Awareness seminar. Prompted at least in part by o. P. M. Breaches. 9 45. Thanks for that. John lets give director clapper express our appreciation to him. [applause] that concludes the first session of our summit. Well now have a coffee break in the exhibit hall and please enjoy the refreshments. The Breakout Sessions will start at 10 15 a. M. 10 15 on the lower level where you all came in. And then remember, director clapper just mentioned the 9 45 event. Thank you. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] up next, former National Security adviser sandy berger on the Iran Nuclear Agreement. After that, a house hearing on a toxic rivers bill in colorado. And live at 7 00 a. M. , your calls and comments on washington journal. All persons having business before the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention. Number 759. Ernest, petitioner, versus arizona. Barbara madison is probably the most famous case this court ever decided. Judge and harriet existed as laypeople here on land where slavery was not legally recognized. Putting the brown decision into effect would take president ial orders in the presence of federal troops and marshals and the courage of children. To take cases that changed the direction of the court in society and also changed society. So she told them that they would have to have a search warrant. Papers. Map conceded the to read what it was. Once they refused to do so, she grabbed it out of his stance to look at it and thereafter, the Police Officer handcuffed her. I cannot imagine a better way to bring the constitution to like that by telling the human stories behind great Supreme Court cases. Opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii. After being convicted for failing to report for relocation, mr. Carr matsuo took his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Quite often, in some of our most important decisions, ones that the court took an unpopular position. If you had to pick one freedom that was the most essential to the functioning of the democracy it has to be freedom of speech. Through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what ofmeans to live in a society 310 million different people who stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic Supreme Court decisions and the human stories behind them. A new series on cspan, produced in cooperation with the National Constitution center. Debuting on monday, october 5, at 9 00 p. M. On tuesday, sandy berger, the former National Security advisor for president clinton, call the Iran Nuclear Agreement a starlight. He is among the Nuclear Experts on a panel hosted by the International Crisis group. This is an hour and 40 minutes. Pleasedam particularly to be here this afternoon to with thesevent experts. The issue we will discuss today is among the most important that a in in the diplomatic for the last 20 years. When i think of the complexity of this agreement, i think it compares only to those arms control agreements that were negotiated in the 1970s and in the 1980s. And the reason why it compares to those is because it is not an areement which is just statement of intentions. A statement of generalities. Diplomatic niceties. , not a complex contract based on trust, but on verification, on details on detailed arrangements and that is what makes it comparable to what we saw in the salt and in the major arms control agreements decades ago. I think that comparison stops there and i would want to share with you before i introduce our speakers, i want to share two thatht with you that make agreement very different actually from the arms control agreements of the 1970s or 1980s. The first and major difference is that those agreements were that werey bilateral Bilateral Agreements between the United States and the soviet union. No trust between the United States and the soviet union. Signatoriesween the of the agreements and iran. , i difference is that today say signatories. This is an International Agreement and this is the final in the way of four years of negotiations, but more accurately some 12 years of engagements. In 2003 and the date is interesting because that war andyear of the iraq deep worries that Saddam Hussein could have weapons of mass destruction. That was the year when north korea withdrew from the npt. There was a sense that the whole nonproliferation regime could unravel and that the only possible response was war. Hence, the initiative at the time of the u. K. , france, and germany to engage iran diplomatically. An initiative that then became leading thetive and engagement with the iranians. That came to nothing. Leader becoming the president in 2005 and in 2006, you had the second stage in the internationalization of the issue with the Security Council being brought in. And the Security Council had means of legal course and that did not exist before. And so what we see today is the their he intense diplomatic engagement of the United States with iran. It is also in a way the product of intense diplomatic negotiation of a range of actors, the europeans, the members of the Security Council, the noneuropean members of the Security Council beside the united date. China and russia. Quites what is behind remarkable becauseakes it, in ae remarkable because today what we think of the International Community, the word that most come to ones mind are unraveling. Its not a time when we see the International Community coming together. Its a time where we see International Relations in a terrible shape being able to agree on most issues. The fact that this agreement is the one bearing exception to that trend toward an unraveling of the International Community. So that is an important point when one considers this agreement. The Second Thought i would want want to share before introducing the panelists is not when you consider the arms control agreement they were achieved in the context of derivatives strategic ability where there was some implicit agreement on the status quo. This agreement, to put it in political context, is profoundly different because it comes in a region that is the most volatile in the region where they certainly have no agreement on what the status quo should be. If you talk to their leaders, they they wont have the same answer. So in that context is why the europeans stand it is normal to focus on the technicalities but in a way it should be on the context. Know, and as will be explained, this agreement is a whole set of time frames. Five years, at years. Eight years. 10 years, 15 years, twice five years. There is a whole period of time that is opening before us. The question is how are we going to use that time . Those years have wee through, do did increase the stability or did we open a period of calm, or nonproliferation, it did not resolve the fundamental issue. That is the political work before us, which is a decade long effort that needs to be made. I think there is going to be quite important to focus on the politics of the region so that the intimidation in the implication implementation, on the one hand there is the politics, and the political context to make sure it is the foundation for a different middle east. Not just a nonproliferation agreement. Now, to discuss the agreement, we have an extraordinary panel. Tom pickering unfortunately missed the plane so is not with us this morning. He regrets it very much. But we have sandy berger. And the biographies of all of the art is a pence. National security visor for president clinton. Who we will speak to the National Security interest of the United States. I would add one point. He is a distinguished trusting, and we are pleased to have him on our board. The president coasting this event, and world not expert on nonproliferation command he will speak to the implications of this agreement for the broader context of nonproliferation. And our own International CrisisGroup Analyst who has been engaged in the negotiation relentlessly, as relentlessly as the diplomats were conducting the negotiation in the last four years and playing a very Important Role behind the scenes, talking to the actors because he has the better quality of understanding the technicalities of the issues which are numerous and at the same time the politics of them. Without further ado, i will ask sandy to get us started. Thank you. I am pleased to be here. I am pleased to be here. In many ways this is the eyes and ears and conscience of the world and constant the world. And this has been at the heart of the groups that are working to see this agreement adopted. I am pleased to be part of this. Abraham lincoln used to tell the story of a man who was lost in a forest on a dark night. Vicious storm. Every minute that would be a funders or of thunder and the flash of lightning. Finally hefinally he looked up and said, god, i would appreciate a lot more like a lot less noise. I think that is an admonition that we could bring to this debate so far, a lot more night more noise in the debate. If all you are doing was listening to the congressional discussion, you would think the agreement is somewhere between horrible and just good enough. And i think that is misleading because those who think its horrible, but if you are a democratic senator and you have made a very courageous judgment to before this, you also have to than deal with all of the folks who are against it. It is easier to say i heard your argument. They are good arguments. This is a close call. I am for this, but i recognize all of the things he said. You have a discussion here which is somewhat skewed, and not very many members of Congress Want to stand up and be a cheerleader for this. We will see how the debate unfolds. I am not sure that this is an accurate reflection of how Congress Really feels. I will say i think its a strong agreement. From an arms control perspective, National Security perspective. Its very strong. Ill let my colleagues to the left are experts on this describe the pieces of this. My top lines here are, unbelievable prevent iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon for at least 15 years , perhaps more. It eliminates a key threat to the stability of the middle east, and i think its verifications provisions of our ability to know what is going on our stronger than any arms control agreement ever. So on the positive side, i think we have a strong, strong case. Let me focus on three issues that would be opponents are talking about and address those three issues. One is that we should defeat this and get a better deal, put more pressure on iran and get a better deal. It wont happen. It cant happen. And it cant happen for a number of reasons. Number one, our partners in this enterprise have no interest in further negotiations. They think this is a pretty darn good deal, as does most of the world. Theyre not interested in more sanctions. So were not going to have them as partners. The outer rim of the sanctions regime, which has been china and india and south korea and japan, which is what made these sanctions work, with great credit to president obama and secretary clinton, they have no interest in more sanctions. So theyre wont pressure. In fact, existing sanctions will quickly erode. Sanctions worked. Sanctions did exactly what they were designed to do. I cannot think of another case, except south africa, where sanctions it worked as well as this. The International Coalition was constructed, economic sanctions were imposed. It was a white coalition. The iranians came to the table. They negotiated a serious agreement. Some people think thats wrong. But its a serious agreement. The no one is interested. From the iranian. Of view you have to imagine the following conversation because presumably during these negotiations for a better deal things have to at least freeze. You have to imagine president lonnie going in to see ayatollah and saying something later, i think that we should stay at this, continue to imply, notwithstanding that the United States has no obligation, notwithstanding that horrible, the debate horrible, the debate you just heard for the last three weeks to five months. People take the high ground and stay with us. If you still in office, he then has to say, by the way, i think richard i think we should offer more concessions. I cant see how the iranians will do any better. I dont think there is a better deal. It is an illusion, a selfdelusion, and we ought to get it off the table as quickly as possible. The 2nd proposition here is that iran, with all this new money that it gets will increase its sponsorship for radical groups in the region , has below, hamas, and others, and that will cause turmoil in the region. I do believe that iran is a threat and region and that the intention is to gain influence over the region. One of the reasons i am for this agreement is because i would rather be dealing with enron it does not have a Nuclear Weapon rather than one that does and can use it to intimidate its neighbors, to try to keep outside powers for moving in to help that is the reason for the agreement. Iran we will have more money first is the vaunted hundred billion dollars. 56 billion. There are claims against it. Some of it will come back. And presumably the iranian economy is healthier and will generate more revenue, and more revenue will be available to spend on external matters. This is just the concept. Number one, this kids were demonstrating on the street not because they were happy to get rid of centrifuges but because they see an opportunity to have a better life. They see an opportunity. Suddenly the iranians ship all that money tucson. It is a repressive government. This is a very connected generation in terms of the internet. Estimated to be half a trillion dollars of unmet domestic needs and iran as a result of the sanctions. If a lot of that money does not go to dealing with those needs, i think they will be in trouble. But theyre we will be money , and we have to be aware of that and our regional strategy. President obama is moving in that direction to help our allies better determine defend themselves against iranian pressure. Not only through arms through other ways. The gulf countries now spend eight times what iran spends it is not really money that is giving iran an advantage. Its capabilities and other asymmetric amenities. We need to work with our friends to better position to push back a bit. The 3rd thing swirling around is that the verification provisions are not really effective because they said they would have anytime anywhere inspections and dont. Joe probably knows he says that. I dont want to denounce something. It was unfortunate because no country anywhere would permit anytime anywhere. The only time that happened is in iraq after the invasion. We were occupying. So it was kind of a false expectation,a false expectation, but i want to put it into bigger context. A big puzzle with a thousand pieces. We will have 247. Monitoring of all of Irans Nuclear program, stuff coming in, the mines where they mine uranium, the places where they make centrifuges and assemble the centrifuges. All of that will be viewed by cameras, seals, totally transparent. 99 percent, 98 percent is an open book. This whole debate and discussion 24 days being too long is about a couple pieces of the puzzle. We dont no fair there, but we see something going on on a military base. The simple fact is that as we see it through our intelligence, and want to go in and see it. Iea asked to. Iran says now. We are talking about that subset of issues. In that case we can just go blaster way in. I dont think anyone is in favor of doing that. Its a process. It is a 24 day process. I actually think that is a good time period because hopefully the pressure will build during that period to open it up involving the countries that negotiate and iran, but ultimately if iran does not open the site any country, any of the p5 plus one countries they go to the un and push a button and have the sanctions reimposed. We have the ability. That is the ultimate enforcement tool. The last thing ill say, some of the critics say is too big of a tool, like having a nuclear bomb to do traffic control. You will never use it. That is a pretty good argument. But there are alternatives. We have our own sanctions, our own unilateral sanctions we can impose if we cant get our allies to go along or think were doing too much. We have a range of options to go after iran under those circumstances. I will stop there. There are a thousand questions and a thousand and one answers. Thank you very much. It is our pleasure to join with the International Crisis group and sponsoring this panel discussion. Thank you for this opportunity to partner with you. We are dedicated to reducing and eliminating Nuclear Threats throughout the world this is why we got involved. We dont do the middle east. We do nuclear. We saw iran is one of the greatest Nuclear Threats facing the world and tried to muster our resources to focus on this thread, to provide grants to groups working on this threat, to try to find a way diplomatically to