Significant divisions within the saudi elite right now, within the government. Contradictoryhe messages may continue and may not signal much more than that they are not sure what to do. The gentleman back there. Larry feinberg. How does this agreement differ from the agreement they negoti from the agreements negotiated the last 20 years or so . Im going to take that because ive actually covered north korea. You know, there are two and allergies that come up all the time. One is 1938 unique but not seize, which is ridiculous on so many levels. Iran is not not see germany. The other is north korea. [inaudible] yeah. The nature of the regimes are different but also, the agreements are different. Look, in some sense of the argument that one hears is the North Koreans cheated and therefore the iranians will cheat. Lets look with the agreed framework was about. This was the 1994 agreement clinton reached with kim jong ill. They agreed to mothball the plutonium are wracked need coke reactor plutonium reactor that would be built primarily by the United States for lets see, how many years . Almost ten years the agreement actually worked. To the extent of the North Koreans kept their plutonium reactor mothballed the United States delivered heavy fuel oil, however the u. S. Deliveries were often late because congress often would not appropriate the money on time. This was a perpetual problem with the koreans talked about you and the light water reactors when they began construction they were never completed. Negotiations continued with the North Koreans. Madeleine albright, Wendy Sherman went to north korea in 2000 and i went with them about negotiating a deal on the missiles as well, and the negotiations went well. They went so well that bill clinton had to decide and fli ia coin at the end this presidency whether going to go to north korea or if he was going to try to finalize an arabisraeli Peace Agreement he and he decided for the arabisraeli Peace Agreement. Wrong choice. He probably could have gotten the north korean agreement. George w. Bush came in. Colin powell wanted to pick up where clinton left off. He had his hat handed to him. He was humiliated for making that statement. John bolton who was in charge of nonproliferation, state department, went about leaking information that the North Koreans might have a secret program to enrich uranium and there was a confrontation in 2002, and low and behold the North Koreans admitted they were indeed investigating and richmond and the whole deal fell apart. The North Koreans left v. Npt, building reactor and tested weapons. There were other agreements wert were reached with the North Koreans. In 2005 there was an agreement that was reached with the North Koreans that broke and this is certainly true. The nature of that agreement is that they would stop on the plutonium reactor that they wouldnt go down the uranium enrichment path and in return they would get serious concessions. They are different deals. Yes of course the regimes are different so this is important. North korea is a bizarre proprietary dictatorship that relies almost entirely on support from one country, china. Into the food aid that it has been able to teach out of the United States and other countries and the un over the years. That is north korea. The deal that we are discussing now with iran i think is quite different. You know, the nature of the sanctions relief is quite different. And i just dont see that they are comfortable comparable. We may promise to build light water reactors if they mothballed the plant. I suppose this is possible. But i just dont see the two situations being the same coming and i dont think it is appropriate to make that comparison. I think we have to take each case on its own merit. We have to make sure we have verification, and this is something that is built into this agreement. The North Koreans kicked out the iaea. For years we didnt know what they were doing and to this day they havent permitted the kind of inspection that iran has routinely allowed under the government. I think we have a better sense of what the government is up to and the iranians are also not as far along in terms of their ability to build weapons. The North Koreans had been working on their plutonium agreement in the 1980s coming and when they reached the agreed framework in the United States it was believed they already have enough plutonium for at least one or possibly two Nuclear Weapons. So that was more of an emergency situation that had to be stopped right at that second. I dont see them, but perhaps you all have Something Else you want to add to that. A gentle man here. [inaudible] i used to work for the state department. It seems to me the key thing here is congress. Many members of the Republican Party are determined not to give president obama a victory at any cost. And im just worried that this agreement will get caught up in that kind of politics. What is the role of congress has to play on this agreement . Its not on the treaty. At some point i guess it will be a treaty. If thats not the case . I dont envision this is rarely having to be a treaty that congress is nevertheless the key because this is the difference between the european sanctions and the american sanctions created the europeans pass the executive branch is the 27 or 28 Foreign Ministers have a meeting and they sign onto it with a stroke of the pen sanctions are there and the sanctions are gone. None of the National Legislators are involved in this process. Anything that goes through the legislative process takes much more time and has flexibility and is by design created to take time to make sure there arent any faster changes. The american sanctions or a spiders web according to the report. I think it was a very good formulation. Its very difficult to move one without moving all. And most importantly, the key sanctions, the biggest sanctions or architecture that go through congress. And only congress can lift sanctions. If it was only executive orders, the president again with the stroke of a pen can take them away. They disappear. But if its a congressional act only congress can undo them. And this creates a significant difficulty, because we are in an unprecedented, partisan atmosphere it appears. Congress and the president brought us to a Government Shutdown which people didnt think would happen and then it happened and it almost brought us to a default without a significant repercussions of the global economy. Stopping a deal with iran is nothing compared to all of that. For 34 years, there has not been a conversation on capitol hill about lifting the sanctions. At most, at the outmost generosity of the members, the conversation has been we will be ladies new sanctions for three weeks. That is the best that we have had so far. Its going to be now a completely different paradigm. You have to decide the members from both sides of the idle that will put their name on the legislature that essentially authorizes the congress to lift the sanctions. Obviously this cannot come until the very end of the process. Also, the iranian counter concession, which is to ratify the additional particle that will have to go through their parliament and the sad thing is its visible now how the parliament is taking up bad things from congress on how to create more difficulty than just be impossible to deal with. But also you have to point out that not all of the sanctions will have to be lifted. The ones related to terrorism and human rights treaties only the Nuclear Related sanctions that are specified. They will have sanctions between them for a long time. The question is the relief that the others might get from the agency and others would be sufficient to seal the deal. You can correct me on this one. Maybe people in the audience know better, but i understand that there were sanctions against the former soviet union that remained for some 20 years after the soviet union had disappeared. The political act of Getting Congress to reverse them is very cumbersome. The other thing that i experienced when i was working at the state department on the affairs it was when you spoke individually to the many members of congress on both sides, people were very reasonable and sensible on this issue. But when it came to a vote in a public statement, these things past by very large margins and its clear the president and the Administration Strategy is to avoid another vote because even if the sanctions are even if it is nonbinding this is very difficult to explain to the iranians. Just a 32nd History Lesson here. In 1979, in the spring the United States appointed a new ambassador to revolutionary iran. This was a confidence building measure. Something that he revolutionaries said they wanted as a sign of american goodwill. While that ambassador was submitted to tehran, Congress Passed a nonbinding resolution condemning the excesses of the revolutionary courts. And in tehran, people went wild. The media, everyone just went on a frenzy of denunciation and sank the nomination in terms of explaining as we attempted to do the embassy attempting to say that this is a nonbinding resolution we got nowhere. So yes, the possibility its good that you raise this and the possibility of something this repeating what happened and derailing the process is still very much out there. We have time for a couple of more. Wait for the microphone, please. I work over at the United States senate. My question is regarding what implications do you think this deal has for the sticking points between the United States and the iranian government you mentioned terrorism and things like that. What do you think that this signals Going Forward . I think that this was a necessary first step that we were never going to be able to have the discretion of the theory or hezbollah or the 500 Political Prisoners from the 2009 elections still being under house arrest but it would be difficult to have those conversations without a Nuclear Agreement. Now that we have a Nuclear Agreement it is my hope that we can broaden the conversation. I would like to see a restoration of diplomatic relations thats not going to happen obviously for lionel. But if we have routine conversations between john kerry and javad zarif and others on a lower level that i but it does p a lot of prospects popped next month in january there is going to be a conference in geneva on serious and most likely the iranians will be there along with the saudis and russians and others. John do you want to add anything . I for one have always advocated a broad agenda with iran. And it always seemed to me that the Nuclear Issue was that there were issues that were so vital to each side on issues of legality and nonproliferation, issues of National Pride that this was going to be very difficult to resolve. And that would have happened is that we were if you pardon the expression holding the whole relationship hostage to the Nuclear Issue, which is a very tough one to go. I would say, however, that although some people within the administration agree with me in general, that line of argument got nowhere. And its very clear that at least within the context of the p5 1 its all new clear all the time, and until that issue gets maybe there are signs of progress and it was interesting to me for example the president spoke after this deal was reached. I didnt hear him say anything about a new beginning. What he had said in 2009. I think i dont know, but i suppose at this time that that would be a bridge too far in terms of this administration and they are saying look this is the major issue and this is what we are going for. One small thing to add. Sean is right. I was in complete agreement with him that the agenda would have made things easier. Now they manage to get the first deal and both sides were focused only on the Nuclear Issue for the first time. Even though it hasnt resulted in that theres going to be a joint interest to expand because now theyve gotten over the first hurdle and now they need a whole set of other issues in which they can collaborate on to build maximum trust, maximum confidence in order to make sure that the nuclear track is protected and as solid as possible so that the inevitable difficulties that it will run into will not derail it by making sure that they are hedging it with a couple other issues. There have been conversations on the human rights issues. It appears to have been something in regards because he was going in and out of the hotel as we were going there. I think all of that is very much positive because at the end of the day or the fact that the United States and iran could interview with each other in spite of their agreements, the fact that they couldnt even talk to each other exasperated not only all of their other problems but almost every other problem now when it has been normalized there is no longer going to be a headline in any newspaper if they pick up the phone and call. That is no longer news. I think the possibility is good to be quite great. It doesnt mean they are going to become friends with the two countries are going to become on a fantastic path. But they are walk away from the brink of disaster. That sounds like a great place to stop. I want to thank you for your questions and for coming tonight. [applause] held a conference on defense related topics recently including the iran nuclear deal, u. S. Budget negotiations and the militarys upcoming withdrawal from afghanistan. One of the participants was forwarded to provide official Michelle Flournoy. Bumiller elisabeth of the New York Times moderated this discussion. Thank you all for coming. And im sorry that i am not nick, but here i am and im pulling myself together. Im going to briefly introduce michele and phillip. We were all at aspen and i see a table h of these could number of people in the audience that were in considerably Better Weather last summer. So, Michelle Flournoy is the Senior Adviser at the Boston Consulting Group prayer. From 2009 to 2012 she was the undersecretary for defense policy. And then she was the principle advisor to the secretary defense and the violation of the National Security defense policies and oversight of military plans and operations and so forth. I interviewed her a number of times. She was very cautious. She never told us very much. Shes also a senior fellow for science and International AffairsCommittee Member of the policy board. She cofounded the center for the new American Security think tank that you all know and she is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group. So, zelikow is a professor of history at the university of virginia and is also the dean leading the graduate school of arts and sciences. Im going to put that on my resume. I like that. Soon after they became a trial and appellate lawyer in texas doing for mobile justice and civil rights work. There is so much more here. He was an adviser to secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. When i first met him, the council of the department of state hes a member of the president s intelligence Advisory Board and he was for president bush and president obama and he has written a number of books. Germany unified. Statecraft is a good one. He wrote that with Condoleezza Rice and most importantly he is a member of the Aspen Strategy Group that he directed from 2,000 to 2003. I will sort by asking michele and fill up a few questions and then i will open up to the audience. We are in a transitional period for American Defense strategy. Are there lessons . Thathat is a build down from lat summer of the pentagon. Are there lessons in earlier periods in history that can help guide us now . What dont you answer that question. Good afternoon everyone. Its wonderful to see so many familiar faces around the table. I do think there are some lessons to be learned from our history in terms of periods like this where we are coming out of a period of war and we are facing very severe budget pressures on the Defense Budget. There are two lessons that come to mind. First is a strategic lesson and that is when america comes out of a period of war we are tempted to turn to allow the sort of isolationist impulses that have come and gone throughout history to assert themselves quite powerfully. When i look out at the world, with fundamental changes happening with new powers rising changing the key regions of asia to the middle east, turmoil in the middle east and continued challenges of terrorism, all kind of challenges, very dynamic, volatile environment and