him to be the ambassador. Ill take that. Turkey supports isis was a talking point that many used. It just doesnt have much grounding in reality. We can discuss the evolution of the syria crisis. I can spend a couple minutes if youre willing to. It did start with as an uprising. It looked like at some point like bosnia. It could the regime looked like it was going fall. That was the u. S. Red line. Etc. At some point russia and iran got them out in military. Put their people there. And then you ended up with several different regional countries with their proforces on the ground. In a fractured situation. You went from an opposition vs. Regime dynamic. To a fractured country essentially a a failed state right now. Where its many different powers with zones of influence including iran and others. And then you had insertion of the element of terrorism. A lot of al qaeda people there was a prison break. They fled to syria. Over time they found an opening sort of vacuum they filled. Etc. , etc. We can go on about how al qaeda found, matured into transformed into different forms. But in this process, turkey did support groups that were against syria regime. And iran supported the regime. Those are position forces because of failure on the side of turkey, u. S. , eu, they couldnt develop a common one unit of opposition. And then by then, the terrorist groups including isis and others dominated the ground. And then turned into Counter Terrorism operation. At which turkeys part of. Turkey did a lot on that front. You can blame it for being a little bit late in picking speed. But theres no reality, sort of theres no i would say factual grounding. I think thats good. We can talk about how the asad regime described the terrorist on shaugt as a fictional reality. Before it ever happened. And worked 24 7 for years to create it. And ensure it dominated the opposition. And they were successful in that. But in more to the point, you began describing it ambassador from saudi arabia. And your question the under lying premise of the subsequent question didnt get anymore reasonable or fact based. Than that assertion was. Leave it at that. Ill give you the last word. Iran the relation is much better than it was described here. Iran and turkey have lived in peace for 400 years. No war. Increasing constantly. There was iran turkey dispute in syria. No doubt about it. They are getting in much better situation, they are most effect i have International Regional now is working to manage syria crisis is russia, iran, turkey. Coalitions are really almost nothing. Iran and turkey are in the same boat. Iraq, iran and turkey they are in the same boat. Therefore the relation is really much better than has been described. Is totally different with relation to saudi arabia or em rat. Okay. We are out of time. I think you have all been patient. I thank those who have been here for the whole afternoon. And we look forward to seeing you again soon. [ inaudible conversation]. The Senate Finance committee met today to Dominican Republic the latest Republican Healthcare proposal. Which subsidies for Health Insurance with block grants to states. At the start of the hearing there were protests from several people in the room. Heres a look at the scene from earlier. Will come to order. He id like to welcome everyone, and i do mean everyone. [ inaudible chanting ] if you want a hearing if you want a hearing, you better shut up. Okay, lets get [ indiscernible chanting ] no cuts to medicaid, save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty all right. No cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid, save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty no cuts to medicaid save our liberty that hearing eventually got under way about 20 minutes after its scheduled start. Among the witnesses were senators Lindsey Graham and bill cassidy who are sponsors of the latest Republican Health care bill. There was also testimony from current and former state and federal health officials. You can find the entire hearing online at cspan. Org and while there you can read the bill from senators graham and cassidy by clicking on the link at the top of our web page. Cspans washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Coming up tuesday morning, Paul Mitchell discusses tax reform and efforts to reform the nations air Traffic Control system. And our cspan bus 50 states capitals tour continues in annapolis, maryland. Boyd rutherford will be our guest. Then Ohio Democratic congresswoman marcy kaptur on u. S. Manufacturing. Be sure to watch washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern, tuesday morning. Join the discussion. The Congressional Black Caucus foundation recently hosted a civil right town hall as part of its annual legislative conference in washington, d. C. Several cbc members spoke, including john lewis, maxine