Transcripts For CSPAN3 Atlantic Council Hosts Discussion On The Iran Nuclear Deal 20170201

Holding a discussion at the iran Nuclear Agreement. They focused on how it might be alter in the coming years. Well hear from experts in International Relations and global security. This is an hour and 15 minutes. Its great to see such a full house. We realize after this very quiet and unmweekend there isnt much worry about in the world. Seriously this is an Inflection Point is as important as world war i and world war ii. Working to ensure constructive u. S. Engagement the world remains as relevant as ever. We are delighted to be partnering with the iran project for our third major event on the Iran Nuclear Deal. We worked a lot before that in getting there in the first place barbara has been at the Tipping Point of getting all of that done. I also want to salute an executive member of the executive committee of the board and with secretary chuck hagel one of the kcochairs the future of Iran International advisory council. It has now been a year since the joint comprehensive plan went into consideration. The consensus is other parties have largely met their obligations but there is discontent about the impact of the deal on both sides. We are also honored to welcome after the first panel senator chris murphy to discuss the deal from the congressional point of view, so we are delighted we will take time out of our crowded schedule. I turn it over to provide welcoming remarks. Thank you, fred. Thanks to the Atlantic Council. It is so remarkable. This is a well run organization. As you know, it is a good place to come for these things. This is the first time we have had one of these in which the Iran Nuclear Deal isnt front page news. Im hoping that the wisdom that will come out of this meeting will be such that it wont have to be or ever again be front page news. The final thing is we prepared for you a joint comprehensive plan of action. So thank you very much, all of you, for coming. Thanks everyone for coming. We are delighted to have this collaboration with the iran project. Before we get to the first panel i want to Say Something about the news of the past few days. Many of us worried under the Trump Administration. I think we never anticipated the first blow would come in the form of a ban on ordinary iranians coming to the United States. He is calling us a violation and this is something we are obviously going to discuss. I wanted to say personally for six years and has been visiting iran for 20 years that i hope the Trump Administration will reconsider the visa band or at least not extend it. With that i will introduce our panelists caroline is head of the delegation of the european union. She oversees overall management including sharing a weekly meeting for coordination among the 28 states. Caroline will be followed by mark. I am delighted he accepted our invitation to come. He is for defense of democracies. He coleads and he has been very influential on capitol hill in terms of designing sanctions. He has been a prominent critic. We welcome his voice. Then well have jim walsh from m. I. T. Jim worked on Nuclear Issues involving the middle east and east asia. She wrote an excellent paper. It is call add new strategy for u. S. i ro u. S u. S. iran relations. I hope that you will tweet on this event. We welcome you and welcome our panelists to the stage. Thank you [ applause ] okay. There isnt much to talk about, is there . Thank you for agreeing to be with us. When i think of the role in all of this i think of kathy and so its appropriate we have a woman here given the role they played in organizing and helping the negotiations along. If you could tell us from the european perspective, how well has the deal been implemented . What are the problems and challenges you see Going Forward . Yeah. I was just pointed out, we have just passed the First Anniversary of the agreement. I want to thank them because i think it is very timely. I think its just after i mean a year is a good time for a first assessment. We are often eager to want to go and assess things after one week and say it doesnt work. I think a year can give us some what of a perspective of how this is working. It has been a huge undertaking in many senses both the negotiations where it was very well very involved as you just described. We also have those that are engaged in this agreement. And it must be underlying that all of the states have sort of agreed to this and is a part of constructing the views on the implementation of the agreement. We think it has been a successful first year. Iran has complied with the agreement. There have been a few minor issues. Those have been detected and corrected immediately, which we think is very good. It is an important part. Mistakes can always happen. The important thing is how they are dealt with and that they are dealt with promptly and in agreement. We also are being very engaged in trying to provide the other side of the agreement because of iran giving up their abilities to get to a Nuclear Weapon. They have asked for lifts of the sanctions lifting of the sanctions which was done immediately. It is also of course to restart so they get some economic benefit out of it. As you pointed out there has been complaints. It is not happening as it should, etcetera. There are Different Reasons for that. The Iranian Society and the private sector is not very easy to deal with. Its not somebody you do quick business with. So there are many contacts that have been laying down for many many years. Those contacts have to be viewed and before you get to deal with them so you can show them in numbers it takes quite a while. There has also been issues around the Banking System and we have worked intensively with our american counterparts here to try to solve them and try to provide guidance. We are worried that if they do business with iranian banks it could have repercussions on the u. S. Business and anybody can understand if you have to choose between the u. S. And iran what you choose. So there have been a number of initial sort of obstacles but we are working every day to solve. We are very confident that iran will see advantages and that iran is also, by this, getting more people to people contacts which we think is also b benificial. And well go deeping on the next round. Zb thank you for being here. What is your impression of how well it has been implemented and what do you anticipate in terms of sanctions . We have heard that many republicans on capitol hill want to impose sanctions on other issues that in some cases replicate the Nuclear Sanctions or go beyond them. So barbara, first of all, thank you for inviting me. I want to congratulate you and others here on a tremendously successful organization. Im glad you brought together different perspectives and different voices. I think it will be critical to put our Heads Together and try to figure out the way forward. From my perspective i think the deal has gone as expected, which is that iranians are testing the deal to see what our response will be but ultimately the regime has no incentive to violate the deal, certainly not yet, because it gives iran a patient pathway to Nuclear Weapons. If they are smart they wont even test the deal. They will wait for restrictions to disappear over time so i think the deal is going quite well. We have to be on guard to deter violations but also to figure our way out from under the deal. From my perspective i think the Trump Administration is adopting the right posture early out of the gate. I have been on record for many months now saying it would be a big mistake. Uhhuh. The deal should be kept and vigorously enforced. The provisions they are interpreting in their favor. We should be very strict in interpreting the ambiguities in the deal and do what president obama and secretary kerry always said we should do. I think that if you were to predict where the new administration would go in the next 12 months my guess its only a guess, would be that you will see nonNuclear Sanctions it is hostage taking and slaughter in syria, supporting shiite malitias. It can be done outside and expect the new administration. Very good. Given what mark just said, whether these kinds of sanctions, even if you call them nonnuclear, will have the effect of undermining the deal and also the visa ban, frankly. The newspaper already called it a violation. In fact they said they said that its the result of the weakness of our countrys negotiating team and fruit of trusting the false promises of the United States. Thats not very helpful. It is good to be here with friends with this distinct panel. I was grabbing your throat, hug, whatever. And to thank the Atlanta Council and all of you. I am delighted to see you all here. It is a full house. I thought no one would care anymore and yet you have all come out which says something about you, i think. It may be a positive thing or negative thing. Im not sure. Youre jcpo groupies. It is an important topic. I would say briefly, yes, its the one Year Anniversary but we seem to forget we had two years of an interrum agreement. We are three years into a Nuclear Agreement they have confirmed as being obliged with. Thats pretty impressive. When you put that together with the data about the effect they have on Nuclear Behavior i think it should give us confidence Going Forward. Countries were interested in weapons started down that path, stopped as it turned back, an outstanding record. Some 40 countries have stopped and reversed course. Often it happens as a result of not agreements. In here we have the strongest nonproliferation agreement, stronger than the psi, stronger than the libya deal. So we have a track record of success general ri. We have a track record of success for three full years and then we have this agreement which stands out compared with other agreements. But that doesnt mean we are all going to get along and everything will be rosey. It is after all a Nuclear Agreement and should be judged first and foremost by the Nuclear Components and whether iran is bonding by them. I take notice and heart in the fact that there have been disagreements and incidents that have come up just like with the u. S. Soviets. There were disagreements or implementation issues that come up. In every case we have been able to bring attention and concerns about something. I dont see it that way. There wasnt any sort of this isnt Saddam Hussein with refusals and dodging and all of that. Things have been resolved quite quickly. I think thats a healthy sign. Now, i will take a moment and talk about what we might expect in the future. He said he expects and ill say that critics have predicted everything except that the agreement will succeed. They predicted there would be breakout, undeclard facilities, predicted know the agreements will work well. If you make the prediction eventually youll get one right. My view is that when it comes to Irans Nuclear intentions i follow the lead of the director of national intelligence. They do not say iran is champing at the bit and waiting to build a Nuclear Weapon after 15 years. They have said repeatedly since 2007 that iran had a Nuclear Weapons program, that it halted in 2003, that it has not made a decision to built Nuclear Weapons. Repeatedly it has said that and said that decision is a political one, not a technical one. If you know how to build a center f center have a Nuclear Weapons. It maintains Going Forward and 15 years is one where its not a consideration. It is an agreement. Its not what a lot of iranians say. It was extended by congress. They have had complaints about the implementation. We hear a lot of complaining. I think all sides i should say because it is an international agreement. All sides have come to a conclusion this is in everyones interest to pursue. As long as the agreement serves the interest of its parties then it can be sustained and we will prevent iran from detains the Nuclear Weapon. The moment we start to try to deny benefits promised under the agreement so that parties do not receive the benefits they expect then it will not be in the selfinterest of those parties to stay in the agreement. So i hope we dont take actions well intentioned or ill intentioned that Congress Might take. Im hearing a followon agreement even though the pre preamble given what we hear there is suspicion iran could abide by the deal and in 10 or 15 years start to work covertly. How do you see this sort of as a way to shore it up or improve it or is it something we should be talking about now. So i do think part of the confusion but differences that we hear continuously in the debate over the agreement is different assumptions about what were intentions during the negotiating period, whether you accept the judgment that has not yet been made or whether others believe this was a country that had already made the decision Nuclear Weapons would be a Strategic Asset and it was a legitimate National Security choice. So theres sort of going back to what were intentions at the beginning and also, what did the final diplomatic achievement, what were the per ramti ters of that achievement. We seem to circle back to divergent expectations. In the report that i did last year that you very kindly mentioned i said lets think of it as a new baseline. It doesnt mean that its sufficient to solve any of the other problems but it does set a new reality. It creates a new context where american and iranian officials can talk to each other. I think one of the great worries to an administration that has very strong views on iran is there wasnt enough value given to the continuity of those contacts. I worried that now we are in a post Nuclear Agreement, political environment that has new dynamics to it. I think its not necessarily realistic to think anybody has the stomach to go back to the negotiating table and say a new diplomatic process. I think its more likely to happen when the iranians test certain provisions or any one of the signatories believes that iran is up to the line of compliance or noncompliance. I think in the end what we will have is, you know, problem solving. Nobody mentioned yet the joint commission. I mean you eluded to it but there is a very interesting and important mek ncchanism that hat where any party to the agreement will bring issues. The parties to the agreement are not peers in the sense that its iran thats in the penalty box. Its not that each party has to demonstrate its own compliance as peers of iran. Its really that iran has to demonstrate first and foremost compliance and then theres an adjudication process. If there was a misunderstanding of how long they could hold before they had to etcetera. That mechanism seems to be working at a tier below the cabinet level officials. One would hope it could keep going. In one of the yearend assessments of the Nuclear Agreement, one very fine analysis suggested that the specificity of the Nuclear Agreement was also a vulnerability. It didnt it wasnt sufficient to solve all of the other problems. I would say the narrowness was a virtue and strength of the agreement. For the first time after decades of nontransactional interaction where iran it gave us something concrete and measurable. We can say are they complying or not complying . That to me is a strength more than a weakness because all other aspects are in a much more subjective domain where it is in the eye of the beholder. How aggressive is iran being in the region . Are the Human Rights Violations which seem to be getting worse, not better. Is iran in the region in the world by human rights standards. What would make them more susceptible, etcetera. I think of the agreement as a concrete achievement that sets a new baseline or new reality. It does not solve the big iran problem. There is still, you know, a multifaceted challenge because iran is after all a rescissivis power. They say we are not for regime change but from the perspective of most others iran is challenging the order for what its worth. And so in theory to me it is that ability to engage government to government that in theory creates a different and better opportunity to talk to iran about all of these other issues. It doesnt it has nothing that any of those other problems can be solved by disagreement. I think maybe later in the discussion well talk about these gray areas of when iran says this is a violation. It is a violation of the spirit of the agreement, not necessarily the letter of the agreement and how do we cope with that . Given how long it took to get this deal, the many many meetings, the hours and hours and hours, the numbers of diplomats that were involved, is there any appetite with all of the other problems europe is dealing with now, for any kind of renegotiation and is there any thought being given to how this deal would be extended perhaps . There is it has to do we believe this is a good deal. It is the best deal we could get. I do completely agree with ellen it is probably possible to sort of control it and contain it. We had maybe hoped that this would sort of this deal would set off a spiral of better relations in the region. Unfortunately it has not happened. There are also many other things going on in the region at this time. It is not the propence time for better relations. We think they could have used it better in that sense. What is important to us is that iran is now for a number of years the possibility to develop a weapon. As we see, history can change very quickly, overnight, kind of. We dont know where we are going to be when we come to this sort of further end of this. We need to give it some more time. What is important is that the eu and also i must say china and russia engage in feeling sort of the other balance to make iran keep up its promises. And i just want to Say Something. I spoke with a person that was engaged on a very practical level. He said you have to understand what a pride it was for iran. We cannot completely understand what it was to be able to develop a Nuclear Weapon. Now we are taking that away from them. They are referred or giving that away. We have a group of people who were sort of heros of the country who all of a sudden are without a job practically. It is up to the eu now to keep these people busy with good things and to put them on the peaceful use of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Safety and medical use of nuclear and other to engage them in something that can sort of bring back their pride and National Pride in this project. I think that is a thought we seldom think. You are very active in that work. I have been having chats with people on capitol hill in the last few weeks. I have been hearing on the republican side the intention is to put so much pressure on iran that it walks away from the deal. I heard it expressed to me several times now. Is that indeed what you see as a strategy in congress on a republican side and what is the logic behind it. Given how long it took to negotiate this deal, given that there is no real appetite for renegotiation what would be the benefit to the United States of try to go push the iranians out of the deal . I think the strategy is twofold. You know, i would give credit to those designing these sanctions in congress and new Treasury Department that they have a good idea of whats possible. Can you give a couple of examples of a couple of things they are contemplating . Well, you should invite them to know. I can tell you what i recommended publicly. We all agree, whether you think there it is moderate or not everybody can agree it is a maligned force in iran and in the region. It may surprise you or not there have only be 52 entities ever designated. 25 individuals, 25 companies, two institutions that were used for purposes. Wla recommended is there be a massive expansion of sanctions including the number of designations. There are thousands of front companies. My organization as a database go up to about 850 companies. We have identified for designations and there are thousands of more. You have seen that the bills are introduced and you see there were ideas along order for mate supports terrorism. The reason for those designations would be what, terrorism, missile tests . Human rights abuse, you name it. To those who predicted in continuing their line of activities and accelerate them. New york times and reuters have supported, i think we need to put this to rest. The regime have been complaining, they are not getting the Economic Relief they were promised. They were never promised Economic Relief. The United States wisely said we are not responsible for economic outcomes. Here us our obligations, well dedesignate a number of we are not going to guarantee you outcomes. The iranians theyre in a much better position than 2014. Inflation officially was 80 when they lost over 6. 5 in gdp and oil expert oil revenues have declined significantly. Their economies in terms of macro fundamentals were in very bad shape. Today, things are not great by any measures, things are a lot better by every measure. The economy is growing 5 to 6 and inflations are down. They gotten access over 100 billion. I think it is a big mistake whether you are a deal supporter or a critic to play into this iranian narrative that they never got what they were pri promised. Their economic outcomes have been actually by any measure, not bad. They avoided severe economic crisis. They are on a path. I think it is important to under score that regardless of your position on this deal or your support or lack of support for new sanctions. Perception is everything here. We had an event here last week of new poll data that had been released that most iranians thought they had not gotten what they were promised and they tend to blame the United States for discouraging European Companies from returning to iran and setting up newberryie barriers were as bad as the bad ones. Any politician knows, it was a big mistake to over promise and under deliver. Our politicians have done it all the time. He may face consequences of that. I think i am the only one in the panel opposed to it you get more time. A little more time. I dont want to take a lot of it. I think where we spend a lot of time where we get on this panel of relitigating and i am happy to that and it involves a lot of interesting debate on this. I do adopt the position that we should not be aboggregating e deal. I dont think we should fall again, just because the iranians are saying we are not going to ren renegotiate the deal. We should drop our hands and not renegotiating this deal so well live with this deal. There is a big mistake in assuming that and assuming of what a Trump Administration has said repeatedly. Thats this deal in its designed and architecture provided some short term benefits. It is dangerous for you as National Security. This deal includes as i said these key sunset provisions which the iranians are smart to negotiate. Now, that does not mean the iranians are going to use that capability. That does not mean they make a new decision to build the Nuclear Weapons which suggests given decade long of mon theye clearly in the business of building capabilities. The deal itself is very dangerous capabilities and we should be cognitive of. It means that theyll have the ability to build a number of heavy water reactant. President obama himself admitted that there will be at days if not hours away from a Nuclear Weapon break. I think we get the point. Can i just finish . Sure. We got to think through how to set up a strategy where we address the fundamental flaws of the deal and it is worth noting and we talk about this later. There is a history in the cold war of us negotiating and following agreements for the soviet union of nowitzthousands nuclears aimed to our city. We cannot foresee or assume that there is a followon agreement. I think it would be a big mistake. I want to bring our audience into this. We have a packed day. I want to first call on constantine is head of the political and embassy i would love to have your thoughts. Do you think it is possible following the old u. S. Russian model agreement. First of all, thank you barbara forgiving me the opportunity to speak. Hold it closer to your mouth. Is it better . Yes, much better. Thank you for letting the counselor and barbara to give me the opportunity to speak. First, i would like to say a couple of general points on how we assess of the first year on implementations. First of all, we believe that this is a real success, we see that everybody is in compliance to its best not to violate. Of course, during the last year we had some minor issues but we have the joint mechanism to deal with it is very helpful in russia has the anticipation in the realization as all of you know [ inaudible ] we have this separate arrangement with them. We are well under way. We are Going Forward. Our general assessment is quite positive and it is a confirmed by the last one of the meeting in vienna. Overall, it was it is possible at this time. I remember how that happened. It was a very unique exercise and that was very special there. I am afraid current station would not be able to repeat this exercise. Once again, this is my first assessment. Thank you very much. Harlan, i think you had a question, why dont we go to you. Wait for the microphone. I am with the Atlantic Council. Thank you for your contributions. If this past weekend is representative of how the Trump Administration pursued policies, it is not in conceivable for whatever reasons that the trump team could conclude to abegrate agpo, could you speculate on what the consequences might be for the other singnatory for irans and others. How would they reacted. The u. S. Says nod proud t proud. First of all, i believe this administration will get people in place who are specializing in all these areas. We have a lot of competence on the administration on this. I think well use that competence. And, the first thing we have heard was the phone call with the king of saudi arabia yesterday that there was no immediate worries about this direction that you are pointing at. We have to give the Trump Administration the benefit of the doubt. The eu is not alone in this. We have russia, we have china and, we have other countries who are partners with this. Theyre not unilateral for the eu in this situation as such. We are high representatives foreign if this would happen, we would certainly look to try to keep the agreement going anyhow. If it is at all possible, thats another question. I think it is a very complicated agreement, and whether you know treaty wise passing through u. S. Security council, i am not expert enough to tell. I think certainly for the eu, we believe that this is the right way to avoid iran develops Nuclear Weapons which we think would be very dangerous for the region and for the world. Therefore, we do want to try to do everything we can to maintain this. Okay. Thats exactly. You could ask ali, shes sitting right next to you. Ali is with the International Crisis Group Follows the Nuclear Talks closely. Thank you very much, barbara. Well, it is hard to predict how iranians are going to react. They have three options. They can either play victim trying to play a wedge between the u. S. And eu. In that way neutralize u. S. Sanctions. They can also retaliate. They can retaliate by reviving their programs or regionally. Remember the u. S. Forces and Iranian Forces are located in many places in iraq can syria. It would revive the Nuclear Crisis all together. And thats precisely what i want i want to ask mark. I wonder how you think the iranians will respond. I think at the end of the day it is hard to define non Nuclear Sanctions as effective as the Nuclear Sanctions once were. How do you think the iranians would react . Many say the cricktics are not able to kill the deal with a gunshot. Second, on sunset clauses, i think mark, you are not a critic of a jcpo. At the end of the day, if a krip country is compliance of ever 15 years or more if you take into account of enter agreement, do you expect the country to be treated as a second class citizen among others in the state . Nice question. Mark, you are on the spot now. Thank you, ali. Good to see you by the way. I think, first of all, it is a distinguish between non Nuclear Sanctions. And so when we talk about non Nuclear Sanctions, we are talking about using sanctions to spo respond to a whole range of activities thats outside of a nuclear deal. I can tell you there are a lot of ways you can find effective sanctions that are outside of the nuclear deal. It is human rights abuses. I am not going to go into details and i am sure you will see in march or april some of these sanctions are coming out of congress and may come out of the Trump Administration even earlier. Absolutely. Again, i think we should not fall into the trap of the iranian narrative. I know the iranian narrative on this. Which will well treat all sanctions as a violation of the deal. The notion board is that we have to except the proposition that if we designate individuals who are responsible for brutal human riep rights oppression, i am sure you would and i would not accept that. I cannot imagine too many people in the room accepting that opposition. That would include but not be limited to nuclear sessionancti. The sunset provision, reality is iran is in a class not by itself. It is in a class by north korea. It is a country that engaged in nuclear mundacity. It is a country that never fully resolves the questions with the ia mark, i am going to have to stop you there. When the Un Resolution was pazzed, that was a key demand of the iranians. No, they are no longer in the same boat. You may say that they did not answer these questions to all of our satisfactions. A i think thats very clear. From a uns perspective, theyre out of the dark house and they have not developed and tested nuclear which north korea has done. The whole purpose is to get out of it. Barbara, ali, asked me my perspective. We can have this debate but i am sure you are interested to know Going Forward, there are serious concerns that these questions were not resolved that Irans Nuclear program, there are scientists and sites and documentations that we were never able to access. I dont see Trump Administration giving iran a clean help and accepting this iranian regime. I dont think theyll accept it. The real question will be do i think theyll abrigate the deal . I think theyll use the joint commission and use nonnuclear sanction sanctions. I think theyll be in attempt to lay the predicate for pressure, not to drive the iranians away from the table but on a fall of negotiation to address some of the flaws on the deal that we see that the iranians see. If they are not getting the sanction leap that they want, there is an opportunity to come to the table and negotiate jco 2. Jim, i want you to come in on. You know more about north korea than most people in this room. Well, let me talk about i think there are some confusion here. So the notion that iran is going on year 15 to build an industrial scale enrichment capacity is a guess, right . You dont know if thats going to happen. No one knows. Theyre entitled to. Being entitled to and doing are different things. South africa had a tiny program and the North Koreans had a tiny program. This is industrial scale had nothing to do whether you can build Nuclear Weapons or not. They already know and they have the capacity to do it if they choose to do it. The whole idea that we can limit this, that was gone along time ago. That was gone when they built the second thousand center fuse. This is a political problem. Well solve this with technical limits on their program is not true. At the end of the day, the best way to prevent iran to come to a Nuclear State is for them to see of the interest of not to become a Nuclear State. Thats what the agreement is about. Sanctions, mark is thoroughly right. B context is very important here. How do we judge something has the intention of under mining the deal or a response that were taken that we dont like . Today, if you say throughout your campaign, you want a muslim ban and you want a muslim ban and you have an immigration order, this is not a muslim ban, it is going to look that way to people. It seems to me that we want to stop iranians behavior. The academic on sanctions correcting Human Rights Violations are not very good. Evidence would subject making them more and not better. On things that iran sees as its National Self interest. I dont think you will sanction them away from a Missile Program when iraq shot missiles at them. I dont think it is going to work. Now, you should think that, you should assign some probability here. What is the probability that it is going tie chio achieve our t objectives. We can sanction the hell out of rcg. Do they become a voice for nuclear restrength in iraq . Is that how it works . Rather than you point out, they seem to be benefiting from the geeagreement. That would seem they have a self interest in continuation. Is that what with want to have happen of an agreement to follow under rather than fallen apart. We should not confuse follow on agreements and renegotiat n renegotiatio renegotiations. You dont come out after the 365 days and say i want to do it over. Thats renegotiation. You let it sit for a while and hopefully you will build sustainable relations so we are not insulting each other everyday. A little trust and then you say, you are three or five, or how can we make it better for you . How can we make it better for me . You dont do it before the first birthday has passed. So i think we are not going to renegotiate. If we call that meeting, well be the omnivonly ones there. We all agree that well negotiate a followon agreement and we agree it should not happen after the first 100 days. We work closely with our allies to lay it on the table so we can negotiate this. We are all in agreement. I would add a few more things to that. Yes. I would agree with those elements. There are other elements that would be important as well. Yes, you hit on something which was working with our allies. Sanctions did not really began to impact iran until the europeans and the japanese and South Koreans came on board and stop buying their oil. Thats not true. A, thats not true and b 2012. Lets just remember the sequencing of this. United states put in place very powerful secondary sanctions. They went around the world, particularly the u. S. Treasury department not to do business with iran. They then posed billions of dollars of fines. U. S. Congress came and passed a secondary financial sanction and began an escalation where congress began to pass tough zer tou er sanctions. You have this powerful all of us were looking for a non nuclear, military way out of this crisis. We all fear that an israelis military strike would lead to a problem. They did not want Israeli Military strikes and they did not want fines to be imposed in their country. The europeans came to their table. 2012 was the real lets remember the sequencing of this. The europeans finally came once we are far up the regulation curve because they recognize these threats. When we are talking about reconstituting, pressure, so we can get a jcpa 2. One should never under is bait the power of financial sanctions. Which could begin with an escalation on the golf the next time you see an attack boat harasses one of our navy ships and President Trump orders secretary mattis to blow it out of the water when we are talking about non nuclear do you want to react to any of that . Of course. You can estimate everything as far as our kwiwishes. In the end, it is something that we want to avoid whats important to understand that this deal takes two to tango. If we dont keep the iranians on board, there is no purpose of the deal. I want to point out so as been said, the eu still maintain sanctions of all iran. We have not lifted it all of our sanctions. It certainly needs, i think and we work with china and russia to maintain a sort of positive incentive for iran to maintain this. This will, of course, be more complicated in the pressure increases from theist sid u. S. I cannot say where the break point is Something Like that. Thats, of course, too. There is just so much you can do. The stick is beating faster and faster. Thats political judgment where where certainly, the other partners, we have not and prefer to remain in good faith of this new administration that well be able to work very well together. And that well be able to discuss this with members of congress openly. And, that well be able to maintain this deal moving forward. T the further we get,s the better it is. Did you want to add something on . I thought marks chronology of how sanctions worked was very useful and worth reminding ourselves that did, did happen under the circumstances of iran. The iranians will tell the story differently. They would say when theyre ready to talk, then theyre ready to talk. We got a rash amount of problem here, what is it that brought the people to the table and what were their assumptions of other actors. What i found is disheartening is the notion that, there is a profile lack of trust, the iranians are doing more stuff that we dont like. The problem seems in a way to be getting worse and not better. I theguess, if wepunitive. We need to be self critical when decades dpoen by and we did not succeed. How did we go under their skin and rethink, whats in their interests and maybe thats beyond our capables. Maybe iran always wants to be an out liar country in a way. The resolution. Maybe this iran cannot change in the direction that we wish that it could. So i guess i am taking away from this, it is a little bit turning the clock back to a sind mind set of an imagining the the iranians. That larger story is getting darker and not lighter. I think it is a great point. Again, i would recommend not going back to an all punitive approach which is a deal tracker broach. Which is using immune activity measures and are there any instruments of and offering the eiranians the time. I think thats an opportunity, not back to the all mine p an you were sacrifi you were satisfied for. If they agree to have no more than 320 grams. In which case, they cannot build a Nuclear Weapon. I am not going to start the negotiation of this agreement should looked like. Thats a great way for opponents and deal supporters to come together to think through from a policy respect and by the way, on what they are prepared to do. The Obama Administration did which is where we start to negotiate the south. Well ask t. I completely agree with this, how we brought the iran ians to the table in the first place. I think thats something that dni agrees with. I think one of the biggest things that brought them to the table was our willingness to give them up front of a major concession. And one is to abandon decade of you on richmond and number 20, give them a way out of these restrictions on their nuclear prom. It is the contract that we used to have with Security Councils with votes. To lift resixths off of. Secretary terry offered this huge concession at the beginning of the negotiation. It brought them in a table but resulted with a flawed deal with sunset provisions. Lets not relitigate. I do have something to say here. I have not to see but i will keep it to one thing. It is not unwill belieyou di e ir irania iranians. We need to put our our pressure so when we go into negotiations. We can use this pressure and get an agreement, we wont. That sure sounds to me like we are using sanctions for r a Nuclear Agreement, even though thats prohibited under jcpo. I didnt mistake. And thoroughly the notion that we cannot pressure in iranians in my way because of the new nuclear we have for mouse angsts on you. The idea that we are using sanctions on human rielghts. Thats up and coming. Guys, i hate to tell you but our keynote speaker is about to arrive . Do we have one more question . Wuf time for one more question, i am going to go right here. As a person spent a gootd idea of time in iran and worked with people and helping, my specialty is hire education in iran and in the u. S. And at least from my positive, i pretty much agree with ellen and marks point of view. Well, carolines as well. Respect is a basic necessities and context is houg. The idea of muddling the iran agreement with all the other objections we have to their behavior is a hugely dangerous thing to do. Everyone thinks and i think the current dpreemt works welagreemd it is well constructed. Precisely in order to get Nuclear Proliferation done. Do you have a question . My question is what possible benefit could there be and what can we do educate the antiagreement focus on the hill. I represent the National Peace Core Association from iran. I think we need to educate theme on hill to the best we can. Contact and respect is where we need to go. I dont know how to do it. Ic it is huge with the Nuclear Agreement thats going to achieve anything but disaster. Carolyn, i know that the eu european diplomats and generals are trying to do this. We are looking to engage with the new congress now. If they and when they start to think about doing this. We are a bit waiting to see what comes out of this administration as well we are certainly ready to go up again. We were present there in lieu of the decision in congress. I think we were able to help to get that way with russia and china. We are ready to do that again. Because we buy are defending. Different topics and Higher Education and environment and industrializations and Small Business in many areas where we go into du size to engage and try to build confidence in disagreements and feel that a lot part of the our society benefits from it. Good. A quick follow up. Those of you having direct knowledge whats the specific actions . The question is about what specific action. We have seen President Trump came into office, there is been a tremendous resurgence of willing necessary on the part of order area americans to call their number of congress on a viert of issue. I think you can have the Iran Nuclear Deal to the long list of things that well are talking about. I would say the Atlantic Council stands ready to educate and about not just the Nuclear Agreement but other aspect of iranian policies and domestic realitities and we are committed to explaining this complexitiablety to society. With that, i have come to the end of this panel, well have a brief coffee breaks. Go and get coffee or snack. Well come back here, senator chris murphy will give his address. Thank you very much to my pa panelists. The Atlantic Council continues its event on the Nuclear Agreement by hearing a speech from connecticut senator, chris