Transcripts For CSPAN2 Book Discussion On A Time To Attack 20140525

Program director for the World Affairs council in washington d. C. I welcome you to the author series event. November 2013 accord was signed in geneva us switzerland with u. N. Security council in germany and iran. This agreement was a preliminary one to framed that pass from mark comprehensive deal. This agreement came at a time when there was little hope for a resolution to the crisis. Both sides seemed entrenched with their positions a weber diplomacy and negotiation conventional wisdom said were the best ways to resolve the crisis as a alternative it could be catastrophic. And the six months bullseyes have taken steps to demonstrate their commitment of a preliminary deal to reach one in the future. Iran has reduced or halted some stocks and agreed to allow International Inspectors into the facilities. It has crippled irans economy. The current negotiations are a continual exercise of trust between the parties involved. Trust that iran said todays were transparent in the other signatories could keep their word. Given the indepth nature what happens theyve failed to produce the agreement desired. They have ruled out action is as bad if not worse as every and mtv a Nuclear Weapon in. What r d alternatives . Matthew kroenig author of a time to attack the looming Iranian Nuclear threat challenges the assumption the military strike is out of the question as well as other wisdom related to the every and Nuclear Program. Military action should not be started as an option. Matthew kroenig in Nuclear Proliferation and specialist internationally recognized authority on the iran program his work as a researcher and teacher of various universities of the United States. Before accepting his fellowship in 2010. He became an advisor on iran policy through the secretary of defense at the pentagon and in 2011 his previous book was published 2010 and his articles have appeared in the washington post, and Foreign Policy. Most notable is the february 2012 article in Foreign Affairs which became the basis for the current box. Matthew is an associate in the department at georgetown and university of from the Scowcroft Center and of the International Security council. Please join me to welcome matthew kroenig. [applause] they give for that introduction in it is of pleasure to be back here in washington d. C. To talk about the time to attack a time to attack the looming Iranian Nuclear threat i would like to talk about what it is not. The half it does not talk about the military option or that it is our best option or the first option. Some people see the title and jump to the wrong conclusion rather the should solve it through diplomacy fm all possible. Everyone agrees we should try to solve the problem through diplomacy in then not the we should acquiesce. Since there is so much agreement however the more interesting question from a Foreign Policy perspective and then what happens if diplomacy fails . Are we prepared to live with the nuclear arms by iran and what will colbert with the threats to come or are we prepared to take military action . The argument of my book is to solve this through diplomacy but we should be prepared to conduct a limited military strike and while it is up that option it is less than acquiescing to the nuclear arms iran for decades to come. Now the argument is if diplomacy fails and there will be, a time to attack. The second thing the book is not is controversial. Rather it presents the stated policy for addressing the challenge. Obama and other officials have said several Times Nuclear iran is unacceptable the United States and do whatever it takes to stop iran from building Nuclear Weapons. I believe the argument of the book is controversial but there was a time in it was. In 2010 and worked as an adviser that is why i came to this conclusion and she also mentioned an article in Foreign Affairs that it made this public for the first time. Because the government or Obama Administration had not taken a public stance and that if diplomacy fails we should learn to live with the nuclear arms to iran during the cold war. So when i wrote my Foreign Affairs article people disagreed strongly with the Opinion Pieces and and in march 2012 there was an interview where he laid out the tradition for the first time that a nuclear arms but iran was unacceptable. And that it wasnt even possible that it cannot be contained. People dismiss this as political rhetoric but his top officials were of middle east policy and the top wm deal official for the first few years but if it comes to that point then i quote them both in the book. So over the past two years the establishment position is of 180degree turn but that to live with the nucleararmed iran that rand paul recently got in hot water for suggesting that the turning one dash deterring and containing should be an option. As a Foreign Policy establishment caught up with the argument advice to think that would help to bring that about. Not arguing that military option is to be the first but all of last resort and second is not controversial for the stated approach to do with the problem. That is enough about what the book is not. The endorsement from the ambassador of the government and what he says in that basket is the most thorough examination of the issues involved and that endorsement means a lot to me because that is what i was trying to do. I was thinking about their arabian Nuclear Issue everyday to convey in the Foreign Affairs article so i wanted to get the information out there to try to write it for everyone regardless of the predisposition. If you cave with the idea of the best way to address it. That is what i try to do to give the guide to journalist or academics anyone who wants to learn more. And with the history of the program all the policy options and third to talk about the resolution of the Iranian Nuclear challenge. So tonight i would like to take some time to discuss each of those three things. First, the history. As many of you may know it began with the Nuclear Cooperation agreement in the 1950s that United States help iran to set up a reactor through the 60s and 70s they were negotiating with the shock to help develop a Nuclear Energy program. Said the United States says is consistent and if not hypocritical because it is willing to help the shot with the Nuclear Program and so there is enough for the job but not the United States to change its position. But our approach elises to encourage the peaceful use of Nuclear Energy technology but to resist the military application as is the policy with the shaw and with iran we are willing to allow them to have peaceful technology but we dont want iran to build a Nuclear Weapons. So the of peaceful discussions with the shaw came to an abrupt and in 1979 myth the revolution and the government shifted and then it iran relations with the United States they came to an end to also iran under the shaw had cooperation agreements with other powers and at the beginning of the leaders are not that interested either the first premier leader Ayatollah Company said it is against the tenets of islam but would change his mind. Iran fatah devastating war with Saddam Hussein and he used chemical weapons many times against forces. That the end of the 80s and the supreme meter change his mind to explain his decision to sign a ceasefire with Saddam Hussein he called it tricking from the poisoned chalice but in a letter to his supporters he said the military position rose hopeless at the time the you would forward to resuming the war with atomic weapons and said is the necessity of war at that time. 1988 with explicit interest. About that time representatives began to meet with a q klein and he was then the news a lot and he transferred to said to yourself atomic bomb kits so i ran godhead jumpstart because of the up pakistan a scientist so throughout the 1980s the United States suspected iran may pursue a Nuclear Weapons program but all doubt was removed do 2012 led the Resistance Group announced he was building facilities in the underground uranium enrichment facility and plutonium produce a new reactor. These are not the piece will technologies the United States had provided the floor of the facilities taylor paid for making material for Nuclear Weapons. At this point the Iranian Nuclear crisis began and we have been dealing with it ever since. So after talking about the history of the program with the president s election of a tawny then i talk about how close is iran to having Nuclear Weapons . Does it want to Nuclear Weapons . What i teach my undergraduates for them to happen there is a supplyside a and they have to build the Nuclear Weapon and also have the will to the supply and demand. But first it has to acquire with the core of the Nuclear Device with enriched plutonium but has to form thats to have the way to deliver that with aircraft Ballistic Missiles are the platforms used. Some people look at that time line we have years to solve this problem but it is misleading because all that matters is the first stage. The reason is right now the United States coming International Committee of the necessary could take military could produce from the raw material but once it gets the material the cave is over. We would not know where it is it would beyond the range and at that point early option is to pray and iran does not build Nuclear Weapons if were serious about options on the table or whatever it takes to build a Nuclear Weapon and then the bad side has to be production of one bombs worth weaponsgrade material. You may hear in public discussions in six months that is where the estimates are how long it would take iran to enrich you have your radio for the first Nuclear Weapon. How long would it take . Right now the best estimates are after iran put these in place the best estimates are that the Supreme Leader made that decision right now it would take roughly two or three months. If we get a a comprehensive deal to reduce iran capabilities it reduces but not by much. It is estimated extended as six months. So it would still be six months away with the worst Case Scenario to have the ability to have Nuclear Weapons. There olmos theyre close to have the ability. What about on the demand side . Craft here we often hear it reported in the media the International Community they try to build weapons but they claim it is only let it is reported with the he said she said story. In the book lets treat this the social scientist by training we have to hypophysis. That iran wants Nuclear Energy, too, and look at the evidence to see what it supports that which hypophysis his most consistent with the evidence. And there are 14 reasons that iran is doing that makes no difference to build a Nuclear Weapon and this makes sense it specifically says to first for the regime to exist and protect the regime and second to deter foreign attacks and third, the leaders specifically say they want iran to be the most dominant stake in the middle east. If that is sure make sense and it allows you to deter foreign tax to acquire Nuclear Weapons to help you become the most dominant state within Nuclear Energy program they dont help you to do those things. So i believe the leaders want Nuclear Weapons and their close to having them. What are the options we have to address the problem . I go through all the options and i see three options as the most viable. First, diplomacy, second featuring iran or third to take a military option. Those are the only three but before i get to those i have a chapter called the nonstarter that people put forward by really want to work. People look at the three real options to say diplomacy might not work but military were determined to war containment there has to be another way. What are the other ways . Some say stop the program through covert action and conduct cyberattacks and damage facilities with the assassinations of scientists and keep doing that. The International Community can do that. Maybe that will stop him but maybe these sensitivities that have been happening for years but every three months just look at the reports its capabilities continue to increase despite all the things thrown at them the program will it advance. But it also shows on its own covert action is not enough. Second to come as some argue maybe we can have a japan model as an option. That is made the every and cared have capability everything it needs if it wanted to it is the screwdrivers turn away but iran will not do the final two screws and we will run with it. That is not serious caesar there is a reason to believe it would stop short once it is where the west cannot stop it there is no reason to believe it would refrain. Some of the japan model becomes the number three a model. Third, what about regime change as an option . People are not talking about george of the bush style but just to wipe the government out. Maybe there is the new revolution, a new government to be more willing to deal with us on a Nuclear Program. And argue that would be nice but this government will not fall any time soon and a Nuclear Clock is ticking faster than the regime change clock so before any new government comes to power. Having dismissed the nine starters in for serious option is diplomacy. So if we could do this diplomatically so contrary to this idea to argue the military option is the best option. So i talk about the history of of negotiations to thousand jews through the interim deal and the various comprehensive deals. That would be the best deal and then to talk about the limited enrichment deal that talk about the advantages storage is advantages. There are the only the them six months away from the Nuclear Weapon breakout capability. And i also talk about a diplomatic plan me because they would not resort immediately to military force depending on the iran behavior after that. We would have two or three months but it is possible or more likely with instead of going immediately to a whopping back to the approach it was pursuing last summer slowly building up the capabilities with more centrifuge so this woman is slowly shrink that time that we would have a year or so before we have to take military action. In to get back one last time to solve this diplomatically. Also weighed need to be realistic. President obama himself said the chance of a comprehensive deal is no better than 50 50. Said to be windy and pfizer puts the chances closer as hero so there has been some optimism expressed but still a sizable chance we can i get a comprehensive deal. Moreover it would not necessarily solve the problem believes iran six was away from capability. As the go through this deal people will stop pouring about iran and that entire midges very tempting to shed done the agreement to build up and it to test 10 years with the regime we currently have in place. So even if we get a comprehensive deal there is a reasonable chance iran will try to sneak out. Because we cannot get a comprehensive deal what happens next . So what is worse . The one option is to give up and acquiesce but the nucleararmed iran everyone agrees it would pose the great threat to International Peace and security. With proliferation to the middle east we should exaggerate this not every country would immediately have weapons over the course of at least one or two other countries could fire one in response. Bb gyp door turkey or syria. That doesnt sound too bad bet it is close come for in 10 or 20 years and were in a Nuclear Crisis and i hope to be around and kicking in 10 years and you hope to as well. I also think leads to proliferation in the region and a rand around the world and become matt risk to be a supplier and my first book called exporting the bomb. Can all analysis done shows iran would be at risk to transfer uranium Enrichment Technology to other countries for further proliferation and in this environment if there is a proliferation i think the global regime more broadly would be weakened. Countries would see the great power that United States was not serious and the regime could collapse leading to widespread proliferation. Second iran would be emboldened and more aggressive. We know it restrains the farm policy because of fears Major Military retaliation but the fed had Nuclear Weapons it could push harder to deter major retaliation through the threat of Nuclear Retaliation to step up to the groups with a more aggressive course to achieve the goal of the most dominant state so even more to become a more croesus prone region we would have us a crisis every few years than the potential for nuclear war. I dont think irans leaders are suicidal and will make up to say it is a good day for nuclear war but i do think it will have geopolitical conflicts of interest and get into a highstakes crisis like the United States and soviet union did like the cuban missile crisis and the risk of things spending and control so some people look back and think Nuclear Deterrence works but i think we were incredibly lucky terror avoid an exchange that is a place that there could be danger for the change. So the region could mean the end of the state of israel. Leaders are not exaggerating saying it is existential and was the can reach the east coast of the United States as soon as next year could result in a Nuclear Attack on the u. S. Homeland. A lot of threats have been posed if they would accept these threats as a deterrence and containment strategy during the cold war but with major commitments to the middle east so likely requires signing a formal defense agreements to sign formal treaties with saudi arabia, both states, israel states, israel, and lets call the spade a spade promising to fight a nuclear war on the gulf states behalf. So during the cold war with the United States be willing to trade in new york to paris . This would mean would they be willing to trade accord to justify the up incredible threat to do things we did during the cold war and deploy a weapon is to make it clear that any attack would potentially result in retaliation. I would likely have to have israel have second to strike capabilities one of the risk would come about because both iran and israel would think they have for strike advantages to help them as as the years second strike capability to launch Ballistic Missiles to make sure of the survival. Event this would be us costly strategy and not like they would have the weapons for one day but to be in place for decades. And i think even with that strategy we cannot deal with the threats by nuclear iran. We could teacher from purposely starting a nuclear war to deter them from purposely transferring to terrorist groups but we cannot do it without that strategy. It was still a chance for technology that we could fight of war, probably not so leaders to understand they can get away with it for a kid my teacher iran from being emboldened and we cannot teach your accidental or interfere like an effort to and torso it is not a good option in. President bush and obama did not agree on a lot but the nuclear arms to iran is unacceptable. So if that is the case, if diplomacy fails that leaves us with one option, the military option. I talk about the military option is not a good option either put the question is is it worse or better . So first i talk about the Israeli Military option they think israel would do it but the problem is they simply dont have the capabilities that destroyed the Key Facilities to are above ground to our belowground. Is real they be able to get one facility with the bunker busting bombs the United States has provided no way they could get the one that is buried under 295 feet of rock. So is really an option is not a good option i think that is agreed upon. But the u. S. Military option is better because we do have the capability to destroy the facility. This was set the program back. Difficult to estimate how much time it would be the most estimates between three and seven years with that is the worst case estimate assuming it decides to immediately be built with no significant obstacles but assume geopolitics have been then the time line becomes much longer so i talk about the four countries historically to have Nuclear Facilities attack, not to germany, iran during the iran iraq war and in thin and the United States and the coalition followed up with strikes of their own and syria had the Nuclear Reactor attack from israel so in all those cases the countries conducting the attack but they would buy time but it is the unforeseen events that run the magic ball at the time that came to pass the end of them have weapons today. So had the minimum that the strike would buy a few years but it is much more likely that geopolitical politics would have been. Another risk most notably you retaliation but it is important not to argue many people say it would lead to world war iii but it is hard to imagine how that would play out. So first look at the capabilities it does not have conventional dietary the pretty to deal with proxy groups in the navy that could cause problems in the persian gulf. Spinach quiche of the gatt the missile attacks and also to attack ships in the gulf but what would iran do . Your facilities have been destroyed but your military is intact your foremost objective of the bureaucratic regime what you do . On one hand you have to strike back he would look like of wind did you didnt domestically and internationally but on the other hand, you dont want to pick up a fullscale war with United States the one country to ensure that it comes to an end so most analysts would aim for a calibrated response to strike back but not too hard. So vague talk about a strategy to mitigate those negative consequences i talk about to issue the deterrent threat to the leaders to make it clear if it gets to this point really destroyed the facility is not overthrowing the regime but if i ran strakes strikes too hard then we would be willing to escalate the conflict then it could be the Supreme Leaders inclination anyway and to trade the program with leading challenges for that calibrated retaliation. Not a good option. Were still taking action against another country. So the chapter that compares the options side by side that i identified 12 of americas most important security objectives. The homeland, to prevent proliferation to protect our allies and then i go through to compare these scenarios and asked how they affect these interest but i show there are several interests clearly better protected if it is clearly rejected by a strike but its some are peter tossups the United States that is unclear so its United States would maintain regional stability it is worse in retaliation so there is a good argument to be made acquiescing is worse for regional stability as a lead leads to a Nuclear Arms Race it is hard to say which option is better for regional stability but it becomes clear there is not a single interest better protected in the shortterm and longterm buy acquiescing. I tell us story as i was working for an adviser as a briefing on the issue choose Senior Defense and military leaders and defense officials like to receive information with the power point slide do shoats days across these interest and interest improved were colored green and interests that remain roughly the same were more neutral were yellow and interests of a particular scenario were orange or red. But first there was not a lot of green but orange and red. But second the nuclear arms to iran side was noticeably a darker so the military strikes the risk paled in comparison quite to literally to the rest of the nuclear arms to iran. The senior most officials looked me in the eye to say it is a nobrainer. I think that is correct visa are bad options but it gets to the point is less that the end of threats approached for the years to come when the administration makes the statement it is unacceptable it is based on sound analysis of what is in the best interests of the country. I will finish by telling a short story in 2006 and was then singapore for a scenario planning conference for policymakers asia, europe, United States come in and this conference was considered for various states of the overall to think creatively twostory doric assumptions of the way the world works then to take a back to the day job. One of the scenarios remember this was 2006 all the people closely follow the International Economy economy, International Politics and the session was a bust everybody said this is just implausible we have not had a crisis since the Great Depression we learned our lesson the Global Economy is so much less and this was going too far. Then enforce Global Financial crisis happened the next year so Desperate Community in general public are being pollyanna about nuclear war. I decided to spend the first 10 years to study Nuclear Proliferation because i do believe that poses the great threat to peace and security i will get the cold war they think were lucky to avoid a nuclear exchange. Are we willing to bet the security of the International System, the security of the country on the argument something has happened in 70 years of live happening again . I spent a lot of time because this is the lifetime if they requires nuclearweapons even though one that could result with an attack on the United States will often say it poses a lot of the greatest threats to security and say it poses the greatest threat to the nine states but we have to be willing to do what it takes with those military strakes has to be one of the tools in the toolbox. When it gets to the point the headed states must take tough action is consistent to International Security we have often been called on tuesday action to take action and it has been prosperity in dealing with the Iranian Nuclear challenge is not different than now was not the time to shirk our responsibilities. Thank you. [applause] if you would please identify yourself. I am with the freedom forest today and in committee Sudan Committee i appreciate your non defeatist and non appeasement presentation. Lead to other than the military option or the of the fed alone option that you spell that out, the mayor, who ran the covert operations came to washington in to present the third option. That he came to the white house first and was frustrated then went on 60 minutes to present the options and to empower a[qfbzbe. Freedom forces of sudan. You supported the opposition with the regime change but with the full id yet to empower people to be free is something the United States has not been good at the and it is not in our culture that the cia culture. And i think this is the third option to throw at you , the onetime we tried it with the grass roots to revolts against the Afghan Resistance and i was involved with that. Rewind. We forced the resistance and that led to six warsaw pact countries and the people going free. So i would like to throw that patio. Thank you. I talk a little bit about and in 2009 as you will recall this is an homage in a shot was elected and running against this movement and to many iranians felt they had been robbed that the Great Movement had won the election but many turned out to the streets says you probably remember and at that time the position and was to keep a low profile because when the Obama Administration came in day have this a dual track approach of pressure in the engagement in they thought by reaching out to do iran that they were different and willing to cooperate that would convince iran. With the election of 2009 the Green Movement takes to the street to stay silent we need the government as the partner with negotiations and 01 two embarrass them. Bled to lose the opportunity with the Green Movement to be demoralized. But with the election of 2389 dash 2013 that is as strong as ever. To the more moderate it is still the candidate of slates so to power passed without controversy or protest to the handpicked candidate so that shows the current government is even stronger. Sows United States is doing some things to encourage democracy to provide Information Technology to allow opposition to communicate and organize there are some steps in that direction that could do more but we still have the same problem from the opening remarks that the current government is Strong Enough now it is hard to see how they fall in time to solve the Nuclear Program to engage in in these negotiations the deadline to get the deal on july 20th is the possibility of extension through january 20 it is hard to see how the regime falls and the government comes to power. If they do that is great but i think it is unlikely. I was disturbed by the title of your book and was more encouraged fact you were favorably disposed but as i listen to you with said diplomatic efforts that we proceed down that path i ran can break out within a few weeks to have the Nuclear Weapon and they are likely to cheat so to put that is my first point. Second, why are you not as concerned about your story as i rand . What is the big difference . We have come to except but they could hit the allies with missiles now. So we have gotten used to have that situation but for with every and it is totally unacceptable. I gather the wild card is israel. But i would like your thoughts on that. Finally adult taking paid enough attention to the other detrimental effects of the attack. Of every and will certainly go full force forward with the program and any doubt that is the case will be removed as a prime objective van second this could unite the i read people behind the government that is a huge disadvantage. So first he said was the language said you used but i do think that diplomatic option is the best but i do think we have to be realistic there is the good chance we will not give a comprehensive deal obama says less than 50 50 and it is possible even if we do that could unravel but it even if that is the case we should pursue it because one of the advantages of the military strike is diplomacy also buys time that iran does not make that final dash choose the Nuclear Weapon and with a comprehensive deal the International Community needs to maintain a laser focus to make sure it is not ended an attempt to break out. I think but as long as we can keep that to delay the capability is a good thing. That is the best way forward but we have to be realistic probably not a permanent solution but we can buy time. Second, north korea, the main difference between iran and north korea is already tuesday to it is estimated to have between six and seven Nuclear Weapons. We dont know where they are so we dont have an option. We did win he seriously considered a strike many people advocated many people said recently that they were right we should have taken in action in 1994 and if we had taken in action may should not deal with those so it transfer the technology to build a Nuclear Reactor and they attack the south korean warship in north korea is engaged in the allies that makes it much harder even with threats against us you might remember with los angeles and austin, texas with a few other things. Some of these are the things we would have to worry about that iran would likely become more aggressive than vintage of the year we have not even seen the full range consequences 2006 was the first test so we could have saved for believing but the main difference with iran it is not too late but it is too late for north korea. But in terms of the cost of military action there are a lot of cost i am the have 30 minutes here the other costs is in the books i would encourage you to look at that. You said if there is any doubt iran would fill the weapons that the strike would convince them to go all the way i argue i think they have already made that decision there is no way to explain that behavior except they have decided to build Nuclear Weapons and the Supreme Leader has been building this up for decades it is naive for us to think he has not bought what he wants to do with it. I point out if that is a concern to be mitigated completely with the timing of the strike if we strike tomorrow night if there on the offensive could change their mind but we should tie it to the real red light if they are approaching that is a real military red line that is when we should take action if it reaches that 90 offered kicking nine inspectors the they are dashing to the weapon similar only create the possibility of the nonnuclear outcome. Uniting the iranian people that is almost certain of rallying around the flag and the regime becomes popular but we also know that those are shortlived and people who understand domestic politics much better than me from the nonproliferation in perspective by the military strategy point of view but s. A. Say they will rally round the flag but long term to create opportunities to criticize the governments leading to iran having that program destroyed. They cannot just look at the cost of one side of the ledger but one of the things his domestic politics in that also strengthens the regime to make the argument they steer the ship of state through the crisis to maintain the program one of only 10 States Saunders with that power and that is to be locked in longer because there is only then one country that has ever given up do clear weapons and that would reap the benefits of that overtime. Difficult issues but they can my own view taking days into account do is how bad is strike purses acquiescing i am a member of the council here for some years. My house was built 1954. We have been in the state of belligerence with the iranian government since that time. Much instigated by the United States were the democratically elected president. The iranians have a point of view is that ostensibly like other countries have a right to selfdetermination but we talk about them as if they are upon on the chessboard id like our diplomacy to spread out and respect other peoples history and how they view us. Were not innocent but in respect for history or culture with the amazing civilization i have no problem with the iranian people and most people in the government says see their bet the sponsorship is what the focus eight but it does the plaintive you that i completely agree with but also to defer attack that acquiring weapons make sense from their point of view if i was the adviser i dont know what i would devise but given the goals that makes sense. The problem is the International System there is no world government this is what i teach in International Relations courses so people do things that are in their own interest that affects other states of what may be good for our brand but very bad for the stability of the you a middle east. When i become see. My new is scared of one dash my name is taylor of the. And were pretty happy were on the target list. [laughter] hell about deteriorating issues affect the soft power it had to change the response to shortterm military action . So i think we can we should hope in a way that they stay isolated. But i think if russia played play the spoiler role and iran we could make it diplomatic settlement even harder. Thanks so much for the talk. My name is will pitino and im a student in u. S. Foreign policy at american university. Again thank you so much for the comments about the cold war and how we have been pretty lucky. I think thats a poignant point to make. I also was interested to hear more about your thoughts about this demand issue that you brought up. I feel like if you could expand on that a little bit more. I guess if there are ways that the u. S. Can in its geopolitical calculus work to reduce the demand that again if he could address that a little more id appreciate it. Thank you. Well the whole thing several things come to mind. There are different factions within iranian politics of a lot of the talk of iran is a coherent entity and often in Foreign Policy we talk about coherent entities that there are different factions in iran so there hardliners and the parliament who strongly believe iran should be the most dominant state in the region. They need to acquire Nuclear Weapons do that. They see a diplomatic settlement with what they call the United States access threatening to iran what it stands for. They think iran stands for persistence they see negotiations in a deal as something to be avoided. On the other hand you do have more moderate forces in iran and rouhani the current president in the foreign mr. Represent that point of view. I think they think that International Isolation is not good for iran and they understand the economy is being badly damaged and so they would like to get relief and theyre willing to put curbs on the Nuclear Program in order to get that but the important thing to point out is that the Supreme Leaders the ultimate Decision Maker in the iranian system so the Supreme Leader hearing all these viewpoints and making the final decision. Historically the Supreme Leader has been more on the hardline camp than a moderate camp and so i think to try to read this i think what he is trying to do is have his cake and e it too. He would like to have Nuclear Weapons or at least he advanced Nuclear Weapons possible and get sanctions relief and i think that is what iran is trying to achieve in these negotiations. In terms of addressing the demand in Foreign Policy we often talk about using carrots and sticks. Promising carrots or inducements for Good Behavior threatening sticks for bad behavior. What many people have looked at this problem have said is that we really have to rely on the stakes because we knew that the benefits theres nothing we can promise iran that is more valuable than in the rear weapons capability that would allow them to determine from attack and become the most ominous state in the region so therefore the key is threatening without a deal we will be able to crank up economic crusher and at the end of the day take military action. So i think i agree with that point of view that the key to addressing this issue isnt addressing demand because i dont think theres anything that could possibly promise iran that is more valuable than to say we have tried Peaceful Nuclear technology and trying other things and i have a uninterested. I think the key is making it clear we can threaten more economic pain and politari action if they dont accept this deal that they dont roulan. My name is tom retired u. S. Government. I have two very different questions. The first one is more substantive. We keep talking about two or three months or six months. Is this based on what the ie ae is doing and related to that is what kind of thing are we going to get out of the six months out of his current agreement that is going to be better so they wont cheat the old trust but verify story. The second one trickier. You might want to comment on it is i was pretty sure that obama was i was believing in obamas red line until he had this critical juncture on syria where the congress and the American People got to fill out opinion polls and so if the diplomatic option fails who is going to decide . First on the trust but verify issue and we were actually fortunate enough to have ali haman in the audience who worked at the iaea on the portfolio for many years so thank you for coming out late. I should turn this one over to you but the two to three months is how long it would take iran if they decided immediately to to then weapons 90 and the other thing i talk about in the book is very Good International Atomic Agency access to the iranian facilities so now the iaea inspectors are visiting facilities i believe every day or close to everyday. And the conference of deal we want to get that kind of access. Also as part of the interim deal allowed access to places we have never had access before. They allowed us to access uranium mining and milling facilities that we have guys on the program. We got a conference of deal that would need to be part of it. Of course you dont know what you dont know. Its possible they have secret facilities that we dont know about in the iaea doesnt know about that there are good reasons to believe that there are secret facilities we know about. So the good news is if we get the conference of deal and if iran try to cheat we could catch them and the bad news we would only have six months to do it create so i share your concern. Its clear that the same as clear on the red line in syria and backing off his been damaging to u. S. Credibility. I have a colleague in east asia talking with their allies in seoul and in tokyo and she said she was surprised at how often syria president said he was going to use force and what is that mean or security commitments and can we count on the United States . Do we need to take her security in our own hands . Because of that our are commitments are being called into question everywhere including on iran. The president has said hes willing to use force and ive taught to some of his closest advisers and they swear he says the same thing Available Office that he says in public that he wants to solve this diplomatically and doesnt want to have to use force but hes not going to allow if he doesnt have to. The problem is nobody believes that. The president does in a couple of his close advisers do and i do now that ive talked to them but the sense is the American Public doesnt believe obama and i sense the iranians and israelis dont believe its so i think in some ways thats the worst possible situation. The president is willing to use force but nobody believes it and in that situation iran might be tempted to cross those red lines and you get into a war that couldve been avoided if we had more credibility. Its hard to address the issue in the talk in the book about things United States can do to increase the credibility of diplomacy breaks down. Being more explicit about what the red lines are would be more helpful and if the president made a clear Statement Like you did in syria i think of diplomacy breaks down asking congress for having congress provide an authorization use military force would help to amend credibility and also engaging in more robust outreach with our friends and allies abroad to make sure that its clear that they know we are serious in the iranians see that we are taking these steps. All those that help increase credibility to the thread and the romans used to say if you want peace prepare for war so i think that would be the purpose and the steps you would have to go through to prepare for war but if iran sees it and believes it they might be deterred from crossing the red lines. Thanks matt. I want to offer a couple of nuances here. First of all i like your analysis as such but we all know the story of 1001 nights when sarah was buying time. They wanted to buy time so that he doesnt get killed. During an air crisis might clock starts somewhere in 2002 so we have depending where you put your line 4001 nights. I think what has happened to us it became a hostage, second hostage crisis. Iac a thing in between. Iran doesnt really test Nuclear Weapon manufacturing. Its limited resources and it doesnt make sense. They do what you talk how to deal with the middle east and how to embolden etc. This is difficult for the International Community to deal with because iran blames their right to do x or y etc. And theres no proof that they have violated their npt undertakings. So the International Community is in a bit of a bind here. When i look today two months, three months, six months first of all when i worked at the nia six months is an extremely small period of time if you want the International Community to act. You should keep keep that when one in mind. The second one is what do we know about the Nuclear Program . This is based on the numbers we know. There are also numbers and therefore this next deal but theres another interim deal for a longer deal actually has to address that point. To bring clarity to make sure the iranian declarations are complete. Its a blue honda blue heart pumping air. [inaudible] president rouhani was advocating two days ago goes much further. It has to be the way it was in the 1960s in russia where information was provided to the other party in such a way that it was able to verify the statements without going to the country. So this is a new challenge which in my view should be part of the interim deal. I think its a great book. I have not yet read it but i will do it during the week. Thank you for those comments ali and thank you so much for coming. I think you raise an excellent point that if we are going to do things in a conference of deal is to be in Greater Transparency more than what they iaea can define and that would be great. On this challenge that you propose of irans stopping just short of the line and staying there i think thats a possible option but i think thats not a longterm stable option. I dont see why iran would stop short in getting that close. Again if irans major goals are to be able to deter a foreign attack having an advanced facility doesnt allow you to deter foreign attack. Having Nuclear Weapons and the ability to retaliate does that to become the most dominate in the middle east within and advanced Nuclear Program had and japan has an advanced Nuclear Program and is not the most advanced state in asia. That might be the stopping point somewhere along the way but if it gets that point some point iran will cross but reasonable people can disagree. Thank you very much matt for speaking us today. Please join me in thanking him. [applause] copies of mass book will be available for sale and signing. Thank you. [inaudible conversations] anna holmes talked about jezebel. Com and her book the book of jezebel from the gaithersburg