Hello, everybody. Hey. Such a fantastic crowd. And you all are so young, it is freaking me out. Seriously, like you are so young, it is terrifying. Hi. Nahal toosi. I am pleased to welcome everybody here today. Let me introduce our panelists. I doubt i can do justice to all of their compliments. Rob malley is the Vice President of policy at an international group. He previously served in the , who servedstration as the coordinator for the white house for the gulf region. Emailged to obtain robs address, but for the longest time, i was too shy to reach out to him. And then i reached out to him because he is really a nice guy. I do not know why i did not do it before. Jong to the other end, glaser is the director of form possibly Foreign Policy at the cato institute, a libertarian think tank. Grandterests include strategy, u. S. Foreign policy in the middle east, the rise of china, and the role of status and perceived motivations in international politics. That sounds like everything. Talked to john before, so i was doing research on him, and i found out there was also a john glaser who is an actor who used to write for conan obrien, but you are not that guy, right . Mr. Malley he has no h in his day. Toosi and trita parsi. The after decertification the future of the Iran Nuclear Deal has asked me to thank people today and also the Rockefeller Brothers fund. Ok, can you hear me . So lets set the table a little bit. Last week President Trump announced he was going to decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal, but for now the u. S. Remains in the deal unless and until congress reimpose his sanctions on reimpose his sanctions on iran. They are looking at legislation that says if iran takes certain actions, including nonnuclear actions, that would trigger a reimposition of sanctions. At the same time the president wants congress to pass legislation that the United States considers part of the deal that are supposed to be limited actually be permanent. The goal is to get the International Community and iran back to the table to negotiate an additional agreement that addresses what the Trump Administration says is flawed in the nuclear deal. The administration is looking at other ways to counter irans activities in the middle east, which can be argued as many, tom human rights abuses backing terrorist organizations. I will ask a couple rounds of questions, and depending on the time, we will open it up for questions. Feel free to get into the ms. Nation into the minutia. Ok. John, lets start with you. Lets talk about the merits of the administrations arguments. Doesnt the administration have a port that says that the way the iran deal is structured, it will make iran stronger and want certain limits are lifted on iran it will be able to return to some Nuclear Program while being stronger. Congress toot ask address these flaws and pressure the International Community to devise a new approach . Mr. Glaser it is true that the sanctions that were lifted will allow iran to build its economy and improve things for itself. I think that there is a bias among both sides in american politics that there is this picture of iran of being implacably in pursuit of a Nuclear Weapon. I do not think that is the case. I think they have made a decision which is taking go the route of greater engagement with the world and develop more trade with world, east and west, actually, i improve things domestically for themselves, and get sanctions lifted and this kind of stuff by not pursuing a Nuclear Weapon, or go another route, which is doggedly pursuing a Nuclear Weapon and be isolated from the world, sanctioned by the entire world the way north korea is, and they would have their security guaranteed by nuclear insurance, but they have made the decision that the former route serves their interests more than the latter. And that does not mean we should give up. We should still have a robust inspections regime. We should not trust that will always be there determination. I actually disagree with the notion that we need to have deception and the presumption that iran is doggedly in pursuit of a Nuclear Weapon and it is only a matter of time and a matter of how you delay it or prevent it. We have to recognize their choice. Ms. Toosi why should we trust the iranian government . This is a government that imprisoned americans, executed ridiculous numbers of people, is backing terrorist groups across the middle east. Why should we trust anything they said . Mr. Glaser if this deal was built on trust, it would never have been a deal to begin with. The United States would not have signed that. Mr. Parsi they do not have must trust for the u. S. Government, and that mistrust has been significantly deepened over the course of the last week. This was never built on trust. This was built on verification and being able to assess whether the iranians are living up to their word or not. If anything were trusting the inspections regime that the United States helped design to ensure that in the iranians are not cheating, we have to remind ourselves because we are within the narrative in which we say we can never trust iranians. Part of the test here was for the iranians to prove they can be trusted, and that is why they lived up to the end of the bargain a times in a row now. Has issued a report saying the iranians are honoring the agreement. Entire premise was over the course of the next 15 years the iranians would prove they can be a responsible player within the International Agreement by living up to the end of the bargain, and he would come out of the position they were in before in which they had been in violation of the agreement and bed to be a path for them to in Good Standing in. Live up was, can they to their end of the bargain while we are verifying and inspecting the capacity to do so and be able to catch them if they are not . Everyone, we are thinking they are untrustworthy. Im not saying they are wrong. Look now who is violating the real and talking about killing and walking out of the deal. We have to face the fact that unfortunately if theres going to be a violation, now it is more likely that that violation will be first committed by the united rather than by the iranians. Those are interesting points, but if i was a member of congress, one of the arguments i would probably make it something thatnikki haley has said, there are hundreds of sites the iea has not been able to get access to in iran and all sorts of things we do not know about what the iranians are doing. What would you tell that number of congress, because it is one thing to say to the iea you cannot access the site, but you cannot access the military site . To make a comment to what is the core of this debate. Why are we going to do this deal . The whole point of the sanctions was to pressure iran to get to the point where they would agree to stop or at least put constraints on the Nuclear Program. That was why we impose sanctions. Once the agreed, the only reason they would do it because they would that some of the sanctions. If we are not prepared to give them any economic benefit, what was the argument about imposing the sanctions in the first place . That is number one. They will get some benefit, because that was negotiated. If the iranians got out of it, some economic benefit, but nowhere near what some of the critics claimed would be. Point to two, and you mentioned the fact and that is quite young toy, too remember when the entire western world and israel were focused on nucleare of irans program as being an existential issue. But thate hype there, was the issue, and that is the issue the Obama Administration was determined to shut down would not face that binary of a nuclear iran or bombing iran. The price was they took some of the sanctions to get the concessions. You ask about our their flaws in the deal about inspections of sites . This is one of the canards. This is one of the issues that robustly negotiated. There are no military site that are offsite, that the iea cannot inspect. If somebody else provides to the iea and says we suspect and not on some kind of white w kind of a whim that there was activity at one site, there is a process for that to happen, much tighter than what exists with virtually any other country. The notion that there are hundreds of sites that the iaea cannot inspect, it is true what the iranians to the pond is you cannot go on a chase and say we think theres a Nuclear Device in the supreme leaders bathroom so we will inspect it. That was something they said they were worried about. Iaea to not want the inspect it. Thatu have some evidence, they refuse access and refuse any of the compromises, then we are in a different world. We are not there yet. There has not been a single incident at a request for inspection of a site by the iaea that iran has refused. This is one of those that is hard to come by at to combat because there are so many of them. Ms. Toosi john quick point make a about the premise of your first question. Assume there is a strategic calculus behind trumps decision, and there is not. Heart of the recently know that is the entirety of his National Security team urged him to certify. There was no strategy behind decertification. All the strategizing that went on was by his National Security team to try to figure out a way mps irrational the state irrational this taste for the deep. It is notable that trump did not impose sections and sell. It is notable he did not announce a formal withdrawal from the deal, she has the right to do. That is because virtually the the iaea, the europeans, russians, chinese, u. S. Intelligence community, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, head of u. S. Strategic command, james mattis, Rex Tillerson, h. R. Mcmaster, everybody agreed that not only is the deal working and iran is complying, but it is in the u. S. Interest to stay in it. He has put us in a position where we have less leveraged than we initially vitiated the deal, which means we cannot get more punitive arrangements or more concessions on iran, and they have signaled, made clear to congress they are not asking nuclearrelated sanctions, which would be the thing that constitutes a formal violation. Explicitaking decertification is not instrumental. It is not to achieve anything other than broadcasting trumps distaste for the deal, and his babysitters and the white house have tried to make it as easy on iran as possible. Ms. Toosi that was my next question, but i want to make something clear. A lot of people do not realize the United States still has numerous sanctions on iran. The only sanctions that were lifted were nuclear have a related sanctions. We still have sanctions related to their Ballistic Missiles, human rights violations, and support for terrorism, which means it is not possible for most businesses to do business with iran. Love people think that the u. S. A lot of people think that the u. S. Has list the all sections on iran. Now theuestion, john, president has thrown this into the lack of congress. How will this play out . How do you predict this will happen . Mr. Glaser when he made the announcement and there were rumors floating around about a proposal from tom cotton and bob corker that would move the goalposts on the deal itself and to to you to matter early unilaterally alter the deal which would constitute a violation of the deal, but before that, the question was, will congress reimpose nuclearrelated sanctions, that they have to do with in the 60date window if the deal is decertified, or will they ignore trump . And it looked like there was increasing omentum in favor of not momentum in favor of not imposing sanctions. Jeff flake said it would be unwise to unburden iran from the burdens of restrictions. Rand paul said something similar. Similar,said something that we should enforce the deal. Theres instant be even among the politicking that occurred after the deals signing a recognition that the deal is working so long as iran is complying. It might be the case that reimposedoes not nuclearrelated sanctions, but it will be a close fight. Mr. Malley a little nuance. I never thought that the present administration or congress would reimpose sanctions because that would be such a plate violation, that would isolate the u. S. , that those in congress who wanted on this issue would not go down that road. I thought a different route was being played out. Exactly what the president announced, which is he wants congress to pass legislation that would tie the reimposition of some sanctions to actions that iran would take that are consistent with the deal. Deal somee, under the restrictions get lifted after a year. That thelation administration is pushing and some in congress are supporting would say if iran engages in an activity after those constraints have been lifted, which are consistent with the deal because the constraints would have been lifted, we would consider that im acceptable and would impose sections. That would be a violation of the deal. The test for congress is, if we do legislation that says if we impose sections, that would be the case, because that is what the deal says. For congress to say we are going to impose sanctions that have been lifted, if iran it engages in activities that are outside the agreement or it takes actions that are permitted givee jcpoa, i would iran every incentive to violate the deal. Every expert including the government, says it working, path to a bomb, that be gone, and the argument it is not a violation because nothing happens today, then what would we say if tomorrow iran announced we are going to abide by the Nuclear Research is, but in two years if the u. S. Does not withdraw from iraq, all bets are off. That would be completely unacceptable. Trust announced and say if they engage in activity that is permitted and sanctions are coming back, that would isolate us from europe, that would strengthen the hardliners in iran, and that would put us in violation. If i could add one thing. Trump iswhat the working with the senate on right now is a measure that would be a violation of the deal, looking for things that absolutely ensures that iran will say no to it. The idea that you can have permanent punishment of iraq and expect iran to sign it while youre giving them no sanctions is preposterous. The path he is suggesting is one of one sure the deal will be violated and the deal will fall apart. Then he also said very clearly if congress does not do this, that i will terminate the deal myself. So here you have it. Both paths that trump is proposing would lead to the deal being killed. To he has not killed it because he did not do it on friday, it is saying the only way to kill in two moves,g it but he is still killing it. What john said earlier, this is what Rex Tillerson said over the weekend and one of the interviews. He said the real endgame is regime change. So now we are starting ms. Toosi i do not think those were his exact words. Did he say the goal is to get the iranian people to get their Government Back . That is a different thing. Lets be clear about that. If youre throwing these things looking to see that regime is gone, this is starting to look like iraq again, where we are pursuing regime change and a policy that will end up getting the United States getting into a military confrontation with iran. Combined with the fact with what john said that his own opposition is irrational because every one else inside his own administration disagrees with the decertification and with the fact he is presenting congress not with an option to have any choices of what to do, but ensure that Congress Becomes complicit with killing the deal. Not even 10 seconds basically what the president has done is lets pilot the deal together or i will violated alone. I do not think that is a deal that congress should take. Ms. Toosi you guys can tell that this panel is a little bit on one side. Let me play the devils advocate. Speaking as one who does not eal, the saudis do not like this deal. Do notends the israelis like this deal. Should we care about what our friends think . But it is an overstatement saying our friends the israelis we have Senior Defense officials who say the deal is a former defense minister said it was a big mistake for the United States to decertify. I do not think he speaks for israel. At this point, the alternative to this deal is far worse for israels security. Thats netanyahu he said iran was increasing its enrichment capacity government saying this is what we have to stop. President obama stopped it. Stacked panel, but there is a reason. We like many others who have supported this deal, not a spectrum at any sympathy. In terms of our other allies, saudis have an agenda against iran which we understand, and we have supported the military ily. It does not mean we have to subcontract decisions that involve the u. S. The ones that are going to be fighting iran are not the saudis. They will be the United States. It is a compromise. It is not an act of surrender. It is a compromise. If that thing we want to talk about, terrorism, ballistic clause, thee sunset way to address this is not to tell the iranians the deal is no good if you do not accept these things, because iran may walk clay, plus we will have an Iranian Nuclear trigger that will accelerate today, not in 15 years. The way to do it is lets implement the deal in good felt for a number of users ive years and then you want to talk about iranians about neutral trust him and say, there are things we still want to address. Your Ballistic Missile program, your support for terrorist organizations run the world. Some limitations that have expired. You mentioned the primary embargo. They want that lifted. To have that negotiation, you