Acting director. This hearing on the 2020 census is available on cspan. Org. Leaving the last few minutes for a conference on countering violent extremism in qatar, iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood, featuring lawmakers and former intelligence officials. House Homeland SecurityCommittee Chair mike mccaul, david petraeus, and former white house strategist steve bannon. Coming up shortly, former defense secretary leon panetta. From the beginning, it has been devoted to the freedom, security, and prosperity of the United States and the health of its institutions. Its work is especially focused on strategies for the long term, strategies that thus deal with our most abiding challenges. In its research, it draws upon a wide variety of perspectives and opinions, and it will do so today. And it covers a wide variety of policy areas. Domestic, foreign, and National Security. Let me first of all in addition thank you all for being here and participating in this conference. I said before that this conference is important. It is so for two reasons. First, its subject, and second, the personnel that will address it. Our subject is countering violent extremism. Qatar, iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood. We will, of course, explore each of these topics, but also the overlap between them. Now, i hardly need to stress the importance of the subject of violent extremism emanating from the muslim world. Its gravity has been evidence to the American Public ever since september 11th, 2001, when so many of our fellow citizens lost their lives. As general kelly so movingly reminded us last week, countering this threat is still taking american lives in many places around the world. Most recently in west africa. Nor do i need to stress that it has also had many other effects on our way of life. Some big, some small. At this point, we all know that. But what i may stress and should stress is that the character of the threat has its own dynamics and has evolved over time. For example, the arab revolt of 2011 created additional dynamics that affected and still affect the terrain of this problem. Its consequences included the rise of the Islamic State of iraq in the levant. Opportunities for the degradation of the Islamic Republic of iran, as well as further opportunities for their regional enablers. The purpose of this conference is to address the present phase of these dynamics and its future. Where are we now and where are we headed . Where should we be headed if were not headed in the right direction . To address these crucial questions, this conference brings together a most distinguished group of participants. This is the second reason for the significance of this conference. Our participants in their public and private capacities bring to bear a vast amount of experience. Very hard experience, often, and thought about this grievous problem. We will begin with leon panetta. A man who as everyone knows, given lifelong and distinguished service to our country as a congressman and secretary of defense and as director of the cia. In all of those capacities and several others, he really seems to be indefatigable if you look at his resume, hes wrestled with the problems were here to discuss. He will deliver his thoughts in conversation. Mr. Waymouth has also had a very distinguished career and one that has also involved great public service. Ms. Waymouth has been a Senior Editor of the Washington Post since 1986. In that capacity, she has performed the Invaluable Service of helping the American Public understand the problems we face and the officials who are tasked with that purpose and sometimes the people who are causing the problem themselves. I think back to an interview that she did of Moammar Gadhafi many years ago. Please join me in welcoming secretary panetta and molly waymouth. So good afternoon. And thank you all for coming. On behalf of the Hudson Institute, to what i hope will be a fascinating afternoon. And it starts off with leon panetta, whom im sure we will all be fascinated to hear from, considering the number of crises that are going on all over the world today. So leon, i cant help but ask you, first of all, north korea. How do you see the situation . Do you think were close to war . How do you assess north korea . Well, first of all, my thanks to the Hudson Institute for inviting me here. And for having this opportunity. Look, were living in a world where there are huge number of flashpoints. And danger points. Probably more flash points than we have seen since the end of world war ii. Failed states in the middle east, isis, the war against terrorism. Iran and their continuing support for terrorism. North korea, russia, china, cyber attacks. I mean, this is this is a dangerous world. And it demands very strong u. S. Leadership to be your leadership and you have policies that created i dont think thats helpful. Let secretary panetta finish. Okay. Okay. I think you should let secretary panetta finish please. [ booing ] okay. Please. Okay. I would like to add that i during this mayhem, i would okay. My goodness. Oh, my gosh. Okay. [ yelling ] okay. Welcome to a congressional hearing. I would like to say, i completely forgot, i completely forgot which was my intent to introduce for secretary panetta, as everyone in the room knows, he was secretary of defense. Is there any chance people will be quiet . Okay. He has served the country as secretary of defense and director of the cia. So i think that gives his views oh, my goodness. Anyway. I think that gives his views added a great, you know, a great scope. And its fascinating to hear what he has to say about the crisis of our day, if members of our audience would be so kind as to just let him speak, which apparently is quite difficult. Okay, leon. Okay. Go for it. Shall we try again . Yeah. So it obviously is a challenging time for u. S. Leadership because of these danger points, and were seeing that with north korea. North korea has been a difficult challenge for a very long time. And its been a rogue nation, and obviously, a nation where we have been extremely concerned about their ability to develop a Nuclear Weapon and an icbm. Which they seem to be making great progress on. And i think according to intelligence analysis, were probably looking at not that many months before they in fact develop both an icbm capability and a miniaturized Nuclear Weapon that could be placed on top of an icbm. So the issue then becomes how do we how do we confront this challenge to our National Security . The reality is that there have been military plans that have been developed over the years to try to confront north korea. The bottom line is that none of those are very good options because of the consequences. And the concern that ultimately, it could lead not only to many lives thousands of lives that are lost in south korea. But also it could lead ultimately to a nuclear war. And so for that reason, you know, the issue has always been, how do you try to engage north korea . And obviously, the effort has been made to try to put pressure on china because china is the one country that has a large influence in north korea, to try to get them to try to deal with north korea and get them to negotiate. That is not proven very effective. So what are we left with . I think in the end, the United States has to implement a policy of containment and deterrence, which is the approach we have been taking. But i think that in some ways, that noose of containment and deterrence has to be tightened. I think we have to obviously increase our military presence and strength in the region. We have to increase our navy presence. We have to continue to support and develop the security of south korea as well as japan. We need to develop a Missile Shield, an effective Missile Shield that can bring these missiles down. In south korea, in japan, obviously in our country. In terms of the threat of icbms. We need to continue to toughen sanctions. And i do think that if china is willing to restrict Oil Shipments and deal with some of the other commercial areas that they deal with in north korea, that it can have an impact on the north koreaen economy. So tight eening up those sanctis and at the same time, working with our allies, working with china, trying to see if we cant work towards some kind of negotiations with north korea. This is not going to be easy. And we have experienced that. But i think we need to push as hard as we can on the policy of deterrence and containment and try to put as much pressure on north korea as possible, recognizing that if something were to happen, we have to be prepared to obviously confront them. And also, i might mention, developing both our overtand covert capabilities to try to deal with their efforts to try to develop a larger and more effective missile system. How do you think the administration is doing in dealing with north korea . I think, you know, the concern is that theres been this exchange of rhetoric between President Trump and the north korean leader. The concern i have is when you ratchet up the rhetoric between fire and fury and, you know, destroying the United States, et cetera, what it does is it increases the tension level. In korea, and you have to imagine that there are forces, we have 25,000 troops that are in south korea, along with south korean Security Force. The North Koreans obviously have forces that are deployed along the border. And, you know, theyre in a situation where because of the rhetoric, the tension has risen a great deal. And with that tension is the concern about a miscalculation or a mistake that will ultimately escalate into a greater conflict. And so my concern right now is that it would be far better to lower the volume of rhetoric and focus on developing both our strength and capacity in the region, developing better containment, developing better deterrence, and trying to deal with sanctions that can really have an impact on north korea. And impact on their economy. The main reason we ultimately brought iran to the negotiating table is because of worldwide sanctions that were put in place against iran. I think we have to think in the same way about doing that to north korea. So speaking of iran, do you feel that President Trumps threat last week to not certify the iran bill was a mistake, and what did you think of his reasoning . Basically saying iran was not complying with the according, that it was behaving very aggressively, that it was restricting navigation, et cetera. Withdraw. Yeah, look, in Foreign Policy, in defense policy, in many ways, your word counts for a lot. And when you tell somebody that youre going to do something, if you fail to stick to your word, it sends a clear message to others that as a result of that you cannot trust america as a partner. In many ways, you know, we experience that when president obama made the commitment on Chemical Attacks in syria. In syria with assad. That if those Chemical Attacks took place, we would take action. And when those Chemical Attacks did take place and many were lost as a result of that, the failure to actually take action at that time sent a message that we would not stand by the word on the red line. I think that had an impact in terms of credibility of the United States and the world. I think the same thing is happening now. With the failure to abide by our word on the agreement. Now, obviously, there are a lot of concerns about the Nuclear Agreement. The failure to deal with these other issues, support for terrorism, missile development, promotion of instability in the region, et cetera. But an agreement was arrived at by the United States along with our allies. And it was signed into place. And up to this point, the agreement dealing with the nuclear side, even though temporary, is one that all of those that have been involved in the inspection process have said that from the inspection point of view, iran is technically abiding by that agreement. And, you know, we can raise a lot of concerns about other elements there, but at least with regards to the development of a Nuclear Weapon, they have abided by that agreement. I think as a result of that, we ought to continue to enforce that agreement. And i think congress, you know, can add, obviously, this issue has now been thrown to congress. Im a little concerned about that because congress is having a hard time sometimes finding its way to the bathroom, much less dealing with issues that involve an area frankly that the commander in chief, as someone who ought to direct Foreign Policy under our system of government, that i think, you know, far better for the administration, for the president , to deal with these issues. But since the issue has now been thrown to the congress, then i think congress should hopefully develop a way to increase the enforcement of that agreement, tie sanctions to the enforcement of it, try to probably make some other recommendations about trying to take these provisions and make them permanent as opposed to temporary. And some other steps with regards to inspection. But in the end, to make clear that were going to continue to enforce that agreement. Because by enforcing that agreement, i think it then gives us the opportunity to work with our allies in trying to apply both diplomatic and economic sanctions. On iran, so that they will ultimately come to the table and negotiate on these other issues. Thats not going to be easy under any circumstances, but the worst thing you can do is break your word, have iran basically say, why should i trust the United States in terms of any kind of negotiation if theyre not abiding by the agreement . And therefore, you know, were not going to we will not participate in that kind of negotiation. So i think its far better, enforce the agreement, stick with our allies, and try to put both diplomatic and economic pressure on iran to ultimately try to see if we can make some progress on these other issues. Well, that was very interesting. Now, how to you feel about irans actions in the area . And dont you think the or do you think the United States should be taking strong actions to contain iran . They have actually already turned lebanon, i would say, into more or less a rubber stamp in the sense that hezbollah controlled lebanon, as our audience knows. I think that many people think they would like to do the same thing now in iraq. Thanks to the militias there. So do you think its important for the United States to try to push back and contain iran . Look, there are two important threats in the middle east. The middle east has a number of threats. Weve got failed states coming out of arab spring. Between syria, which just is in the middle of a continuing civil war. We have yemen, we have libya. Other countries that because of their failure, become crucibles for the development of terrorism. And that creates even greater problems. So instability, failed states in the middle east, were certainly concerned about. But were concerned about terrorism and the threat of terrorism. Isis, you know, we have had some success in dealing with isis and the caliphate, moving them out of mosul. Moving them out of the areas in iraq that they had conquered, as well as raqqah now. But by no means is isis going away. And the worst thing the United States could do is declare a victory and then not confront isis. In other areas. So dealing with isis, isis fighters. They are very likely to now engage in insurgency and well see elements of isis not only in the middle east but north africa as well. And so isis is going to remain a real threat. And we have to confront isis. And we have to confront the influence of iran in that region as well. Iran provides support for terrorism. They have supported hamas and hezbollah. And supported elements of disruption in the middle east. We know that. They continue to do that. They continue to try to promote instability in the region. Their interest is to try to develop a kind of triangle there between beirut and damascus and baghdad. And we know that theyre working on that. The cuds force is a force that has been involved in disrupting areas, not only in the middle east, but frankly elsewhere around the world. So, yeah, that represents a threat as well. How do we deal with that . How do we deal with that . Thats obviously the fundamental issue. I believe, and i made this recommendation a lot, but it just unfortunately didnt get very far. But i strongly believe we have to develop a coalition, a middle east coalition of countries that will Work Together in cohesion. Israel should be part of that coalition, frankly. Because they, too, are concerned about isis and terrorism and iran. And that coalition made up of moderate arab countries in the region ought to be coming together to establish even a gia joint military command, identify targets, deploy forces, be able to Work Together with the United States as part of that coalition. Work together to go after terrorist pockets and go after the leadership in terrorism in different areas, using kind of tactics that frankly when we went when we did the war in libya, we had 50 countries that were part of that coalition. And a lot of people, you know, were not sure if that coalition would ever work. But the reality was we developed a joint headquarters in naples. We provided the intelligence