For more information about this weekends Television Scandal visit us online at booktv. Org. Matthew kroenig is next on booktv. He says it is critical for the u. S. To take action against iran and its Nuclear Program and argues on the worst kind of diplomacy but the west should be willing to take military action if iran does not comply with the agreement it signed in november of last year. This is an hour and 15 minutes. Good evening. I and the International Program director for the world fair council of washington d. C. The World Affairs to a program, in 2013 and accord was signed in geneva, switzerland, the u. N. Security council, germany and iran. The agreement was a preliminary one that would set the path for more comprehensive deal on irans program and ambitions. Both sides seemed entrenched in their respective positions. However diplomacy and negotiation, conventional wisdom says, were the best way to resolve the crisis. As the alternative, a military strike would be catastrophic. In the six months since the accord was signed both find taken steps to demonstrate their commitment to the preliminary deal, and a new one in the future. Iran has reduced or halted its stocks, and International Inspectors to its facility. The signatories have lifted some of the sanctions which crippled irans economy. The current negotiations are a continual exercise in trust between the parties involved, trust that irans activities will become accepted the transparent and stressed that the other signatories will keep their word. Given the in depth nature, what happens if these talks fail to produce a comprehensive agreement that is required . Again, many have ruled out military action as being as bad if not worse than iran attaining a Nuclear Weapon. What are the alternatives to diplomacy . The seemingly endless stalemate that has existed since november . Matthew kroenig, author of a time to attack, a time to attack the looming Iranian Nuclear threat, challenges the assumption that a Nuclear Strike is out of the question as well as other commonly held policy wisdoms related to the iran Nuclear Program. Military action, he argues, should not be discarded as an option. Matthew kroenig is a Nuclear Proliferation specialist, internationally recognized authority on irans Nuclear Program. His work as a researcher and teacher at various universities in the United States. Before accepting a council on foreign relations, International Fellowship in 2010, through the fellowship he became an adviser on iran policy and the office of the department of the secretary of defense of the pentagon. In 2011, stenson Nuclear Security fellow. His previous book, exporting the bomb, was published in 2010 and his articles have appeared in the washington post, National Interest and Foreign Policy. Most notable, his february of 2012 article in Foreign Affairs which became the basis for his current book. Matthew is an associate professor in the International Field chair in the the part of government at Georgetown University and nonresident senior fellow in International Security at the atlanta council. Please join me in welcoming matthew kroenig. [applause] thank you for that introduction, it is a pleasure to be back here at the World Affairs council in washington d. C. And to be talking about my new book a time to attack one. Before i talk about what the book is about i want to talk about what the book is not. The book does not argue that we should take immediate military action, the book does not argue the military option is our best option, doesnt argue that it should be our first option. I think some people see the title of the book and jump to the wrong conclusion. I argue we should solve the Iranian Nuclear challenge through diplomacy that all possible and there are no experts who disagree with this position. Everyone agrees we should try to solve the problem through diplomacy. No one is saying we should take immediate military action or the we should just give up and acquiesce to a nucleararmed iran. Since there is some agreement on that question, it is not an interesting one. The more interesting question, and i think from a Foreign Policy perspective the more important question is what happens if diplomacy fails . If diplomacy fails to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons are we prepared to live with a nucleararmed iran and the threats that would pose for decades to come and if not are we prepared to take military action to stop here and from Building Nuclear weapons . The argument in my book that i have been making for several years is we should try to solve this through diplomacy but if diplomacy fails we should be prepared to conduct a limited military strike on irans key Nuclear Facilities and that is less bad than acquiescing to a nucleararmed iran and the threat posed my nucleararmed iran for decades to come. To name the book the argument is essentially if diplomacy fails and there will come a time to attack. The second thing the book is not is controversial. At least in my view this argument is not controversial. It simply presents the stated u. S. Policy for addressing the Iranian Nuclear challenge. President obama and other Administration Officials said several times a nucleararmed iran is unacceptable and the United States will do whatever it takes including using military action to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons. I dont believe the argument in the book at this point is controversial. There was a point when it was controversial. As stephanie mentioned in 2010 i worked as an adviser, 201011 work as an adviser and iran policy. I first started to come to this conclusion and stephanie mentioned in 2012 i wrote an article in Foreign Affairs where i made this argument public for the first time. The u. S. Government, the Obama Administration hadnt taken a public stand on this issue and many prominent analysts argued that if diplomacy fails we should learn to live with a nucleararmed iran and contain it like we did the soviet union during the cold war. I wrote my fourth Affairs Article there were many people who disagreed strongly with me. Opinion pieces in public debate including a public debate here at the World Affairs council in washington d. C. But then only a few weeks later president obama came to my rescue. In march of 2012 president obama gave an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the atlantic where he laid out his position for the first time that he would do whatever it took to keep iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons and the nucleararmed iran was unacceptable. Not only that our policy is not to contain a nucleararmed iran but that wasnt even possible, said nucleararmed iran, quote, cannot be contained. Some people dismiss this as political rhetoric trying to look tough. Others question whether obama would really be willing to do it but his top officials, dennis ross, his fifth top official on the least policy for the first few years of the administration, and his top w in the official at the white house for the first few years of the administration both said matteroffactly if it comes to that point the president will be willing to use force and i quote them both in the book. Over the last two years the establishment position on this question has done a 180 degree turn and it has shifted so much that now those who suggest we can live with a nucleararmed iran are the ones who are dismissed as extremists. Rand paul got himself in political hot water just for suggesting the turn and containing a nucleararmed iran should be on the table as an option. As i see it what has happened over the last few years is Foreign Policy establishment has caught up with this argument i have been making for several years and i would like to think my work and my arguments have had some part in bringing our ship about. The book is not arguing the military option should be the first option but should be a last resort if necessary to prevent iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons and i dont see this as controversial. It presents a stated approach for dealing with the problem. That is enough about what the book is not. What is the book about . In the back of the book there is an endorsement from ambassador eric idle men idelmann. What he says on the back of the book is this is the most thorough examination of the issues involved in accessing the Iranian Nuclear challenge and that endorsement means a lot to me in part because that is what i was trying to do when i set out to write this book. I had been thinking about the Nuclear Issue all day every day for several years. I have a lot of information on wasnt able to convey in the Foreign Affairs article, so i wanted to get the information out there and tried to write it for everyone who is interested in this issue regardless of your political position, regardless of what you thought the best way for addressing the Iranian Nuclear challenge is. If you had an idea what the best way is to address this. That is what i try to do, provide a guide to the general public, academics, anyone who wants to learn more about the Iranian Nuclear challenge. In the book i did three things, talk about the history of irans Nuclear Program, talk about the policy options available land addressing the issue, third and finally i talk about what the resolution of the Iranian Nuclear challenge will mean for the future of international order. What i would like to do is take a little bit of time to talk about each of those things. First on the history, as many of you know irans Nuclear Program began with Nuclear Cooperation agreement with the United States in the 1950s under a peace agreement, the United States helped iran set up a Nuclear Research reactor. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the United States was negotiating with the shot and the shys government to help iran develop a Nuclear Energy program. Many look back at this history and say the United States is inconsistent if not hypocritical in its approach to nonproliferation because it was willing to help the shah, but was good enough for him but not the mullets. The United States has been consistent in its approach to nonproliferation with iran and elsewhere. Our approach has always been to encourage the peace use of Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Technology including Nuclear Energy but to resist its military applications. That was our policy with the shot shah, but we dont want iran to build Nuclear Weapons. These Peaceful Nuclear discussions with the shah came to end in 1979 with the iranian revolution. New government came into power, antiamerican government shifted, iranian domestic politics, irans relationship rest of the world, irans relation with the United States. Nuclear negotiations came to an end, iran and did the shah had negotiations with other western powers. And at the beginning irans new leaders were not interested in Nuclear Technology either. Irans first leader Ayatollah Khamenei said acquiring Nuclear Weapons was against the tenets of islam but he would change his mind in the 1980s. In the 1980s iran fought a devastating war with its neighbor, iraq. Saddam husseins iraq and Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against iranian forces. At the end of the 1980s as the war was coming to an end the Supreme Leader changed his mind and in fact in a letter to supporters explaining his decision to sign a peace fire with Saddam Hussein something he didnt want to do, call the drinking from the poisoned chalice, it was so bitter signing a ceasefire with his bitter enemy. In his letter to his supporters he said that irans military position was hopeless, he had no alternative but he looked forward to resuming the war with, quote, atomic weapons which will be the necessity of work at that time so this was 1980, explicit interest from irans top leader developing Nuclear Weapons. It was at that time representative from iran began meeting with the Pakistani Nuclear scientist who was in the news ten years ago or so, transferred do it yourself atomic bomb kits to iran, north korea and so iran got a jump start on its program because of the pakistani scientist, centrifuge designed, we think the iranians might have received weapons design. Throughout the 1990s and early 2,000s the United States suspected iran might be pursuing a Nuclear Weapons program but that was removed in 2002 when an Iranian ResistanceGroup Announced two facilities. And heavy water plutonium producing reactor at iraq. And the United States provided research reactors, these two facilities that retailer made for making material for Nuclear Weapons. The Iranian Nuclear crisis began and we have been dealing with it ever since for the past 12 years. After talking about this, the history of the program and i talkedabout the election of president rouhani, i talk about where we stand today. How close is iran to having Nuclear Weapons, does iran want Nuclear Weapons . Something i teach my undergraduate at Georgetown University is in order for Nuclear Weapons to happen or Nuclear Proliferation to happen, there is a supply side, those things have to come together. On the supply side the country must have the ability to build Nuclear Weapons and on the demand side, must have the will to produce them. I talk about the supply and demand. How close is iran to having Nuclear Weapons capability . To build Nuclear Weapons iran has to do three things. It has to acquire enough material to form the core of the nuclear device, that can be highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Second, iran has to be able to form that into an explosive device, the Nuclear Warhead and third it needs a way to deliver that to an opponent, Ballistic Missiles, aircraft, submarine launch, Ballistic Missiles of the platforms that dvanadvance Nuclear Powers use. All the matters is the first stage. The International Community if necessary could take military action, could destroy those Nuclear Facilities to prevent iran from producing weaponsgrade fissile material. Once iran gets the material the game is over. Iran can move that material anywhere. We would know where it is, it could be beyond our best bunker busting munitions and our only option would be to pray that iran doesnt build Nuclear Weapons of for if were serious about keeping our options on the table in doing whatever it takes to stop iran from Building Nuclear weapons are real red line as to the production of one bombs worth of weapons grade fissile material. You might hear public discussions around we to months or six months away, those are what those estimates are, how long it would take iran to enrich enough uranium for its First Nuclear weapon. How long would it take . Right now t