Take time to reflect on the nationals could issues of the day. Theres no secret here, im not an unbiased journalist here im a fan of this directory. I worked on his transition. Frankly, i love the man. I believe in the concept of putting your biases upfront before beginning the questions. But welcome. Its great to see her again and thank you for taking time. Its great to be. I would not a condition parents to that you be the moderator, but it all worked out. Thank you. Appreciate it. The director is a soldier, a lawyer, an entrepreneur, congressman and is doing great work at cia it would think we want to do today with the audience and with those joining us via live stream is talk about not just the issues of today that in the newspaper but some of the trends and issues yet to do with as the director of the cia and in the Intelligence Community. We often get captured by the media as you have to not only deal with that deal with how we think about our National Security five, ten, 15, 20 or so. I want to make sure we talk about some of those issues. Theres no question theres a sense of dislocation in the world, since the map is shifting in some ways, the power itself is shifting including with the role of nonstate actors. Major issues before us, north korea, iran, major policy shifts. We had the fall of raqqa as a punitive capital of isis. Chinas Party Congress happening as we speak. Lots going on in the world. Lets get into it. Mr. Director, first talked about iran, the president gave a speech on october 13 reshaping u. S. Policy on iran. I think the first question on this is why was that speech and that shift necessary, and is iran in violation of the jcpoa, whats the animating principle behind this shift . Juan, thanks for the question but first let me also say thank you to fdd for hosting this, thanks to clip for inviting me. I look forward to a great conversation. Including this important topic, the threat Islamic Republic of iran presents to the United States at a think thats the right way to enter your question. We often focus a lot on the jcpoa. Im happy to share the intelligence elements that are buried there, but president has come to view the threat from iran as at the center of so much of the turmoil that bogs us down and lots of places in the middle east, whether its hezbollah, the threat represents to both israel. You can see the impact theyre having today even in northern iraq. The threat they pose to u. S. Forces in the incident last week, the list of iranian transgressions, the Missile Program, their cyber effort, the list is long, and from and intelligence perspective we share that with the president and he concluded we needed you reconfigure our relationship not only with iran but with the gulf states and with israel to ensure that we are addressing what he views as a real threat to the United States in a comprehensive way. Theres been a lot of focus on the deal and whether not their certification under the u. S. Law that required the president to certify every 90 days. Whats your sense of where we are headed with the deal . Theres been so much focus especially from our european allies on the centrality of the jcpoa in the context of the relationship with iran . The president seems to be shifting that in the policy and i think the administration seems to be pushing not just on the gibbet around the deal. How do you explain to people you are view of the jcpoa itself and the role it plays in the policy . Thats true. I will leave and i come just a fact, i dont do policy in the same way today. General mcmaster, you can give him all our time you want, but i will say this. Look, the mission set the president laid out with respect to the d was to ensure that there were no pathways for the arenas to achieve a Nuclear Capability, to not put a a president in the future in the same place this administration is with respect to north korea. To close down all the various avenues, and so there many pieces from an intelligence perspective. We need even more intrusive inspections. The deal put us in a marginally better place with inspection, but the iranians have on multiple occasions been capable of presenting a continued threat through covert efforts to develop their Nuclear Program among multiple dimensions. In this dimension, the weaponization effort, the Nuclear Component itself. So we need to make sure from an intelligence perspective they are not able to do that and the president has given us the resources to go achieve that and all the various tools we have, the various legal authorities. And so when the president stared at the deal and asked us what this meant from a proliferation perspective inside of iran, two years, three years, the difference of a a breakout time across a handful of months, it didnt seem satisfactory to him, no surprise, he has tweeted about it, it didnt seem satisfactory so he asked us to evaluate how we might prevent present a more conference of effort to push back against the kurds force, they irgc more broad and the Iranian Regime itself. The effort, the notion that the entry into the jcpoa would curtail iranian adventurism or their Terror Threat or their malignant behavior has now what, two years on, proven to be fundamentally false. Has the opposite happened . Have gotten more aggressive . It depends on which dimension. They have been developing the Missile System pretty consistently, or for an extended period of time nothing in terms of testing by the same as where they were prejcpoa. But their desire to put guided rocketry in the hands of hezbollah, the efforts with the houthis in yemen launching missiles or attempting to launch missiles to the emirates and the saudi, these are new and aggressive and show no signs of having been curtailed by even the increased commerce that theyve achieved through having europeans back in again in iran. Now, its not new that theyve engaged in this adventurous sort of activity and dangerous activity from a u. S. Perspective. When we talk about pushing back, what does that mean from your perspective . I reflect on the head of the irgc, the revolutionary guard corps, sort of showing up in all the wrong places at all the wrong time from a u. S. Perspective. He was just in her cook in the middle of this conflict. How was unaware of that. They figured you were. [laughing] how do we push back . They seen to be pushing on all of the pressure points, and what does that mean for us to be able to confront and push back. All of the tools available of u. S. Power. Ill begin with a handful and we can talk about this for a long time to a begin with a handful. It has been far too inexpensive for the iranians to conduct this adventurism. We should raise the cost of that agency as an incredibly important role, providing intelligence basis for us to help noting the United States but our partners in the region. Just the second piece of this. We need all of our partners. Sometimes i hear folks talk about the jcpoa and our partners, and nary a mention of the saudi is, enron is, israelis, germans and britts in french. Thats great, very important partners. We need them all working against the continued expansion of the range. Treasury, to come has an important role. Juan, you live this annual at treasury secretary mnuchin is keenly aware of the tools that are in his arsenal as well. Think about this today. Imagine you are, the iranians have complained a great deal that they have havent seen the benefits, the economic benefits they had expected, but imagine you are a european ceo or board of directors or a lender. Intelligence community struggles mightily to figure out which companies are controlled by the irgc or the quds force. It is a difficult, complex intelligence undertaking to sort out which entities are controlled by the quds force, which was at shareholders. It is intentionally opaque but as much as 20 of the ring a con is controlled by then. Imagine you are a business person decide whether it was appropriate to take that risk or not, whether the return was therefore your company. I think we could make it even more difficult, and to think in order to push back, because all of these nonnuclear activities, put aside the Nuclear Issues and the deal, to push back against these nonnuclear activities is something the president is intent on doing. Let me ask you just a couple more questions because i think that iran policy, the jcpoa debate internationally sort of our windows into other trends and factors. How have our allies or even adversaries reacted to that speech in the policy shift . You hear what you are publicly. Is a different line privately . So i cant share a whole lot there, other than to say there is consensus of the iranian threat. Just again to push aside a moment for the nuclear, not to diminish about express the paramount objective, to keep them from achieving a Nuclear Capability to launch weapons, but putting it aside there is enormous global consensus to push back against the iranians. Ive heard that in private conversations with my intelligence counterparts, desiring to work alongside us to build up the picture so we can deliver to all of our policymakers the best information, the right places, the levers so they can do so which ones who want to pull in order to achieve the policy objectives for each of our countrys have. I have not heard a single one of them deny the core of what President Trump said in his speech on friday, which is the iranian behavior is threatening not only the United States but the west, the west writ large as well. Want to segue to couple of issues. The speech highlighted two things that i think went largely unnoticed. One was the discussion of iranian support to terrorism and, of course, we know the typical sort of argument around that and the data we have hezbollah, hamas, proxies and aback, the houthis in yemen. But the president mentioned alqaeda and the taliban as well because of those interesting in part because weve known all along there have been links between the two. The Treasury Department has designated actors who have been alqaeda actors of being in iran and supported the 9 11 commission raised a question frankly that was unanswered with respect to irans potential role in 9 11. And the president actually raised it quite openly, which i found to be really startling and interesting. Can you talk about that, the iranianalqaeda links that the president mention . I cant say whole lot more than he said, but i think its an open secret and not classified information that the ribbon relationships. There are connections. There been times the iranians have work alongside alqaeda. We actually are going to release in the next handful of days the document related to the abbottabad raid which may prove interesting to those who take a look at this issue a little bit further but there thin connections were at the very least Discount Deals so as to not come after each other. That is, they do the west as a greater threat than the fight between them along ideological lines. Weve been, its something we are very mindful of, and with the defeat of the real estate proposition in syria, and iraq for isis, we watch whats going on. Youve got isis folks, alnusra front, alqaeda folks up in the north. We are watching to see if there are places where they Work Together for a Common Thread against the United States. Lets take that threat because it then goes to this issue of the fall of rocker, the diminishment of territory that isis controls but it also raises the question of the scramble for territory and what america interests and even presence looks like as isis is hopefully more quickly defeated. What is your sense of where american presence and influence goes in syria and iraq now that isis seems to be on its way out, or at least less in control of territory, better said . I prefer to leave a policy piece of that in terms of the president is going to but lets be clear with one state a policy from the present thats very clear with respect to south asia and the threat that not only the taliban presence there but the haqqani network, alqaeda, isis in afghanistan. Increasing presence made unconditional commitment that is no timeline commitment to defeating the threat to the west, for radical islamic terrorism in afghanistan. Unconfident that the Intelligence Community content to deliver an understanding of the present that he can shape the policies hes going to follow in syria to push back not only against iran at the Syrian Regime and to ensure that the body government and aback is not successful as well. From the directors perch, whats the ideal scenario from your perspective in terms of and ability to operate in these places . Do you need more of a physical footprint longerterm . Afghanistan gives you that with the troop deployments and without a timeline. What does that look like in iraq, especially when not committed to nation building. Thats the president stated policy. What does it look like from your perspective . We benefit when there are larger u. S. Footprint in the places where try to collect intelligence. Theres no doubt about that. But there are a bunch a place where operate even as we say to this morning in the confines of a nice airconditioned hotel that weve got folks out in harms way. Doing really good work to get information. Our Intelligence Commission will not change when look whether theres a big u. S. Footprint, small your footprint are no u. S. Footprint we will have to just figure out a way to achieve that regardless of what the u. S. Posture is in any of those particular places. You mentioned the afghanistan policy in south asia. Secretary tillerson is going out to india to give a speech to talk with importance of that partnership. The chairman of the joint chiefs a few weeks ago talked about pakistan us of the difficulties we had with the pakistanis, apart the Intelligence Services ties, relationships, maybe even facilitation of terrorist actors that even dangerous for u. S. Troops and interests. Thinking about that part of the world and the role that you play, what is the right steadystate relationship with pakistan at the time when we have opposite double down in afghanistan, 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 pakistanis will is to help us in the fight against the radical islamic terrorism should be set at a very low level. Our intelligence would indicate the same, that is i think we should have a very real conversation with them about what it is that theyre doing and what it is they could do at the american expectations for how they will behave. They are in a foreign country saying in an important place. Secretary tillerson statement i think is right about our desire to have constructive relationship with the pakistanis. But equally president has made very clear were going to do everything we can combat the United States will do everything we can to bring the taliban to the negotiating table in afghanistan with the taliban having zero hope that they can win this thing on the battlefield. To do that you cannot have a safe haven in pakistan. The intelligence is a very clear. To achieve the objective that the president has set forth in afghanistan, the capacity for terrorists to cross along the afpak border and clearly hide in afghanistan privative and our capacity to deliver that. And so our mission is to ensure that that safe haven does not exist, and hope we can count on the pakistanis in achieving that. It. We had a great outcome last week when were able to get back for u. S. Citizens who had been held for five years inside of pakistan. Thats great news, and i whats the right descriptor . I am hopeful that our relations with him will deliver to us the things that america has our vital interest in that region. I want to go back to their brand speech. Not to talk about iran per se but open a window into north korea. Another interesting thing the president mentioned again largely unremarked was the concern about the potential links, notches on the subprogram of the links between iran and north korea. In fact, in this species it is good as the Intelligence Committee to look into this and to report back to him. What are your concerns about the links between iran and north korea and the issue of proliferation writ large . There is a long history of proliferation ties as between north korea and iran. At times the party has to how to pay the bills but i digress. Sometimes we make it harder. Was a long history. There are deep conventional weapons, ties between the two countries. These are two nationstates that dont have deep export control provisions within the own countries. And so it is a wild wild west exercise and we do have an obligation to ensure that we account for that as an Intelligence Community and into our best efforts to ensure that we dont have capabilities transitioned between the two. It could be the case, i cant say much, but you can imagine each of these countries would have relative expertise in certain technologies, certain capacities and i wont even be Dollars Exchange for rather the wouldbe expertise or Technology Exchange as well for the betterment of each other weaponization programs, their Missile Programs and in the capacity to do explosive testing on Nuclear Devices as well. So yes, the president s comments were, it is a unremarked, the Intelligence Community noted he has asked us to deliver him solid information. We are hard at work to do that. Take that threat and ask this. Are you concerned that we are in a state of greater risk with respect to proliferation . Not just with respecting north korea and iran but with respect to the Global Community of proliferati