America, this is just under one hour. Welcome, everybody. We have a large crowd listening to us, and also cspan tv is broadcasting this as well and i want to welcome their viewers. The purpose of todays webinar is over will discuss a point issue today called no daylight u. S. Strategy of israel attacks on iran. We think the chances of an Israeli Military campaign against Iranian Nuclear facilities has been rising, and it is important for the white house, the pentagon, the state department and other parts of the u. S. Government to consider what the u. S. Should do if israel initiates a military campaign against Irans Nuclear facilities. Certainly the Biden Administration seems very attentive to this possibility. The commander of our mideast forces, Central Command as well. Of course israel is now a part of centcom. It is something that jinsa recommended about five years ago. Seems to be going there next for a lifetime. The secretary and the chairman of the joint chiefs, alan alston, secretary of defense, we have been getting a lot of attention from our military folks. It is clear the acquisition is nervous about the strike. We have two members of our avon task force issued this report with us today. I will introduce them briefly, but then i want to give a brief summary of the report and then i will ask each of them questions. And of course we welcome any questions from the audience. Please send them in. First i want to introduce general charles wald. Chuck, general wald is a former Deputy Commander of the United States european and was responsible for developing the Operation Enduring freedom and afghanistan. He also served as director of Strategic Planning and policy that the u. S. Air force headquarters, chief of the u. S. Air force combat terrorism center. I could go on and on. He was an air force pilot for 35 years. And he is also a distinguished fellow with jinsa. Our other speaker today is elliott abrams. Also a member of our Iran Task Force project. He is a senior fellow middle east studies at the council of Foreign Relations here in washington, d. C. And served as Deputy Assistant to the president and national secured advisor and national secured advisor in the restrictions of president george h. W. Bush where he supervised policy in the middle east for the white house. He also has been a Trump Administration he served as special representative for iran and from venezuela. Let me just highlight a few key points of our report before we go to for questions. Probably a lot of our listeners know where the Iranian Nuclear program is. In recent months they reached 84 Nuclear Enrichment and there on the verge of becoming a Nuclear Threshold state. There is no evident, at least it doesnt seem that the iranians here a u. S. Military strike to prevent a nuclear iran. And i think if israel does take military action, it would really represent a failure of over three decades of u. S. Policy. Every president of the United States have said the United States will act to prevent a nuclear iran that it seems were getting very close to that very eventuality. Also, obviously much of that has been a lot of focus with this new Israeli Government on views of settlements, obviously, as we see today with judicial reform, but i think this has escaped a lot of peoples notice, that this is probably the most hawkish Israeli Security cabinet israel has had when it comes to iran. Some might remember when a lot of people thought israel let attack Iranian Nuclear facilities about a decade ago, a little over a decade ago, that there were folks in the security cabinet that opposed it. The Prime Minister is not a commanderinchief like the u. S. President. For major operations, you need the support of the security cabinet. And this particular security cabinet, seems especially hawkish on iran. There seems to be raising, growing Iranian Nuclear program on the verge of becoming a Nuclear Threshold state, doesnt seem to be a credible u. S. Military option. And the israelis seem very focused on this and certainly politically seem more cohesive. The government is more cohesive and coherent than probably any other is really government is on being tough and willing to prevent a nuclear iran. Let me just highlight a few key points. Where we are today. Then i think that if the report lays out it focuses more about what the u. S. Should do the day of and the day after Israeli Military campaign, but it also addresses a few things which should be done before. And i think we have learned from the ukraine issue that it is important to prepare for these things and not wait because everything is tougher once things begin. I think the report recommends for the day before, consistent u. S. Statements supporting and making clear that the u. S. Is supportive of making israel the tools it needs for defensive action including air refueling tanks, assistant guided munitions, more f35s, more air and Missile Defenses, so on, an issue that the air force has been recommending for many years. Secondly, just focusing on the key highlights, on the day of, the report recommends that our top priority should be making clear that israels action is consistent with enduring u. S. Policy, and that the u. S. Fully supports israels selfdefense needs and their security, that there should be no daylight between the u. S. And israel. Certainly with this administration they might have once israel did strike, assuming that israel will, we are not predicting they will, but we are saying that if they will, that really the two countries interests merge or converge, which is that focus on the success of an israeli strike , a focus on deescalation. That means specifically that the u. S. Should warn iran beyond undue retaliation on israel and against iranian proxies, bringing down the 100,000 plus of rockets and missiles it has in its arsenal facing israel. Also, on the day after, the Task Force Recommends immediate and comprehensive resupply for israel, prioritizing air and Missile Defense interception with precision guided munitions, and spare parts. There also should be some of the terry deployments by the United States to the region. Finally i will just add another recommendation of our group is to plan with israel, the United States should plan with israel or offer iran a diplomatic offramp to figure out a better solution to Irans Nuclear program instead of allowing iran to return to the Nuclear Threshold. I left out the recommendations, just wanted to highlight one or two from the day of the day after. Let me turn to you, elliott. First i wanted to ask you, how do you see before we get into what the u. S. Should do, how do you see the reason why we are talking about an israeli strike is because of the the assumption seems to be that the u. S. Will not do it if it comes to that. I wanted to know if you could address that issue, how you would look at you as deterrence against iran. Amb. Abrams you mentioned the centcom commander. I have the line here, he said in march i know when i look at iran, i believe they are undeterred. I think that is where we started and how the israelis start. They dont seem to be deterred. If you look at the way they continue to build their nuclear program, they seem to think we can, but want. They seem to think the israelis dont have the capacity. That is very dangerous, obviously, because that is precisely the kind of situations that can lead to war. One of the purpose of this report is to talk through deterrence. What does it mean in this situation . One of the things we say can report, and you said it just now, four or five president s interval have said that this will not happen. You will not permit it to happen. President biden has said he said look at a Nuclear Weapon under my watch. Which has another year and a half to go or fiveandahalf years to go, which is a long time. The question then becomes, well, how do we do that . Assuming the president is serious, knowing the credibility of the United States, president of the line here, how do we first of all do turkey run from moving those final steps that could lead to some kind of military engagement . Secondly, if we get to that point, we should not make the assumption that the book is written. We know exactly what happens on day one and a two and day 5 we dont. No one does. The level of violence can be very high, or significantly lower, which is of what we want and the length of any conflict can also be longer or shorter. The lower or shorter, the better. The only way to do that is to think it through now, which is what were trying to do in the report. I would say right now, just to get directly to your question, i dont see that the Biden Administration really has an iran policy. They had one, going back to the j. C. P. O. A. But we are two and half years in. There is no evidence that we will get there or that iran wants to get there. Now what . We have been sitting around for a year and a half. It has been pretty clear that returning to the j. C. P. O. A. Is not going to happen. So, what is the policy . How do you stop iran from moving towards a Nuclear Weapon . I dont think the administration has ever actually answered that question, what is land be plan b . Mr. Makovsky some critics of the trumpet said that. What is plan b after withdrawal . Senator menendez was interviewing interviewing then special envoy there and said, what is our plan b . Seems like that question hasnt really been answered since. Amb. Abrams i would say in defense of the Trump Administration, we had a plan b if plan a was the j. C. P. O. A. Which was greater and economic pressure on iran. We already did that for about a year and a half at the end. The theory was that if trump had been reelected, you could say to the iranians, ok, the pressure will increase more. Remember at the end of the Trump Administration, their National Reserves that they could reach, that werent frozen, or down to 4 billion which is nothing for a country of 70 to 80 million. If we could say there will be four more years of this, or lets negotiate a real solution to this, a real turn away from everything weapons program. I would say, would it have worked . We would never know. But the successor administration changed the policy and said, lets go back to the j. C. P. O. A. Mr. Makovsky i want to turn to charles wald. Chuck, you spent 35 years, he cannot mistaken, you were a commander of sand, also, so you know the region extremely well. I know you have been there many times. Do you see a connection first evolved to u. S. Response or the lack of response to provocations . Jensen did research earlier this year saying that came out a couple of months ago, Something Like 80 attacks by iranian proxies against iraq and syria during the Biden Administration, and i think we have retaliated four times. The wall street journal subsequently wrote an article about this as well. How do you see that . Do you see it as a signal to the iranians of what we might or might not do on the nuclear side . Jinsa general wald first of all, i would like to say that i agree with the ambassador totally. Number two is, military people dont make policy diplomats. So we have people like the ambassador who are articulate. But it is very simple to me, the ambassador mentioned deterrence. Deterrence is two things believability or capability, and the will to do it. I dont think we have any doubts that we have capability in conjunction with say, a military response from israel. The will part is the problem. I will leave that for the ambassador to get that part figured out. But i think we have to do some things to show that there is an unwillingness or reluctance and none acceptability to the iranian activity. The Qassem Soleimani assassination, illegal. Was it a huge signal that it was a big deal, it showed the gumption and the will of the United States to not put up with what he was doing. But as you mentioned, 80 different attacks that could be attributed to the iranians. They have got i have heard and read, 19 different organizations around israel that are apathetic to iran or are branches of iran. This goes on and on. What happens eventually is you dont have the credibility, the hammer to make the diplomacy that people like ambassador abrams are so good at doing. So, i think again, i dont want more. I dont think most military people are of that two. They want to avoid it. But there are actions you have to take that are somewhat unpalatable for some people. Recently we have sent f35s to the region, we sent a Naval Military cruiser to the region. They sent m16s today to the region. So they are beefing up the tactical level. I think the f35 is not as big a problem or any of the other aircraft. My belief is, again, you have to demonstrate a will to be ready to go if you have to. As you mentioned almost a decade ago, israel was ready to go. There was some reluctance in the u. S. Senate and the administration at the time to do much about it. But word got out that yes, we will eventually be there. I would recommend to people likely ambassador if you are doing the diplomatic intervention with the iranians, to tell them we have a military plan, we intend to use it with everything that we have short of Nuclear Weapons themselves. I have said before, i think we should deploy bombers to the region as a show of force. We ought to fly the farmers in the region. I also think we need to have a stronger approach to the gcc countries so they can be contributing to the air defense of the region. That is another part that doesnt get talked about a lot. I think the only thing the iranians would listen to its strength and the fear that if their action doesnt stop, and there has to be action taken to stop the development of a Nuclear Weapon that the United States and israel goes in, we will be there with them and we will be sustained with them. The other thing that doesnt get mentioned much is Ballistic Missile testing and the capability that iranians have been building. They have the capability. I think many people dont doubt there will. They have actually got, innovate, better capability to, i guess, assert there will than we do. But i think we have to be a lot stronger. It is difficult times right now in israel, difficult times here, but israel is our closest, most common ally i think, in the world. And iran needs to know we would be there and ready to go if we have to. Mr. Makovsky on chucks last point, elliott, you raise a few things and they want to follow up on them. Let me start with the last point check raised, which is that our report raises the idea that one of the most important things the United States could do if israel strikes is to put out a statement and communicate that we stand with israel and there is no daylight. Hence the title of the report. And we make the argument that the more there is no daylight, the greater the chance of deescalation. If america chose daylight with israel, no matter what our policy may have been the day before the attack, once such a campaign commences, if we do show daylight, it could invite the iranians to escalate, retaliate greatly and have a wider conflict in the region. I dont know if you could address that issue. Amb. Abrams i think thats correct, because again, this book is unwritten. We do not know if this ever happens. What exactly does it look like . If there is an Israeli Attack on a couple of Iranian Nuclear sites, does iran respond by hitting an Israeli Nuclear site . Does it respond by playing for israeli civilians and trying to kill as many people as it can . Does it respond by going for unitary airbases in israel . By trying to order hezbollah to send everything it has down into israel . Those are the decisions that would have to be made. I think all of those decisions are effective by their understanding of where the United States is. The Supreme Leaders understanding, the Iranian Militarys understanding. Israel and lebanon, they have got decisions to make. If they feel the United States and israel are closely aligned, and the United States is going to step in, it will matter. Do they try to close the strait of hormuz . The iranians . Do they attack gulf arab nations . Again, those are questions that i think they wont answer for themselves until they can do a costbenefit analysis. They need to have a view of issue do. If their view is that the americans dont want to do anything, they want to stay as far out of this as they can and it is open season if their view is that the americans are escalationdominant so lets be quite careful, then the size of the conflict and the length of the conflict is diminished. The damage done to us and our interests, i think is diminished. Mr. Makovsky let me ask you a followup on that. When you say a believer may be an obvious question but i just think it is worth it to elaborate. What do you think what the u. S. Says and communicates is so important to the iranians . Is it because the last thing they want is a war with us . How do you see that iranian calculation . Amb. Abrams first, they need to make a judgment on what we will do. We will base that partly on what we say publicly, like in the president of russia statement, they are not going to get a Nuclear Weapon on my watch. Partly on what they hear privately. We have lots of ways of sending messages through all sorts of channels to the iranians and those may be even more important. Messages. And then they watch what were doing. Think of what the general just said about ways, for example, of stationing bombers in the region. That is a really Important Message to iran. Why does it matter to them . Because they are aware of the strength of the United States. We point out in the report you , on several occasions in 2003 when the United States attacked iraq, what did iran do . They froze their nuclear program. After the killing of soleimani, what they have done to the United States . Not much. Why not . Because they understand the power relationship. So what we are really arguing here is it needs to be as clear as possible that the willpower does exist. And maybe that deters them. And if it doesnt deter them, changes the nature of the conflict. Mr. Makovsky that we ask a question and then they will come back to chuck. You were deputy advisor to the president to the middle east. If it happened under President Bidens watch, it is obvious that the elicitation does not want israel to selfdestruct. How quickly do you see the president shift their policy . If it happened under biden, it might be pretty upset israel is doing this because they clearly have communicated you dont want israel to attack. On the other hand, they would have to shift their policy rather quickly, i guess, because their interests pretty online with israel. You think administrations could shift that fast amb. Abrams i think so. First of all, we have plans, no doubt, for all of this. For everything. We have plans for invasion of canada, i heard from the Canadian Embassy the following day, like, what [laughter] need the canadians out of this. We certainly have plans for iran, so we can get it. It depends on a small number of people. If the president gives the order, that is our policy. If the president says we are going to open the strait of hormuz, we will not let them do that. If the president says, tell the iranians if they hit the americans are an american ship, they will regret it instantly. He can do all of that. So it is a narrow group of people the secretary of state, National Security advisor and the president who make the decisions. Then they have the ability to make them quite quickly. Mr. Makovsky if the u. S. Military thought israel was striking soon, iran, he mentioned some of the deployments with the f35s and destroyers and so on and so forth, what do you think they would want to do to get ready . Just what they have done already . Or do you envision greater deployments on sea and air and so on . What would you do . General wald yes. Right now it is in the hands of the iranians. Unfortunate that they are driving the train. I think beefing up our military capability not just with farmers but with aircraft carriers in the region, is a big signal. It has been a traditional signal. I have said it before, the credibility part is huge. What worries me is we keep going down this path of morning but nothing happening. It was like the global hog that was shut down by the iranians a couple of years ago, and the United States was threatening to retaliate, and then they decided not to. The credibility for us is big. Countries like the uae didnt know we had decided not to attack until they heard about it on the news. We have got to have a very, very strong public reaction without acting like we are warmongers, a statement of will, demonstrated will. Some of this sounds symbolic. In the late 1980s, we flagged all the ships going through the strait of hormuz and protected them with military power. Its called ernest will. They probably decided it probably was not worth it. There is a lot of belief in some parts, that the iranians have their Nuclear Capability hardened heat and buried you. You dont necessarily have to destroy their Nuclear Capability. Although that would be a good thing to do. You can destroy their military capacity to be viable and theres a lot of new military targets you could go after. The iranians have an internal problem right now too so theyre kind of vulnerable. I think it boils down, to me, credibility without saberrattling. Without big talk. Visualization of some of this from the standpoint of, i would put two aircraft carriers in the persian gulf right now. Immediately. I would send bombers to to the region immediately. I would have people like the ambassador and the government, make statements that we are there because the threat that iran poses, and we are ready to do whatever we have to to protect the country of israel and we will do that from both a deterrent standpoint. And, if we have to, to degrade the Iranian Military capacit to do that. Sounds like a lot of talk. But there is enough to do it. There is a question right now because of the kind of wishywashy statements weve made that the iranians see an opening. I dont think they think right now the United States would be there immediately on day one, the neurodaylight issue. Anything that has to be turned around immediately. Amb. Abrams if i could just follow up on that, i think the generals point about credibility is critical. I would extend it out in the middle east. I mean, just imagine what happens to our credibility if the iranians get a Nuclear Weapon and we do nothing. Or the israelis attack and we do nothing. What is the message to china with respect to what the americans do . Xi jinping must be asking himself, what would the americans do if china decided to invade taiwan . And if the answer in the middle east persuades him that he has got no real risks, than the chances of conflict over taiwan grow as well. General wald that is a great point. Mr. Makovsky elliott, in your experience, do you think a lot of countries, foes and friends alike around the world, look at how the United States treats israel chuck mentioned earlier that we may have more in common or be closer with israel than any other country. And i guess, we have heard the arab leaders say that he would be shocked if the United States to support israel. So do you think other countries a mission to china, russia, other countries, france and foe alike would say, if the United States doesnt even support israel, why would they support us . Amb. Abrams i agree. Absolutely right. What we in nato have done in ukraine has certainly been a message to putin obviously. But to the chinese as well. It has been it has strengthened our alliances in asia with australia, japan, korea, because they see an Alliance Working and they see participating in that. We have such a long and close relationship with israel. There is such rhetoric about it on the part of president after president , that a fullon relationship proves to be what we are ready to deprecate or walk away from or abounded if conflict arises, that we are undermining the value, i would argue, every alliance and every formal or informal, every security relationship we have around the world. Mr. Makovsky i was in israel last month, and it was interesting to me one senior israeli general said to me, every day at netanyahu is not invited to the white house is dangerous. The president just spoke to Congress Last week, obviously a big deal, met with brandon and so on. With the president , it is more ceremonial. Do you agree with that . Does that send a signal to the iranians that the Prime Minister still has not been invited to the white house . The u. S. Isnt going to back israel when it comes to iran . How do you see the iranian calculations on things like this amb. Abrams my only reason i see it as a mistake not to invite the Prime Minister, whoever it is i dont want to overstate it. If youre looking at it from iran, there is a tension that didnt exist a year ago. But they know that the intel relationship has continued. They know, what you said at the start that the general from centcom has made 10 visits to israel . Mr. Makovsky i think he has an apartment in tel aviv right now. [laughter] i in choking. Amb. Abrams i think that i i am joking. Amb. Abrams i think the areas are aware that the relationship has fundamentally changed. And i think they are aware of one other thing there is a tremendous political fight in israel right now. There is complete unity when it comes to iran. We have heard the leader of the opposition, yair lapid, say that there is no daylight between left and right in israel when it comes to iran. I think the iranians are realistic enough to know that our relationship is still very, very strong. One vulnerability would you want to make up for the most, and where do you think the iranians are most vulnerable that the military the United States not to can exploit . Military can exploit. The issue of saudi arabia is complex. They brought the sen. Bennet go, but credibility is really waning in the region. Those allies, gcc countries are hedging their bets a little bit, as you pointed out, you have, over the years, recently, over the last couple of years, we had the emirates and the kingdom of saudi arabia have hedged their bets towards iran because they might be part of the attack. So i think overall, our policy, and i have said this before, i am frustrated a little bit with the rhetoric that occurred when secretary clinton said that we would pivot to asia. I think that we should be looking at asia. The problem with pivoting is when you turn your back on something, and that work is not lost in arab countries. And we need to treat the world as it is, i have said before, not how we like it to be but how it is, so that we can make it how we would like it to be. But i do think that gcc countries are are kind of walked like a little bit, hedging their bets right now, which is not a good thing, because iran, if they are unleashed, they have not shown any reason to be reasonable as far as an attack, it is all strategic to them, which is pretty powerful. From a standpoint of what we can do against them, i think the gcc countries need to keep working on them to have more Regional Defense capability, there are plenty of targets in iran which could we could take on which would degrade their capability significantly. We should probably through back channels release some of that data to the iranians. I am not sure if theyre going to put or into their defense than they already have, but i am really worried right now that we are going to waffle our way into something that is hard to recover from and if we get started from behind the power curve because we are not prepared, four or five days or a week or so is a big advantage for an adversary. Elliott, you mentioned that it seems to me that congress, democrats and republicans in congress, have been among the leaders pushing for a tough u. S. Position supporting ukraine against russia. At least from my vantage point. Wheres that administration has been slow walking support for ukraine, at least in midterm terms. What do you think that congresss role here with an Israeli Campaign would be . The same sort of thing. The ministration will want to know where is the public and where is congress. And displays of support, meaning resolutions, basically, speeches, but also votes. Suggesting that the United States will not allowed daylight between us and israel on these questions and that we remain committed to preventing iran from getting to the weapon, that is the cripple phrase. It was president obama who said i do not have a policy of containment. I have a policy of prevention. We need congress to support this notion that we have a policy of prevention. That requires an enormous amount of diplomatic activity and the pressure of sanctions. And it may require more. What congress can do is show that we are there and that we are supportive. Are there things that congress could be doing now . I voted to support, providing israel with weapons that they have not gotten yet . Should they be doing hearings to discuss these things now . Just curious. Abrams they should have hearings on this report. To talk about what would happen if there were a conflict. It is not to create a conflict or seek a conflict, it is to deter one and to reduce the size of the conflict. You mentioned before, in the final word of the report, is there going if there is going to be a conflict there has to be a way to end it. How do we think through how to do that . What are the to triple medic mechanisms that the United States and others would use . If there ever were an Israeli Attack. How do you bring the conflict to an end . And that is something that needs discussion now, not in the midst of a crisis. I would like to conclude the conversation, chuck, do you have anything that you would like to add . I think the ambassador is very hard to click on this. The link between taiwan and israel, from the standpoint of deterrence and messaging, we as a country need to be seen as someone that can be depended on, our work means something and we live up to what we say. I would like to avoid conflict if we can, but we have to be credible from the standpoint of the consequences. And a ram is not a rational country. I think there has to be statements made, i think there has to be actions taken. I think we are getting short of time with that. I great agree with the ambassador 100 . Elliott, i asked you about your comments, i just the of seems so nervous about an israeli strike. Its really interesting the administration seems so nervous about an israeli strike. Its so interesting. Im not in these conversations but the administrations, everybodys talking about giving israelis so much. Do you think that they are so worked up and focused on a military conflict that they have not thought through what are the alternatives, if they allow a nuclear iran, what does that mean for our credit ability print ability if we do not support israel . Thinking about what happens to taiwan and so on . Abrams i think they are stuck. Had a policy. They never abandoned it. They never said, that is for the jcpoa, they havent moved onto a new policy. They havent explained why that might be. They never seem to be thinking about or favoring an israeli strike. They dont want to be seen to be planting an american story. You need a policy. The president is committed, the countries committed, but we dont seem to be actually doing anything, militarily there is a little bit, we should not say anything, there have been some steps that we have taken, there have been steps and exercises which suggest preparation. There have been a few steps, but they are not described in the setting of a coherent policy. We are still talking about iran indirectly about maybe there could be i think what is missing here is a policy. It is a clear statement from the president or secretary of state to the congress and the american people, here is our iran policy, maybe in a hundred 25 words or less. 125 words or less. One quick comment on that. There was a statement made by one of the military leaders in the Central Command that somebody asked a question, what would you do if Israel Attacked iran and they said that we would have to stop and think about it. That is the wrong answer. The answer should be is if that happens we are with israel. That should be unequivocal. We mentioned that quote, i appreciate you mentioning that, we cited that quote by the senior Central Command air force officer in the report, one more thing, on your last bit of time. You said that there is no clear policy, they have not articulated the on what you said earlier, which is some sort of version of the jcpoa, and they have never come up with a plan b. Do you think they see that to do the deployments that chuck mentioned, to expedite delivery of weapons for a conflict with iran, like this case with precision ammunitions or the like, that the administration thinks that will facilitate a military campaign as opposed to deter one, deterring the iranians . I do, i think that is the problem, that we are arguing in this report that most of these steps are likely to deter iran. I think the administration thinks that it would free up israel and make it more likely and that there would be an Israeli Attack. To be honest about it, you cannot say there is zero chance of that, as israels capabilities grow. You know, its a costbenefit analysis that might change. Our costbenefit analysis should be heavily weighted towards deterrence. I think if there was an Israeli Military campaign, i think whatever administration our people to said earlier, i think that whatever the administrations view of the two country countries interests now, once a military campaign by israel commences, there really is a convergence of interests. We should watch that campaign to succeed to prevent a nuclear iran, and we should give israel the capability for that to succeed. And we want a deescalation. Again, if there is daylight, it will only book embolden the iranians to retaliate stronger. The last thing i will just add, the one thing that bothered me from for years, hezbollah, their role and their job from the iranian standpoint, with their 100,000 plus rockets and missiles, is to act as an it took deterrent against israel. And that if israel does something their job is to retaliate. But if you are hezbollah leader, what do you think his captivation might be if israel strikes . I have to think he is going to get a phone call or whatever it is from the Supreme Leader and say do your job. And you know whats going to happen if you dont. On the other hand he will get communication from the idf saying if you start unleashing rockets and missiles, why dont you say goodbye to your family . And the rest of southern lebanon . How do you think hes going to react . You have to assume he is going to participate in an iranian retaliation but it is not 100 . Its possible, perhaps to deter it. I think their disagreement in israel about that. There are disagreements, its an important question. If you think that after an Israeli Attack there might not much not be much left of in a renewed their program or of hezbollah, then iran is weakened in the region. They still want to hold things in reserve or think about lebanon. I want to make one other comment. If the iranians decide in response not to do a counterstrike against and Israeli Nuclear reactor, an Israeli Nuclear reactor, but rather to go for the biggest possible war, to kill the net british number of israelis and the graves to metadamage to infrastructure, to send in hezbollah and kill as many people, included civilians as possible, is hard to believe United States is not going to be involved in this anyway, were going to watch thousands of israeli civilians died. Die. Were going to watch an immense amount of damage to that friend of the United States. In congress and in the United States there should be a desire to help, which is again, why, as in the report, we should be thinking this there now. I like to comment on that. I would like to comment on that. It is ironic to me, and we rightfully say this, when President Biden says an attack on one engine beto one inch of nato will bring an article five response from the nato agreement, i think we should say the same think publicly about hezbollah. Saying publicly about hezbollah. Same thing about hezbollah. If they advance, if it is implied. First of all we should support ukraine unequivocally, i think the report that frederick is right and i would like to see more support. Even though they are not our nato ally, i think we dont have the same kind of treaty, we should make a Public Comment that an attack by hezbollah will be responded to by the United States. I appreciate both the of your comments. I appreciate the work of the task force to put this out. From what elliot said and has been repeated a couple of times here. The point of the report is to help we gave our views about the weight we thinks that think that the u. S. President and congress should be thinking about things, but i think most importantly right now, we think that there should be a greater discussion in washington among u. S. Officials and senior folks in congress about what would happen if israel strikes iran. So we should be prepared since it is much better to be prepared then to be taken by surprise. We all see what that is like. Again, i want to thank you, elliot and chuck, for participating. I want to thank all of you for joining us today. Please look our website. If you have not received an email with our report, please look to the website, its a pretty short report, and this will help with future reports and there will be webinars being put out on this subject and related matters. Thank you very much and thank you again for joining today