And reach a conclusion i think it is 90 days after the implementation of the Security Council resolutions none of us knows what is in this agreement. To my mind there are questions of if you are given an explanation that this was peaceful activity it does not mean that the activity was also carried out for other purposes. How the director general will formulate his report will be a question of artistry and diplomacy as far as im concerned. So what about these activities . If you assume that these accuracy activities were carried out and were successful it means that i run has iran has more knowledge. It would mean that the time between if there were to be a breakout would be shorter than it would otherwise be. That is an important consideration. But it is already factored into the fact that the agency will be doing inspections and gathering information on critical things on a daily basis, essentially in real time. It does not really affect what could he do other than that . That is one aspect that i am ok with. The other aspect is supposing it finds something down stream that is going on. How can it determine that this is something new versus something that predated the report that will be coming in december . That will be a thorny issue along the way. As far as the technology, it all depends on what kind of facility you are looking at. What the materials are, and so on. The iaea today has over 100 different verification systems that are approved for use in the field. To get there is now a much more demanding process. You go through a specification evaluation of prototypes until you ultimately get to equipment that can be relied upon. And the reliability and efficacy it is still some of these old seals that are in place. Compared to digital ones that have fiberoptic receptors that can be reviewed automatically. The surveillance cameras of old where the movie cameras that were used and engineered so they would start and stop and stretch it out so that you could get a time of surveillance that would be maybe three months. Now you have largescale digital storage. The equipment is nothing like what it was. The reliability is phenomenal and the performance and the information given and the fact that it incorporates protective features, so that you simply cannot fiddle with it and expect you can defeat this equipment. You can heated up, you can put the wrong voltage into it, but that would be a separate matter. It very much depends on an enrichment plant and the equipment that is appropriate. An isotope production reactor is very different. It is all designed according to those looking in the field. Obviously you are more concerned with eyeballs. An intelligent inspector who is trained and knows what to look for is worth any number of items of equipment. We are going to open it up to your questions now. Say if your question is directed to one or the other of the panel. Wait for the mike. This is a question for tom. The iranians in the past have demonstrated great sensitivity to the nationality of the inspectors. I wonder if you can tell us how much of a concern that is for the future, both in maintaining the integrity of the inspections of iran, but also the precedents set for other countries around the world vetoing inspectors. Inspectors can come from any one of 176 countries. Any country can say yes or no to any individual inspector that is proposed. Iran does not except american inspectors today. Whether it will in the future, i am hopeful that it will prove a circumstance in which iran will change his attitude in this regard. That would be a very helpful thing. I think there is a need for more americans on the staff. At the present time, the iaea budget one quarter of it is paid for by the United States. The iaea has kept the full support of the United States government at 25 . It also donates about 50 million a year and extra budgetary contributions that allow the agency to do think that it otherwise could not do. In affected entitles the United States to have one out of every four staff being an american. A few years later a few years ago the United States gave up about 5 . The last time i checked the numbers were running about 12 for americans. Part of the problem that we face is that we dont send enough people good people over there. This is due to the fact that the experts would come from national laboratories, the federal government, from academia, and from the industry. And we dont have a mechanism which makes it in the u. S. Interest for people to go. I am hopeful that part of this legislative review will be to address what things could be done to assist in this regard. Are they any other nationalists nationalities that are barred . I just dont know the answer to that. I know a lot of the inspectors have been from scandinavia, latin america, and italy. I have some experience in dealing with iraq. The criticism has already been made that the verification has too many steps. We have seen with iraq how easy is it is how easy it is to play cat and mouse. How would you answer the criticism that there is so much time lag built into this, giving iran numerous opportunities to barricade . That the purpose of the inspection could be mitigated by that . Youre right that this is a criticism that is being led the. I think it is one of the reasons why we have talked about the agreement. The fact is that under the additional protocol, the iaea can request access to a site and under normal circumstances they can get access within two hours. No authorization. There is an inspector in the country, they are properly equipped, and they are able to go in a short amount of time. They have an opportunity to say will the satisfy you . If the agency says no, and the state then says what you can get in, immediately the red flag goes up. There is no cat and mouse. Everybody is going to be watching this one piece of desert, right . In the agreement there is a process that no more than 24 days can pass. Within less than four weeks the iaea gets in, or they are in violation of the agreement. If we see anything going out the back door, iran is in violation of the agreement. Lets talk specifics. What are we worried about . Are we worried they are going to build an underground facility . If they are, you cannot get rid of it in 24 days. Radiation and Nuclear Materials last a long time. Or if we go when and we notice materials, you cannot say it is a baby milk factory. Again, it is for us to decide are they in compliance or not. There is no scenario that i can envision where iran would say we are going to take the chance. I dont want to be reassuring because when i tell me when a Nuclear Engineer tells me a Nuclear Facility is perfectly safe, i get nervous. There are things that can go wrong. But if they tried, we will catch them. But if they try it, we will catch them. The agreement that George W Bush negotiated with the North Koreans in 2005, which contain no verification provisions at all, was five pages long. The treaty of moscow, which was between george bush and vladimir putin, was three pages long. It got 71 votes in the senate. This is over 100 pages long. It is like no other nonproliferation agreement that has been negotiated. The details are here. As jim says, we have done our homework. We are very open to understanding and constructive criticism. We are giving a defense to a to what we believe is a very effective agreement. We are assuming they are going to try to cheat, and we know that we can catch them. Right there in the middle. While were on the subject of criticism of the deal, i think that everything that has been said in terms of the strength of the agreement in the Nuclear Space is accurate, is a good deal, is a winwin in terms of diplomacy. The criticism that i worry about over the next 60 days, within the body politic, is you are giving iran over time all this money with which to conduct the activities in the region that we put them on the statesponsored terrorism list year after year. I would be appreciative of your comment about that space. I would like to talk about that for a second. I am confused by this argument. I am deeply confused for a couple of reasons. It seems to me if you dont like iran, they are terrorists, then you dont want them to have a Nuclear Weapon. What is worse then iran involved in terrorism . It is ironic involved in terrorism with it is iran involved in terrorism with a Nuclear Weapon. What is that mean, then . What that means is those people are saying we cannot have any Nuclear Agreement. They are imagining that there is going to be a Nuclear Agreement where iran does everything we want them to do on the nuclear and they get zero in return. They dont get any relief. I am not aware of any agreement in the history of humankind that would work like that. If you are saying we cannot give any sanctions relief because they will use it for terrorism you are essentially saying no agreements relief restraints. I think people are brought to be concerned about irans behavior. They threaten our neighbors and americans. Theyre Holding American citizens. They are engaged in activities in countries that lead to real regional instability and insecurity. We are not blind to that. Ever started with a question about is this turning a page. We are assuming that iran will not change. We dont want them to have access to a Nuclear Weapon or get there quickly. We intend to increase our capability to challenge iran throughout the region, because we do expect that some of this money will enhance their activity. I would point out that iran is under the most crippling sanctions system that have ever been imposed. It is not a shortage of money that is preventing them from terrorism. They are doing that anyway. Is there an incremental risk . Are we going to be taking steps for allies to match that . You bet. There is also a very interesting set of steps that is coming out. By how much does saudi arabia outspend iran . This is not just purely a money scheme. It is a capabilities scheme. It is a sharing scheme. It is what we have leaders here for the camp david summit. We are expecting the neighborhood is going to be bad because the neighborhood is bad. But it gets worse if they have a Nuclear Program. Way for the microphone. Wait for the microphone. Of all the joys and jubilation that we are getting clips of, it is all young people out there patiently waiting for the sanctions to be lifted. With all these measures that have been put into this agreement to stop iran are making a nuclear bomb, it seems to me that this regime will be on a Suicide Mission if they do not comply with this agreement. They have a lot of answering to do to their own domestic population and also to the world. I need your input on this, thank you. People say it is the regime and the regime makes all the decisions and Public Opinion has nothing to do with it. Public opinion does have something to do with the policies undertaken by the government. They do a lot of things in the region that most iranians do not support. They would like to see their money spent at home. But in 2009, there was an earthquake call the green revolution. The government stolen election to reelect a leader. Millions of people came out on the street and said wheres my vote. Even though the regime crushed the protest, it shook them to the core. So they made sure that in 2013 when there was another election, there was a reasonable choice of candidates. The new team has been able to negotiate this agreement. This is their second time around. They have succeeded. They are well aware of popular sentiment. They know what sanctions have done. Unemployment is extremely high. The new leader gives hope and Economic Development tops. Some of the money that iran will receive lines up and has lines up with hezbollah, yes of course it will. But i will argue that if this government wants to retain legitimacy and remember what the Supreme Leader here is doing , he is making a pact with the great satan, and everyone knows this if the system wants to continue, it will have to meet some of the aspirations of its people, i would argue. Wait for the microphone, please. Thank you for a fascinating panel. A few questions. First of all, in parallel to the inspection regime that will be led by the iaea, is there any provision unilaterally for the administration to collect the best minds . To alleviate a lot of this inherent suspicion . On another issue, the president gave an interview about one month ago to israeli tv, where he conceded that the breakout time could be reduced to nearly zero . I would love to hear from your experts. How can that be ameliorated and reinforced . If i understand your first question, how are we going to make sure that the best people are working on this problem and that the iaea and government have what they need . That is why we are here. The iaea received a tremendous amount of support from the United States. They get great to hickeys from the national laboratories. We help train their people. In terms of the technical capabilities and leadership, the iaea already has that. We are working closely with them to determine what more they need. There is a thermostat that you can set. They will send an alarm out and tell us when they have gone above the enrichment level. We will expect that there will be more recesses resources. Our military and intelligent intelligence capabilities will change over time. We are constantly evaluating those things. There are still some decisions that have to be made. Just as we learned lessons from the north korean agreements, we are learning lessons. In terms of the breakout timeline, what we have been able to achieve in the jcp aoa is predictability. Some of the documents are laid out very clearly in the jcp 08. There is a strict path on those enrichment levels. More importantly the amount of enrichment material they may have. Beyond that, there is a research and Development Plan that iran must provide that provides predictability and is consistent with their energy needs and development. Its in the year 14 right now we have a plan through year 13. They will have to continually update that based on their development. If the plan says we are going to have 5000 that appears inconsistent with their obligations, we will still have the right to say, that appears inconsistent with us. We can work to impose sanctions. We can work to get our allies equally as concerned. The predictability is what we have been able to achieve, and the iaea will get access to that plan. Dr. Ernest moniz has been working out these provisions. We dont the agreement does not provide for the exponential increase in enrichment capacity or a drop off. Can i follow up on that for a second . I offer several ideas. Assessment is not about imagining all the bad things that can go wrong and listing them. Assessment is you try to put parameters and measure the risks involved and calculate tradeoffs. How do you do that . You compare one thing to another. We have talked about this being a stronger agreement compared to the most robust nonproliferation agreement in history. A second evaluation criterion is how does it compare to the alternatives . A lot of folks are saying 15 years is not long enough. A part of me has to fight hard and resist going down the road of i heard this song before. Prime minister netanyahu said we need at least a few weeks or months notice the four iran does something. A few weeks or months. John kerry said we are going to have six months. Then he was told six months is not enough. Then they come back with an agreement that says one year. Then we hear actually we need two years. I dont know if there is any number that we could choose that would satisfy people. It seems to me that 15 years is a long time. Less compared with the alternatives. Lets say we use military force to decimate the program. After doing that, iran would be able to recent constitute reconstitute his program and roughly four years. What we do . We wipe it out again, i guess . We are talking about an agreement that is going to go for 15 years, compared to the four years they would take to reconstitute their program. All of these debates are important, but how you judge things is compare them to other things. You compare them to other agreements and your alternatives. We have the iaea being involved which is an International Organization that grew out of president eisenhowers proposal of 1953. It is responsible to its member and one of its obligations is to respect the sovereignty of each of these states. It cannot act in an impromptu or whiplash effect. It has to proceed with due caution so as to avoid false allegations on the one hand. While being mindful that if there is something going on, that it must act in sufficient time to allow an adequate response. And that will be a problem if depending on what goes forward. And so these questions of the 24 days, etc. , to my mind, thats sort of a period during which the degree of certainty would continue to build up. Not maybe its denied or not yet permitted to go to a particular location. But there are a lot of other things that will be going on in a circumstance like that. So my own perception is maybe clouded by the fact that im an optimist. And i want this to succeed. But i think that this is a new era. And that im hopeful that iran will seize upon this as a chance to demonstrate its commitment to the obligations that its entering into. Because if it doesnt were going to know about it. And the things that interference with activities or just the color of how much cooperation is there is it something which is demonstrated on a daily basis by providing assistance that the inspectors can actually do their work. Or are there things that get in the way . So that will be known soon. And i think we know the iranians have abided by the interim agreement that was reached back in 2013. Quite faithfully. For the last couple of years. And thats a good precedent. Ok. Wait for the microphone. My name is mike sonder but everybody here agrees that the agreement is a good agreement. My curiosity is since theres no longer any state secrets, when you use the word tough negotiations, what didnt they agree to . Because at this particular point, only what they didnt want to do is relevant. What did the United States want that iraq iran did not want . There should be no secrets on this. I was once the dir