From Computer Networks from state actors including iran, russia, and south korea. North korea. His remarks hosted by the foundation of the defense of democracies are about over one hour. [applause] of morning i hope youre doing well. You think cliff, and the team for hosting this important and timely National Security form. Think director pompeo for taking time out of his schedule to reflect on the National Security issues of the day. There is no secret here. Im not a nonbiased journalist. Im a fan of this director. I worked on his transition and frankly, i love the man. I believe in his concept of putting your pisces out in front before beginning the questions. But, welcome, is great to see you and thank you for taking the time. It was not a condition of my up parents that you be the moderator but it worked out. The directors a soldier, wire, entrepreneur congressman mr. Great work at the cia. What we want to do today with the audience and those joining us this talk not just about the issues of today the some of the trends and issues you deal with in the Intelligence Community. You have to not only deal with the media and deal with our dealing with our National Security 20 years out from now. Theres no question theres a sense of dislocation in the world. Assess the map is shifting in some ways that power is shifting including the role of nonstate actors. Major issues before us, major policy shift with the fall of raqqa, chinas Party Congress happening as we speak. A lot going on in the world. The president gave his speech on october 13, reshaping u. S. Policy on iran. The first question is, why is that speech and shift necessary, and is iran in violation of the jcpoa . Thank you. Let me also say thank you for hosting this and clifford for inviting me here. I look forward to a great conversation on lots of topics in this current threat. I think this right way to answer your question. We often focus a lot on the jcpoa. And im happy to share the intelligence elements that are buried there. The president has viewed the threat from iran thats on the center of the turmoil. Whether its in hezbollah, whether its the shia militias. You can see the impact theyre having today even in northern iraq, the threat they pose to u. S. Forces. The list of iranian transgressions in the Missile Program, and the list of aggressions as long. From an intelligence perspective the president concluded that we need to reconfigure all relationship not only with iran but the gulf states and israel to ensure were addressing the real threat to the United States in a comprehensive way. Theres been a lot of focus on the deal and whether their certification under the u. S. Loss to require the president to certify every 90 days. Whats your sense of where were headed . Theres been so much focus from our european allies on the centrality of the jcpoa in the context of the relationship. The president seems to be shifting the of the administration seems to be pushing not only on but around the deal. How do you explain your deal of jcpoa itself. I think thats true. I dont to policy in that same way but i will say that the missions the president laid out with respect to deal was to ensure that there was no pathway for the iranians to achieve a capability. To not put the president in the future in the same place this president is to close down the various avenues and theres many pieces to that, we need even more intrusive inspections. It put us in a marginally better place with inspections but the iranians have been capable of presenting a continuous threat through covert efforts to develop their nuclear program. So we need to make sure that were able to do that and president has given us resources to achieve that of the various tools we have. Whether president stared at the deal and asked what it meant from a proliferation perspective inside iran, two or three years, the difference of a breakout time across a handful of months, did not seem satisfactory to him. Thats no surprise, hes tweeted about it. So we asked is how to evaluate how we might do more comprehensive effort to push back the effort and notion of the notion the entry into the jcpoa would curtail where the entire thread or malignant behavior has now proven to be fundamentally false. Has the opposite happened . Have they gotten more aggressive . They been developing this Missile System consistently for an extended time. In terms of testing its about the same as it were prejcpoa. Their desire to put guided rockets in the hands of hezbollah and launching missiles to the emirates and saudi. These are new and aggressive and show no signs of having been curtail by the increase commerce they have achieved to having europeans back in the game. Its not new theyve engaged in this adventurous activity will talk about pushing back, what does that mean from your perspective . You look at the head of the irg see showing up in all of the wrong places at all the wrong time he was just in the middle of this conflict,. How do we push back . They seem to be pushing on all of the pressure points and what is that mean for us to confront and push back . All the tools available for u. S. Power. Ill begin with a handful. It has been far too expensive for the iranians to conduct this adventure. We should raise the cost. The agency has Important Role there. To help not only the United States but our partners in the region. We need all of our partners. Sometimes i hear people talk about jcpoa and our partners but never talk about the saudi said but they want to talk about the other partners. We need them all working against. Treasury two. One, you live this in your role as treasury. Secretary mnuchin is aware of the tools in his arsenal as well. Imagine you that the iranians have complained a great deal they havent seen the economic benefits they expected. But imagine your european co or lender. The Intelligence Community struggles to figure out which companies are controlled. Its a difficult complex and understanding to figure out which ones have shareholders, as much as 20 of that. Imagine your business person trying to decide if the return was there for your company. I think we can make it more difficult and to push back against these nonnuclear activities i think its something the president tends undoing. The mask of humor questions, think the debate windows into other trends and factors. How have our allies or adversaries reacted to the speech of the policy shift . You hear publicly, is there a different line privately . I cant say a whole lot there, other than to say there is consensus of the iranian threat. Not to diminish the paramount objective to keep them from achieving a Nuclear Capability. But there is consensus to push back against the iranians. But for that in private conversations with my intelligence counterparts them desiring to look alongside and deliver to our policymakers the best information and right places. I have not heard a single one of them tonight the core of what President Trump said in his speech on friday which is that iranian behavior certainly not only the United States but the west at large. Lets segue to some other issues feeding off the speech. The speech highlighted two things that went largely unnoticed. One was the discussion of iranian support to terrorism. We know the typical argument around the in the data we have, the proxies in iraq but the president mentioned al qaeda in the taliban as well. That is interesting because weve known all along that there have been links between the two. The Treasury Department has designated actors who admitted iran and supported. The 911 commission raised a question that was unanswered with respect to irans potential role in the president raised it quite openly which i found to be startling and interesting. Can you talk about the al qaeda links that the president mentioned . I cant say more than what he said. I think its an open secret and not classified that there have been relationships and connections. Theres times iranians worked alongside of al qaeda. Theres documents related to a rate that may prove interesting to those who want to take look at this issue further. Theres connections were at the very least theyve cut deals so as not to come after each other. They viewed the west is a greater threat than between the two other ideological lines. Were very mindful of this and with the defeat of the real estate proposition in syria and iraq we watch whats going on you have isis and al qaeda up in the north. Were watching to see if theres places they Work Together for a Common Threat against United States. It then goes to this issue of the fall of raqqa the territory that isis controls but you also look at scrambling for territory what American Interest and presence look like as isis is hopefully more quickly defeated. Whats your sense of where american presence goes in syria and iraq now that isis seems to be on its way out rat lease less in control of territory. I prefer to leave the policy piece to the president. But we have one policy from the president s thats very clear with respect to south asia the threat that not only the taliban presents the, network in afghanistan. The president has made an unconditioned commitment is no timeline commitment to defeating the threat to the west for terrorism in afghanistan. Im confident theyll continue to deliver an understanding of the president to push back not only against iran but the Syrian Regime and to ensure the government and iraq is successful as well. From the directors perch, with the id scenario in terms of an ability to operate in these places. To need more of a physical footprint . Obviously afghanistan gives that to you. But what does that look like especially when its not related to nationbuilding. What is it look like from an intel perspective . Obviously we benefit when theres a larger american footprint but there places where we have people in harms way doing really good work to get information. Our intelligent mission wont change whether theres a big u. S. Footprint or small one, the president will still demand good intelligence. Well just figure out how to achieve that regardless of what the u. S. Postures and those. You mentioned the afghanistan policy, secretary tillerson is going out to give a speech to talk about the importance of that. The chairman of the joint chiefs talked about pakistan some of the difficult things weve had with the pakistanis and the Intelligence Services ties maybe facilitation of the actors that have been dangerous for u. S. Troops and interests. Thinking about that part of the world and the role that you pl play, what is the right steadystate with pakistan. Were committing to india but seem to be confronting pakistan a bit more soberly these days. I think history would indicate that High Expectations for the pakistans willingness to help us in the fight against radical islamic terror should be set at a low level. Our intelligence would indicate the same. I think we should have a very real conversation about what it is theyre doing what they could do and the expectations to how they will behave. I think secretary tillerson statement is right about our desire to have a constructive relationship the president has made very clear that we will do whatever we can to bring the taliban to the negotiating table with them having zero hope that what they can win this on the battlefield. To do that you cannot have a safe haven in pakistan. The intelligence is very clear. To achieve the objective, the capacity for terrorist to cross along the border is prohibitive in our capacity to deliver it. Our mission is to make sure that safe haven does not exist. I hope we can count on the pakistanis for their help in achieving that. Last year we get back for citizens who are held for four years. Thats great news. Im hopeful that our relations with them will deliver to us the things that has americas vital interest in that region. Want to go back to the iran space and open a window into north korea. Another interesting thing the president mentioned largely unremarked was the concern about the potential links not just on Missile Programs but all other links between iran and north korea. He said he was going test the Intelligence Community to look into this and report back. What are your concerns about the links between iran and north korea and proliferation at large . Theres a long history of proliferation ties 20 north korea and iran. Sometimes or try to make it harder. Their deep conventional weapons and ties between the two countries. Their two nationstates that do not have deep export control provisions in their own countries. So its a wild west exercise and we do have an obligation to ensure that we account for that as the Intelligence Community and our best efforts to ensure that we dont have transition capabilities between the two. You can imagine that each of these countries would have relative expertise in certain capacities there wont even be Dollars Exchange but Rather Technology exchange and then their capacity to do explosive testing on Nuclear Devices as well. So the president s comments if you say unremarked, it is been noted that he asked us to deliver him solid information. Are you concerned that we are in a state of greater risk with respect to the Global Community of proliferation, given both lack of government some parts of the world concerned over who will acquire nuclear capabilities. Are we at a moments its a question on top of the president s mind. He urges us all to think about the proliferation issues. Not just north korea and iran. The pakistan in every place that risk is there. Theres intentional proliferation and risk that proliferation will take place with others and some are conscientious about. When you stare just at asia any watches north korea grows ever closer to having its capability perfected, you can imagine others in the region thinking they may need that capability to protect themselves. So were aware of those risks working diligently to deny the incentives for that and showing that were watching these communications begin to take down the network. He talked about the north korean capability. Weve all watched the text and have seen the nuclear threats. What are the remaining markers for their capability . Is it reentry of an icbm capability . Is it the miniature station of the Nuclear Device . Are we close to them having perfected all elements with them to hit the u. S. With the Nuclear Capability . They are closer now than they were five years ago. I expect will be closer in five months than they are today absent of global effort. Whether successful road successful is deprived of the west. They are intent upon completing the chain of activity and it is the case that they are close enough now their capabilities that from u. S. Policy perspective we ought to behave as were if theyre on the cusp of them achieving that objective. Theres also some risk especially in a place like north korea that will be off by months or years in our understanding. We done good work with this program through the years but we talking about months come our capacity to understand that a detailed level is at some sent irrelevant whether it happens on tuesday or month from tuesday. The president has concluded we need a global effort to make sure he does not have the capacity. Its interesting with the Intelligence Committee because how definitive do you need to be in terms of when they preach that capability and from a policy standpoint the question is, point to sumer have to assume for National Security that they do have that capability and that begins to shift your policy options and goals. Is something we are incredibly mindful of. What took over in a few weeks i created an entire Mission Center to attack this problem set. The Korean Nuclear problem set. Were trying to refine that answer so we can give a shorter window to face the conundrum that they are already there. A challenging target and one that we spent energy on and will continue to. But i think its something that we all not have to accept. Do you think the perception of the threat from north korea changes fundamentally at that moment not just at the ability to hit the u. S. But in terms of their posture in the region and what theyre willing to do or not do . So do you think the threat from north korea changes fundamentally at the moment that there is consensus aside from a missile that could potentially help kuan, seattle or new york. Im not sure it changes dramatically. Were so far along in that that its a matter of thinking about how do you stop the final step. And beyond that its one thing to deliver a single missile along a single set of trajectories and another thing to have a Missile System technology guiding them to develop a truly robust capability to deliver states of weapons. Theres a great risk to proceed the moment theres a consensus of whether he could pull it off. We should be mindful to we talk a lot about Missile Systems that reach denver and los angeles and new york. Theres enormous interest in south korea and japan and asia as well. So we shouldnt the eller elements of a Nature Program and other deliver. We tend to focus on this missile trajectory issue and make sure we have not lost were still staring at every tree in the north korean threat. Can ask about a sec. The New York Times had an interesting and important article about north korea Cyber Capabilities and how they have increased over time their force of 6000 cyber analyst and how they