Transcripts For CSPAN Key Capitol Hill Hearings 20150404 : c

keeping that pipeline open is good. i do not have insight into exactly where it is going. they are working with other openings for replacements for the rd 180. working in a way that does not just declare, no more. keeping assets and the pipeline open as long as we can. senator cruz: do you have thoughts on these questions? >> it depends where you think the immediate risks are. if you thought there was a risk tomorrow or today, the answer is, we have the inventory we have. beyond that inventory, if your next bet -- you have an option. ultimately, the option is to have a u.s. source. the proposals for building a replacement engine, the numbers i have heard have been on the order of 3-4 years to do that. perhaps that could be accelerated a little bit. i think there are parts you cannot accelerate. you are talking 3-4 years. if you think the crisis with russia is not going to go away is going to be with us for some time to come, the answer in my view is to begin development of that engine and to do so now. if it turns out everything works out great or we have other options, that is great. if we do not, we will find our negotiating leverage reduced. >> i would add, one of our companies, blue origin, they are working on developing a new engine to help alleviate the rd 180 problem. i have into that facility in seattle. it is tremendously impressive what they are doing out there. as well as traveling to the space x facility. what spacex is doing with engine technology. i think they would be -- like to be online and get us off russian dependence, but i think the date is no sooner than 27 king -- pretty 17. -- than 2017. senator cruz: thank you for being here. i would note that all three of you raised the concern of regulatory uncertainty. moving forward with reauthorization of the commercial launch act, regulatory reform is going to be a component we are going to look at. i would welcome from each of the witnesses your specific ideas on reforms that would provide greater certainty, accelerate the development of commercial crew or commercial launch, commercial cargo. expand the commercial capacities we have. i will also not that he hearing record will remain open for two weeks. senators are asked to submit questions for the record. with that, i want to thank each of you for being here. i want to thank her witnesses on the first panel and the hearing is concluded. >> thank you. >> next, the president of iran addressing his nation on the nuclear agreement. after that, president obama in utah, talking about the economy and a job training program for veterans. tomorrow night wendy davis. she made headlines after speaking for more than 10 hours straight during a debate on abortion clinics. she talked about women in politics at event hosted by uc berkeley on how her opponents used her janitor -- gender against her. ms. davis: some of that occurs in fairly blatant ways. for example, in my race, my opponent's supporters derided me using photoshop sexual images in order to invite a response to view me as highly sexualized rather than intelligent and competent as a potential state leader. there were also questions raised about my bona fide qualifications as a mother with the suggestions i abandoned my children when i went to law school. attention was diverted from my achievements. i was no longer to be applauded for graduating law school with honors while also juggling the of caring for my young family. i was to be reviled for self-improvement at the expense of getting my full-time to child-rearing. >> former texas state senator and gubernatorial candidate wendy davis, tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> been in to his nation, iranian president hassan rouhani reiterated that iran would fulfill its promises in the nuclear agreement. here are his remarks. it is about 20 minutes. president rouhani: in the name of god, salutations to the prophet of islam and his household. salutations, and peace be upon them. we are going through the occasion marking the anniversary, next week will mark the birth anniversary -- today is the day that will remain in the historical memory of the iranian nation. today is the day that, from my point of view, is a day of appreciation and gratitude to the great nation of iran. the iranian nation through its resistance and steadfastness took another step towards attaining national goals. i have to thank the iranian nation, since the people, in order to safeguard the national interest, today they will remain rersistent and steadfast. the government and this administration has offered some promises to the people and we have always made efforts in order to fulfill those promises within the framework of our national interest. one promise was that the centrifuges have to spin, and at the same time, people and life should go on smoothly, and it will be valuable for us to see the centrifuges spinning provided that the economy would also move forward. today, we have gotten closer to that objective, compared to the past weeks and days. during the first hundred days of this administration, the government took the first step forward and reached an entry deal regarding the nuclear issue in negotiations. since that time, we have been making efforts in order to take the second step -- efforts were made for several months, and i can particularly refer to the efforts made in the past few days and last night we managed to reached an objective. we have managed to take that second step forward, and we have managed to protect our nuclear rights and, at the same time, we have taken steps for the lifting of sanctions, and at the same time, constructive interaction with the world. this is of great significance for us. based on the framework that we reached last night, it means that with respect to the upcoming agreement, we hope that until june, we will be able to take that third step in the and the third step will be the final agreement and the fourth step that will be later taken will be achieved several weeks later. that will be the implementation of the provisions of the final agreement based on the framework that we have attained, we have accepted enrichment of iran's soil. what they said in the past is that enrichment is a threat for the region. today, they have accepted that enrichment on iranian soil is not a threat. they are all aimed at the development of iran. this enrichment process and technology are not against any country of the region or the world. today, the world has admitted that iran is seeking peaceful objectives within this framework. iran will be activated and based on more modern technology. fordo will remain open forever. in fordo, there will be more than 1000 centrifuges installed. and there will be other nuclear activities in the field of physics, within the framework , all the financial sanctions, will be lifted on that day of the implantation of the agreement, the sanctions related to the banking systems. all the resolutions against iran, the six resolutions against iran will be revoked and eliminated and they will be new cooperation in the nuclear field and hopefully in other sectors. this will, in fact, open a new chapter in cooperation with the world. within this framework that we have ahead, you see that the approach adopted by this administration has been effective. in today's world, threats by others are worthless and pressures by others are worthless and all of us should be after an agreement to benefit all parties based on a win-win approach, mutual respect, common interest, and attaining common goals. some think that we should either fight with the world or give it n to the powers. we believe there is a third option. there is a solution for this. we can cooperate with the world. they say that negotiations have been due to the pressure exerted by the sanctions. they know very well that such an approach is baseless and their sanctions were not aimed at negotiating. they imposed sanctions in order to make us to surrender. when they realize that we will never surrender and there is a united and steadfast, courageous nation, then they said that sanctions were aimed at negotiations, but we were negotiating with the world prior to the sanctions. we were negotiating in the course of the sanctions. the approach by this administration is that if others respect us and do not impose sanctions, they will actually receive the same respect from our side. they have realized that there should be respect in order to receive respect, in that sanctions of pressures are worthless. this indicates the fact that the administration's approach has been a correct one. the second point is that the objective that we have achieved today that has been due to our unity and solidarity. actually, we have consulted with all the officials and we have always benefited from the guidelines of the leader of the islamic revolution. he, the leader, has also provided generously with his guidelines. i deem it necessary to appreciate the leader and the heads of the three branches who have helped us in order to be able to take this step forward and in the next step, we need their support. this is not just about the nuclear question, this is true about all the other issues regarding the country's affairs. we are in need of the guidelines by the leader and also the unity and solidarity and support of our nation, of course. we should be thankful to god. and the infallible immams, and they have always supported us, they have been a source of support for us. we have chosen the right path, today, our nation has shown to the world that, in spite of pressures, the nation has put on display its massive turnout in the course of the presidential elections. in addition, they have always put on display the unity and solidarity, enabling us to overcome the difficulties. i wish to seize this opportunity and mention some points. the first point is that in the course of the nuclear negotiations, whatever promise we have offered to the global community, we we will fulfill our promises. we are not after deception or hypocrisy. if we have given any promise such a promise will be within the framework of our national interest. we will fulfill all promises provided that the other party would also fulfill its promises. after this point, in the future, with respect to the final agreement, the agreement will be a balanced one if the other party fulfills its promise. if iran decides to choose a different path, we will also be able to choose other options. the second point is that our nuclear negotiation has been the first step for constructive interaction with the world. we are not just addressing the nuclear issue. it is not just the nuclear issue that we are after negotiating with the global community and that this issue will come to its end sometime. in fact, this is the first step in order to reach the highest point of constructive interaction with the global community, and in today's world, stability and security will not be achieved without cooperation. we seek cooperation and interaction with all countries that are willing to do so, and the countries that respect us and respect the iranian nation we press their hands for friendship, and with countries we enjoy cordial relations, we are after closer relations, in case of strained relations, we are after improving relations. if we are actually have any sort of tension or even hostility with any nation, we are after putting an end to such hostility and tension. interaction will be to the benefit of all. the last point is that in order to eliminate hurdles in foreign relations, we have taken a step forward for eliminating the hurdles and we should take new steps forward in all fields. the government is of the view that the impediments to business must be eliminated. we welcome efforts by all the investors and the people. because we should take this step for creation of job opportunities for young people and improve business and also promote non-oil exports, so that the people will actually witness improvements from the economic and spiritual point of view. i wish to appreciate the iranian nation and i wish to request the iranian people to actually promote unity in order to improve business and economic condition and also have sound political competitions. we hope we will be able to be better compared to the last year, and we will be able to take steps for the prosperity of our nation. and the progress of our nation i also feel it is necessary to appreciate all of those who have been effective in taking this step forward, particularly the nuclear negotiation team. the head of the country's atomic energy organization and his delegation the the legal team, and all of those who have made efforts, particularly in the past few days and in the past months. i wish to appreciate them all. i wish to personally appreciate them on behalf of the iranian nation and, hopefully, support by the leader and the nation will be of great help to them in order to attain final success. >> lol former deputy secretary of state for iran and other experts discuss the newly announced agreement. the atlantic council host the debate and discussion. the framework allows for the p5 us wondered negotiate with iran -- plus one to negotiate with iran. this is about 90 minutes. barbara slavin: what can i say? i know it is raining outside. in here the sun is shining. i joked on twitter that the atlantic council won the think tank lottery, because when we planned this event, i had a feeling they would not meet the self-imposed deadline of march 31 for some sort of political understanding or framework. indeed, i was right. we are the first think tank in washington to be able to discuss the historic events that happened in lausanne switzerland. i am absolutely delighted. i am barbara slavin, and i coordinate the iran task force and the atlantic council. i ask you to check out our website. we have a new statement that is out on our task force that includes esteemed individuals in this town -- a lot of foreign-policy experts and nuclear experts. of course, all of you, by now, have read some of the details of this agreement. we will look at it in more detail and specificity. there's plenty of skepticism out there from israel, from some of the arab states across the persian gulf, and certainly from congress, about the nature of what was agreed to in lausanne switzerland. we have a stellar cast of analysts to discuss it. let me extend greetings from ambassador stuart eizenstat, the chairman of our task force, who cannot be in here and let me thank the ploughshares fund for their genous support for our iran program. we have three stars who've come to talk about these issues. first is cliff kupchan. he is one of the actual washington experts, as opposed to people who pretend to be. he has expertise particularly on iran and russia. he is the chairman of the eurasia group. he provides top-level analysis and thought leadership on global macro issues as well as russian domestic and foreign energy policy and iranian nuclear foreign and domestic policy. prior to joining the eurasia group he served in the state department and on the house international relations committee. he was vice president of the center for national interest and vice president of the eurasia foundation, a program that works in russia. this is the first time that we have had kelsey davenport. i am delighted. she's the new star in washington. she is a go to source for technical understanding of this nuclear agreement in the making. she is the director for the non-proliferation policy for the arms control association and provides research and analysis on nuclear programs on iran, north korea, and pakistan and on nuclear security issues. kelsey joined the arms control association in 2011 as a herbert scoville jr. peace fellow. prior to that she worked in a think tank in jerusalem. she may have interesting things to say about the israeli attitude toward these talks. and john limbert. a member of our task force and so much more. he is the class of 1955 professor of middle eastern studies at the u.s. naval academy. he had a 34-year career in the foreign service, mostly in the middle east and islamic africa. in 2009 and 2010 he came out of retirement to be the deputy assistant to the secretary of state for iranian affairs during an earlier effort during the beginning of the obama administration to get this nuclear deal. before joining the foreign service, he taught in iran as a peace corps volunteer. for 444 days from 1979 to 1981 he was a guest of the previous ayatollah in tehran when he was held hostage. john will have a lot to say on what this means for u.s.-iran relations. without further ado, we will start. cliff, i will start with you. i want to get your general impressions of what has been announced and the likely obstacles that might be on the horizon. mr. kupchan: so far so good. any deal will be an ugly deal. it is not a pretty deal. there are some technical problems with it, there's a lot we don't know, but it meets the basic structure of a deal that curbs iran's access to nuclear weapons and provides state sanctions relief. obstacles? there are a lot of obstacles to the deal. the first, to me, is there are a lot of substantive gaps between the two sides. if you read the dueling press releases from yesterday, there is no agreement on how sanctions relief will work. the iranians think it will happen up front, the u.s. things it will be in phases. that jumps out at you. the iranians don't mention in their press release that they will give up all but 300 kilograms of enriched uranium. the u.s. makes a big deal of that. there are other discrepancies. the second obstacle is iranian domestic politics. in 2009, the deal fell apart because khamenei could not sell it at home. is the leader going to get cold feet? the pressure is going up. the hard line is already coming after him. this is not a saddam hussein situation. he runs the country but does not call the shots. he is a central guy, but not the only guy. then we have the israelis and saudis, but the saudis have been relatively quiet, the israelis have been screaming. my own view, bibi's way out in front of the opposition. most of the israelis were willing to listen privately. this deal is worse than they expected. i don't take they thought fordow would remain open. the number of machines is higher than expected. they are unhappy. four, then, is the u.s. congress. i don't think that congress can, or will, bring the deal down. i know it is early, and provocative and bold to come out with, but after talking to the republicans, i used to work on the hill and know a lot of them, i don't think that they correctly don't think that they have the votes to override a veto of a bill to bring down the deal. a lot of obstacles. in the end, i would say that if the president gets a deal it sticks, let me rest my case. ms. slavin: kelsey, let's talk about the details as released in the fact sheet at the white house put out yesterday. a lot of detail as opposed to the vague comments of foreign minister javad zarif. what struck you as important positive, and are there areas you are concerned about? ms. davenport: the details laid the groundwork for a strong deal that delivers on president obama's pledge to block the uranium and plutonium pathways to the bomb. what struck me about the uranium elements is that it addresses the package about concerns about iran's uranium enrichment program and taken together will roll back the program, and ensure the international community that iran cannot get a significant quantity of weapons grade uranium within a year. if you look at the numbers, it is stark. iran has 20,000 centrifuges now. under the deal they will have 6000. the enrichment capacity will be cut in half. as cliff noted, there will be a reduction in the amount of enriched uranium they will keep in the country. ms. slavin: do we know what will happen to the centrifuges that won't be installed? will they be taken out of the facilities? ms. davenport: that is a key point. they will be removed and stored. that answers one of the biggest concerns that has persisted about iran's program. of iran's 20,000 centrifuges only 10,000 have been operating. that has left many critics concerned that iran could turn the machines on and begin moving to enriching uranium to weapons grade level. removing the centrifuges from the equation is a huge bonus from a nonproliferation perspective. they could not reinstall these centrifuges without the iaea noticing. they will be removed and stored by the iaea. getting back to the question cliff is right. it is not clear what will happen to the additional stockpile of enriched uranium. in the last international atomic energy agency report, iran had 8000 kilograms of low enriched uranium. they will only have 300. we heard controversy last week if that would be shipped to russia. iran said they did not want to do that. in my view, whether or not it is shipped to russia or blended down, there is not a big difference. what is important is it is removed from the equation, that iran cannot use that to quickly enrich up to weapons grade. it is a detail that need to be worked out, but establishing the level below 300 kilograms is what is important. on the plutonium side, the deal is even stronger. there is an indefinite commitment by iran not to reprocess plutonium. that is how you take the weapons usable plutonium out of spent fuel. that is very important. iran will not produce any weapons grade plutonium at its heavy water reactor. that will be modified. iran pledged for 15 years not to build additional heavy water reactors. that removes the plutonium route from the equation. from a nonproliferation perspective, this is a strong groundwork. ms. slavin: john, foreign minister zarif went home to a hero's welcome. the iranian government allowed president obama's statement in the rose garden to be broadcast live. iranians were taking selfies with obama behind them. i saw one posted on twitter where an iranian was pinching obama's cheek on the television screen in a most loving way. people are having a little alcohol, which is technically forbidden, but goes on all the time in iran. it seems there is a tremendous popular upswell of support for this agreement. do you think, given the relationship between zarif rouhani, and khamenei that this is really going to have smooth sailing in iran? mr. limbert: it is a good question. whatever you think of the deal and whatever the details of the deal, it is clear that what was agreed to and the process over the last two years has represented change within our two countries, which has been one of almost uninterrupted hostility going back to 1979. there were some efforts to change that. barbara, i think you described those as two teenagers trying to figure out who would invite whom to the prom. when one side was ready, the other side was not. we go back to the clinton administration, the inability to get together. we have to say that president obama -- or candidate obama, senator obama, made very clear that he did not talk about a nuclear deal. he talked about changing the relationship into something that was more in line with american interests. in other words, that the 30-some years of hostility had not served american interests and that he was advocating change. it turned out that that effort was much tougher than he thought, than anybody. it has taken seven years since he became president to reach the point that we have. it is clear that, judging what he said he wanted to do, and i think he was sincere, the possibility of moving beyond this rather technical deal. khomeini was asked about why doesn't iran willing to negotiate with the united states, his answer was why does the wolf have to negotiate with the sheep? they don't want to negotiate with us, they want to eat us. that statement set the tone for a lot of what followed. hostility. now, what is interesting, is people are discovering that an agreement can be in iran and washington and be good for us. this agreement is neither munich, as it is described here, nor as it is described in tehran, turkmanchai. does anyone know what turkmanchai is? every iranian knows. it was an agreement where iran surrendered in 1828 to czarist russia. it was a great humiliation. the opponents of the current deal, they will use the metaphor of turkmanchai. given the reaction that barbara referred to, and the support that the supreme leader, who is termed a leaders of a hard-line, has given to the whole negotiation process -- there is a great change in the dynamic. i anticipate, if this goes through, what the president said he wanted to do, which was to redefine the relationship, we will be looking for ways to do that. ms. slavin: cliff, i want you to pick up on that on how it will affect u.s. policy toward the rest of the region. the president has a selling job to do with israel, the saudis, and others. he has invited the heads of the gcc to come to a summit at camp david sometime this spring. i've heard the israelis talking about how they do not want to lose their qualitative military edge. i would assume that some of this can be smoothed over with arms sales and grants. would that be sufficient to calm their jitters? mr. kupchan: it will take a real effort. previously, i said the saudis are not making much noise. last time i was in riyhad the degree of anti-iranian effectives were worse than anything that i've ever heard in israel. the israelites are concerned about bombed, the saudis, it is a blood feud that is not going anywhere. the administration faces a tough challenge. i think, the first point, and again if we agreed on everything everyone would be bored, i don't think we need to do that. i don't think the u.s.-iranian relationship will change that quickly. i think the supreme leader was very sincere that a nuclear deal does not mean -- to the united states. his constituency is the pious, poor, and conservative. what does a conservative do for a living if there is a detente with the united states? he looses the constituency. could we get more cooperation on isis? i think so. afghanistan? with the low hanging fruit, the obvious ones, yes. is iran going to stop what we call terrorist behavior, i would say definitely no. respect human rights as we understand them, i would say definitely no. i think they have got to nurture and make sure the relationship is implemented which involves keeping an even keel in the atmosphere around iran and keeping containment, of discipline, of constraint on broader iranian behavior that i think will continue to be a hard-line government. ms. slavin: obviously, and i will go back to john, one of the things we get out of this is an extraordinary channel of communication with iran that will not go away just because they are not spending night after night in switzerland trying to negotiate a framework. we have our secretary of state and their foreign minister on a first-name basis, cell phone numbers, emails, they're giving each other gifts when someone becomes a grandfather or someone's daughter gets married. this sort of intimacy is mind-boggling for folks like you and me who has been following iran for long time and when simply having had contact with an american official could get you thrown in prison. i remember condi rice had a meeting on iraq. she wanted to talk to the then iranian foreign minister. she went after him and he ran away. he did not want to be caught in the same photograph frame with the secretary of state from the united states. how different is that now. there will be channels. if they will be productive channels, that is to be seen. mr. limbert: the differences are still there. the differences are not going to go away. the difference might be, how do we deal with them? can we deal with them? we have differences with a lot -- what is diplomacy? making imperfect agreements with people you neither like nor trust. with iran, until now we have not been able to do that. that, in itself -- not that disagreements will go away, not that they will become a jeffersonian democracy tomorrow or respect human rights -- i wish they would. that would be wonderful. if it happened. but that will take time. now we have some things that we have not had for over three decades, which is the ability to talk about issues that we both care about. and may disagree about, but now we have the ability. maybe now john kerry or condi rice does not have to run after zarif to talk about the issues. they have a forum. ms. slavin: kelsey, one more then i will open it to the audience. this is about the non-proliferation implications. one argument we hear from critics is that leaving iran with essentially so much infrastructure is going to spark an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the region. the saudis and the others will want similar programs. i heard the former saudi ambassador to the u.s. say that if iran gets a fuel cycle we want a cycle. what do you think the impact of the agreement as we see it emerging will be on proliferation in the region? ms. davenport: it will be a close look at the details the monitoring regime imposes. from what we see in the parameters laid out, it looks like it will be intrusive, continuous monitoring of many of the supply chains, intrusive monitoring of the enrichment facilities, access to the undeclared sites, and many other provisions will be permanent. that sends a clear message to countries in the region that this deal will block the covert pathway to nuclear weapons. certainly, the saudis and other countries in the region have made noise about moving toward their own fuel cycle. i found the saudi announcement interesting that it did not reference the uranium enrichment program. i think the united states still has policies that it can employ that will dissuade the saudis from moving quickly toward enrichment. certainly, thinking about fuel supply guarantees for future reactors, nuclear cooperation that does not allow for enrichment or reprocessing are important avenues that are important, as well as the security elements. i think the camp david meeting will be quite critical. for other actors in the region particularly prime minister netanyahu, i think he had an unrealistic expectation from the onset about what this deal could achieve. he talked about the complete dismantlement of iranian facilities. that would be requiring iran to capitulate. that was not something that we were going to see happening. from that perspective, it is important to realize that what you get in this deal -- a limited iranian nuclear program that is highly monitored, versus what you would get that if it is without a deal, an unrestrained nuclear program with less monitoring. that is a bigger threat than what netanyahu is saying. that the deal is not good enough. the alternative is far worse. ms. slavin: president obama talked to king salman and talk ed to him before he made the announcement in the rose garden. and talked to netanyahu after the announcement. you can interpret that as you like. say your name and ask a question. >> i am a senior fellow here at the hariri center. thank you, barbara, and thank you to the panelists for a superb presentation. i have a question about the regional implications. as recently as three days ago, our permanent rep to the u.n., samantha powers, suggested in kuwait that because of its support for the assad regime in syria, iran is an accomplice in mass murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. my question is kind of a technical, political one for these negotiations. if the united states decides to take some action to protect syrian civilians, how would you envision actions for a protected area -- how might those actions affect this process? ms. slavin: my view is that it makes a no-fly zone more likely. mr. kupchan: i think the two sides have been effective at building a cement wall between politics and nuclear negotiations. i think when you begin to add in syria, the worst of our disagreements and where iranian policy is truly worrisome, there would be no agreement. we would not be here. if he gets mixed in the future it is trouble for the agreement. what i would expect, no one is making this agreement because they are nice guys. they're making this agreement because they perceive it to be deeply in their own national interests. if the u.s. moves to establish a protective zone, which i hope they do, i think the iranians will swallow hard and look the other way. i don't think it will have a significant, is any, effect on this agreement. the iranians want to their economy back. getting involved in a no-fly zone will answer that question. mr. limbert: it is a good question. the hard part, what has sunk previous efforts for the u.s. and iran to get talking about things are the kind of things you talk about -- external events. and what is remarkable is that this time it did not happen. there seemed to be an implicit agreement that events in yemen syria, statements on both sides the congressional letters, statements about israel, we are not going to let those things sink the negotiations where in the past they have. ms. slavin: i'm going to ask a provocative follow-up. do you think the israelies will start assassinating iranian scientists again to blow this up? or do something else? trying to reinfect the centrifuges with stuxnet or son of stuxnet? mr. limbert: no, i don't. bibi is ahead of the israeli body politic. they don't like the deal. the israelis don't like the deal. but this rejection, the no enrichment, that is bibi's shtick. they know the gig. iran will not unlearn what they learned and get rid of everything. i think it is that sort of over-the-top way of thinking which could lead to out of bounds, off the chain, type of behavior murdering iranian scientists. in israel. that abounds them. if he goes further, he could face the elections before he thinks again. he barely squeaked by this time by tripping the right-wing. how many times he can pull that rabbit out of a hat, we don't know. i think netanyahu has constraints within israel and politics from doing something like that. barbara: in the front row. >> the atlantic council, thank you for a useful presentation. the question i will ask us what you think the white house needs to do to make sure this deal works. i want to put it in context. john kerry had a conversation with a number of former secretaries of state and national security advisers of both parties. the unanimous consensus was they were impressed with the deal and surprised we were able to get what they got. having said that, the obama administration has proven incompetent in terms of execution. if you go back to the afghan-pakistan strategy, affordable health care, etc. i think the first steps are good but i think there are stumbling walks. i think the right-wing and the republican party will be a problem. the sunni-shiite split in the gulf will be a problem. what advice would you give to the administration, because it will be a tough fight? how should they begin the rollout of selling this deal publicly both here and abroad? barbara, if you could jump in that, too. barbara slavin: what kerry did was an excellent step. and i hear now publicly welcome secretaries of state to the atlantic council. they were coming and saying how much they like it. i think that would be very helpful. kelsey, what do you think in terms of non-proliferation? certainly, you can get the gatekeepers -- i call them. david albright, i have not seen him quoted. have you? do you think the gatekeepers the real nuclear ex-patperts will support it. ? kelsey davenport: in terms of the non-proliferation element the numbers don't lie. we are moving from 2 to 3 months to break out. we have over 12 months to break out. the conditions on plutonium do not lie. i think what we have seen from plutonium is that the numbers do not line up to the proliferation process. there are details that need to be resolved, but based on the parameters how they have been laid out, you can tell that the facts are already being discussed. there is a plan forward. however, i do think that the u.s. congress is a significant obstacle. less from a sanctions perspective, but i am concerned about defining the role of congress moving forward. such as the corker legislation which would require a congressional review of an agreement. actions like that seem more innocuous on the surface. but, when you are talking about passing legislation that delays implementation of a deal, that requires the president to certify additional conditions beyond what is required in the agreement to grant sanctions relief -- that sends the wrong message to congress and the international community about the u.s.'s willingness to actually implement the agreement. i certainly think the obama administration needs to focus its energy on congress explaining the parameters of the deal. and then encouraging congress to wait until after june 30 to see if an agreement is reached and then determine the appropriate role in the future is. and i think there is one. overseeing implementation, requiring the president to certify iran follows through. that is a more appropriate role. but they should evaluate the agreement, first. a senator king said, many of the measures were a surprise. it was better than he expected. i think that many in congress should wait until the 30th to see if the entire deal is better than expected. barbara: cliff, how would you sell it? clifford kupchan: i think the administration has been overly resistant to a congressional role. congress should have a role. there are ways to tweak the corker legislation. i think they're open to tweaking the legislation. and moving forward. secondly, they need to come up with good answers to questions. first of all i want to point out , we are talking about the u.s. fact sheet. what about the iranian fact sheet? it has none of this and it. none of it. almost none of it. those are u.s. numbers. why do we spin out these fact sheets? there go the americans with the fact sheet. no, barbara the only thing i put , faith and is the joint statement. that, i think it's true. those are broad parameters. i just don't know how much the iranians agree with. 10%? 90%? barbara slavin: in 2013 it was the same general fact sheet. a month or so later when the implementation came out it was exactly what the white house said. clifford kupchan: i hope the same thing happens this time. now i don't know that. i have one other comment. there are worrisome things i want to point out that the administration better have answers for on the hill. because i know they are going to be asked. after 10 years, iran can develop advanced centrifuges and implement them after 10 years. a one-year break out time. it expires in 10 years. one of netanyahu's main complaints is that after 10 years in one month iran can have a bomb. they need to answer to that. they just do. secondly, and unrelated, their 1000 machines that will say operative. in the deeply buried four-door enrichment facility. what happens in 10 years? they don't have an answer for that. can they replace those machines with other advanced machines? i think the administration should have an answer to what i call the 10 year problem. barbara: kelsey, do you want to comment on that? kelsey davenport: i would agree there are unanswered questions. the centrifuges that forgo, it has been made explicit, will not be used to enrich uranium. and, yes the monitoring verification will have to be clear to make sure the 900 machines cannot be used for that purpose. but it was of import to the iranians to make sure that the nuclear facilities remain open. and that is something highlighted in the press conference. this i feel is an accessible compromise. leaving a small number of machines that can be used for medical research. isotope production. if they are configured in a way that ensures uranium cannot be introduced. and if the reports that come out of the media talking about using these for zinc enrichment, if that is the case, i think that does ensure that uranium will not be introduced. and as for research and development, i think that we will see, coming out of a deal more details about how advanced centrifuges can be introduced into the equation. the sequencing will be very important. the g5 plus one does not want iran to go off of a cliff in 10 years. and i think that is why we have seen multiple time frames employed. much longer time frames on the constant monitoring of elements. some up to 25 years. that is extremely important. a much longer timeframe on limiting the uranium to reactor grade, 15 years. barbara: 15 years. kelsey and a longer timeframe, : as well, about what research and development can be achieved up to 15 years. so, i think that they are preparing for that, and we will see more details to resolve some of those concerns. barbara: john? john limbert: we are seeing debate at two levels. one among arms control professionals. who say, what about this part or this time or the centrifuges. and that is fair enough. people can have differences of opinions on whether that is good or bad. but there is another level of debate where the objections to the deal have nothing to do with its content. and all everything to do with the fact of a deal. a deal to me means that i give up something and you give up something. and i gained something and you gain something. what many of the opponents seem to be talking about is not a deal. not an agreement. but a surrender. and that the other side has to give us everything we want. let me make one comment about executive agreements. i'm a big fan of executive agreements without congressional oversight, because that is what got us out of tehran in 1981. barbara slavin: indeed. john limbert: if there had been congressional oversight and congress had decided, no, this is not right, we would've had to get on a plane and go back to tehran. so, that is the -- and i have noticed that the wording seems to be, the people are being very careful. one side seems we talking about oversight, the other about consultation. and these are as we know in this town, these are very different things. barbara slavin: indeed. the lady right here. i'm so glad we got the executive agreement that got you out of tehran. john: i'm glad they didn't give it to congress. >> we talked about how there is been a bit of a cement wall between the syrian conflict and that nuclear negotiations, and how the administration seems more amenable to saudi concerns than israeli concerns. my question is would that same , wall exist for the kind of conflict in yemen the between the saudis and the iranians. is that going to be a similar analogous wall, or that be more difficult to negotiate in terms of saudi concerns within the nuclear agreement? barbara slavin: i think that syria is a more serious crisis. yemen has been a failed state for a long time. and what is happening right now is the effort of the former president to come back to power. that's what this is mostly about. the iranian angle there is very small. i have been told that one of the reasons the iranians supported them is because they practiced a form of shiism that is different than what is practiced in iran is because they interfered in bahrain. and crushed an uprising by the shia majority's years ago. the iranians think they will get the saudis on the other side if they couldn't get them in bahrain. i think, and perhaps others know more, we are headed for some sort of diplomatic negotiation. at some point when the saudi's have flex their muscles enough and they decide that they can come up with another president perhaps. what do you think? cliff? clifford kupchan: yemen is trying to figure out what the iranians are giving. you know in my conversation with , the iranian state, they don't care that much. logistics, some guns, some money, maybe a few gis, but it is not a major priority. it pales compared to iraq and syria. so, i think iran could concede on that and the saudis could have their own way, and this will pass. i don't think it will affect the agreement. at all. >> although the importance to iran might be minimal, due you think the saudis view it as something that is more of a threat than might be reflected? clifford kupchan: absolutely. >> the ambassador was very concerned. clifford: the saudis have out tentacles as to what is a threat from iran. if the hot water goes off, the iranians did it. it is my view the saudis have their way with yemen. i don't think the iranians care very much. at least for now. their audience have a lot of time. more time than the saudis do. iran is not unstable. they will make it more stable after this deal. barbara slavin: no other experts? yeah, right there, great. >> one of the things about the agreement is that the double-digit timelines. that 10, 15, 20, 25 years. that raises the question, what will iran look like in 15 years? presumably khamenei will no longer be among us. at that point. and there will be a generation that is very plugged in. the cohort moving up. there will be a new successor generation, though one presumably no longer schooled in united states universities. so john, my question, can you define anything about assuming an agreement and a faithful and limitation of the agreement, what kind of iran will we be dealing with in 15 years? john limbert: it is funny or asked that question of me. my record on prediction on things iranian is about three in 10. which of the great if i was a baseball player, but not as a political analyst. we have all gotten it wrong. on iran. i'm not alone about that. but, i think a couple of things are clear. first, the clerics, the ruling clerics, live a long time. the story goes that one of the senior clerics that is the head of the council of experts, i believe, is so old they checked his telephone book and he had cain and abel's number. [laughter] it's true. there are all kinds of stories about these people. clearly, the place is changing. the dynamics that we have seen that rouhani could go back and get the hero's welcome having negotiated and been so friendly with a representative of the great satan. that in itself represents a change. i mean you have to look for , changes in places you may not expect them. they are going to be small symbolic, but there. i would say this. you know is iran going to go , through some great change tomorrow? i don't think so. i don't think so. but the current situation, where you have a society that is well educated, creative, savvy, dynamic -- particularly among the women of iran who are doing remarkable things. and the state, a government, that is out of touch frightened, rigid -- that contradiction, i don't think it can last. and over the next five or 10 years, as people pass on, even our cain and able man, the situation will change. the situation will change. and that the society, the differences in state and society will grow so vast it can't remain. and if the islamic republic, the current system, wants to survive it will have to change. otherwise, it will follow the way -- the lessons of the arab spring. for better or for worse. i would finally say one more thing. these changes in iran are not about us. we should've learned by now to stay out of iranian domestic politics. every time we have gotten into it we have seen things like iran-gate. or worse. these are going to be iranian processes. we would welcome changes. we would welcome the society opening up. we welcome a society that treats as people decently. particularly its women. but the idea that somehow we can shape it, or influence it, or bring it about, i don't think that is the case. i think the dynamic is already there. and i agree with you, greg, that in five or 10 years we will see a very different place. barbara slavin: can i add a little? i've been going to iran since 1996 every couple of years. it is already a completely different country and the one i started going to 20 years ago. if you look at the women, i write for website called all monitor, and they had the first fashion week. they have had shows, but this was the first fashion week. and they had men and women going down the catwalk in the latest islamic chic. i tell you, these are beautiful close. the man's stuff doesn't appeal to me. you can imagine the women of this country wearing the outfits without a head scarf. i have met women mountain climbers in iran. many women entrepreneurs. something like 70% or 80% internet penetration. iran has more bloggers than any other country except the u.s. perhaps people are on social , media despite the filters. they find a way. they have the latest technology. the apple phones. and various products that they get one way or another. maybe they buy them directly now, which would be nice. it is a society that has evolved enormously. in some cases because of repression. how do you fight a system like that? you fight it by changing your personal behavior in a way that you are living as if the government was not there. as if the restrictions were not there. so you follow the letter of the law in public to the extent necessary and do what you can in private to live the life you want to lose. -- the life you want to live. one of the reasons, obviously, the government has been reluctant to do this deal is because they know it will encourage people to ask for more. and the iranians are smart. they have been repressed, put down, you know what happened in 2009. they will be cautious about what they try to grab out of this. but certainly we will see more , interaction. here at the atlantic council we are supporting u.s.-iran exchanges. we are having people going back and forth. more american tourists will be going to iran. they would be less frightened, not that they should have been in the first place, it is very hospitable. there are already 10,000 iranian students in this country. i expect more iranian students to come. you know it happened with the old soviet union. the opening of china. there was a fascination about the other. and, you know a lot of people that been everywhere else on the , planet decided i have to go to this country. we will see the people who used to go to the great wall of china will be going to the big mosque in the middle. they call it half the world. how do you say it in farsi? that will be happening next for the american express crowd. right? yes, this lady right here. can you take the microphone. emma: i was curious about how significant the discrepancies are between how the agreement is understood on both sides. we have seen that zarif on twitter was criticizing the u.s. fact sheet as a spin. the press tv report this morning about the deal was presenting the terms a little differently. barbara slavin: i find this normal. i mean, you know he will stress , sanctions relief and no concessions or few concessions. we will stress concessions and limits on the program. what matters is what is signed in june. kelsey: to add on, while the iranians did not sign off in support of the fact sheet, foreign minister sharif's press conference at nothing to contradict the terms. and the broad statement that he issued followed the same parameters, just not an as much detail as the fact sheet. and i think if you look closely at zarif's tweets, what he is critical of is the united states has spun this as a victory for the united states. which is normal given domestic politics. but does not emphasize that it is a win-win solution. and i think if you look at the deal you see a lot of balance. and a lot of what in iran wants. not closing facilities. retaining research and development. and so i think he is pointing out that the united states is not necessarily demonstrating this is a deal that is a win for both sides. barbara slavin: i was listening what zarif had to say yesterday in farsi and english. thanks to press tv which was very helpful. he said there would only be one enrichment plant. it will be redesigned in such a way that weapons grade uranium will not be produced. provision 3.1 that requires early notification on nuclear facilities. there will be cooperation regarding nuclear safety and security. he said that. then he said the eu would terminate sanctions and un sanctions and u.s. sanctions will also be lifted. a new resolution by the un security council will be issued and the previous resolutions regarding iran will be null and void. he also said that this is a great achievement for the u.s. government, as well. he said sorry, was the press tv analyst at said that. noting for the first time the u.s. did not listen to israel. i thought that was interesting. anyway ok. let's see. you know, these are the main points. he did say that in fordow the centrifuges would continue to work that they would use it for isotopes or other things. he called it a win-win. he said we have stopped a cycle that is not in the interest of anyone. he told the iranian people. he said a great deal of what was in the fact sheet even if it was not put out in black and white. cliff, you want to say something. or have i reiterated your point? clifford kupchan: there was a document published in every iranian press outlet. it stated that all sanctions relief. that he would be immediate. it was unequivocal. it stated that iran was free to pursue industrial scale enrichment to fuel its own reactors. unequivocal. it stated that iran was unhindered in its ability to conduct --. ok, i don't get ahead of ourselves. to me there was no agreement on , how sanctions would be lifted. there just wasn't. there's a big gap. they want it upfront, we don't. we want the infrastructure to stay, they don't. let me finish, please. i think it is important to be objective about what we have and what we don't have in the obstacles still facing us. i don't think we are out of the woods. i think very difficult issues that were not resolved. and we will have to resolve them. it will be tough. and i think there is an expectations management team that we have to contribute to. we have to be realistic about where we are. this is a huge advance. smell the coffee, we are not home, we have a long way to go. barbara slavin: you had a question? wait for the microphone. alan: with the middle east institute. i wanted to talk more about the iranian opposition. what are they likely to do? last time there were charges that the supreme leader had not been briefed properly and other sorts of twists. what is the strength of it? what are the assumptions for most of us who are not deep in iran affairs, if there is a deal the supreme leader has agreed and he controls the opposition is that likely to be true? or are we looking at this again who might have -- that might queer the deal. how about a few more insight into what you think the iranian opposition might be? whoever. john limbert: we used to say the strongest political party in iran in persian is called --. the party of the wind. that is whichever way the wind blows. that is the way the party goes. i think everyone, right, left, center, will be looking at the way the wind is blowing on this. if the reports are true about zarif getting a heroes' welcome when he came back. about cities being illuminated. celebrations. and this kind of thing. the leadership, including the supreme leader, is not immune to that. for now, the wind is blowing in a certain direction. we will take it. what is clear is this process would not have gone as far as it did -- there seems to be a directive that this is a good thing for us. we are going to painted as a victory. call it win-win or whatever it is. it is not a humiliation, it is a positive accomplishment. the underlying text is, the talking to the united states -- which we have never done before. we can achieve something that is in our interest. clifford: there are some clear signposts we have to look for. what does khamenei say? what does the head of the supreme national security council say? these are the guys that run iran. rouhani doesn't really run the place. these guys do. i kind of agree with john here. i think they will be modestly positive, encouraged by this. but those are the rainmakers. let's see what they do. mr. limbert: don't be surprised. i haven't seen the friday prayers or listened to them today, but don't be surprised to here some traditional anti-american rhetoric coming out of that. that's not going to go. the slogans, the rest of it, those are not going to go away. ms. slavin: another question? >> i want to ask the other side my question and that is in this country there will be opposition, vocal opposition. if you wanted to defeat this agreement by june 30, what do you think that opposition will do? what is the opposition likely to do to defeat this agreement? ms. slavin: anybody want to touch that? we don't want to give them ideas. do we? judging from what is coming out of some of these statements, what do you think their tactics will be? ms. davenport: following the lines that the deal isn't good enough. when you look at places where we don't have much detail and poke holes in what has been accomplished. they said there is still not necessarily a clear path forward after the 10-year limitations end, that iran could transition to enrich uranium. i think what the criticisms ignore is what the director of national intelligence had said about iran's nuclear program, that the decision to pursue nuclear weapons has been guided by a cost-benefit analysis. so if the deal is phased properly to be mutually reinforcing, and iran sees a benefit for moving forward, the intention that they will exploit a weakness becomes far less. i think opposition will try to poke holes where we do not have full details yet. it ignores these very strong arguments that if the cost-benefit analysis pull through, they will continue to move forward with the agreement. john: the job for the opposition would be a lot easier if you were still president. you can always count on him to say something provocative or outrageous. that would make it easy. now it is harder. what do you focus on? maybe you focus on what some of these groups have said, they keep talking about how bad the islamic republic is. talking about all the terrible things they have done, but the problem is, that is not new. and we made a policy decision rightly or wrongly, we made this decision to say we are going to put that aside for a moment -- the human rights violations, the terrorism's, all of these other things. we are going to focus on this issue. now the debate could be, is at the right thing to do? or can you make any agreement with people, a state that does the things that the islamic has done? barbara: can i give a shout out to john bolton, who was clarified things very well. he says more sanctions are not the answer, diplomacy is not the answer. he wants to bomb the place. he sets up a very stark choice, which the white house has set up. they say a deal, negotiate a deal, or iran resumes its program and we have a military option. i don't believe it is that binary. but john bolton does. clifford: iran's economy is teetering. we could've gotten a better deal, we should seek a better deal through more sanctions now. iran is going through periods of growth, reduced inflation. the banking sector is a mess, the corporate sector is a mess. there is something to that. i think the main point is, the opponents of the deal, it is kind of a unique phenomenon. once you get a bunch of numbers in front of opponents of a deal, they get really scared. you remember menendez had 59 votes, he almost had a majority. senators are saying they are not for that. i want to see a lot of that now. we see some mild comments coming out of corker. these guys are going to have a tough time. >> a lot of the critics say yes, we can make them bleed more. but the united states might be able to impose more sanctions but the rest of the community is not going to follow us. certainly not when there is this potential deal there for the plucking. europeans are eager to get into them market asians are eager to buy oil again. there are some in the energy community forward about the price going down. from the point of view of the rest of the world, they already have the sanctions over and done with. it is a fantasy on the part of republicans in congress to think that they can somehow increase pressure now. at a time when these negotiations are so far advanced. i don't know if you agree with that, cliff? cliff: absolutely. john: going back to john bolton statement, break the narrative of disagreement versus war. this president's big profit positive is to keep us out of war in the middle east. and so they have to somehow make this argument that there is a third way -- another way that is better. so far, i have not seen him make that argument effectively. barbara: let's go back to what would happen internally. a colleague of mine is still in jail, the longest of any iranian-american journalists certainly. six months now, more. there are two others that have been failed for a very long time. other prisoners have been let go, but there are others still in jail. john, what do you think will happen on the human rights front? i have heard different interpretations. some things will get easier, some things will get tougher -- they still have to show they are in control. john: the best explanation i've heard is that this is part of the power struggle. those in charge of security services, they want to flex their muscles and show that all of this smiles and handshakes haven't changed the fact that we are dealing with an enemy. and we are going to treat them as enemies. it is a reminder of who was in charge. the same thing happened under the last president. you heard him making these wonderful, eloquent statements. in the meantime, there were these serial murders going on. intellectuals, translators anyone they did not like. the president and his ministers his so-called government, were powerless. they couldn't do anything to stop it. the best i can tell, it is a test of wills. between the two sides. and poor jason, a wonderful reporter and young man -- he is unfortunately the victim. as are these others. that again is an issue we should be and have been discussing with the iranians, not letting them off the hook. i understand that when secretary kerry met with him one on one, these issues came up. barbara: there is election coming up, a very important parliamentary election in iran. it chooses the next supreme leader, coming up in february of 2016. what will this nuclear deal assuming it is done in june, due for the pragmatists and the reformists? there are reformists affiliated with this regime. they are allowed to function. cliff, do you have some ideas about that? there are two presidential candidates from 2009 that are still under house arrest. are they ever going to see the light of day? clifford: i think there is a connection to what we are seeing now in the domestic issues. he has been very weak on everything but the nuclear issue. three or four of his ministers were ejected, he lost a lot of internet cases and the judiciary. in the social freedom space. it is likely in my view, that if there is a deal, his political clout will rise significantly. if it does, that guarantees nothing -- it makes it more likely that we will see slow, hard fought progress in other areas. that will be stifled by the hardliners. barbara: a couple of areas things have improved -- there are more books being published and few professors have been kicked out. clifford: they haven't flushed a completely. barbara: not completely, i compare it to a bears coming out of hibernation. a lot of folks that were prominent have come back into circulation, they can be quoted by the western press now. not worrying about being thrown in prison. these are small things but there is a newspaper called "shark." it came back and it is a very important voice for the reform movement any wrong. you know, you have to look for these small victories there as well. do we have any other question s? this lady right over here. >> i would like it if the panel could discuss a little more want the sanction relief will look like. and also, as far as it is possible, weapon sales. barbara: there is a report this morning that the russians will sell -- i don't think so. that kind of technology will remain in place. clifford: it is clear that the plan is to lift the u.n. resolutions and pivots the export of illicit materials to iran. for russia, one of the stories -- arguably the most constructive member. their lead negotiator is an absolute first-rate diplomat. i think we need to factor that in. sanctions relief, we don't know. what the iranians want upfront is there oil back on the market. reconnection of at least some banks, they want back in the international system. and they want 100 billion dollars in other reserves. anything that is reversible, it is easier said than done -- but you can't. if you have large american companies going in, like they have in russia, fdi -- you are really nailing an american company. sanctions in the first three years will vary economically. but not on the confusions of foreign direct investments. barbara: i draw you to two papers we put out from the atlantic council last year. secondary sanctions inhibit other countries and companies from dealing with iran. with a few exceptions, american commies will be the last. kelsey, i wanted to ask you about the secretary. i was on a conference call with a number of white house officials last evening where one of these unnamed administration officials talked about how over the course of the last few days, their hopes have rise. they had a statement. somehow, they did not get there. the senior official talked about the technical creativity of saving the day at the last minute. i do not know what the particular hitch was, i assume my colleagues at the "new york times" do. but we know there was an extraordinary relationship with the m.i.t. graduate. kelsey: certainly, speaking to that relationship, i heard he brought him m.i.t. baby paraphernalia as a grandfather. that speaks to the changing relationships we are seeing. the department of energy, is the beginning of negotiations. even though they have not been as vocal, it has been quite as important. the department of energy will be extremely important technical validation for this agreement. as the department of energy has played a critical role in analyzing many other proposals when it comes to determining breakout times based on centrifuges, looking at the research and development making that available to the public -- that level of expertise. that will certainly be helpful. there is a political component to this, and i think it did come down to politicians being able to make difficult and painful concessions, ensuring that the technical details are in place is extremely important. you see that innovation and the parameters laid out in this agreement. allowing centrifuges to operate but in a way that ensures they are not enriching uranium. there is a channel to allow iran to access technology it may need but not that it poses a threat for weapons. i think that the validation is important here. the relationships that develop with the counterparts, i would ask just one bit to your question about sanctions. we do have a little bit of a clear picture on where the security council is going. i was pleased to see that the lifting of those sanctions were tied to the investigation into its past weaponization work. these measures will not be lifted until the investigation is completed. it ensures its program is entirely peaceful. those security council measures, they will incentivize iran. it has been a difficult process. originally in 2006, it was not cooperating with the agency. letting out those parameters moving forward is key, and i was glad to see an agreement to that in the white house fact sheet. barbara, i thought it was a little more vague. just my impression. babara: there is also going to be civilian cooperation for the first time. iran needs, i don't know what the technical term is, needs a new coloaandria. new technology, they didn't mention the new reactor, but they have a lot of second-rate old technology that they use for civilian purposes. this opens the possibility that they are going to be able to renovate systems that are safer for the iranian people. and also more proliferation for it. kelsey: along with the safety and security, the most vital cooperation will have to be with other reactors -- ironic'san's sole nuclear reactor. particularly in relation to earthquake faults. cooperating to ensure that it is safe, it will be key and i hope it happens early on. cooperation on the creation of white water reactors. iran has placed a great deal of emphasis on creating medical isotopes. providing reactors that can do that more safely, less of a proliferation threat, it adds to the assurances that the nuclear program is possessing in a peaceful direction, not in a way that could be used for weapons. barbara: we do not know yet which foreign countries will be providing the technology at. it will be resolved over the next few months. john: there is a story indicative to me of the difficulty of this relationship. also, how far we have come. before the contractor was contracted in the 70's with a german company, according to my iraqi and friends, it was obsolete when they bought it. in the 1970's. it was finally completed 40 years later again, my writing friends tell me it should have been scrapped. long ago, but for reasons of national pride, they completed it. when they did, they announced they were ready to throw the switch. then secretary of state hillary clinton was asked what do you think about this? she said we are not concerned. we know what this is, we know the safeguards involved, we know what it does. this is not an issue of concern to us. then, they went back to an iranian official, barber you might remember who it is, and they asked him what do you think about the secretary of state's comment. ? we are not sure what it is, we know there is a trick there. we know she is up to something. why would the american administration make a seemingly friendly statement like that? there had to a trick behind it. that was the environment that we have been operating in for 35 years. maybe what we are seeing now is a chance of breaking down those particular walls of mistrust. barbara: you get the last question, wait for microphone. >> with the atlantic council barber you mentioned that one of the reasons for being reluctant was that they were worried about the iranian people. if we do hit it in june, what are the expectations? given the support what position will the government be in to deliver? barbara: that is a fabulous question. sanctions relief will happen slowly. there are a lot of, i am not sure of the exact sequencing, but u.s. officials are clear that the iranians have to do a lot of irreversible things before they get major relief. they have to pull out of places, they have to do something about the stockpile of things, they have to move out the surplus of centrifuges. it is going to be slow. already, i don't think the irony in currency traders -- the iraqi nian currency traders i bet it has been hovering around 35,000 to the dollar. i romney ends are going to go home and see -- iranians are going to go home and see what they can put money in. like the chinese started returning to normalization. good things will happen. there have been a lot of european and asian companies that have gone to iran on exploratory missions and not found anything. so, it will be -- just a huge shopping arm for the irony of people. keep that in mind. this is not just about centrifuges and heavy water reactors, this is about human beings in the country with this amazing potential. which has really been squelched for all these years. for that sake alone, should hope things go well. and i think that will be the last word, unless someone -- john: there is a danger that this to be oversold. the sanctions will be lifted everything will be fine. and the story that the iranian government has presented very often, our economic problems are a result of the sanctions. well, they might be -- some of them. also, there are many people who say no, it is a result of their mismanagement. of the economy. so what happens when the sanctions go, and the economic problems are not solved? because the mismanagement is still there. it is much easier to blame her troubles on what outsiders have done to you then your own mismanagement, which has been a chronic problem, frankly, for the iranian economy going back to the founding of the islamic republic. barbara: thank you for that skeptical note. [laughter] please follow us on twitter come and see us at our next event. we are going to be very active in the coming months on this issue. t y. hank you. [applause] >> next, president obama in utah talking about the economy and the job training program for veterans. the upcoming summit of the americas, after that, how religious liberty is defined in the u.s. today. on the next "washington journal," talking about march job numbers. then we discuss the consumer invocations of short-term payday loans. states to start needle exchange programs to fight outbreaks of h.i.v. and hepatitis c. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> here are some of our featured programs for this holiday weekend on the c-span networks. c-span, saturday 8:00 p.m. eastern, former state senator wendy davis. sunday, 6: 30 eastern golfer jack nicklaus. c-span 2's book tv saturday night 10:00 p.m. eastern on after words cornell west. and sunday at noon, on in depth our live three-hour conversation with new york times best selling author ronald kessler. he has written 20 books including "escape from the c.i.a.." on saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 3, charles calhoun on the obstacles faced and accomplishments made by president grant. sunday afternoon at 6:00 on american artifacts patrick schroeder takes us on a tour of the courthouse in virginia. there are labor department has announced that employers added 126,000 jobs in march. the lowest number since 2013. analysts say they are worried about the economy. home sales have sputtered and cheaper gasoline has failed to bring more consumer spending. in his first presidential visit to utah, president obama announced a new initiative to help job-seeking military veterans. they are launching a program to teach outgoing service members how the install solar panels. hill air force base where the president made the announcement is one of 10 bases that will have the program. president obama: good morning, everybody. it is wonderful to be in the beautiful state of utah. and i want to thank the general and the kernel and everyone here at hill air force base. one of the most outstanding facilities that we have. every single day, your work keeps our air force base ready to meet the many threats that are out there. threats like isil, the work we are doing in iraq. you support our troops, our humanitarian missions around the world, and you keep the american people safe. to all of our folks in uniform and the civilians who support them, i want to say thank you. i think the american people want you to know how much they appreciate it as well. i just had an opportunity to take a look at these solar installations you have here on the base. and to meet with some of your outstanding representatives including senator orin hatch and congressman rob bishop and mayor rob becker who is doing outstanding work, and leaders in the solar industry, as well as our community college system. we are talking about salt lake city's commitment to renewable energy, its impact on jobs business, and its impact on the environment and climate change. since i took office, solar electricity has gone up 20 fold. and our investment in renewable energy and energy efficient to have not just helps to cut carbon pollution, they have made us more energy independent and they have helped us create a steady stream of high wage good paying middle class jobs. this morning, we learned that our business created another 129,000 new jobs in march. that adds up to 3 million jobs over the past year. more than 12 million new jobs over the past five years. that is the longest stretch of private sector job creation on record. but we have to be relentless in our work to grow the economy and create good jobs. parts of the globe have seen their economies weaken. europe has had a weaker economy. asia has been slowing down. we have had the strongest economy, but we're impacted by what happens around the world and that's why we have to redouble our efforts to make sure that we're competitive. to make sure that we're taking the steps that are needed for us to be successful. i think everybody here at hill understands that one of the most important aspects of national security is strong economic security. we can't maintain best military that the world has ever known unless we also have an economy. a lot of our men and women in uniform at some point are going to transition into civilian life, and we want to make sure that after they fought for our freedoms, they have jobs to come home to. that means working together, not only the private sector has to work, but government has to work to to take the steps -- to take the steps that we know will grow our economy. i am hoping we can get some things done this year. rebuilding our infrastructure all across our country. those are jobs that can't be exported. and it makes us competitive over the long-term because businesses are going to locate where the have top-notch infrastructure. investing in education and job training to boost growth right here in the united states because again, businesses will locate where they have got a trained workforce. making sure that we are passing trade promotion authority. orrin hatch is working very hard on that. utah is one of the leading exporting states in the country. part of the reason the state has been so successful. we are very grateful that senator hatch is working with senator wyden to make sure that we can get that deal done. and what i am doing here today is to highlight the fact that the solar industry is actually adding jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy. they are paying good jobs, they are helping folks enter into the middle class. and today, you are going to try and build on the progress that has already been made. i am announcing a new goal to train 75,000 workers to enter the solar industry by 2020. we are creating what we call a solar ready vets program that is modeled after some successful pilot initiatives that have already been established over the last several years. it is going to train transitioning military personnel for careers in this growing industry. at 10 basis, including right here at hill. as part of this effort, we are also going to work with states and war veterans to use the g.i. bill for solar training. as one of the many steps we are taking to help military members and military spouses get a job. about 30% of the federal workforce is now made up of veterans. i have said it before, i think employers are starting to catch on. if you want to get the job done, hire a veteran. hill is leading by example. they are getting maybe 20% of their energy through renewable energy sources. including this installation. dod, the department of defense our military across the board is becoming more and more efficient because that saves money. and it means that we've got more money for personnel, for training, for equipment, to make sure -- training, equipment, to make sure our forces have what they need to get the job done. what is true for d.o.d. has to be true for the entire country. and it is going to provide are numerous prospects for jobs and careers for a whole lot of folks out there if we continue to make this investment. so we have to lead by example, invest in the future. train our workers for good, new jobs. in the clean energy economy. that is how we are going to keep our economy going and that is how we are going to create new jobs and new opportunities for the american people. as a byproduct of that, we will make this country safer. and we will make the planet more secure. we're going to make sure that the environment we are passing on and incredible beauty of these remarkable states are passed onto future generations, as well. thank you to all of you for the great work you are doing. and thank you to the state of utah for your wonderful hospitality. i was telling the governor yesterday as we were riding from the airport, that i'm going to make sure i come back next time where i don't have to do so much work and i can visit some of these amazing national parks here and have a chance to visit with some of the wonderful people here in the great state of utah. thank you very much, everybody. [applause] thanks, guys. [applause] >> now brookings institution hosts a preview of the upcoming summit of the americas. assistant secretary of state roberta jacobson gives the keynote. topics are u.s. sanctions on venezuela, economic development and energy security. president obama and 34 other leaders will take part in the summit in panama on april 10 and 11. this is just over an hour. ted: morning, everyone. can you hear me? great. welcome to brookings. i'm ted piccone, senior fellow with the latin american initiative here at the foreign policy program, and i'm very happy to introduce today's event and our speakers on summit of the americas prospects for american relations. as you all know next week we will have the seventh summit of the americas in panama city, and much anticipated because of the developments around host of issues including the first time that the government of cuba will be attending, and it will be president raul castro sitting together with other heads of state, and most importantly sitting with president obama at this gathering. of course, it's not just about cuba. there are many, many issues on the interamerican agenda. i think there's a key moment of opportunity for not just the united states but for the entire region to sit down and crap forward-looking again on a whole host of challenges that the hemisphere faces. we have today program that will help us understand better what's on the inter-american agenda and what we'll see in panama. and we will start with opening remarks as keynote speaker from roberta jacobson, the assistant secretary for western hemisphere affairs at the department of state. roberta and i first starteded working together in the 1990 niece the clinton administration and it's been fascinating to watch her career develop, and now holding this very senior position at a critical time confirmed by the u.s. senate. and she will make opening remarks and then we'll have a panel discussion led by harold trinkunas who is the robinson chair and senior fellow director the latin american initiative here. he came to us from the naval postgraduate school where he was professor for national security affairs in monterey. we will also be joined by richard feinberg from the university of california-san diego and a nonresident senior fellow here at brookings. richard is really the godfather of the summit process, was the senior official at the white house for the first miami summit of the americas in 1994, and has attended every summit except for one and will be going to panama along with roberta and many, many other people next week. so we look forward to their comments, and roberta, please. i should also mention if you haven't gotten copies, and you will hear more about it today, please got a copy of the latest report that richard, harold and emily miller have done on reframing american relations. roberta? [applause] roberta: good morning, everybody. thank you, ted. i appreciate the introduction. i mostly appreciate you not reading my bio which gets longer, and people think that's a feature that been very distinguished. i think it's a feature of being very old, every time it gets read. i'm delighted to be this morning talking about the broad range of hemispheric issues. i'm delighted to be back at brookings and i'm thrilled to be working with ted again. we have worked together on and off on things hemispheric. i'm glad to see some of my colleagues from the region here. we've been working together steadily on things preparing for the summit but i must say most of all i am happy to be with the godfather, who over the last number of years preparing for summit and birthing the first one, has consistently made offers that people could not refuse in preparing for summits, for presidents and really has brought us to a moment when summitry itself as default and summits have evolved in this hemisphere to one that i think will be quite remarkable in many ways, and will produce things that don't always make the headlines. and i think that in some ways has always been the news out of a summit. and i think i want to start by pointing out that three very smart people, one of them the godfather, richard feinberg, and harold trinkunas and emily miller have really written this fantastic paper about the region. a couple of years ago i wrote a piece for america's quarterly, which was kind of about the idea that laten america and the caribbean has changed, and it was sort of an idea that it's not your father's western hemisphere. 10 things you don't know about latin america and the caribbean. and like most policymakers, it was very compact, short, kind of punchy and it had no data to back it up. right? but it was based on the idea that a lot of old think and old myth about this region persists when it is moved beyond many of those old impressions, and it has become a region of capable and equal partners. what this piece that they have done wonderfully titled "better than you think, reframing inter-american relations" and i've always told harold and richard that i will be shamelessly utilizing that phrase better than you think, in many of the substantive parts of the peace. what this piece argued is just that idea that there is a lot you don't know about what's happened in this hemisphere and how well it has gone for u.s. policy, and the maturity of those relationships is really quite developed. but it does so with all of the data to back it up, and that for me is extraordinary. so i thank you for that contribution to the debate and the support for the notion that president obama brought to trinidad in 2009 for the fifth summit of the americas where he outlined a desire to force equal partnerships in this hemisphere built on common values and common interests. that we won't always agree on everything, which is precisely what this paper says, but we agree on so many things are in our mutual interest that we can have mature 21st century relations. i think this summit in panama will showcase a lot of very important issues that deliver on that promise of equal partnerships in particular what he promised in 2009 which was an updated architecture for cooperation in partnership based on shared responsibility. truly shared responsibility by the united states and by our partners. one of the most important things i think, and i'll talk about this a little bit throughout the substantive portions of our priorities at the summit, one of the most important things in the new architecture as seen in the summit developed since 2009. we saw it in 2012 in cartagena in colombia, and is the ceo dialogue that you will see which is going to look in some ways very much like what colombia did in cartahana, but the preparations for it do not look the same. because what has developed which is exactly what we hoped for is the americas business dialogue and a permanent forum for the private sector to be engaged with leaders in bringing to government their priority, the way they see the private sector and the economies working and a way for leaders to interact with the private sector in a more permanent manner between summits and at summit. so that has really developed into something that will be a more constant dialogue along the lines of apex which is what we had intended. at this summit we want to take that next step in another nongovernmental area, which is in the civil society area, and try and develop an institutional mechanism for civil society to have that permanent dialogue. being here with all of you today as part of the dialogue with civil society, each country should be having that dialogue. we will have the civil society dialogue taking place in the various for a at the summit, but that also needs to take place on a more or less constant basis between summits. and in some ways, by definition, civil society is disorganized here it is not centralized but it has to figure out a way to have a mechanism that keeps it that keeps it connected and that keeps it more or less interactive with leaders in between summits. so i think some kind of a mechanism for civil society to continue to interact with the governments in between summits will also, would be a huge benefit coming out of this summit. our own priorities for this summit really fall into four categories that are a part of the basic priorities in the hemisphere that we have. they are democracy and human rights global competitiveness, social developments, and energy and climate change. they fit very well with in both panama being selected for the summit which is prosperity with equity and they fit very well within the eight sub themes that were developed for the summit. let me go through them very briefly and then obviously we're going to have a good conversation. on democracy and human rights there's been a great deal discussed about some backsliding, some concerns, some angst i would say about whether we are stepping up on democracy and human rights throughout the hemisphere, but in many ways i think this summit must confront that issue both in its positives and in some of its negatives. this is of course the first summit that will have all 35. that in sitz momentous, but -- in itself is momentous, but has to be followed up by a robust conversation among leaders and with civil society groups who are there. the president has committed to being at having a conversation with the hemispheric forum on civil society because he thinks that is critical, that leaders be held accountable by their civil societies, including obviously the civil society participants from the united states as we interact with our own stakeholders all the time. to try and be held accountable. and to be transparent. there are four site events as you know to the summit. they are on youth, education the ceo summit, and the civil society summit. they are feedback loops. they are ways that leaders are held accountable by various fora of citizens outside of government. and unless we have that then we are living in our own echo chamber, frankly, of leaders without getting the input we need from our citizens. we also applaud the governments around the hemisphere that have supported that more robust civil society role. i would say that obviously there's been a lot of attention focused on two particular issues in the democracy and human rights area. they are cuba and venezuela. cuba being at the summit for the first time is going to steal a lot of attention. i think the president's policy change in december gave a huge amount of lift to the issues of engagement on cuba. it was something we felt was long overdue and takes a huge irritant out of our policy in latin america and the caribbean, something that we will continue to move forward on in the coming months and years because full normalization will take years. i would argue that there are very real challenges on democracy in venezuela that the entire hemisphere needs to be concerned about, not just the neighbors of venezuela and serving not just the united states. it never has been and won't be a bilateral issue. it's a hemispheric issue, but most of all it's a venezuela issue for venezuelans to resolve. i think that the issue of sanctions on seven individuals frankly has been blown way out of proportion and languished in language an executive order that is standard and, in fact, just came out two days ago in another executive order on cybersecurity. but also note that in the middle of march when they put out a declaration on the sanctions issue put out two declarations which almost no one in the media picked up on. those declarations were on the sanctions and unilateral actions perceived and rejected. they were also on elections and democracy. that went almost unnoticed by many people and that was very important, too. and the importance of human rights and the rule of law in venezuela and moving forward on the election. so that is a debate that really needs to continue to be had. and we are certainly comfortable having that full debate. on economic growth and competitiveness, there is and will continue to be a direct connection between economic growth and competitiveness and the democracy, human rights, accountability issues that i began with. if you don't have institutions of governance that are transparent, that are responding to the needs of citizenry that present justice systems that are equal, accessible to all and provide a level playing field, then you're own economic growth is going to be stymied as well, and expansion of opportunity is going to be retarded. so there is a direct connection between those things that cannot be hived off and separated. we will focus in this summit because macroeconomic members, especially during a commodities boom have been ok on the whole answer me this hemisphere has gone to the macro economic reforms that many other countries are struggling with around the world. we will focus a lot of our attention on small business, generating huge numbers of jobs and not necessarily always getting the support that they need, support and credit, access to credit, support and job training. we know that the small business network of the americas has now fostered huge numbers of job creation in the hemisphere. there are over 4000 small business development centers that have been created since we launched these partnerships between small business develop and centers in the u.s. and small business development centers in the countries of latin america and the caribbean. in colombia alone these efforts created nearly 6,000 jobs, and increased some business sales over 50% or even in the united states, under 2% of small businesses export. but the minute you can connect small businesses the markets elsewhere and even if those our -- are our neighbors next door, you can hugely raise their capabilities while remaining obvious to small and be concise enterprises. i've already talked about the america's business dialogue which i think is going to be essential as a continuing forum for movement on the economic sector. but i also think that we need to continue to press in the economic sector and among our business leaders for attention to equity issues and the u inequality issues, access to justice and judicial reform which are as important for them as investors and business people as they offer those who are shut out of the justice system because of resources or socioeconomic reasons. on social development, which that's my segue into that would come an issue of inclusion, i think this is one of most important issues facing the region right now. we know it is still the most unequal region in the world. there are terrific statistics in the paper about the way in which inequality has been reduced in the 2,000's and that has been impressive, but it's from high level of inequality and more needs to be done. the numbers we've seen a people moving into the middle class in this hemisphere are staggered. -- staggering. they are impressive. those have to be sustained and that in itself is difficult, especially with commodity prices softening, so we need diversification of an economy, but also when you to remember how many people were left out of that process. whether it's because of geography, whether it's because they are a vulnerable population group, indigenous groups, afro latinos, women. that push to get those benefits

Related Keywords

Jerusalem , Israel General , Israel , China , California , United States , San Diego , Syria , Russia , Washington , District Of Columbia , Bahrain , Berkeley , Cartagena , Bolír , Colombia , Panama City , Panamám , Panama , Tehran , Iran , Monterey , Cuba , Switzerland , Miami , Florida , New York , Trinidad And Tobago , Munich , Bayern , Germany , Afghanistan , Texas , Virginia , Pakistan , Salt Lake City , Utah , Iraq , Saudi Arabia , North Korea , Yemen , Venezuela , Kuwait , Americans , America , Saudi , Chinese , Russian , Venezuelans , Iranians , Saudis , Iranian , Israelis , Afghan , Iraqi , Soviet , German , Syrian , Israeli , Russians , Trinidad , American , Hassan Rouhani , King Salman , John Limbert , Ronald Kessler , David Albright , Roberta Jacobson , Patrick Schroeder , Clifford Kupchan , Zarif Rouhani , Emily Miller , Wendy Davis , Jack Nicklaus , Javad Zarif , John Kerry , Raul Castro , Richard Feinberg , John Bolton , Barbara Slavin , Kelsey Davenport , A Herbert Scoville Jr , Hillary Clinton , Charles Calhoun , Cliff Kupchan , Stuart Eizenstat ,