We have a pretty good idea of what the agreement will be. I wonder if you can get us a sense from a Nuclear Point of view of what you are looking at . Thank you for the great introduction. We really appreciate all the great work you do. I am going to stay off camera. I just had an eye procedure. With that, Irans Nuclear program has been advancing quite rapidly under president s watch. It is good to go over some of the advances since the original record. They seem to be exploiting the administrations will and makes to lift sanctions. Edits just waiting for an extreme amount of concessions when the deal will be too good to pass up. Since biden has been in office, it is now 60 purity. They have enough enriched uranium to make more than five Nuclear Weapons and they have installed at least 1500 of their faster centrifuges at highly four to five highly four to five underground sites. They have been reducing monitoring of their activities while openly extorting the ia for access to camera footage. So now they are threatening that they are close to the Nuclear Threshold. I think that thread to come in from Senior Iranian officials means they are close to atomic weapons. They are able to step over this threshold. We take that to mean they are very close and they could do so without being stopped. Whether that is true, we can debate it. Probably they are not right there get yet. I think it is worth heeding the warning. You mentioned that iran has a deadline of tonight to answer whether they will rejoin this deal. I am not sure the European Union plans to enforce that deadline. Iran does not like these sorts of deadlines. One of the most troubling concessions we have heard is that the European Union is offering to close the safeguards investigation relating to irans noncompliance. The board of governors previously did this in 2015 in order to pave the way for the original deals implementation. I think that is a huge warning sign we have major concessions ahead and we will probably never get answer about irans violations. Before i move on to our colleagues, can i ask you a few followup questions . Yes. Can you define for us what we mean when we say a Nuclear Threshold state . My colleague and i have been looking at this. They have all the technical abilities to take the step to make atomic weapons before being stopped. If they diverted enriched uranium we cannot bomb it in time, we could not stop there centrifuge facilities. I think there is still time to act even with economic penalties in order to deter them to take the final step. But the window is getting shorter as we waste all these this time with talks. The other question i wanted to ask you is about their npt violation. You said this is a warning sign that they are not coming clean about the evidence of their violations of the npt. The ia has investigated Irans NuclearProgram Since 2002. In 2015, the world powers agreed to close this probe before it was finished and iran had truthfully answered and come clean about it. The investigation was removed from the agenda. In 2018, the Israeli Mossad stolen archive from a warehouse. This showed photographic evidence, technical planning, plans for Nuclear Weapons production facilities, all up until 2003 when it seemed the spotlight of the International Attention propelled them to downsize, to not produce Nuclear Weapons. The ia is investigating some of the sites in this archive and and asked iran to access to three sites in 2019 and 2020. Iran delayed, removed evidence, sanitize the sites. They want to know the reason for the presence of uranium that it detected and where it is today. This has to do with iran complying with the npt. That is a fundamental legal obligation separate from a political agreement. So we risk that iran will not explain what he was doing. We risk not being able to figure out if they have ongoing activities today. Ok, thank you very much. Rob, lets turn to you next. Lets get your analysis and what you think the Biden Administration is doing let me put it to you this way, i think that andrea mentioned being very careful not to go beyond the facts. She said that the European Union made this proposal to me cap the ie eight. Since the proposal was put forward, we have not heard anything from washington that there is discomfort with this. What do you think is happening here . We have had the step taken by the European Union. Then we have Salman Rushdie attacked by a man who seems to be at least inspired by the teachings of the Ayatollah Khomeini and the calls against Salman Rushdie. We have had attacks on plots against the number of americans by the iranian regime. Just as we are going to air right now, i saw on the news that our essential Operations Force in syria was attacked by every mean affiliated iranian affiliated militias. No sign whatsoever that the United States is going to move away from these concessions to iran in the nuclear arena. How do you think the administration is framing all of this and why do you think they are doing it . Thank you for the opportunity to speak with all of you today. Let me start first with how the region perceives the approach because that is equally important. There was a conflict in the current u. S. Approach. We are hellbent on returning to the other way. This has led our partners to be confused and frustrated because we are abandoning them to their own devices without u. S. Support. This intrinsic conflict has eroded the trust and confidence in our partners and allies in the region. This obviously is a problem. The result of this is our partners are seeking to diversify their dependency on the United States for security concerns relative to iran. This pushes them closer to china and russia. This will come to our expense and to their expense. This is not the time to do it as we recover from the pandemic and the Global Economy is edging toward recession. In any case there is a historic disruptions to Energy Global markets. All of that is at risk because of our current approach. At the end of the day in terms of negotiations, the administration believes that if we increase irans capabilities, we will get to some new balance. This is the same approach the administration they have taken toward israel and palestine, where we would decrease israels capabilities and increase the palestinian position and this would bring us to some sort of detente. We are seeing this play out at the strategic level. We have subordinated all of the policy decisions to that. The problem is that belief is based on flawed assumptions. If we listen to our partners in the region, at the end of the day they are left to deal with the consequences. Our inability to check irans capability. I would not be surprised if they were to get to the point where they would attempt to test within the next six months because our track record has been 100 wrong. We have never been able to anticipate any emerging threat. I think our loss of visibility and her lack of visibility in so many areas of irans program are key here. Which is why andreas point about npt violations is a current issue. If in fact they never stop their program, it is important to know that. It is a matter of current relevance. If we are going to take an agreement with iran, we have to make sure there was some level of trust. At the end of the day, i think we are likely to see a couple of things. First, there was likely to be an arms race grown. The likelihood of regional conflict is important. Because of that, i think we should take every step to support israels efforts to normalize and support israels relations with those who have normalize diplomatic relations. I think it is critical we do so. It would safeguard our interests and bears as we enter a. Of period of instability. When you say that we should be facilitating the strengthening of the abraham accords, are you stressing primarily the military value of normalization or do you see this as part of the bulwark . They are interrelated. Our approach is to build an economic relationship between countries that have shared capabilities. Sorry, one second. Let me just say you are the Senior Advisor to President Trump on the middle east. The Previous Administration approach of which i was a part, our approach was to connect these countries on an economic basis. So they would defend that interest because it was tied to their economic interests. The logic was economic first, security second. You look at it in contrast with egypt and jordan, it was a Security First approach. It cost the United States a significant amount of resources in order to maintain it. Our approach was decidedly different and it does not cost the United States. I think it will be more durable as a result. I think it has to be invested in what is already created. I think the expansion is logical. I think we should prioritize it without a doubt. One other question for you. I think a lot of people, you mentioned there is this belief in the white house that by strengthening iran we are going to get to some kind of equilibrium. This is hard for a lot of people to grasp, including a lot of diehard democrats. The administration does not come out and openly say that. You can glean that here and there, but how do you think they have arrived at this notion that this is the way to reach equilibrium and we will achieve it and it will be good for the United States . At they first it comes from frustration of having such a significant presence in the region. There was a recognition that it was not sustainable to have a significant u. S. Presence in the region. Second, there is a question about our enduring National Security interests in the region. Third, i think there has been a lack of enthusiasm for our supportive traditional partners and allies in the region. You tie all that together and it is a desperate search for alternatives. I think it is valid and wise to pursue alternatives. I just think those that adhere to this belief landed in the wrong place. They did because it does not support the region. If you listen to our partners in the region, we would hear from them that this approach is not sustainable. Looking for alternatives is not a bad one. It enables them to wield much greater capability by integrating with each other. An extension of the normalization efforts with the with israel is to deal with a host of threats much more effectively. I want to get your view on where this equilibrium notion comes from. Can you give us a little bit of a sense of the israeli point of view. How do you see the israelis reading this . Thank you. I am delighted to join you for this call today. I think the answer to that question is pretty dense. To robs point about the region, i think that when the countries in the middle east look at the United States since 9 11, basie they see a collection of middle east policies that are up and down. I think the inconsistency of it is part of what has driven their thinking and their decisionmaking until this point. What we are seeing now is exactly the hedge and that rob is talking about. You see them talking more with china and russia and each other. It looks like everyone is speaking with each other, including with iran. I think israel is different in the sense that israel is also speaking to its neighbors, but it can speak to iran. The other countries have been doing that. Israel has to rely on the United States in ways that i think the other countries also do, but with fewer alternatives and it has to rely on itself. I think this crashed into the domestic policy of it was real right now because domestic policy of israel right now because the current Prime Minister and his predecessor have been working very hard to prove who they are not. The model they are using is that the netanyahu government took this confrontational approach with the Obama Administration, we are not going to do that. We are going to take a cooperative approach. What they are doing now is, look at the tremendous success we have had. The israelis are saying they convinced the americans not to delist. I think the u. S. Decision not to delist and so far that it is valid it was based on u. S. Considerations. There were a couple of times when white house spokespeople were asked how much influence the israelis were having in decisionmaking. The answer was zero. They are not in fact influencing bad decisionmaking. I think there is also historical revisionism going on in the sense that in israel, but also in the United States, people talk about netanyahu and his approach to the nuclear thing as if he started with that speech in congress, he started with the confrontation. I heard people say why is the Prime Minister making the speech . It is so public. Why does any give his concerns behind closed doors . But the israeli policy did not begin with this public confrontation. It ended with this public confrontation because the Prime Minister did make these arguments, did make them quietly and behind closed doors. The result was that israels concerns about the nuclear deal were ignored and cast aside and the deal got progressively worse. The administration at the time misled the israelis about what in fact they were even doing with iran. So i think that is part of what is going on in israel right now. At the same time, the israeli Prime Ministers have all consistently said that they opposed the jcpoa. They think it is a bad deal. Do you agree with robs understanding of where this equilibrium notion comes from . Do you have any thoughts . For me, it is the strangest thing. Because the Evidentiary Base for the existence of the equilibrium is incredibly absent in the mind of everyone except those who believe in it. But they make no effort to show how it will happen. They just seem to somehow know it. I agree with both of you in that i think during the obama years, the president himself was explicit about this notion. He talked about sharing the region, he talked about balance. I remember president obama gave an interview with the New York Times where he talked about how one of the problems was netanyahu was too strong and if only this would change, the whole dynamic would change. I think obama had a revolutionary vision for the middle east. I dont know that biden shares that vision. You certainly do not see those kinds of quotes coming from President Biden. To what extent does the circle of advisors that they share half that revolutionary view . What helps us understand the approach, it was interesting because this i saw as the jcpoa was being negotiated, you would hear this much more explicitly from European Countries than you would from the u. S. Administration i think because of political digestibility of it. The approach was, you lay out the terms of the jcpoa to a neutral audience or an audience that is learning about it for the first time and they actually cannot believe it. You lay it out and you often are met with skepticism. How is it possible that they agreed to do this . Thanks. Andrea, back to you. I put words in your mouth a minute ago when i was talking to rob and i said that you said this was the capping the iaea. This i mean the concessions regarding the possible military dimensions of the program that have been presented to the iaea and it is actively investigating the suggestion for the proposal from the e. U. To close the files. I wonder if you could walk us through the current director of the iaea seems to be pretty keen on pursuing these investigations are to have you imagine if the iranians except proposal he will respond and the board of governors will respond to him . I think on the investigation i have very surprised when it comes down to it washington and europe would force a showdown with iran and say you have to provide truthful answers before the deal can be reinvented. They set a president in 2015. They got away with it then. I think in tehran this says unless the probe is closed they will not restart a new deal. To your point, it does seem a very tough position. He said there is no political solution. At the same time, what is he realistically able to do with the board of governors . I am still asking contacts whether they think there is more he could do. Whether he could say we will revisit the questions. I dont see any other option. If he is really gung ho about it but to resign. I dont think that is likely to happen. He may try to the case has been closed for him. It is troubling for efforts. It is a state sponsor of terrorism we know for a fact because the Nuclear Archives had a crash Nuclear Weapons program. They plan to keep it going and they would be able to get away with it. They could continue progress on weaponization and delivery while in the jcpoa. This 60 to which they have enriched the uranium, correct me if im wrong, but there is no technical or nonmilitary purpose hind i am saying if the iranians wanted to have a fig leaf to hide behind, there is no would admit purpose for doing that other than a bomb. Am i wrong . When need 60 enriched reactors. In the past they might go to 60 as a step toward going higher or to make fuel for nuclear submarines. They dont have that technology at all. It is a pretext to go further. One of the things that has been interesting to me is there is