Sister simone campbell, her book is, a nun on the bus. All next on cspan2s booktv. Up next on booktv, said, a former highoffering member of Irans National Security council, talks about the conflict between iran and the United States over the past decades and suggests way for the two countries to improve their relationship. This is 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] we have a prime seat in at the front row if i could induce someone to come on up. Good evening and welcome. Im the Senior Adviser for externallls and im happy to welcome you to this distinguished author series event. Featuring said mew an insiders view on the failed past and the road to peace. He is indeed a verified insider, when it comes to such critical things as the government of the Islamic Republic of iran, irans disputed Nuclear Program is continually conflicted relationship with the United States, and his own close, personal association over the years with the two principals on the iranian side in the Current Nuclear negotiations, president has san rouhani, and foreign minister zarif. This makes him a perfect guest because this is a tantalizing moment in the history of relations between iran and the United States. The stuck offing this book. The two countries have been sworn enemies but as many people have pointed out, theyre also two countries that have much in common, tremendous influence, and some parallelss despite their profound differences. The current round of talks between the p5 plus one began with a preliminary agreement reached in november in which iran froze its Nuclear Program and diluted some of its most phone uranium fuel in return for several billion dollars in sanctions relief. The deadline for the agreement is july 20th, a little more than three weeks from now. So there is an allowance for up to six months more if they dont meet the july date. To the there are still significant outstanding disagreements over the detail of an accord, theres been uninterrupted progress in achieving confidence, building movements since november and there is intense interest on both sides trying to make the date. Now, of great significance, is that the president s of both countries both want this deal. And they both know that there are powerful opponents to the agreement in each of their countries who will take advantage of any delay to ratchet up their opposition to it. Now, it is not the objective of the Nuclear Talks to settle the very real differences between the u. S. And iran. The purpose at the moment is to quarintine the talks around the sole issue of the Nuclear Program, and achieve agreement there. Now, if that should happen, one can imagine a situation where the u. S. And iran cease being implacable enemies and instead become rivals, intense rivals, who may be able to cooperate on issues where competing National Interests converge. The common analogies being invoked are the u. S. And china and the u. S. And russia. That is why i use the word tantalizing at the outset. This relationship has been marked by deep and recuring distrust on both sides, and the result has been a breakdown in relations between the United States and iran that has lasted longer than the breakdown between china and the u. S. Did. Building trust is elusive. Particularly if one side doesnt understand what the other side thinks, and why it does. That is the value of this book. And i can think of no better person to explain the iranian viewpoint to a western audience than our guest, who not only was at the center of so many events that propelled the breakdown, but who did his undergrad studies in his country and who for the past five years has been doing research and teaching at princeton and track 2 diplomacy between iran and the United States. I can highly recommend his book. And it is for sale at the door, and i should tell you, its proved to be so popular we have had to send out just now to the publisher to get some more in. And he will linger a bit at the end to sign copies and chat with you. He was here two years ago to discuss his first book, and im delighted to have him back at ipi, particularly, as ive said, at this potential he prowishes moment for our two countries. Welcome. The floor is yours. Thank you. [applause] first of all i would like to extend my gratitude to warren and his colleagues ipi, arranging this event. As you know, i came to u. S. Mid1970s. And left the u. S. Just some months and weeks before the victory of Islamic Revolution in 1979. And i came back again 2009, actually 30 years later. In these three decades, i had an opportunity to be engaged in major events and occasions related to problems between iran and the west, from hostagetaking crisis in lebanon in 1988, 1989, to afghanistan crisis. Salomon rash di. Fatwah against salomon rush di. Nuclear crises, different organizations, different periods, working in parliament and Foreign Ministry. Most of the time i tend on problems relations between iran and the west. I was seven years in germany as ambassador, and it gave me a great opportunity a great opportunity to discuss with europeans that time we had critical dialogues, the differences on human rights, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, Peace Process, israel, hezbollah, all of the issues with the european. Officially unofficially with journalist, scholars, officials, and i came back 2009 to the u. S. , it was completely different because i didnt have official hat, access to hundreds of American Foreign policy think tanks, journalists, to sit with them and to discuss very, very openly, sincerely, frankly, the disputes, problems between iran and the u. S. Definitely these four or five years gives me great understanding about american perception, how americans view the iranian policy, iranian Foreign Policymaking system, and the disputes between iran and the u. S. In this period, it was very clear for me the reason big gap on correct understanding of iran, and rarely could find Foreign Policy in the u. S. With correct understanding of iran. Of course, no one can blame anyone because, first of all, we have had no relation during 35 years. And there has been no exchange between scholars, journalists and iranians and americans. Thats why i am in a perhaps unique position, knowing the u. S. Living living nine years in the u. S. , over three decades in iranian policymaking system, to write a book about relation between iran and the u. S. Tehran and washington have experienced one of the most dysfunctional relations, if not the most, one of the most hostile relations, if not the most, and during recent modern history i really can find readily such hostile relations between u. S. And any other country even with the soviet union there was official relations, ambassadors, even with vietnam, such a war between iran and everything the u. S. And vietnam still now they have official relations, but iranians and americans have failed to establish a normal relation and have experienced all means of hostilities, from economic war, covert war, intelligence war, cyberwar, political war. The u. S. Definitely tried over three decades to bring regime change in iran and failed. Therefore, i tried to explain the roots of hostilities between iran and the u. S. , from the u. S. Point of view, the west point of view, and the iranian point of view. You would see a lot of literature, books written about iran and the u. S. , west and iran, but rarely you would find scholars in the west living in iran and or have an opportunity to have access to the policymaking system in order to be able to write, to explain to elaborate from the iranian policy and culture, that the policymaking structure of the country, and how iranian view americans and the u. S. I did my best to be balanced in order to explain both point of views, but i think that vantage my objective is more to explain iranian opinion of view because of the vacuum in the western literatures. I have tried to focus on relations after revolution. Have explained in one chapter good relation between iran and the u. S. For about a century, 19 1856 to 1953. I have discussed 25 years of relation between iran and the u. S. After 1953 coup, before revolution, the time the u. S. Supported the shah, but to the focus is iran after the revolution. During the war, during presidency of rafsanjani. It years presidency of a reformist, and eight years presidency of mahmoud ahmadinejad, which is considered as conservative or principlist or radical. Its interesting to recognize that all iranian administrations during last 35 years have tried to normalize the relation with the u. S. And all have failed. And it doesnt matter moderate, president , reformist or conservative president , i have explained in detail many events that all president s have tried to bring reproachment between iran and the u. S. , and they have made a lot of unprecedented overtures during 30 years. They all have failed. And there has been the same approach, not always from the u. S. Administrations, but some administrations in the u. S. Since 1979, also they try to bring an to end the hostilities between iran and the u. S. , again, americans also have failed. Thats why one of the main issues in my book is the root causes of the failures between iran and the u. S. For reproachment during 30 years. Its about the mistrust, mutual mistrust, about misunderstandings, about misanalysis, about misconceptions, about miscalculations, and i have explained the detail and many events why iranians do not trust and cannot trust the u. S. , why iranians Supreme Leader always is emphasizing he cannot trust the u. S. , the reasons, the mindset of the iranian leader, Supreme Leader, why, and what is the reason that evidences the fact he cannot trust the u. S. Interesting issue is despite the fact the leader does not trust the u. S. Since his onset of his leadership, he has not prevented different administrations to make approach to u. S. And even during rafsanjani, you would see evidence and stories i explained during ahmadinejad, and at the end he came to be correct because they all failed, and but the Main Objective, actually, for me is to present a road map for iran and the u. S. To end hostilities after over three decades. My Main Objective was to use my experience, my knowledge, my engagement, in many, many events between iran and the u. S. , iran and the west, and understanding both parties to present a road map, comprehensive road map, how and iran and the u. S. Can improve the relations. Actually, actually tehran and washington have decided, wrongly, i believe, to concentrate and focus on the Nuclear Issue and want to discuss other issues after the nuclear. It is a wrong policy but this is a fact. Therefore, the first step for iran and the u. S. , iran and the world, is to resolve the nuclear in order to open the other possibilities for bilateral relations. One of the major steps between tehran and washington which really could pave the way for a normal relation would be civilian diplomacy. If you have hostilities between the two states i really cannot imagine american and iranian nations to nation, together against each other, and i do not see legitimate reason why we have prevented the two nations to have normal relation together. Thats why civilian diplomacy is one of the major issues i have explained in detail about relations, tourism, and maybe, many other issue many, many other issues. The other subject i have introduced about the end state on difference. We have had many, many piecemeal approaches during last 35 years. And the reason one of the reasons of failure of our reproachment between iran and the u. S. , because during decades iran and the u. S. Have relied on piecemeal approaches. They have never engaged in a comprehensive dialogue. And for the future, my understanding is the iran america problem does not limit to nuclear. It is not only about terrorism. Not only about Peace Process. We have to engage in a comprehensive dialogue to put all bilateral, regional, International Issues on the table to negotiate. To be able to agree on differences, and iran and the u. Both want to see the end state in every issuefrom Peace Process to terrorism to weapons of mass destruction. I give you one example on nuclear. For ten years, some years i was involved in the negotiations. The reason was iranians want to see the end state. For iranian the end state was recognition of the rights on their entity for Peaceful Nuclear technology, including enrichment. And eu3 during our time, or p5 plus one never was in a position to accept the full right of iran under npt, including enrichment. Thats why iranians never could sign to any deal during ten years of negotiations. For a period, the red line for the u. S. Was, no enrichment in iran. Actually, this was the main reason never iran and the eu3 could get together for a deeds. For a deal. But recently the u. S. Recognized this is not correct policy, they changed no enrichment to no nuclear bomb. When the u. S. Red line moved from no enrichment, to no nuclear bomb, then the end state for the u. S. Should be put, no nuclear bomb. That is why they could sign a deal in geneva, november 2003, because both parties could see the end state. Iranians were assured that at the end the rights, including enrichment, would be recognized. Respected. Americans or the world powers could see that at the end, iran would agree to different measures, transparency measures, no breakout capability measures, assuring International Community that iran would not seek in the future nuclear bomb. This is exactly the case about every other disputed issues. If they can see the end state from the beginning, then they can enter a comprehensive deal on every issue. The other issue which i have discussed in the book is the wrong strategy, both from washington and tehran, to focus on differences for three decades, and to forget to discuss to cooperate on commonality. Warren mentioned statement from Henry Kissinger that iran and the u. S. Have huge common interests. It is true. You can see today the situation in iraq. Iran and the u. S. Both face the rise of one of the most dangerous version of terrorism during the history of mankind. It is the threat to iran and the u. S. They both are worried about the crisis from syria and iraq, spilling over to the whole region. They both are worried about break of breakout of sectarian war in the whole region. They both want safe passage of oil some energy from the region. They both dont want to see the position possession of terrorist on the Oil Resources of the region, which can be a threat to International Oil markets. And stability in iraq, integrity of iraq, even integrity of syria, preventing the collapse of iraq as state and as a nation. Is a common interest between iran and the u. S. And practically, tehran and washington for a decade have supported the same government in iraq and even in afghanistan. Tehran and washington have supported karzai despite all hostilities and differences. They have supported maliki despite problems and hoss estimates. Hostilities. This is one of the main problems and in order to see the future we need tehran and washington to begin to negotiate, to talk, to cooperate, on the issues of common interests. From drug trafficking, to organized crime, to stability in afghanistan, iraq, syria, to security of energy. Stability in persian gulf. And many other issues which are really vital to the National Interests of the u. S. And iran both. Im not going to take too much of your time to explain every detail of the book, but i believe there is a chance, a serious chance, but im looking to the Current Situation of the middle east, i see iraq and syria on the brink of collapse as a nation, as a state. Libya is not far from being a failed state. Everyone knows the internal crisis in egypt in yemen. No one knows were going in egypt and yemen. Taliban is coming back in afghanistan. The pakistani crisis seems to be ungovernorrable. Many scholars are really worried about the future of pakistan. Whether we like it or not, whether the u. S. Likes it or not, iran is one of to the most stable countries in the region. Despite 30 years of pressure, sanctions, war, ultimately iran today is one of the most stable countries. And then i look at the region, i see iran and turkey, the most stable countries. And the others either they have instability like iraq and syria, or afghanistan, or they are very vulnerable to the crisis. Therefore, this is additional responsibility for tehran and washington to cooperate. To end my statement, i do not believe the crisis in the region would be resolved only by cooperation between iran and the u. S. We need to engage the other regional powers like saudi arabia, like turkey. We need a Regional Cooperation system which i have discussed in detail in my book, in persian gulf in the region. Without a Regional Cooperation system, without close cooperation between iran, saudi arabia, turkey, the regional powers, even bilateral cooperation between and run the u. S. , would not be able to manage the crisis in the middle east. I would prefer, warren to stop here and then to go to the next questions. Applause. Im going to ask a couple of question asks then go to the floor. You mentioned saudi arabia. And the need to include them. I want to ask you about something that is current right now, as we know the foreign minister of iran at one point proposed going out to the gulf states to try to present the iranian case which sometimes is not popular in the gulf states, and i think he wanted to go to riyadh but there was no invitation forthcoming. I think that has changed now. One hears maybe there is a chance of some sort of reproachment between saudi arabia and iran. Can you report where that stands the saudis the middle east has been a struggle between saudi arabia and the sunnis on one hand and iran and the shia on the other hand. It would be remarkable if somehow there was some diminution of that tension. How does that stand now . I really dont know whether we have any change because still there is no official invitation for administer zarif to visit riyadh. Can i just interrupt you. I was going to say also in the book, he tells a fascinating story of when rafsanjani chose him to go to saudi arabia, and i think he left the king at that point. King abdullah at that time was crown prince, and it was after eight years war between iran and iraq, which saudi arabia supported Saddam Hussein, and then we had massacres of pilgrims, 200, 300 iranians were massacred. The situation was exactly like today. The hostility was extremely high i went to riyadh as special representative of rafsanjani. I meant the crown prince ameer abdullah. That time he was the main decisionmaker, three, four hours meeting in his home privately from 11 00 at night till 4 00, 5 00 in the morning. And we were able to agree on a comprehensive package for bilateral relations. On economic relations, political relations, security issues, security concerns we had, they had. That who is the real estates from 18996 to 2005 at the end of rafsanjanis period, we had the best relation between iran and saudi arabia, even better than the relation during the shah. This is really the reason i believe today iran, saudi arabia crisis can be managed easily. I understand saudis are very much concerned about the rise of influence of iran in the region. When they look at afghanistan, iraq, lebanon, syria, everywhere they see iran has upper hand. That is why they have mobilized their forces, but they are on wrong track which they would be the first victim. I really believe sincerely, frankly, iran would not be vulnerable to the wave of terrorism in the region, but saudis would be. They are investing on wrong track. And the notion of bringing a balance between iran and saudi arabia in order to sit and negotiate is really i really dont understand because i feel that saud diz want to have saudis want to have a kind of balance between the role and influence of saudi arabia and iran in the region, then to go to negotiate. No one knows how long it takes. After 30 years of all types of pressures and sanctions, war, even use of chemical weapons, now iran is most powerful, if not the most stable country. How long we have to fight together in the region in order to bring balance, i think the notion is wrong. Is better for iran and saudi arabia because i believe these terrorists are the same threat to iran, u. S. , europe, and even saudi arabia. I mean, they are against what they say imperialism, in brackets, the u. S. , zionism in brackets, israel, and aslea and shia, and iran, and the kingdom and all the region. And i believe they are all in one boat, and they need to sit together to discuss very openly, sincerely, frankly, all concerns, and they are two big powers. In war saudi arabia plays a crucial role in the region. In shia, iran is extremely powerful. And even i remember when i was talking to crown prince abdullah, now is the king, he told me privately, very frankly, that three pillars of the region are saudi arabia, iran, and iraq. And that time he told me we have sat down, neither you nor us, cannot cooperate with saddam. It to saddam is gone and there is no reason three pillars of the region should not and could not sit together and to create a Regional Cooperation system in persian gulf between iran, iraq, and the dcc. You said here tonight and you say in the book, three different presidencies in iran, including, surprisingly, to me, the presidency of mahmoud ahmadineje efforts to a reproachment with the west. Those efforts failed, as you also said. Why do you think this one might work . Because, as i said, of course in my understanding, i have also explained in my book, i believe ahmadinejad made the most effort , even american rafsanjani to reach the u. S. He was the first president who wrote actual letter to the u. S. President , president obama, the first president congratulated an elect president , president obama in 2009. And the high level began the highest level talks began during ahmadinejads era, when bill burns and they meat met in geneva in 2009, and even confidential talks between iran and the u. S. Began in 2012, 2011, 2012, in amaune. It was again during president ahmadinejad. The reason i said, warren, that tehran and washington have failed in last three decades, is meals approach. They have piecemeal approach. They never have a comprehensive strategy for relations. They need to engage comprehensive dialogue on all issues. Just focusing for ten years on nuclear this is the story between iran and the u. S. Its a decade we are fighting on nuclear. Really iran the u. S. Problems are limited to the nuclear. This is the problem. But in fact, the negotiations were looking at right now is whether you like it or not, piecemeal, focused just on the nuclear and quite consciously they have said we will not deal with anything else. Well try to settle this one ask then build on that for the future. And i think from talking to you and from reading the book, you think that has chance, dont you . The realities in the region, i think, would bring a change in the mindset of both tehran and washington. Iraq is one reality today. Which they really both feel a major threat to the National Security of the u. S. , iran, saudi arabia, the region, europe. Thats why i believe there is a chance because unfortunately the recent crisis in the region is educating tehran and washington to engage in a grand bargain. Let me just excuse me. I just exhausted the two questions i had there. If this negotiation well, let me just say, my own thinking is the reason this particular one might have a better chance is you have an elected leader of iran, hassan rouhani, who was elected on a program in an election that was certified as fair and open by international authorities. A president who ran on a program of reproachment. You have a foreign minister who has rather extraordinary credibility in this country from his service here. He has lived here even longer than you have. And also when he was the ambassador here, he was a very effective ambassador. So, im thinking, these two guys and they have the support of the Supreme Leader for doing what theyre doing. So, i wanted to ask you, suppose it doesnt work . Suppose there is failure, for whatever reason, and is a said at the outset, there are opponents both on the iranian side, very strong opponents, very strong opponents on the u. S. Side, the u. S. Congress for one, israel, and we can talk about that in a second for another. And what would happen to rouhani and zarif in iran if this particular negotiation now broke down . How important is it that this particular one succeed . I fully agree today we have a golden opportunity because here the combination of obama, kerry, chuck hagel, is something to my understanding, we have never had after revolution 1979 in the u. S. In iranian on the iranian side we have had the same situation, warren, was not much different with rouhani period. However, the combination of kerry, obama, chuck hagel, in washington, and rouhani, zarif, as the head of Atomic Energy organization, educated, graduated from m. I. T. , and the National Security very moderate. The combination of these figures in tehran also is a great opportunity for grand bargain and comprehensive deal, but when you ask me what happens if fails, i believe this would be the same happen to rafsanjani, ahmadinejad, and because they all tried and all failed. Since were talking a little bit about the Supreme Leader here, and when i asked, what would happen to them, i think im sort of saying, what would the Supreme Leader say to them or do to them if they failed . I wanted to ask you, just structurally, how does the iranian government work . You have a president , you have a congress, you have a National Security council, i think you served on it. And yet on top of all that, particularly when it comes to Foreign Policy, you have the Supreme Leader. How does it work . How do you, for instance, someone like you, communicate with the Supreme Leader and he communicate with you . The structure in tehran is very similar to washington. You have congress, you have parliament. The Supreme Leader authority in our constitution is similar to president obamas authority in your constitution. President obama may be able to veto the Congress Decisions or legislations but iranian Supreme Leader, by constitution, cannot veto legislation by parliament. We have National Security council which is the most prominent institution to decide on major issues related to politics and security, like nuclear, like iraq, like afghanistan. You have the same. But the miss understanding about the role of iranian Supreme Leader here is big. The conventional understanding is he is deciding, nobody else is deciding, theres a dictatorship, and he vetoes everything and nobody has no authority. This is completely wrong perception here. It is true that he is the ultimate decisionmaker on Foreign Policy, like president obama Iseult Iseult decisionmaker on Foreign Policy. But during his leadership, he has agreed with over 90 of decisions made by nsc, iranian National Security council. Although in many cases he were not in agreement with the conclusion of iranian nsc, just i give you one example ton the nuclear. The Nuclear Policy during president houghton compare to Nuclear Policy during president ahmadinejad, you would see huge difference. But the leader is the same. Its because the policies during hottamy was decided in National Security council and the leader agreed, even though i know some of the policies on the nuclear during our time doesnt believe it. Doesnt like it. But he did not veto the decision of majority. He has the power to veto he has the power to veto. Very, very rarely. I mean, perhaps one or two, three percent, during over two decades of his leadership. I have explained one of the examples. Vetoed. The time iranian diplomats were assassinated in afghanistan, and although it was during hattamy, everybody wafers extremely angry in iran and majority of members of National Security council believed that iran should go inside afghanistan after taliban, like what president bush did invaded afghanistan and believed he should go after taliban inside afghanistan. But the Supreme Leader decided not for iran to intervene. But this is very, very range. When you talk to americans about iran and the United States, obviously one of the great issues is israel. While the rhetoric has changed dramatically out of tehran since rouhani replaced ahmadinejad, and it seems to me rouhani has extended himself to say we are not holocaust deniers. We do not want to wipe israel off the face of the map. I still won wanted to ask you, for those that would be curious, what would assume the u. S. And iran do reach a kind of reproachment now. Is it possible to imagine iran any one day recognizing the state of israel . If that is not possible, its possible to imagine iran not protesting the existence of the state of israel . Is there a possible compromise there . First of all, warren, tell me what is the change in israeli position during ahmadinejad and rouhani . The israeli position has remained the same. Therefore it doesnt matter if someone in iran denies holocaust or condemns holocaust. It is just some instrument to use and play against iran in International Public opinion, to play with the image of iran. Otherwise, just tell me, any changes in the position when there was the related jews for the new year, they pourfully condemned the holocaust. Israeli position is the same. Therefore, i dont believe a change in iranian position would matter. This is the fact. You can compare. One. Second problem with recognition of israel, i really dont know im very surprised in the u. S. Why everybody is talking about iran not recognizing israel. 90 of muslim countries do not recognize israel. Overwhelming majority of u. S. Ally does not recognize israel. Like saudi arabia why are you talking only about iran . If you can convince the u. S. Allies to recognize israel, then come to iran to negotiate with iran. But for 50 4050 years you have not been able to convince your allies to recognize israel, and you blame iran . I really dont know. We have over 50 muslim countries. They do not recognize israel. This is not issue with iran. But, warren, can you find one evidence during president hotamy, any high level officials have stated wiping israel off the map . You would not find. You would find a lot of statement during president rafsanjani, very high level, they said we would not disturb Peace Process. It was a green light, signal, that if there is a deal, iran would be prepared not to disturb Peace Process. But was it any changes in u. S. Position when, during rafsanjani, many statements were made we would not disturb Peace Process or there was no statement during hotamy wiping israel off the map. The u. S. Position and israeli position whats same. Before we have to think a little bit about this side because during last ten, 15 years, netanyahu every day waking up, asking for military strike against iran, and nobody here criticize netanyahu. Why you are asking putting pressure on the u. S. To attack iran . But if iran denies holocaust like earthquake in the u. S. , if netanyahu would ten times a day repeat attacking iran, nobody cares. He we need a little bit change. I was just saying, its the reality, though, the situation. It was not great Public Relations for ahmadinejad to speak that way at the time, and it just made it more difficult. And im talking about warren, at that time even when he made the statement against holocaust, i publicly rejected his statements. Im talking bat president who had you jailed after all. And let me just ask you now in the i want to go to the room inch the introduction i imagined a situation that if the nuclear deal works you have a deal, that it could produce a situation where you in my own terminology, from an American Point of view, you turn iran from being an enemy into being a rival. We have differences. We will pursue those differences. We can pursue them aggressively, and with great competitiveness, and the analogy is like the u. S. And china, or the u. S. And russia, or even the u. S. In the old days and the soviet union. Is that a fair way of looking at what might become the truth about iran and the us . I look at this case a little bit different, warren, because rivalry between iran and the u. S. In the region, perhaps during last 3040 years, yes. But to my understanding, the u. S. Is going to leave the region. Within five years, ten years, they are going to leave persian gulf. They are not going to have any more military. They dont want to have any invasion of any other country the in the middle east, whether its iran or syria or egypt. They dont care. And they have lost trimmed of dollars bass of two wars in iraq and afghanistan. They on the oil issue, they it seems they are going to be independent within some years. And they at least they would not be that much dependent to the oil from the reafternoon. Region. Therefore, if the u. S. Strategy in the region is going to be changed, engagement, involvement, military bases, extending hundreds of millions of dollars to keep its military presence, i think its changing. If its going to be changed, then the rivalry would not be between iran and the u. S. But the rivalry between iran and saudi arabia would continue. And i look at the issue more the complication is we see in the region, we need to find a solution within the region, then discuss about the u. S. Or russia. The fact is that two major powers, iran and saudi arabia, theyre strategically important to location of persian gulf, 40 of the oil is coming from persian gulf. On the occasion of departure of the u. S. , the vacuum which we would face very soon, look at the vacuum after departure of the u. S. From iraq. Look at the vacuum after departure of the u. S. From afghanistan. And the crisis and the danger of spilling over to the whole region, this is the reason my proposal, initiative, suggestion, is a Regional Cooperation system as soon as possible between iran, gcc and iraq, for peace, stability, and security in the persian gulf, and a type of political, economic cooperation, like eu they have. In europe. We can have the same system in persian gulf. Excellent. Id love to get question from the floor. I want to tell you, told you beforehand, but cspan is here, televising this, so when call on you, youll get the microphone, hold it steady, speak clearly, and please introduce yourself and identify your organization or association. Ill take two or three questions at once. And well start here in the front row, and then another journalist there, and then a colleague. Do you want actually, robin, can you stand it . Would be easier for the cameras. Im with you would expect know ask a question that notice easy for you. As always. As always. We do differ on the relationship between the u. S. And iran. After all it was war in iraq that american war in iraq that gave iraq iran so this is at least the point of view that is held by several people in the region and beyond, and if you want to speak about that grand bargain, which is a very good idea, could you kindly tell me how what would the element be, how willing is iran to give up its amibitions in iraq and syria . This is the none problem that iranians have with the arabs in general, with saudis in particular, that iraq and syria are arab lands and it is maliki in iraq who failed iraq and we are where we are, and i was intervention in syria, including with hezbollah, going across borders, becoming one of the militias and arms across the border, both in syria and gave rise, unfortunately, to the terrorists, the sunni terrorists, like isis and isil or whatever you want to call them. What is going to be done now to have the grand bargain and i would be interested in details, and please dont tell me about the ridge secular regional thing. We understand its been reject already. Wow you know that. Well just answer that one question. Well get to the two of you afterwardses. Would you just take on that question. When you talk about iranian amibition and you give example on iranian influence in iraq, you should never forget it was an arab country. Iraq invaded iran. For eight years. It was all arab regional country supported the aggression. One million iranians were killed. 600 billion damages to iran. Sadam used chemical weapons, about 100,000 iranians were either killed or injured. Saudi arabia, arabs, the u. S. , europe, supported the use of chemical weapons. You forget this part of the history, and youre talking about todays influence of iraq. Definitely iranian influence is defensive in iraq. Because you forget the part of the history when you invaded iran, if iraq, arabs, have not invaded iran after the revolution, the iranian strategy in the region would be completely different. First of all its about cooperation on commonalities. Definitely iran and the u. S. , they have differences and they have commonalities. A vacuum in the last 35 years is about cooperation, negotiation and commonalities. This is one major part of the grand bargain first. Second, we have four major disputes between iran and the rest including iran and the u. S. Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear isnt just part of it. Terrorism, human rights and the Peace Process for the israelis. In parallel of cooperating on commonalities, in the grand bargain they would need to negotiate to find principles to settle their differences on these four major issues. The third is about i read rate my belief that iran the u. S. And saudi arabia if they agree they can establish their Regional Cooperation system. And this is a must for the region. Because to my understanding, the u. S. Is not going to pay forever for the region and to my understanding some countries they would not be able to employed the u. S. Forever for their security. We need a regional system for all security. This can be a part of the grand bargain because in the last 30 years i believed the u. S. Was opposing a Regional Cooperation system. Now the u. S. Does not oppose a Regional Cooperation system in the persian gulf and and we have crises in afghanistan, we have crisis in iraq and we have crisis in syria. Syria of course the equation would be different. We would need to have russia. We would need to have regional powers like saudi arabia and turkey iran and big parties like the u. S. And russia to manage the Syrian Crisis but iran should be a part of the soluti solution. Otherwise isolating iran on syria we would never be able to get a solution to the Syrian Crisis. That is why geneva want fail. That is why geneva to fail than even you are going to have freedom of your honor will change. Yeah malik and margaret. We will take two. Hyanmack i am a journalist. I have a question with regard to iraq. As the present opportunities for cooperation between the u. S. And iran although both sides have officially denied that and secondly how do you see the future of iraq . Would you agree that a unified solution is a good solution or would you see a division of iraq . Thank you. Margaret your question was about opportunity with iraq . Okay. Hi. Margaret williams ipi. Two very quick questions. The first one is regarding turkey. I meant you mentioned turkey a couple of times in your speech. Im wondering if you could elaborate on how you think iran sees the relationship with turkey Going Forward particularly visavis iraq and what has happened in mosul and elsewhere and secondarily could you talk about yemen and how potential for dialogue of some sort between iran and saudi visavis yemen could possibly materialize . Can you take this to . Gamman is the easiest for iran and saudi arabia to cooperate compared to iraq and syria. Definitely this is easier. Iran and turkey have had cordial relations for 400 years and there is really no hostility between iran and turkey. They have had for 30 or 40 years and 55 years after the revolution, look at their economic relationship between iran and turkey and now its between the top three. They are both big nations in the region. We have egypt, turkey, iran big civilization and history. They are the biggest nation in the region. None of them can be an elected for any kind of regional arrangement neither iraq nor turkey. That is why i always believe iran and turkey the nation is crucial for stability in the nation and also with europe and the rest, turkey can always play a good role. For a short period in syria there was a dispute between iran and turkey. They immediately recognized this was not in their longterm interest and now they are trying to, not to disturb the bilateral relationship because of syria. Iraq definitely is an opportunity. I mean whether officially iranians or americans will stay or not we cannot deny that current terrorism is a threat to iran and the u. S. We cannot deny that iran and the u. S. Are avoiding further u. S. Intervention in the region. Therefore it was different but now they have a common understanding. They both want to avoid u. S. Military intervention in the region. They are both very worried about the possession of oil sources in the region by terrorists. This is a matter of concern for the u. S. This is a matter of concern for iran because the safe passage of oil is extremely important for both iran tehran and washington. From the early days of Syrian Crisis iran was warning the National Community that the crisis would spill over into the region. No one unfortunately paid attention. Tehran was very clear that iraq would be the first victim and to my understanding after iraq we would see Jordan Jordan with a problem in and then and saudi arabia. If there is not immediate solution to prevent the Current Crisis in syria and iraq. We cannot discuss syria without iraq and iraq without syria. They are very related together. As i said in tehran and washington they have supported the same government in iraq and they want to prevent the disruption of the posthussein system. Definitely this is clear that this would be a failure by tehran and washington both. The sectarian war really is a matter of mutual concern for tehran and washington. The integrity of those iranians including some of my friends in tehran they believe washington is after disintegration of iraq but i dont believe this is the case. I believe washington is seeking integrity of iraq. They dont want disintegration because they know disintegration in syria or iraq that the region would be vulnerable to disintegrations and other countries. Its very clear. Okay. Reggie, kathleen and then. Jeff llorente. First hussein i notice you havent offered a word of gratitude to president bush for having taken care of iraqs Saddam Hussein for iran and maybe he deserves a bit in some quarters. I do wonder whether you may exaggerate a bit the intentions of the u. S. To pull out of the region which i havent seen signals of a wholesale plot yet but lets focus on the region itself. It must be a blow to the iranian sense of importance that for all of the convulsions of the arab spring and the rise of wouldbe islamist and democratic movements nobody looks to the Islamic Republic of iran is a constitutional model for anybody in the arab world even for islamist democracies which then raises the question what our iranian purposes and the border region and what kind of influence is it really exert on any of the other countries other than a couple of proxies hezbollah and assad to home it has provided some very tangible deliverables. And are those relationships a matter of conviction as the shiite loyalty or are they simply expedient in cutting a deal with washington and cutting these roots . Kathleen. International coalition. I would like to know a little bit about the role of the revolutionary guard with respect to relations of iran and the u. S. And what their role and influence is . I am from global parliamentary services. Could you say a little bit more about the possibilities of cooperation with detente or whatever with iran and the area because one of the countries that is referred to with possible problems or current problems as pakistan and there it is really the rivalry playing out in these two countries through proxies and particularly malicious that are affecting the stability of the country. So i would like to hear a little bit more and explore a bit more as to where iran and saudi arabia make go towards cooperation and how . Okay, two questions. Iran and saudi, definitely they have a lot of contentions in the region, no doubt. But whether he can find a solution or not, i believe we can find a solution because i personally have been involved for a decade with good relations between iran and saudi arabia. I personally consider king abdulah a moderate and i really cannot imagine the moderate part of saudi arabia and the salafist although the root causes of finances and Logistical Support are coming from not only saudi arabia but i cannot imagine king abdulah himself would like to see hostility between iran and the u. S. , between iran and saudi arabia and i maintain iran should use the opportunity, the time king abdulah is alive, to create a new approach between iran and the u. S. Because i really dont know whats going to happen after this power. Iran and saudi arabia, yeah. After this transition of power problem we have in saudi arabia. No one knows whats going to happen after king abdulah. The role of the revolutionary guard, in 1988, 1989, when president bush invited iran for goodwill against goodwill for iran to facilitate the release of western hostages, american hostages. Although ive explained in my book i have another friend in Foreign Ministry mandated by the president and foreign minister to manage this deal but very frankly speaking that couldnt have made a deal without the revolutionary guard. It was the revolutionary guard facilitated the release of hostages in lebanon. In 2001 the war on terror when again the u. S. Invited iran to cooperate it was impossible without the revolutionary guard for cooperation to bring iran and the u. S. To cooperate to fight the taliban in afghanistan. It was the revolutionary guard. Therefore it depends how you deal with them. Then they would revolt. They have extensive power and organization. They are extremely powerful and they know how to react. Iranian regional objectives, ive explained it my book one story. It was during the days of my mission to germany when i met the foreign minister and the first issue he raised with me was this the ability of the Regional Cooperation system in the persian gulf, which you dont like. She doesnt like it. [laughter] i told them that iran would be positive. He was really shocked and then he asked me to manage his trip to iran to see president rafsanjani. Rafsanjani gave him Carte Blanche to go for Regional Cooperation system. It was in 1990, it was not in 2014. It was right after the war and genscher was almost shocked. He came to washington. Therefore you can see from the beginning the iranians, they have been seeking a type of Regional Cooperation and the foreign minister in 1991 and 1992, 1995. He paid a visit to all gcc countries at the time i was in Foreign Ministry and he raised iranian willingness to establish such a cooperation with the neighbors but gcc was not in a position to agree because of u. S. Position opposition. I really dont believe iran is going to have a dominant role in the region is the conventional understanding here. Iran is preferring more Regional Cooperation with the neighbors even including saudi arabia. Just when i said that the u. S. Departure from the region i never mean its immediate. Its gradually within 10 years, 15 years. This is to my understanding, the u. S. Is going to have a gradually decreasing its role in the region within 10 or 15 years. Not going to happen within one year. Ive got time for three more questions one from my colleague in the front and a woman in a blue dress and adam. First of all thanks for your speech and i do look forward to reading your book. My question brings us back to iran and to inside the country. Here in the u. S. Is always very fuzzy when people and reports say that president rouhani is going to have a hard time convincing the hardliners. This big umbrella of a hard liners. Can you tell us what your assessment is of a hardliner challenged to president rouhani and how far can he go before the tightrope that he is seemingly walking on will snap . To just make it very simple for you, what is the role of hardliners here in washington . The problems of president obama and congress. This is exactly the same for rouhani in tehran. I mean the radicals, the hardliners in tehran and washington are exactly the mirror image. All right, thank you. Hello, thank you for your presentation. I am an International Peace and Security Consultant and i have a question visavis your position that the u. S. Is gradually, gradually disassociating or disengaging in the middle east and i want to bring you forward two years from now, where we have an incoming its a hypothetical an incoming republican president in washington. Republicans hold the majority in the two houses and i want you to put your book and its recommendations two years from now in the future and i want you to pay particular attention in your response to the issue of u. S. Commitments to israel. Thank you. No i have no doubt to the u. S. Commitment to israel and israel who has commitment to obamas attempt for the Peace Process. You know better than me how much the u. S. President and john kerry invested on a twostate solution and who declined in who oppose the u. S. President and the secretary. Despite all of these facts i know the u. S. Commitment to the security of israel have no doubt that the issue is whether the israelis are making right policies with the current policies they have in the region or they are isolating themselves and blaming others. This is my issue. Whether we would have a republican president or not, we may have. This is to my understanding and maybe im wrong, really for me its difficult to imagine again a republican president would repeat the mistakes in iraq and afghanistan. I think america has gotten a good lesson. And finally a question from adam a former colleague from the new york times. Wonderful presentation. My name is adam stolt meant former times person and independent. Much of the discussion has been framed in geopolitical terms but the question that occurred to me is theres a school of thought espoused in part by people who sees the instability in the region especially originally in syria as a failure of political systems to respond to Environmental Issues and so i wondered if you might be able to comment a little bit from that perspective and also if you accept that view. What do you mean by that . The drought in syria and now that then led to instability and a failure of the regime to respond in a meaningful way. Tom friedman did a documentary around this. So i wondered if you could respond a little bit to that and also if you you do accept that view do you see opportunity for cooperation between the west and iraq in environmental areas . On syria, myself i believe president assad made a mistake at the beginning of the crisis taking opposition. I mean he could have better treatment in preventing the crisis. Second, today the reality is that the Assad Government is part of the integrity of the state and the nation of syria. Believe it or not assad today has collapsed, who is going to govern serious . Who has a better alternative . Who is the alternative . Do we have a united opposition . Do we have to united war on syria . The fact is that the army and the security establishments of syria still are powerful, relatively united. Compare that with iraq. What is the problem today with iraqs . The u. S. Made a big mistake to dissolve Iraqi Security system at the beginning. For 10 years u. S. Invested billions of dollars to educate or to train her to organize a new armed Security System in iraq and d. C. That the army is weak today to confront 1000, 2000 insurgents. This is the failure of the u. S. But i think iranians were wise enough to support assad and his government to prevent the collapse of army and security establishments in syria because no one knows whats going to happen after. Environmental issues. One, i think on weapons of mass destruction in the middle east for the last 30 or 40 years, the only realistic major success has been the dismantling of syrian chemical weapons. We dont have anything else. This is only because of trilateral cooperation between tehran, washington and assad. Therefore you can see if there is a real cooperation what can be the result. No one else could convince assad to give up his chemical weapons because his chemical weapons were against israeli chemical weapons. The refugees, today really theres a big rule between the regional countries iran and the u. S. For humanitarian assistance. You have 90 million people, refugees who are displaced. Perhaps 50 of syria is destroyed. We need the refugees go back to go back to their homeland. If there is any possibility of cooperation between iran and the u. S. With syria, first of all i believe we need to bring the regional powers into cooperation. My idea is our five plus p5. P5 the five permanent members of the u. N. Security council plus five regional powers. Iran, saudi arabia, turkey, iraq, egypt. They need to sit together to manage to find a solution for syria. Second, they need to agree on at once. We cannot rely on syrians. They are helpless. They cannot manage. They dont have any real united position to negotiate with. Some principles like the integrity of syria, like the rule of majority, like free elections, some principles i think iran regional powers in the world powers they can agree upon and then after agreeing on the principles, then definitely we would need a transitional. Math. They would need hundreds of millions of dollars in investment for humanitarian affairs. Recently the refugees in syria and then go to a free election supervised by the united natio nations. To make sure that this is a free election. And then whomever the syrians have lacked, they must respect. Adam thank you for this question because it allows us to bring the argument that the united nations. As i told you before and going to keep hussein here to chat with those of you who were unable to get your questions asked. I incurred you to buy books and i see the publisher in the back. It defines a more books . Excellent. There is more books for sale in the back. I urge you to read it. I want to thank hussein for being such a wonderful guest tonight and all of you for asking such great questions. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]