I think were ready to start. Thank you all for being here. Welcome to the council on foreign relations. Welcome to our guest, senator jack reed, Ranking Member of the Armed Services committee. From the great state of rhode island. Im jonathan karl, chief White House Correspondent for abc news. I will be presiding asking questions for first half hour and then take questions from all of you for second half hour. This is an on the record meeting. In fact i also want to welcome those cfr Members Around the nation, maybe around the world, participating in this meeting through the live stream. So thank you all for being here. Senator, reed, so much to talk about with you, but i want to start right with the perhaps the most pressing National Security issue, north korea. Just a bottom line question, as we hear, does the words we heard from 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 start to our military leaders both secretary mattis and general dunford that they have the capacity to do that, but make it clear this is diplomatic effort at this point. That is the best approach at this point. Up fortunately the diplomatic effort i think is being horribled because of lack capacity hobbled. We dont have ambassador tore for south korea. Dont have confirmed assistant secretary for the region. We have other stories about state department, lack of personnel and focus. The other issue in terms of the diplomatic approach is, a lack of coherent message. Weve seen that from the beginning when the president tweeted about the south koreans paying for the thaad system, when in fact they had done a lot of political effort to get it into the country. We have seen it in terms of freetrade agreement. All of that is presented to, just incoherent messages in many respects. And then, in terms of coordination and cooperation, weve got to develop a several tracks, informal tracks, back channels, which i hope are there because in these types of crises, that they come in handy many times. In fact that might be the way to really sort of get sort of a dialogue going. Then we have to think also in terms of some formal mechanisms we used before. We would have a group of five, south korea, japan, russia, china, and United States formally sitting down and dealing with the issue of north korea. That might be the helpful. I think it would be. So i think this diplomatic effort is absolutely vitally important because even though military as they must, as they always must preparing for some type of kinetic operation this would be much preferable way to proceed and also, if it doesnt succeed, there is much more legitimacy for the use of force. Use signal very clearly that military options are narrowly on the table but being developed at the furthest from mattis and heard on meet the press and i want to get more on the question of the diplomatic reference but first try and understand the first question, is there really a military option . We hear that phrase. We heard it from barack obama and george w. Bush. There are is a military option but the first thing. What does that look like . I think its clear particularly from military leaders that option will be extraordinarily costly something we have not witnessed perhaps since i mean in cost of lives and economic at dignity and costs in terms of environmental degradation. This is one of the reasons is so existential it involves a country that has weapons of mass destruction and a country that the question we been able to deter their use for many years with chemical and biological weapons but are they deterrable and also the longer military options is not necessarily defensive operations etc. But deterrence that would be put in effect. Missile defense, shooting down one of their test. Significant improvements in overhead coverage so we would not only have a warning that we would have the ability to respond. It would require the cooperation and collaboration with many countries in terms of proliferation but one of the dangers with the north floridians is not only that they have these weapons but they will fill anything they can get out of the country so we have to be very effective in terms of proliferation and even now with their chemical and biological and we know they have Nuclear Weapons and the mediumrange missile it can carry it on. A former National Security official the Previous Administration who i know that you know and respect wellmade the point of me recently one of the challenges here is that north korea really for at least three successive administrations could take as a given that there really isnt a viable military solution so they dont hear that and this official and old friend of donald trump, something needs to be done to raise their confidence that the United States really does not have a military option here. I think again this goes to the issue of the diplomacy we are doing right now. One of the factors that mitigate against military operations is the question of what would china do . If we could make progress to determine and collaborate and cooperate more so we would understand that they would understand that would send a signal hopefully to the north floridians that our use of force would not be disbanded he could simply not afraid of the north floridians but the reaction of china. Thats why a cohesive coherent focused foreignpolicy may be using the group of five or informally using back channels etc. If necessary. Again i think part of the president s motivation to to make a statement as to try to inject that sounds off i will do this. There have been many comparisons to. The madman theory. Exact way. They dont like that term at the white house consequently. Diplomatic language is useful in these situations. Again i think we are in a situation where we just cant say no goes to our credibility if we are in the diplomatic offensive than the chinese are looking around and seeing feeble attempts at diplomacy thats two things. One they dont really care and they are going to do this and what does it do in terms of north korea . Do they primitively do something or discount everything you say . What are we seeing in terms of china part of the diplomatic effort is putting pressure on china and the president has said is working. They have taken steps on banking. Is china doing more . I think they are doing more but the question can they ever do enough . The presumption which many people had to send his chinese decided to step in they could tell them knock it off kim jong un but my sense is they have the same difficulty communicating with kim jong un that the rest of the world does that their influence is much less than it was several years ago, that they can in fact and they have taken steps but they are not quite willing to cripple the economy because they are afraid of the collapse and the huge flow of refugees into the country and the other factor is the internal policies of china. They have the congress coming up which they do every several years in president xi wants to get through that before he does anything else so thats tempering some other response. They supported us at the u. N. On some of these sanctions measures but they havent gone as far as we would like to go and i think we might see something more productive in the future and the other sense i have is xi himself personally has low regard for kim jong un so there is no relationship. Again i think china is the key and russia because they have influence, not as dramatic as china and this diplomatic effort has to be enhanced. Does the president deserves some credit for the fact that china is doing more now because again china is worried about what trumbull do. If trump wants to shortcircuit that i taking steps on their own. I think president xi, they established a conversational relationship and thats good. I think to china is reacting pressure not just from the United States but from the world. And also reacting to the reality that this regime gets close to an Intercontinental Nuclear weapon than the consequences could be dire to china so there is a whole new set of calculations that the north floridians have made on their missile warheads. If they north floridians threat do what they threaten to do which is nuclear test over the Pacific Ocean is that a red line . What are the implications of that . I think that would be extraordinarily disruptive and i think again this is where conversations not just in the United States and the administration but with china and russia etc. To get a sense of how they would react to it because that would be extraordinary and would have atmospheric consequences. Do you think they are serious about that threat . They say a lot of things. Its hard to judge. Its the hardest target they have. Kim jongun has a compartmentalized we are not sure even will be talked to people who we think are inside that we know what he is thinking and its very much as i say compartmentalize. If someone has insights on the Missile Program but no insight on anything else, i dont think we could dismiss it as just idle talk. We have to have contingent plans and talk to our allies about what their reaction would be. Again this might be something in the context of a group of five where they could collectively lay down not a grid line but a sense that this would be impermissible and its a nuanced argument with one of the problems with red lines is you party locked yourself into it. I want to move off of north korea but we could talk about it all day. One question i have is somebody who has tracked this problem so closely for so long what do you see as driving the reason recent success they have had in terms of their Ballistic Program in a nuclear prograham . Are they getting outside help and how is this most backward nation on the earth, how is it that they have made the incredible strides they have made over the last couple of years in both of these programs. I think the efforts recently at the u. N. And elsewhere and the administration to squeeze that has produced some ignition. From who . My sense is they have a network of Companies Many of them located in china that provide parts for them. They have a whole series of Front Companies that do raise money for them so they have hard currency is to use to buy things. Its a very elaborate and Sophisticated Network and some studies suggest there are about five thousand business entities in china and just recently one of them in was shut down but there are others who have been moving this material through for decades. The answer interesting thing about why they have been so successful is that kim jong un, i think the father was more riskaverse in terms of waiting until they had a 99. 9 chance that it would work with propaganda purposes. He has made it central to his regime, his personality and his survival. With all of that and again back in the 1960s the chinese were able in those rudimentary economy and they decided to put together an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile with some help of course from overseas but with a lot of indigenous effort. You are a west point grad and the president has rendered himself with generals many that you know quite well and have known for a long time. General mattis, general mcmaster and general kelly so wide like a little sense of your reactions with those generals. For instance to pivot from north korea when they present makes comments like fire and fury and talking about wiping north korea off the map do you pick up the phone and say what did you mean . Who do you call . Well, its interesting because i have a great deal of confidence in the gentlemen you mentioned. My presumption is they have regarding weighed in at sometimes decisively to do things, to prevent things that could be very consequential. You know, stuff. And again if you listen to their statements they are very strong but control and they send a think the right signal which is dont presume that we are not ready to do what we have to do. We are ready and again i dont have the same kind of Vantage Point that others might have on the white house and the interactions but i hope there is a very healthy dialogue. One of the concerns i have is that general mattis and general kelly are all reacting to tweets in not talking about the best way to frame this message and thats something of a more disciplined approach that they could weigh in. That would be helpful to the administration and the president have you seen it change in the National Security council with the departure of flan obviously the effort to replace him and finally landing on the master and bannon exiled from the council now from the white house. Have you noticed a change . E. There is much more subject Matter Experts who are not as politically engaged and they are providing much more substandard advice to the president but ultimately its the president s decision. Thats the system. We have secretary mattis who was one of the most thoughtful and experienced gentlemen you could ever have and john kelly i admire but ultimately its the president s decision and they have to understand that. They have to give the president options and he has to know the consequences. Exactly and that requires two people. You have to listen and you have to study, you have to focus and the question by many people is whether there is a listening focus and constant attention to detail. Bannon just talk about the operationalizing the National Security council. Do you understand what that was about . My sense was the operators like the state department. I was first. If you dont fill up with credible and competent individual positions you have a capacity apparatus. The Security Council is more ideological and professional and its no longer giving you that kind of option and advice. Its giving you polling numbers so i think that is a change hopefully in the last few weeks, i should say now with general mattis and general kelly. Its your decision mr. President but we are going to give you the options that are available, our preference in our device and thats the way should work. How long have you known general kelly . I have known general kelly for about 20 years. Since 06. I think he was the Congressional Liaison and i met him when he was commanding marines and anbar province. What do you make of his challenge now . I think his challenge is basically, one of the things having served with four president s temperament and personal style is critical to how any president operates and he has to understand that antius to ensure that he gets the best information indicates the bad news as well as the good news. The chief of staff and National Security adviser, you are not giving the president the flip side, you arent doing your job. General kelly challenges it every day in the context of the president s personality. He has to give them that information. Have you spoken to him . 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. So another hot spot, i ran. The president strongly hinted it seems at the u. N. That he was going to get out of the i ran Nuclear Agreement although he didnt say that. What do you think emet . The worst deal in the history of mankind. I think he has already made his decision but from what we heard is general dunford before the committee, general dunfords committee based on intelligence reports that they are still in compliance and he also indicated that our unilateral work would not be received very well to our partners on the deal and it could lead to counterreaction by the iranians and they have forces in i ran and forces in syria and also it sends a signal to the north floridians that they might not keep it and i think its suspicious to begin with. If there is further complications in the middle east poll forces away from there to respond. Are you talking about a military option . That becomes the primary objective and the way we usually do things Everything Else is an economy of force. If you havent Economy Force in active area with the iranians getting more and more belligerent you are looking at a difficult situation. You were an advocate of the deal very early on. What is your since when you look at it now and you look at the danger of the Iranian Regime now beyond the terms of the Nuclear Agreement. Has it worked out the way you had hoped . Its very limited expectations. The critical one is that would freeze the Nuclear Program and that appears to have happened. I think you have to ask yourself given their attitude, given their attempts and a regional hegemony and given the fact that they be rushing towards a Nuclear Weapon i think we are better off with the agreement. They have missile technology. If they were within months by some reports of being able to at least have a nuclear test, if that happens i would trigger a reaction in the region which could be very difficult. If you want to apply to north korea in a different situation like 25 years ago talking about significant forces tremendous artillery pieces and rockets along the dmz thats a problem. Surreal problem when they have biological missiles that can land and can land in and stays. And iran at least for the next decade they wont have that. One of the problems with this deal as it does expire. It does expire. Then there are no limits on what they can do. There is not in the expectation is within this integral of tenor of 15 years and we have spun through a few years to things in my view. One is that it may be a guarantee of changes within the regime that would be more accommodating to continue the agreement. There would be option and issues with the major powers to try to extend it and also if after 15 years of the agreement they suddenly broke out i think wed be in a