Free the palestinians. Expect to be ready for a state in two years. That was meant to say, if we are successful and somehow become ready, in the sense of being able to govern ourselves effectively and handle obligations responsibly and seen this way by the International Community and, therefore, effectively answering the questions that were really put forward in 2001 and 2002 and 2003 and all that. If we were able to do this and reduce this whole issue to occupation period, not occupation but the idea was that this was going to be Strong Enough to bring about the transformation necessary to settle the solution. What the problem wasbility inspiring ourselves to get ready for statehood in three years and tell the people beforehand. The idea was not to try to say, we took a test and passed it without announcement. But to preannounce the. That was an important part pof it. To go out and say and this is what we did in august of 2009, two years we expect to be rae t ready for statehood. We actually said the same thing in a good way. Well be ready. Are you going to be ready for us . Do the necessary things. You know, in a technical sense we succeeded because year and a half into this, we got the commission. Recognition of the reality of this and it was people gave us the reality of state of palestine. April of 2011 was very significant date for us for the palestinians. Very, very significant date. A year and a half into the adoptation of that program we got testimonials by Relevant International institutions. And the United Nations. Capable of delivering stap cards of countries that have been around for a long period of time and whats really most significant . Its too bad that it is not regenerated the information necessary on the political side. Its relevant today. That process of transfar maorma is needed. In order to bridge that gap between the maximum for israel and the minimum acceptable to us, that needs to be allowed to evolve and to emerge. Its not going to really happen to anybody or for anybody. Its going to be in the interest of everyone. It certainly would be the palestinians have been so desperate looking to be able to learn with dignity and freedom of country and thats really what this is fundamentally about and thats something that required building and fluid and serious transformation. Thats what this is about. Thank you. There are so many more questions in the audience and im sorry we havent got time to get to them. Let me just close by saying, first of all, the text of his full statement will be available out in the foyer and also, online at atlantic council. Org. Secondarily, let me quote my friend tom friedman one more time in the article he wrote when you resigned as prime minister. He essentially said to the palestinians, had messages to various people from in his excellent column. People may want to look at because but he said if theres no place, quote, if theres no place for a solemn fayad type of leadership and independent palestine will forever allude you. I think we heard today in these comments why tom wrote that and i think a lot of us in this room and perhaps, jane harmon is right. All of us in this room may agree with that. Thank you so much for your service and joining the atlantic council. Were delighted that we can work what you. And best of luck to you and your people in the region. Thank you. Thank you. In the last 13 years there have been several alternative theories regarding the september 11th 2001 terrorist attacks. Join us tomorrow when we explore the theories. Richard gage, the founder of architects and engineers for 9 11 truth will be joins us and talk about his groups position and take your call starting at 9 15 a. M. Eastern for washington journal live on cspan and and on saturday more on conspiracy theories with news week. And the recent article the plots to destroy america. Hell talk about that and well take your call. Thats saturday morning at 9 15 eastern on washington journal. Live on cspan. While congress is in recess well have events from watergate on its anniversary. American history tv on cspan3. Joo author sylvia dukes morris is our guest on this weeks q and a. She was so beautiful and smart and which they that she became witty, she was so irresifsable to men. Even in old age i gave her 80th Birthday Part party and Richard Cohen the washington columnist was at the party and they sat together after dinner having coffee and at one point she begins to stroke his beard and afterwards he said, heavens, ive never met an 18yearold before that i wanted to leap into bed with. She had this seductive quality her entire life. Sylvia dukes morris on the life and career of claire booth luke and sharing about their personal relationship during her final years. Thats sunday night at 8 00 pacific. The lead u. S. Negotiator with the iran Wendy Sherman testified before the Senate ForeignRelations Committee on tuesday. A july 20th deadline to reach a deal was recently extended by four months. The hearing includes a Treasury Department update on the ongoing sanctions against iran plus the views of former obama and george w. Bush administration advisers. This is just over 2 hours and 40 minutes. This hearing will come to order. We have two may nells today to give us an overview of the status of the p5 plus one talks and looking back what we learned over the last six months and looking ahead at what f what might change between now and november that ultimately gets us the type of deal that we are hopeful for. What id like to hear from our witnesses who have been across the table from the iranians given the underwelshing concession is what youve learned that leads you to believe we can reach a kprae whennive deal in the next four months. I think that everyone knows where i stand. Ive been skeptical of the iranians sincerity from day one. And i cannot say that i am any less skeptical stayed than i was six months ago. I do not believe tehran has had a change of heart about its Nuclear Program. If it did, i would think that the whole militariation part of it would have to be negotiated. I think it should have been up front from the beginning in order so we could define truly the nature of these negotiations in a way that the world would not just suspect but iran was pursuing a Nuclear Weapons but would know it. I believe that the iranians want relief from sanctions and thats why theyre at the table. I also believe we have leverage in this negotiation. And that we should use it to get a good deal and if not a good deal than no deal at all. On that ill say that i joined with the Administration Many times and secretary sherman has on different occasions, publicly and privately, said that no deal is better than a bad deal. But lately i hear refrains from the administration, if no deal, what . Which suggests that, in fact, if we have no deal or or those that suggest thats a choice between getting some type of a deal or having to go to a military action, i reject that as a choice. I believe that there are significant steps in between that lead as far from that ultimate conclusion. And im also concerned when i hear, if no deal, what, because that implies that you have to get a deal at any cost. And so, i know that there are those at the disarmament community and the editorial pages who suggest that those of us who want to really make sure that we get a good deal, somehow, have this pension for words. I find it particularly amusing as it relates to myself. I was one of the handful of people that voted against the war in iraq at the time it was overwhelmingly popular to vote for war. So as someone who has followed this for 20 years from my days in the house of representatives on the house Foreign Relations committee to the president , i know that the iranians have gotten us to a point that if i define the International Community, we now accept things that we would have never thought were acceptable. Levels of enrichment. Changing their facility. Not closing their facility. Changing the nature of their plutonium reactor and so they have succeeded in moving us well along the lines of what they ultimately wanted by defying the International Community. And including the present president of iran who has boasted about that while he was moving that program along he was able to keep the west from significantly sanctions iran. So if past is prolog my skepticism is well rooted. I i want to know if you think a extension would give us a good deal, postpones breakout. Dismantles irans elicit Nuclear Infrastructure and puts us in place in a longterm inspection verification and monitoring regime. And calibrates sanctions ree leaf to specific bench mamarben. I want to be very clear. Im not looking for the state departments talking points today. I want to hear from our panelists why they believe, based on their experience over the last six months for, four additional months will make a difference. The committee needs to hear what happened at negotiating table that brought iran closer to their view of a deal if only they had another four months. Let me close by saying, what i have always said. I support the administrations diplomatic efforts. Ive always supported a bipartisan twotrack policy of diplomacy and sanctions. At the same time, ive always believed that we should only relieve pressure on iran in exchange for longterm verifiable concessions that will fundamentally dismantle Irans Nuclear program. And that any deal be structured in such a way that alarm bells will sound from vienna and washington, months you and beijing, should iran restore its program any time in the next 20 or 30 years. I also want to be clear that i do not support another extension of negotiations. At that point iran will have dpaused its opportunity to put real concessions object table and ill be prepared to move forward with sanctions. With that, senator corker for his remarks. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to say that i think those are excellent opening comments and i think there has been bipartisan concern about where iran is. Actually, looking at the notes from october of 2013 where i think, wendy and david both were here. And we talked about the extraordinary effort internationally, that had been put in place to get iran where they were when these negotiations began and i think the statement you mentioned, and hopefully, this will play out in this way, but irans compliance with the u. N. Security Council Resolutions, would be the ultimate test as to whether theyll really were willing to deal with us in the appropriate way. I think all of us wish you well and i dont know a sole that doesnt want to see this resolved in a diplomatic way. I know weve had a number of brieftion, classified and some unclassified and ill say in fairness, the chairman is right. In each case, on the important issues, we feel the goalpost move. In march the issue of enrichment was basically agreed to. Its going to be difficult to walk that back but then on so many other issues that are related and tied to this, we see the goalpost, again, continue to move. I know that davids testimony today has done a good job, i think, with sanctions. Hes going to talk about the relieve that iran is getting during this next fourmonth extension. All of us are concerned that the, rightly so, i think yall are concerned too, the International Community having come together to put pressure on iran the way that we have, is dissipating and will be very difficult to bring back together if we end up in the wrong place here. So ill close. I think the chairmans comments speak well for most of the committee, candidly and ill close by saying this. I hope that today you will publicly commit that there will be absolutely no more extensions. None no matter where we are at the end of this fourmonth period there will not be additional extensions. Well either come to a final agreement or not because i think people are very, very concerned about what happens if we have a series of rolling interim agreements, if you will, and secondly, i hope youll commit as jean kerry said, there needs to be congressional buyin. I hope youll agree to some format that gives congress the ability to weigh in on this final deal. I know everybody says sanctions cannot be weighed without congress, well, they can. They can be waived without congress weighing in. I believe that acknowledging congress playing a role in one of the biggest issues that this administration is going to deal with, relative to reaching an agreement, relative to nuclear issues, i think that congress can be an important and valuable backstop to the administration as they negotiate this because i know that congress has sent out very, very strong signals as to what they believe, what we believe, would be an acceptable arrangement. So thank you for being here. I appreciate your service to our yes. I appreciate the updates that we received by phone and in person. And again, all of us want to see this cut success but are very concerned about where we are at this moment. Thank you, senator corker. For the record, your full statements will be included in the record without objection. Ill ask you to summarize in about five minutes tore so, so we can enter into a dialogue with you and with that, madam secretary, youre recognized. Good morning. Thank you chairman menendez and desting wished members of the kwom. Im pleased to be here with undersecretary cohen to discuss the status of negotiations related to Irans Nuclear program as you say you have my wrain statement so i will summarize its key points. Mr. Chairman, and members, our goal is to prevent iran from obtaining a Nuclear Weapon. The diplomatic process in which weir currently engaged was designed to achieve e that goal peacefully and durably. We have a basic metric for a good agreement. One that cuts off all of irans potential paths to a Nuclear Weapon. The plutonium path with the current iraq reactor. The path through the underground facility and the path through swift breakout at the enrichment plant and the path that would occur in secret which well deal with through intrusive measures and well tie our sanctions relief to irans performance, only providing the leaf to iran after it has taken verifiable steps as part of a comprehensive agreement and maintain if capacity to tighten the pressure if iran fails to comply. I cannot tell you today that our diplomacy will succeed because im not sure that it will. I can tell you that, in the past six months, we have made significant and steady progress. Weve exchanged ideas, narrowed gaps on key issues and identified areas where more hard work is required. For instance, weve had productive discretions about how to reduce the dangers are posed by facilities. About the protocol necessary four transparency and about the disposition of irans stockpiles of enriched uranium. No issues have been neglected and none have been finally decided because nothing is graded until everything is agreed and on some we still have substantial differences including the question of enrichment capacity. As you know, mr. Chairman theres a limit to how detailed i can be in this open session and still preserve the leverage we need in support of the goal we seek however the bottom line is that although serious obstacles do remain were moving in the right direction. For that reason, roughly two weeks ago, the parties to the negotiation agreed to extend our deliberations for foour additional months. We agreed because we had seen significant process in the negotiating room and because we can see a path forward however difficult to get atoy comprehensive plan of action. Well use this time to work toward that comprehensive plan to ensure iran doesnt obtain a Nuclear Weapon and its program is exclusively peaceful. I note that a year ago Irans Nuclear program was growing and becoming more dangerous with each passing day. Thats no longer the case. Last noch, the first step in this northern yags we reached consensus on a joint plan of action in return for limited and targeted sanctions relief, iran agreed to freeze and roll back key elements of its nuclear activities. In fact, the jpoa has temporarily blocked each of the paths around we need to go down to build a Nuclear Weapon. Many observers openly doubted whether iran would keep its commitments under the joint plan. According to the the iaea iran did what it promised to do during these past six months and the result is a Nuclear Program thats more constrained, more transparent and better understood that it was a year ago. A program thats been frozen for the first time in almost a decade. Sanctions for iran will remain limited to amounts that will do good will if anything to heal irans economic problems. Over the next four months the valuable safeguards that freeze Irans Nuclear program will remain in place as we strive to negotiate a comprehensive and longer term plan. Ill be blunt and say that well never rely on words alone when it comes to iran. We have and well insist that commitments be monitored and verified in terms of access and inspection you thoroughly spelled out. Our goal is to structure an agreement to make any attempt to break out of such an agreement so visible and so time consuming that iran would be either deterred from trying or stopped before it could succeed. Speaking more generally i want to emphasize that engagement on one issue does not require and will not lead to silence on others. The United States will not hesitate to express its view and to put pressure on iran when it is warrant, whether in relgts to the governments abysmal human rights record, its support for terrorism or its outright hostility toward israel or detention och political prisoners, journalists and american citizens. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on the issue were united in our goals. Were determined that a reason not obtain a Nuclear Weapon. It is only because of the leverage created by the executive and legislative branches of this government by our allies and partners and by the u. N. Security council that iran has come to the negotiating table and what we beli