Democrat or republican, that your security will be uppermost on our minds. That will not change. And that should not mean you let up on your vigilance in terms of wanting to look out for your own country. It does it should give you some comfort, though, that you have the most powerful nation on earth as your closest friend and ally. And that commitment is going to be undiminished. That was my last question. I promised we worked something backstage where as long as haims questions werent too long, id take a couple of questions from the audience. And he was very disciplined [laughter] so let me take one or two. This gentleman right here. Why dont you get a microphone so everybody can hear you . Mr. President , i used to be a general in the israeli air force, in intelligence, and now running a think tank in tel aviv. Looking into the future agreement with iran i put behind me the initial agreement, and what is really important is the final agreement. Two questions. What is the parameters that you see as a red line to ensure that iran will be moving forward moving backward, rolling back from the bomb as much as possible . And what is your plan b if an agreement cannot be reached . Well, with respect to the end state, i want to be very clear theres nothing in this agreement or document that grants iran a right to enrich. Weve been very clear that given its past behavior, and given existing u. N. Resolutions and previous violations by iran of its international obligations, that we dont recognize such a right, and if, by the way, negotiations break down, there will be no Additional International recognition thats been obtained. So this deal goes away and were back to where we were before the geneva agreement, subject and iran will continue to be subject to all the sanctions that we put in place in the past and we may seek additional ones. But i think what we have said is we can envision a comprehensive agreement that involves extraordinary constraints and verification mechanisms and intrusive inspections, but that permits iran to have a Peaceful Nuclear program. Now, in terms of specifics, we know that they dont need to have an underground, fortified facility like fordor in order to have a Peaceful Nuclear program. They certainly dont need a heavywater reactor at arak in order to have a Peaceful Nuclear program. Iraq in order to have a Peaceful Nuclear program. They dont need some of the advanced centrifuges that they currently possess in order to have a limited, Peaceful Nuclear program. And so the question ultimately is going to be, are they prepared to roll back some of the advancements that theyve made that would not justify or could not be justified by simply wanting some modest, Peaceful Nuclear power, but, frankly, hint at a desire to have breakout capacity and go right to the edge of breakout capacity. And if we can move that significantly back, then that is, i think, a net win. Now, youll hear arguments, including potentially from the Prime Minister, that say we cant accept any enrichment on iranian soil. Period. Full stop. End of conversation. And this takes me back to the point i made earlier. One can envision an ideal world in which iran said, well destroy every element and facility and you name it, its all gone. I can envision a world in which Congress Passed every one of my bills that i put forward. [laughter] i mean, there are a lot of things that i can envision that would be wonderful. But precisely because we dont trust the nature of the Iranian Regime, i think that we have to be more realistic and ask ourselves, what puts us in a strong position to assure ourselves that iran is not having a Nuclear Weapon and that we are protected . What is required to accomplish that, and how does that compare to other options that we might take . And it is my strong belief that we can envision a end state that gives us an assurance that even if they have some modest enrichment capability, it is so constrained and the inspections are so intrusive that they, as a practical matter, do not have breakout capacity. Theoretically, they might still have some. But, frankly, theoretically, they will always have some, because, as i said, the technology here is available to any good physics student at pretty much any university around the world. And they have already gone through the cycle to the point where the knowledge, were not going to be able to eliminate. But what we can do is eliminate the incentive for them to want to do this. And with respect to what happens if this breaks down, i wont go into details. I will say that if we cannot get the kind of comprehensive end state that satisfies us and the World Community and the p5plus 1, then the pressure that weve been applying on them and the options that ive made clear i can avail myself of, including a military option, is one that we would consider and prepare for. And weve always said that. So that does not change. But the last point ill make on this. When i hear people who criticize the geneva deal say its got to be all or nothing, i would just remind them if its nothing, if we did not even try for this next six months to do this, all the breakout capacity were concerned about would accelerate during that six months. Arak would be further along. The advanced centrifuges would have been put in place. Theyd be that much closer to breakout capacity six months from now. And thats why i think its important for us to try to test this proposition. Ill take a couple more. Yes, sir. Right over here. Mr. President , israeli journalist from isreal hayom daily newspaper. Mr. President , i covered the negotiations with iran, Nuclear Negotiations geneva 2009, istanbul 2010. And i came back now from geneva again, where you could see the big change was not only on irans side, but also on the p5 plus1 side, meaning they were very eager to reach an agreement. Coming back from geneva, we learned, and some of us had known before, the secret talks america had with iran. And we know the concern you have on the Israeli Security ere very grateful. Were very grateful. But how does it coincide with your secret negotiations washington had with tehran . Thank you. The truth is, is that, without going into the details, there werent a lot of secret negotiations. Essentially what happened and we were very clear and transparent about this is that from the time i took office, i said we would reach out to iran and we would let them know were prepared to open up a diplomatic channel. After rouhani was elected, there was some acceleration leading up to the u. N. General assembly. Youll recall that rouhani was engaging in what was termed a charm offensive, right, and he was going around talking to folks. And at that point, it made sense for us to see, all right, how serious are you potentially about having these conversations. They did not get highly substantive in the first several meetings but were much more exploring how much room, in fact, did they have to get something done. And then as soon as they began to get more technical, at that point, they converged with the p5plus1 discussions. I will say this the fact of rhouhanis election its been said that theres no difference between him and ahmadinejad except that hes more charming. I think that understates the shift in politics that took place in this election. Obviously, rouhani is part of the iranian establishment and i think we have to assume that his ideology is one that is hostile to the United States and to israel. But what he also represents is the desire on the part of the iranian people for a change of direction. And we should not underestimate or entirely dismiss a shift in how the iranian people want to interact with the world. Theres a lot of change thats going to be taking place in the middle east over the next decade. And wherever we see the impulses of a people to move away from conflict, violence, and towards diplomatic resolution of conflicts, we should be ready and prepared to engage them understanding, though, that, ultimately its not what you say, its what you do. And we have to be vigilant about maintaining our security postures, not be naive about the dangers that an Iranian Regime pose, fight them wherever theyre engaging in terrorism or actions that are hostile to us or our allies. But we have to not constantly assume that its not possible for iran, like any country, to change over time. It may not be likely. If you asked me what is the likelihood that were able to arrive at the end state that i was just describing earlier, i wouldnt say that its more than 50 50. But we have to try. Last question. And i think its the young lady right there. Mr. President , im a reporter for israeli channel two. I have been listening to your analysis of the iranian deal, and i can only imagine a different a slightly different analysis given by our Prime Minister netanyahu. I think thats probably a good bet. Thats more than 50 50. [laughter. ] israelis are known for their understatement. [laughter] and i try to imagine a conversation between you two. And he would ask you, mr. President , i see this deal as a historic mistake which he has already stated and i think its the worst deal the west could have gotten. And you would have told him, bibi, thats where you go wrong. What would you have told him . Thats one thing. And then, perhaps to understand the essence of your conversation, he would ask you, mr. President , is there one set of circumstances under which you will order your b52s to strike in iran . What would you tell him . [laughter] is there any set of circumstances in which you will order your Fighter Pilots to strike in iran . What would you tell the Prime Minister . Let me make a couple of points. Number one, obviously, the conversations between me and the Prime Minister are for me and the Prime Minister, not for an audience like this. And i will say that bibi and i have very candid conversations, and there are occasionally significant tactical disagreements, but there is a constancy in trying to reach the same goal. And in this case, that goal is to make sure that iran does not have a Nuclear Weapon. As president of the United States, i dont go around advertising the circumstances in which i order pilots to launch attacks. That i think would be bad practice. [laughter] i also would say, though, that when the president of the United States says that he doesnt take any options off the table, that should be taken seriously. And i think i have a track record over the last five years that indicates that that should be taken seriously. Its interesting in the region, there was this interesting interpretation of what happened with respect to syria. I said its a problem for syria to have chemical weapons that it uses on its own citizens. And when we had definitive proof that it had, i indicated my willingness potentially to take military action. The fact that we ultimately did not take military action in some quarters was interpreted as, ah, you see, the president is not willing to take military action despite the fact that i think mr. Qaddafi would have a different view of that, or mr. Bin laden. Be that as it may, that was yesterday, what have you done for me lately . [laughter] but the point is that my preference was always to resolve the issue diplomatically. And it turns out, lo and behold, that syria now is actually removing its chemical weapons that a few months ago it denied it even possessed, and has provided a comprehensive list, and they have already begun taking these weapons out of syria. And although that does not solve the tragic situation inside of syria, it turns out that removing those chemical weapons will make us safer and it will make israel safer, and it will make the Syrian People safer, and it will make the region safer. And so i do not see military action as an end unto itself. Military action is one tool that we have in a tool kit that includes diplomacy in achieving our goals, which is ultimately our security. And i think if you want to summarize the difference, in some ways, between myself and the Prime Minister on the geneva issue, i think what this comes down to is the perception, potentially, that if we just kept on turning up the pressure new sanctions, more sanctions, more military threats, et cetera that eventually iran would cave. And what ive tried to explain is two points one is that the reason the sanctions have been so effective because we set them up in a painstaking fashion the reason theyve been effective is because other countries had confidence that we were not imposing sanctions just for the sake of sanctions, but we were imposing sanctions for the sake of trying to actually get iran to the table and resolve the issue. And if the perception internationally was that we were not in good faith trying to resolve the issue diplomatically, that, more than anything, would actually begin to fray the edges of the sanctions regime. Point number one. And point number two ive already said this before you have to compare the approach that were taking now with the alternatives. The idea that iran, given everything we know about their history, would just continue to get more and more nervous about more sanctions and military threats, and ultimately just say, okay, we give in i think does not reflect an honest understanding of the iranian people or the Iranian Regime. And i say that by the way, im not just talking about the hardliners inside of iran. I think even the socalled moderates or reformers inside of iran would not be able to simply say, we will cave and do exactly what the u. S. And the israelis say. They are going to have to have a path in which they feel that there is a dignified resolution to this issue. Thats a political requirement of theirs, and that, i suspect, runs across the political spectrum. And so for us to present a door that serves our goals and our purposes but also gives them the opportunity to, in a dignified fashion, reenter the International Community and change the approach that theyve taken at least on this narrow issue, but one that is of extraordinary importance to all of us is an opportunity that we should grant them. All right . Well, thank you very much. I enjoyed this. [applause. ] thank you so much. Thank you, mr. President. Youve been very generous. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] was president obama at the saban forum in d. C. Some of the at remarks via satellite. Ladies and gentlemen, our best efforts to reach peaceinian and isreali will come to nothing if iran succeeds in building bombs. A Nuclear Armed iran would give greater backing to the terrorist elements in the region. It would undermine the chances of arriving at negotiated peace. It would undermine peace agreements that we have reached with two neighbors. Iransays ago, representative to the u. N. Reiterated that regimes refusal to even recognize israel dared this came after the role of iran refused to israel as a rabid dog and i were the of being called human and they called is not worthy of being called him and. Human. Israel anhey called illegitimate and regime. Remarks arek these a simple matter of sticks and it is justy said, talk, but talk has consequences. We have learned that in history, especially when the regime that makes these statements is building the capability to carry it out. The same regime that supplies terrorist groups with thousands of rockets, rockets that are citizens thatli are increasingly lethal and deadly. This is a vision committed to our destruction. I believe there must be an unequivocal demand alongside the negotiations with geneva for change in iranian policy. This must be part of the negotiations. What is required is not merely a , thes capability element nation of the capability and the elimination of the capability. As you now, it is not just a israel. Every continues to trample the rights of its own people and participate in the mass slaughterings and destabilizing the regime brought the middle east. Overstate,ink i can i do not think any of us can overstate the iranian danger. For the peace and security of the world, iran must not be allowed to maintain the capability to produce Nuclear Weapons. Not today and not tomorrow. The world must not allow iran to be a weapon state with the option to cross that threshold. Deal, a fine until the spring about determination irans military Capable Military capabilities. I have expressed my concerns since before geneva that the sanctions would begin to unravel. I heard today that irans president said the economy has markedly improved. They have not even put in place steps must be taken to repent for the erosion of the sanction. Ultimately, the sanctions remain an essential element of the International Effort to compel iran to dispel its nuclear the terror infrastructure and take apart all of the centrifuges and tear down the heavy water reactors and eliminate the current stockpile of enriched on weapond working radiation weapons that geneva does not address. None of it is necessary for a Peaceful Nuclear program. While israel is prepared to do what is necessary to defend itself, we share president obamas preface to see irans endlear Weapons Program through diplomacy. For diplomacy to succeed, it must be coupled with powerful sanctions and a credible military threat. Ae repeat that diplomatic solution is better than a military option, but a military option is necessary for diplomacy to succeed, as are powerful sanctions. We agree after a cup will of tough years, iran finally a couple of tough years, iran finally what seemed impossible yesterday became possible today. We should not assume that more sanctions will lead to a better deal. Was seemed impossible what seemed if possible today could be possible tomorrow. Cspan, we bring you Pub