Dissident movements inside authoritarian countries by speaking out in supporting them. This help gives them the power to rise up. That is another issue that the west does not understand. I agree with michael about missing the conventional wisdom of the arab spring. Tois fantastic to look back supposedly smart people in 2009, they said the best thing was a wise, charismatic leader call bush a alassad. They said he was a partner for these, prosperity and stability. An israeli newspaper said syria was an island of stability. Others talking about egypt is a rock of stability. All of these were falsehoods. Dangerously wrong. They werent listening to these dissident movements and the fact of double thinkers is always bigger than we think. The number of true believers is typically lower than we think. Im going to push you on a little bit. Thats not mean less emphasis on the nuclear issue. Regime has nuclear weapons, the amount of progression oppression would make whats going on now seems small. The unfortunate corollary of that is that the people supporting terrorism and undermining countries and funding terrorism, brutally repressing 80 million people, that is an untenable situation. We have some questions. Introduce yourself and speak into the microphone. We are from the Elearning Institute for iranian civil society. That inion is about 2009 american intelligence policymakers were saying that these guys are going to wind big we dont need to do much. We dont need to do much. I question that because president obama and one of the very do things he said very few things he said was that youree chanting either with the regime are with us. We dont care who wins. It doesnt make any difference to us. I question that the move was one of optimism. The Green Movement was inconvenient. A lot of iranians feel a big sense of betrayal. I wanted to voice at here. I think everything is true. I agree with everything you said. Of course the iranians feel betrayed. They were betrayed. They have a right to feel betrayed. Consensuse time, the of punditry at that time was that this is a huge thing. The uprising. And it continue. It went on and on. And they said, you will win. Its not easy to be wrong systematically wrong about everything, from beginning to end, but we are trying. In that case, we did pretty well. This raises a point that i would like to tease out. Getting back to what you said about strategic clarity. On the right and the left. That moral clarity is an impediment. I will be writing about it in my column this week that we talk about what is going on, including the islamic state, in away from we get the possibility of good strategic thinking. That moral clarity serves strategic clarity. Decidinghen youre whether to support the Green Movement in 2009, when youre deciding a few years ago whether to support the nationalist in syria. The equation becomes what can they do. They were given guns and could not accomplish much. Should we be supporting what is left of the nationalist Secular Movement in syria. Do we have a moral obligation to support those people who are fighting for values we hold dear. . Even if they lose. Or only if its clearly utilitarian variant clearly utilitarian. The moral choice turns out to be the pragmatic choice. The op ed in the New York Times was outrageous. One man who was nine years in a log said, the happiest day in prison was when he called the soviet union evil. Hes saw the blinding truth about that. That too many times i think it boils down to a loss of confidence in our own values. When you compare situations today, their many differences,ut american policymakers instead of a nuclear superpower, which spanned 11 time zones and get killed tens of maze of killed tens of millions of people you compare that to iran today, which does not have a fraction of the power of the soviet union union. People are afraid to confront them. That is outrageous. On both moral and strategic grounds. Lets go to dana. Transnational strategy group. The question is more of a challenge. I think of myself as having a moral view of this. I am moved by what youre saying about not forgetting the human rights aspect for there is a part of the that was the challenge you. What you want to do about this . The west has been defined for decades with sanctions towards Islamic Republic, but its had the effect of starting a negotiation again. It took that. For those of us who think that a letter are 2 what do weve need to do . How much to put on the table . Saying, lets put this into the last talking point, but what will it take to move his agenda forward . How likely is it . Where we joined by those areas that are even closer to have more leverage . Look at reagan and the soviet empire and i think you can answer your question just from historical events. When reagan started speaking out against the soviet empire and saying that its day in history was finished, people yelled and screamed at him. They said he was dangerous. When jacksonvanik was up for grabs, you cannot imagine how many people said do not put the soviet union with its back against the wall, things will get worse. The things that people like david hear everyday when they speak about what is going on inside iran. And as we know from all the dissidents, speaking out made life better. Supporting dissident groups inside the soviet empire eventually was a crucial part in bringing down the whole soviet system. If we could bring down the soviet empire, how could anybody doubt that we could bring down this hollow, corrupt regime in tehran . It does not begin to compare. Yet whenever we have this discussion, people always talk as if it is big, powerful, massive, they are brilliant. They make mistakes all the time. Can i make one point about iran . Keep it in mind. Iran, on paper, should be one of the most successful countries on earth. They have everything. When we sit down and draw up a checklist of what does it take to be a booming, democratic, successful country, iran has it all. Even an educated middleclass and women with a significant role in society. They have it all. Now, go into the streets of the major cities. What do you see . A basket case. Record numbers of suicides, drug addiction, prostitution, you name it. All those indicators of social malaise and failure. These people, brilliant, as we invariably think of them, have wrecked a country that was very hard to wreck. Sort of like venezuela in that regard. My journalism days sent me to venezuela. Everybody said god is venezuelan, you cannot wreck this place. Food drops out of the sky, trees grow twice as fast. It takes a lot of work to wreck it, theyve wrecked it. So, support the opposition. What are we waiting for . As was said by soviet dissidents, it is morally right and strategically right. And it will probably work. Everyone is afraid of them. Everybody thinks it is crackpot and crazy. And yet, the track record, historically, is pretty good. Ask robespierre, sometimes it works. There is a certain generation in the american foreignpolicy making community that has experienced the cold war. They know how the system works. One of the things some younger people have forgotten is that there is a thinking process that began as an arms agreement and then it proliferated to encompass human rights issue. Most unfortunately, the brilliant people who are in government right now in the u. S. Did not think of a similar model for the Nuclear Negotiations with the Islamic Republic of iran. Maybe because it was not a priority, maybe they had no recollection of how things were done in the cold war period. Take a look at the right, iranians are successful everyplace in the world but inside of iran. That tells you something about the system, which is called the Islamic Republic. There is something you can do on a personal level and then more on a diplomatic level. A few weeks ago, my organization, advancing human rights, relaunched movements. Org, which links dissidents to people around the world with skills that can it is like craigslist for human rights. Thousands of people have come asking for something, legal help, pr help, policy health, some of them want a song written. You can go to movements. Org and find somebody from syria, saudi arabia, russia, china it is open to large dictatorships. We have had songs about Sergei Magnitsky and about Syrian Refugees and so forth. We need to have a rabble rousing. I came up with the idea to rename the street in front of the Chinese Embassy liu xiaobo plaza, congress voted to change the name in front of the embassy to liu xiaobo plaza, just as they did with the soviet union. Why is every street in front of the Iranian Embassy not named after a political prisoner . It has some effect on the soviet union. The press covered it massively, liu xiaobo plaza, the chinese had to answer for this outrageous violation of human rights. On the national level, i think traditional things like raising the names of these Political Prisoners in meetings. When you do go negotiate in geneva or vienna, you have to you cannot say we will get to human rights later. Saudi arabia and officials said of course we will raise human rights, but then they ran out of time. Raise the names, a guy like one dissident said the fact that he was on the cover of the economist saved his life. After 10 years in prison, he said it saved his life. Attention, attention. Linking any improvements to the iranian economy to improvements in human rights is a critical letter, which is underappreciated. Lets go to the north a little bit. I wanted to talk more about the Green Movement. Im a believer that the Green Movement is not dead and iranians are very smart, like boxers, waiting for the opportunity to come again and get out into the streets when they feel it is appropriate. What can the west or the u. S. Do this time around when the opportunity comes . I am sure it will come again, it is a matter of time. What should they do to support people . What things can i do . What things can they do . One of the things that the Islamic Republic cannot control is spontaneous uprisings. They can infiltrate any political organization, they can infiltrate even the smallest cell. The Intelligence Services have learned all the tricks of spy craft from the kgb and from the shahs secret service. They are good at this. They cannot control when massive uprisings spontaneously break out. Massive uprisings need communication. Among those who participate in the uprising. Theres also a need for further mobilization of the public for a specific cause. There you need public broadcast systems. The Islamic Republic has a highly sensitive institution because it has Strategic Value for the regime. Most foreign broadcasters to iran are extremely cautious in their coverage of the green revolution. One of the things that could be done and should be done is to provide not only support from the media only when things happen, but also prior to it. We do not have a single media, not even voice of america persian, there is no room for debate. There are a number of other countries broadcasting to iran, none of them would be willing to provide those kinds of services. I think there is a lot that can be done when it comes to the media. And then we also need to look at ourselves. Most iranians, one of the reasons why the green revolution was defeated was because of the divide between the leaders of the movement and the followers. Chairman mao, you do not usually quote chairman mao zedong, he used to say that a husband and wife sleep in the same bed but they do not share the same dreams. That was the problem between leaders and followers of the Green Movement. Leaders wanted to reform the system, followers wanted to get rid of the system altogether. That was the big issue. In egypt, one of the reasons why the mubarak regime collapsed is because the leaders said that we are going to stay until mubarak is gone. In the Green Movement, leaders urged supporters to go home so they could negotiate with mr. Khamenei in the dock of the dark of the night. As soon as the people had gone home, leaders of the movement had nothing to negotiate with and they became captives of the regime. I think from the u. S. Side and those who are interested in Better Development in iran, media and communication. When it comes to iranians, think hard if this regime is capable of reforming itself. It is a valid question and something we need to discuss. The main thing is that the leaders of the u. S. Have to stand up and embrace these things. Had a reagan failed to embrace the movement, it would not have become what it became. Since we now have an administration who does not seem at all interested in endorsing, supporting, embracing an antiregime movement in iran, quite the contrary. All the evidence that i have seen is that this administration wants to work with iran and coordinate and have a big deal with iran. As long as that continues, no iranian is going to risk his or her life to bring down this regime, hoping or anticipating or expecting he or she will get american support. That support has to be explicit, outspoken, and continuous. That has to come from all the top diplomatic and political leaders. A question here. Director of radio fardah based in prague. A small provision to what was said about the media of iran, particularly persian speaking media. Radio fardah provides such an opportunity for debate and for questions and exchanging ideas. I thank you. It is a great job that is being done at radio farda, following the tradition of providing Radio Broadcasting to eastern europe. Iran is facing similar problems. A great job is being done. Thank you for your service. Im a consultant to aipac. I know this is not the main focus of the meeting but i would appreciate hearing from the members of the panel what you think would happen with a nuclear talk between iran and the u. S. The state of the talks. Ali . Unlike many in washington, i am not concerned that you have someone here who lies and is deceptive and makes promises that the person is not ready to keep. I think there are three different approaches in iran but when it comes to the nuclear issue. All of them strategically agreed that a nuclear bomb rouhani is desirable. All of them strategically agree that a nuclear bomb is desirable. Mr. Rouhani believes that, so does the supreme leader. They believe god is on their side. Each group has used different tactics. Mr. Rouhanis goal is longerterm, they believe right now iran is on the verge of bankruptcy and sanction relief is needed to keep the system afloat. On the other hand, you have the revolutionary guard. The revolutionary guard wants to get the bomb as fast as possible. They believe fundamentally it would end like Pakistans Nuclear bomb, iran would be forgiven and sanctions would be beoved because i run would i ran would be a a Nuclear Armed state. No one would like to see and economically bankrupt nuclear power. The argument that the revolutionary guard is making. Mr. Khamenei is oscillating between the two power centers. Every second day he extends support to the line of mr. Rouhani, the second day he supports the revolutionary guard and says he does not believe in a positive outcome of the Nuclear Negotiations. On the one hand, he understands the rouhani argument, that iran needs to get sanction relief. On the other hand, mr. Khamenei cannot afford to alienate the revolutionary guard. He knows that the next time people go to the streets of tehran like in 2009, he needs the revolutionary guard to suppress the public dissidents. The difference between these three groups is not so much strategic but tactical. As soon as the worst sanctions are removed, as soon as irans economy has stabilized, we will see tendencies where mr. Khamenei is backing the revolutionary guard. So iran would walk away from the table and things would change. These are some of the expectations that i have right now. Which is very pessimistic. I will say a word on this, even though it is out of my role as a moderator. Im familiar with the study of this being done by a number of people at fdd. One of the things we have to worry about at this point in the negotiations is that rouhani will two things one is that rouhani will pretend to have made significant concessions and the Obama Administration will pretend to believe them. One way this might happen is to what is being talked about here as the sunset provisions. The idea that you would say ok, how about this you will not have Nuclear Capability during the life of this administration. The next administration is not going to be our problem. One hopes that those who are thinking about running for in office in may 16 are aware of 2016 this. The sunset provisions would tie irans hands, at least make the breakout period reasonably long no more than a year but only for a few youre the next few years. At that point, there are no more restrictions on iran than there are in japan. That seems like a plausible and distressing narrative that we could see unfold as early as this november. This agreement that holds it off for this administration is spun as a good deal, a deal we should all applaud. And, in fact were just opening the one thing that might stop, ali has mentioned this. The revolutionary guard, khamenei is not young and healthy, he might have a different timeframe and not want to wait. I want this now and i dont see any reason why we cant have it. I throw that out for your discussion. If you think i am wrong, please say so. Happy to disagree in this forum. Just bring down the regime and then you do not have to worry about this. Next question . Yes. Will it be that what is being played in iran is good cop bad cop. They know exactly what they are doing. This administration and other administrations play a role, whether [indiscernible] and they do not have to worry about it. The iranians are moving forward with the nuclear plan. They think that even holding it back just for strategic reasons, it is much farther ahead than you really think. My question is, on this side, we have the useful idiots. The people who really want to see america being reduced and having le