Viewers. Im going to introduce the who is the advisor to the National Security program and she is a Longtime Department of defense she most recently defense fory of energy security. Apparently, you all realize it is snowing, so we are grateful that you braved the weather to come and join us for a very important conversation and fastmoving situation. I want to to start with peter has a new book out that you should all read and his book just about two weeks ago, i said you are writing about a president and National Security team before the story is over, so what is the next chapter . [laughter] you see where this is going. President has not had a genuine foreignpolicy crisis yet. We dont know the capabilities, so make sure you ask his projections on the market and Everything Else and here we are. I would encourage you to read the detailed biographies of our panel because we would be here all afternoon going through their qualifications, but i want you to know that they are not only the top scholars in the country, they are also they know the so information and how hard it is to actually make policy and implement options, so we are very lucky to have them with us. What im going to do is let each of them give an opening salvo about the situation. [inaudible] can give us unique and interesting insights about what is happening in iraq and what is going to happen in iraq and then after that, we are going to jump dr. [indiscernible] and he is next for four all kinds of reasons and again, i want to be clear that we dont need to talk to who he is, but this is a fastmoving situation and then one of the countrys top foreignpolicy experts to talk about the broader that,ations, so with have unique and you. Nsights about what this means thank you very much for being here. I want to start with the story of how we got here. Modest. Very a very centricly story. Im also very modest about it and also i think things are shifting so quickly that it is very difficult to understand the things that you leaned on and saw as solid bases upon which to do analysis are no longer true and they are starting to shift out underneath us, particularly in this region. I think this particular chapter starts on september 27 of last year when the Lieutenant General is fired by the Iraqi Government and is moved from his position as the Deputy Commander of iraqs Counterterrorism Forces and is moved to the ministry of defense. Catalyst fors a grievances that have been held. He iraqi population it they were tired of the corruption and tired of the ethics world system. They were tired of a government that handicaps their economy. Espite huge oil reserves move ofmove past this an extremely popular general was a last straw for them and they went to the streets. At first, it was exactly what you would expect. It was the entrepreneurs, the upper class iraq, probably disproportionately. Nglishspeaking they just started killing them and the streets and so pretty soon you had the young man city. From sadr and then they took a little break for their religious holiday. Betterrotests look a lot before women were involved in a few days before the protests, you could see the messages going out. Nd we need you to come women everywhere and they became the symbol of this. They were draped in iraqi flags. Became a serious threat to the regime despite the killing the protesters. At least 450 have died in iraq, we have been hearing this for 15 years at least, what is important is that these protests were not secretary and at all. Primarily iraqi youth and the children coming up to protest what they see as the failing of their fathers and grandfathers in what it should look like. On november 30, the Prime Minister finally resigns on the under the weight of all these protests. This is why there is not an official government in iraq because the Prime Minister resigned on november 30. Agreement, there will be new elections held and really what they are talking about is up 20 a new Prime Minister to oversee the next year and how the elections are going to be set up. Deal andbviously a big. Ho sets the ground rules several names are floated and finally, the iranian backed nominated a man who is. Losely linked to the irgc the iranian seen as candidate and on the 26th of december, they refused to nominate him, not only on the constitutional grounds, but really this is political. The americans are against this, the protesters are against this and we can stand up against iran. Been lizes it has they can see that they are in a bad place. Favor. Me is not to our the americans to fit the 27,d and so on december and thew a u. S. Base red line is extremely well communicated and that begins where we can all aware. Point, the iranians wanted us to do this and this is politics andqi the could not stand to lose fight for baghdad. A couple points and since then United States has largely mishandled both the events and the aftermath. Things that just trigger them and that is the sovereignty and sanctions. For obvious reasons, they are deeply touchy about National Sovereignty, our occupation last decade before that as a natural aboutal deeply touching their sovereignty. Second, sanctions, they lived of under them for 14 years. Many people died as a secondary result of the sanctions. To have that floated is not terribly helpful. The United States is attempting to obtain maintain a u. S. President. The legality is not entirely clear. It is not clear that there is a quorum in the parliament. It is not clear if that is binding. There probably isnt a firm constitutional answer to those questions. They can claim if they are legitimate or not. Characterizeay to than a major victory. They are trying trying to ,alvage the american presence but i want to circle back to the protesters. That is what we need to be focused on. These protesters who are out there defending the simple things that everyone expects, a responsible government, lack of areuption, basic Services Still there even if the United States loses on this round. This may even be a bigger deal. He was a singular figure because he is digger than any institution. He had an entire institution behind and they are largely outside of institutions. It became when he needed them, but my hondas was the figure who could hold together the entirety of the popular immobilization forces, so if you are a war hawks, the good news command andd the control and if youre looking at a couple months down the road, the bad news is you removed the command and control of the hostage. Im not sure theres another figure out there who has the status that is respected and feared that he could be a guarantor of a deal that no, we will not strike americans anymore. He could hold that deal and im not sure there is another figure who can guarantee that deal. I will stop there. How does the chessboard look to the iranians . Moment,was a watershed no way in which to under emphasize how significant it is and the beginning point is when the United States left the nuclear deal. From irans perspective, they did so reluctantly. [inaudible] which was negotiated over. [inaudible] sometimes we forget about the people. [inaudible] the goals have nothing to do with another nuclear deal and is has to do about regime change. You are essentially forcing it to be tougher and when the , thists happened in iran is the security forces, yes most of the protesters or unhappy. To actuallylieved push things over and there is maximum pressure strategy and a two punch process. And then comes september of this year where president macron came close to getting [inaudible] and the condition the arena present said if im going to meet with you, i need beforehand to live some sanctions or signed a letter in which you promise that if the meeting is successful, then you will live those sanctions. Then, the iranian president says no. After,derstood he is not it is all about regime change. That o cap related they sat down and tried to come up with some type of solution. The year ended, President Trump double down and said i will not Oil Sanctions in the theyans concluded that have to push back because trump thinks his policies are too easy and therefore that is when they began hitting tankers and shot a halferican drones and to decisions. One is that we are crazier than you. Then they think that worked because trump took a second look at preceding with the confrontation. The second, they wanted to showcase technological abilities. , the exact places and nowhere else was for them to say do not think this is the iranian navy of 1987. It as deterrence. , iraq wasiew significant, under pressure the u. S. Does not suffer at all. The president translating leverage to negotiations, the iranians suffer. They cannot wait until the 2020 election unless we give them something. The only way to get his attention is to do something, escalating further. You knew they would do something. There is a faction in iran that is arguing negotiations are not working, we have to do something. Parliamentaryto elections in february and president ial elections in june. There is a lot riding on this, and an opportunity for hardliners. On the u. S. Reaction, and i isnk the conclusion in iran that the maximum pressure strategy is over. Creates pressure alone a breakthrough with iran. By killing soleimani, the president is acknowledging it is not working, i will go to a hot war with iran. This is now a direct push to overthrow the regime. Killing a member of the regime is a redline. It was a norm they understood would not be crossed. Is not really going for the jugular of the regime. I do not think they have a blueprint, this came out of the blue to them. They have gauge how they would react to this. Pressures on them. Thatneed to react because is what the public demands, they have to do something, but i think they believe they need to deter trump. If he gets away with this, the next they will kill the supreme ,eader and the foreign minister and he is playing this game in a way with no particular rules. I think they will have to do something, when and how they do it, how much they prepare to escalate remains to be seen. There is no back channel between the two countries. It is not at the level that will have any impact on iranian decisionmaking. Public rhetoric is incredibly menacing. The problem with this twitter storm is, this twitter that he does not give the other side any political maneuvering room. He is humiliating them and challenging them. Piece, thegnificant funeral hast the taken everybody by shock. There is no way the regime could manufacture this in two days. If they could do that, they would have total control of the country. There is no question this was an outpouring. Important to the public dialogue in america, the ision of solo money the way iranians see him is different. He became a household name when isis appeared. The average iranian had not by 2008. Soleimani saw this as a strategic moment. Their view was if damascus falls, baghdad falls. The logic is not different from who said you have to fight them there if you do not want to fight them here. To average iranians those on , theymage to iraq remember what happened in 2006 when insurgents blew up one of the most revered shrines for this she is shias. Soleimani is a national hero. He singlehandedly prevented this from happening. That is why they revere him. Protector. Im as a it is not blown out of forgetion, but we often people can have more than one idea at the same time. They can dislike the revolutionary guard but like this particular general. Soleimani is not a man they read about on a daily basis. He is out there fighting a war on the frontier. Soldiersd generals and known to be corrupt, he was not part of the cartel machine of corruption in iran. There was sentiment for him. Had he died of natural causes, you would not have had this funeral. For iranians it is a national moment, a transformative moment. I do not know what the political implications will be down the road, but the reason is twofold, the iranian people may be tired of their own government, they are angry and that up, but they believe this particular fight was picked five United States, and it is unfair and unjust. And that he is escalating and endangering their daily livelihood, and coming over the border threatening more and showing he is willing to do it. This was a massive act of defiance. They are saying, today, we are all together. Askedody on the street i what is your name, they said, my name is soleimani. , i think iranians have always believed the only way to deter the United States from attacking iran is to show up in force in support of the government. , anybody in iran knows distance between the public and the regime, it is more likely they would attack iran. The supreme leader, the other commanders are worried what these three days mean. One conclusion they come away with is that the people are with them to resist. It is not a demand for reconciliation. If United States hits them again, it will only solidify their support. That will make it more intransigent, the escalation, if we had that in mind. Sharon i would like both of you to think about what escalation looks like. Talk about what iraq and iran look like. This picture, what does this mean for us . Let me start by thanking peter and the interNational Security program for making this happen quickly. Particularly, sharon mentioned, the peters new book if you readals, it before this crisis and were worried, read it now. One of the first things i thought of when i heard about god, ande was, oh mygod all those generals are no longer there to offer restraint, wisdom, all sorts of beneficial constraints. As an look at this International Lawyer and bring it directly home. Somebody who taught International Law for 12 years, if summit he had said to me, the United States has just killed and Iranian Military leader who may or may not have been acting as a diplomat, but on iraqs soil, is that legal . The first thing i do is look at the article of the u. N. Charter which says nations cannot use force against the National Sovereignty or territorial integrity of any other state. Start there. They definitely used force against the National Sovereignty of iraq. With nothing else, you start with that, because iraq did not want this to happen. There is a prima facie case of illegality right there, article 51 says the exception is selfdefense, and that is where the administration has gone. It says, we were acting in selfdefense. Article 51 says selfdefense against an armed attack. Itwas no armed attack was an armed attack against our facilities, yes. It killed an American Contractor. That is not really the way the u. N. Was set up. Imagining a direct armed attack against the border, which we have not seen for some time. You could say, it was retaliation. Thethat is not what administration is saying, the administration is saying soleimani was planning attacks against us, and this was a preemptive measure of selfdefense. Preemptive selfdefense, there is a wonderful phrase from something called the caroline case, it is supposed to be in imminent attack. You will preempt an imminent attack, and that is instant overwhelming leaving no choice of means or moment of deliberation that is not this case some of is definitely not this case. Then you move to something the Bush Administration started pushing, which was not preemptive selfdefense, it was preventive selfdefense. At that point pretty much all legal constraints are off, because that means i see an attack coming down the road, i see it being planned, and i am going to attack first to stop it. You can see as a matter of law anybody who thinks we are going to attack anyone, anyone we ,hink in an age of terrorism sponsored terrorism, that opens the door. It is a matter of straight International Law, you are pushing toward a definition toward selfdefense that i think and pulledorrying back from preemptive to preventive. I do not think this qualifies. Even if you think it is selfdefense, then the the measure of, selfdefense has to be proportionate, and that is the other place where this debate is happening, the killing of iseimani, which i think of like killing the american head of the joint chiefs of staff, roughly comparable. For the killing of an American Contractor and the destruction of american facilities and i do not want to minimize those attacks. Out gave us iran figuring it escalated, and we did have to respond, if i was sitting in the pentagon or white house, i would have said we have to respond. But if you think of titfortat escalation, this goes from level seven to level two or level one and a half a very fast. As an International Legal matter, you would not think it is proportional. Then you come to domestic law, and domestic law, this has to come there are two different doctrines, one, is it legal under congress . The only way you can save that is if the authorization of the military act back to 2003. Him as aink of terrorist leader, and you do not think of him as a state actor, you can say we killed lots of leaders of terrorist groups under that. Official. Tate that to me and i will come back to the axis of change is a big difference, alternatively though, you can say the executive has the Foreign Affairs power. President trump thinks article two of the constitution is sweeping power for anything he leaveto do, but lets that aside. The Foreign Affairs power is broad. The debate between where the executive has power where it is not a formal armed declaration of war situation, the executive has won almost all the time since the war powers resolution of 1974. We had war powers resolutions to stop Something Like the tonkin gulf declaration in the vietnam war, to say if the president uses forc