Welcome to our guests, senator jack reed, the senator from the great state of rhode island. Im the chief White House Correspondent for abc news. I will be presiding and asking questions for the first half hour, and then take some questions from all of you for the second half hour. This is an on the record meeting. In fact, i also want to welcome all the cfr Members Around the nation, maybe around the world who are participating in this meeting through the livestream. So thank you all for being here. Senator reid, so much to talk about with you. Right, withart perhaps the most pressing National Security issue in north korea. The bottom line question, as we heard fromwe have the president and his team about a military option is there realistically a military solution to the north korean crisis, short of an unthinkable war . If you talk to our military leaders, both secretary mattis and general dunford, they have a plan and have the capacity to do that, but they this isvery clear that a diplomatic effort at this point. That is the best approach at this point. Unfortunately, the diplomatic effort is being hollowed because of a lack of capacity. We do not have an ambassador in south korea, we do not have a confirmed assistant secretary for the region. We have heard stories about state department lack of personnel and focus, and the other issue in terms of the diplomatic approach is a lack of coherent message. We have seen that from the beginning, when the president paying about south korea them back, when they have done a lot of political effort to get it into the country. We have seen it in terms of the free trade agreement, all of that is presented incoherent messages in many respects. And then in terms of coordination and cooperation, we. Ave to develop several tracks in formal tracks, back channels, which i hope are there informal tracks, back channels, which i hope are there because in these kind of crises they come in handy a lot of time. That is how you get a dialogue going. And then we have to look at the mechanisms we used before. We would have a group of five, south korea, japan, china, russia, and the united eights formerly sitting down formally sitting down in dealing with out north korea. I think the diplomatic effort is finally important, because even though military is a must, they are preparing for some kind of operation, but this would be a much preferable way to proceed, and also if it does not succeed, there is much more legitimacy for the use of force. You say this is a diplomatic effort. That is not what it sounded like when the president was at the u. N. Sen. Reed that goes back to the issue of coherency of message. , sinceth korean regime its inception, has been talking anut how they have to be essentially militarized society because the United States is determined to destroy them. Now ironically, all they have to do is translate that message at the u. N. And put it on their screens, in the loudspeakers, and the president will make the point for them. I do not think that was the best approach. Things that do signal very clearly that military options are not only on table, but being developed. We have heard this from madison, and from the president. But i want to get more on that question of the diplomatic route. But im just trying to understand that the first ,uestion the first question is there really a military option . We hear that phrase. We heard it from barack obama. We heard it from george w. Bush. But what . There sen. Reed there is a military option. What does that look like apple sen. Reed i think look like . Sen. Reed i think it is clear to everyone that the action would be quite costly, something we have not witnessed and you do not mean in terms of dollars . In terms of life, economic activity, cost in terms of environmental degradation. Crisis, one of the reasons it is so existential is because it involves a country that already has weapons of mass destruction, and a country that the question we have been able to deter their use now for many years now, both with chemical and biological weapons, but are they did terrible . Deterable . E i do not think military options will be a defensive operation, etc. , but a deterrence that would be put into effect. Missiledefense . Shooting down one of theirs yet protests . . Tests . The reed we would have ability to respond. It would require a cooperation, collaboration with many countries in terms of proliferation. One of the dangers with the North Koreans is not only they have these weapons, but they will sell anything they can get out of the country. Literally. We have to be very effective in terms of proliferation, even now with their chemical and biological, and we know they have nuclear weapons. Canumrange missiles that likely carry them. National security official in the Previous Administration made the point to me recently that one of the challenges here is that north three, atly, for least for three successive take as ations, could given that there really is not a viable military solution. The they do not fear that. And this official, no friend of needs toump, something be done to a race their confidence that the United States really does not have a military option here. Sen. Reed i think again, this to the issue of the diplomacy we are doing right now. One of the factors that mitigates against military operations is the question what would china do . If we could make progress to determine and collaborate, cooperate more so that we at least understand and they would understand, that would send a signal hopefully to the North Koreans that our use of force , because be abandoned were afraid not of the North Koreans, but the reaction of china, russia, etc. That is why this is a more cohesive, coherent focus foreign policy. It may be formally using the group of five or informally, using the back channels, etc. Is necessary. Toin, part of the motivation this is trying to adjust inject that sense of how we can do this. In many comparisons, there are many comparisons to richard nixon. They do not like that term at the white house, by the way. [laughter] think know, and i sticking to the diplomatic languages, this is helpful in these situations most times. So again, i think we are in a situation where we can just not say it too. And it goes to our credibility. If we are on a diplomatic offensive and the North Koreans and chinese are looking around and seeing feeble attempts at diplomacy, that is two things. One, they do not really care and they are going to do this, and what does that do in terms of north korean reaction . Do they preemptively do something, or do they discount everything we say . Not doinghey are diplomacy, we will not do military action. But what are we seeing in terms of china . Isause part of that effort getting china to put more pressure on north korea. The president has said that it is working, they have taken steps on banking recently. Is china doing more . Sen. Reed i think they are doing more, but the question is can they ever do enough . I think the presumption which many people have is as soon as the chinese decided to step in, they could tell them knock it off, kim jongun. They have thes same difficulty communicating with kim jongun that the rest of the world does, that the influence is much less than it was several years ago. That they can, and they have they are not but quite willing to cripple the economy, because they are afraid a huge swell and of refugees into the country. The other factor is also the internal politics of china. Congress the big coming up, which they do every several years, and i think getident xi wants to through that before he does anything else. That is tempering some of the response. But they have made improvements, they have supported the u. N. On some of these sanctions measures, but have not gone as far as we would like to go. I think that we might see something more productive in the future, after congress, and the other since i have is that xi himself, personally, has very low regard for kim jongun. So there is no personal relationship there. Keyink china is going to be , russia, because they have certain influence there. Butas dramatic as china, this diplomatic effort has to be enhanced dramatically. President deserves some credit for the fact that china is doing more now . A variation on the madman theory, china is worried about what trump will do, so they want to shortcircuit that by taking some steps on their own . Sen. Reed i think his first conversations with president she, they established a conversational relationship. That is good. Reacting toa is pressure, not just from the United States but from the world. And they are also reacting to as this regime gets closer to Intercontinental Nuclear weapons, the consequences could be dire to china as well. So there is a whole new set of calculations, given the progress that the North Koreans have made on their missiles and warheads. Its the North Koreans do what they threaten to do, which is a nuclear test over the pacific ocean, is that a redline . What are the implications of that . Sen. Reed i think that would be extraordinarily disruptive, and i think again, this is where conversations, not just in the United States administration but with china, russia, etc. , to get a sense of how they would react to it. That would be extraordinary. We would have atmospheric consequences to the climate, i do not think are they serious about that threat or do they they say a lot of things. Sen. Reed it is hard to judge. Every Intelligence Officer you see, they say this is the hardest discussion we have had. Kim jongun has a very compartmentalized we are not quite sure even we talked to people who we think are insiders, they do not know what he is thinking. It is very much, as i said, compartmentalize. So it will be somebody who has some insights on the missile program, and no insight on anything else. So i do not think we can dismiss it as idle talk. I think we need to have contingency plans, talk to our allies about what their reaction would be, and in fact, this might be something in the context of a group of five, where they could collectively lay down not a redline, perhaps, but a sense that this would be impermissible. Nuanced document. But one of the discussions we have with red lines is once you do it, you have already sort of locked your line into it. I want to move off north korea, we can talk about it all day. One question i had as somebody who has tracked this problem so closely or so long, what do you see as driving the recent success they have had, both in terms of their Ballistic Program and their Nuclear Program . . Re they getting outside help how is this most close nation, backward nation how is it they have made the incredible strides they seem to have made over the last couple of years in these programs . Sen. Reed i think they have been getting outside help. I think the efforts of the u. N. Administration to squeeze that depletion ofsome help. Help from who . Sen. Reed my sense is they have a network of companies, many located in china, that provide parts for them. They have a whole series of moneycompanies that raise for them, so they have hard currencies to use to buy things. They smuggle things in and out. Elaborate and sophisticated network. There have been some studies suggesting they have about 5000 5000 business entities in china, and one of them recently in dandong was shut down, but there are others that have been moving this material through four decades. The other interesting thing about why they have been so successful is that kim jongun has risked failure. Was a bits father more riskaverse in terms of he was waiting until they had 99. 9 it was going to work for propaganda purposes. Y fired mrs. That have missiles that have failed, and he has made it central to his regime, his personality, his survival. So with all of that and the 1960s, the chinese were able and it was a very rudimentary economy, they decided to put together Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles with some help, of course, from overseas, but with a lot of indigenous effort. Grad,you are a west point the president likes to surround generals, many of whom you know quite well and have known for a long time. General mattis, general mcmaster, general general kelly. I would like to have a sense of your interactions with those it from northin korea. When the president makes comments like fire and fury and talks about wiping north korea off the map, do you pick up the phone and say what do you mean . Who do you call . Uh that isll, interesting, because i have a great deal of confidence in the gentlemen you mentioned. My presumption is, and i think it is valid, that they have already weighed in, and sometimes defectively, to do things, prevent things that could be very consequential. Like what . Sen. Reed like, i stuff. [laughter] sen. Reed again, if you listen to their statements, they are and strong but controlled they send the right signal, which is do not presume that we are not ready to do what we have to do. We are ready. Again, i do not vantage same kind of point that others might have on the white house and the there might bet i hope there is a very healthy dialogue before the president says this. One of the concerns i have is that general mattis, general kelly are all reacting to , not talking about the best way to frame this message. To the something approach. That would be helpful to the administration and president. Seen a change in the National Security council . You were there for the partial flynn,eparture of looking to replace him. Bannon exiled from the council in the white house, have you noticed a change . Is muchd yeah, there more of the subject Matter Experts who are not as politically engaged, etc. , and they are providing a lot more subtle advice to the president. But ultimately, it is his decision. That is the system. We have secretary mattis, who is one of the most thoughtful and experienced gentlemen you can never have, john kelly is someone i admire immensely, but ultimately it is the president of the decision. They have to understand that. They can weigh in occasionally, but they have to give but they have to give the president options. Sen. Reed yes, and that requires two people. You have to listen, you have to study, you have to focus, and i think the question is not whether or not there is a listening focus and constant attention to the detail. Bannon used to talk about d operationalizing the National Security council de operationalizing the National Security council. What you make of that . Sen. Reed he is also saying that about the state department. X maybe they have succeeded their . I do not know, but if you do not fill up with credible and individuals, you have a capacity gap. Same with the National Security council. They are more ideological than technically proficient and professional, then it is no longer giving you that kind of option and advice, it is giving you polling numbers disguised as advice. A changek that is hopefully over the past few weeks or months, i should say now, with general mcmasters and general kelly. It is your decision, mr. President , we will give you the options that are all available. Advice, youce, our decide. That is the way it should work. How long have you known general kelly . Sen. Reed i have no john kelly for about 20 years. It was 2006, he was in the marine corps. Then i met him when he was commanding marines in the mr in this and bar province. What do you make of his challenge now . Sen. Reed i think his challenge is basically one of the things, having served with about four president s is temperament and personal style, critical to how any president operates. He has to understand that and ensure that he gets the best information. He gets the bad news as well as the good news. One of the failures, i think, when it comes to the chief of staff job or National Security adviser, if you are not giving the president the flip side and the bad news, you are not doing your job. I think his challenges every day , or in the context of the president of the personality, because that is the beginning of it all, he has to give information. Have you spoken to him since he became chief of staff . Sen. Reed i have not. I spoke with him when he was head of Homeland Security on several occasions, and i have great admiration for him, personally. Lets go to another hot spot, iran. Hinted,ident strongly it seemed, lets see what you think, at the u. N. That he was going to get out of the iran nuclear agreement, although he did not a that. I doubt he will actually do that. What do you think he meant . Theas strongly critical, worst deal in the history of man kind, an embarrassment. Sen. Reed i think he said he has already made a decision, but we just sent general dunford up to the committee. His opinion, based on intelligence reports, is that they are still in compliance. That ourndicated unilateral walking away from it would not be well received by the rest of the world and our partners in the deal, and it could lead to counter reaction by the radiance iranians, and they have forces in iran, syria, and it a signal to the North Koreans that if we make a deal with these folks, they might not keep it. I think that adds to the suspicion. If there is further consultations in the middle east, just pulling forces away from there to response we talked about a military option . That ine going to take korea, that becomes the primary objective, and the way we usually do things is there will be an announcement of force and an active area, like with the iranians getting more and more belligerent, you are in for some difficult situations. Theou were an advocate for steel very early on. What is your sense when you look at it now and the behavior of the Iranian Regime now beyond the agreement . Has it all worked out the way you had hoped, or has it fallen short . It is very limited expectations. The critical one is that they would freeze the Nuclear Program, and that appears to have happened. You have to ask yourself given their attitudes, belligerency, attempts that regional condemn any condemnity, and the rushing toward nuclear weapons. Are we better off with o