Fracking, the taliban in afghanistan and the American West in 1776. All this and much more, 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors on cspan2. Booktv, television for serious readers. Up next on booktv, Seyed Hossein mousavian, a former high ranking hebb of Irans National Security counsel, suggests ways for the two countries to improve their relationship. This is about 90 minutes. [inaudible conversations] we have a prime seat in the front row. Good evening and welcome. Im warren hog, ipis hoge, and im happy to welcome you to this distinguished author series event featuring Seyed Hossein mousavian, the author of iran and the United States an insiders view on the failed past and the road to peace. As you can see from his biography, hossein is, indeed, a verified insider when it comes to such critical things as the government of the Islamic Republic of iran, irans disputed Nuclear Program, its continually conflicted relationship with the United States and his own close, personal association over the years with the two principals on the iranian side in the Current Nuclear negotiations; president Hassan Rouhani and foreign minister sa sad sharif. This makes hossein a perfect guest for ipi tonight, because this is a tantalizing moment in the history of relations between iran and the United States. The subject of his book. The two countries have been sworn enemies for the past 35 be years, but as many people have pointed out, they are also two countries that have much in common, tremendous inannounce and some parallel interests despite their profound differences. The current round of talks between the p5 mrs. 1 1 and iran began in november this which iran diluted some of its most potent uranium fuel in return for several billion dollars in sanctions relief. The deadline for the agreement is july 20th, a little more than three weeks from now. Though there is an allowance for up to six months more if they dont meet the july date. Though there are still significant outstanding disagreements over the details of an accord, there has been uninterrupted progress in achieving confidencebuilding measures since november, and and there is intense interest on both sides in trying to make the date. Now, of great significance is that the president s of both countries both want this deal. And they both know that there are powerful opponents to the agreement in each of their countries who will take advantage of any delay to ratchet up their opposition to it. Now, it is not an objective of the Nuclear Talks to settle the very real differences between the u. S. And iran. The purpose at the moment is to quarantine the talks around the sole issue of the Nuclear Program and achieve agreement there. Thousand, if that should finish now, if that should happen, one can imagine a situation where and iran cease being implacable enemies and instead become ims, intense rivals who may be able to cooperate on issues where competing National Interests converge. The common analogies being invoked are the u. S. And china and the u. S. And russia. Thats why i used the word tantalizing at the outset. This relationship has been marked by deep and recurring distrust on both sides, and the result has been a breakdown in relations between the United States and iran that has lasted longer than the breakdown between china and the u. S. Did. Building trust is elusive, particularly if one side doesnt understand what the other side thinks and why it does. That is the value of this book. And i can think of no better person to explain the iranian viewpoint be to a western viewpoint to a western audience than Hossein Mousavian who not only was at the center of so many events that propelled the breakdown, but who did his upside graduate study undergraduate studies in this country and for the past five years has been doing research and teaching at princeton. I can highly recommend his book, and it is for sale at the door, and i should tell you its proved to be so popular that weve had to send out just now to the publisher to get some more in. [laughter] and hossein will linger a bit at the end to sign copies and chat with you. Hossein was here two years ago to discuss his first book, and im flighted to have him back delighted to have him back at ip airks particularly, as i have said, at this potentially propitious moment for our two countries. Hossein, welcome, and the floor is yours. [applause] thank you. First of all, i would like to extend my grant tuesday to warren gratitude to warren and his colleagues at ipi arranging this event. As you know, i came to u. S. Mid 1970s and left the u. S. Just some months and weeks before the victory of Islamic Revolution 1979 and i came back again 2009. Actually 30 years later. In these three decades, i had an opportunity to be engaged in major events and occasions related to problems between rapp and the west from hostagetaking conflict 19881989 to afghanistan crisis, salman rushdie, fatwa against salman rushdie, nuclear crisis, different administrations, different periods, working in parliament, in National Security council, this foreign min in foreign ministry. Most of the time i spent on problems, relations between iran and the west. I was seven years in germany as ambassador, and it gave me a great opportunity to discuss with europeans. At that time we had critical dialogues the differences on human rights, on terrorism, on weapons of mass destruction, on Peace Process, israel, hezbollah, all of these issues with the europeans. Officially, unofficially with journalists, scholars, officials. And when i came back 2009 to the u. S. , it was completely different because i didnt have official hat, is access to tens or hundreds of American Foreign policy experts, think tanks, journalists, to sit with them and to discuss very, very openly, sincerely, frankly the disputes, problems between iran and the u. S. Definitely these four, five years gave me great understanding about american perception, how americans view the iranian policy, iranian Foreign Policy making system and the disputes between iran and the u. S. In this period it was very clear for me there is a big gap on correct understanding of iran. Rarely could find Foreign Policy expert in the u. S. With correct understanding of iran. Of course, no one can blame anyone because, first of all, we have had no relation during 35 years, and there have been no exchange between scholars, journalists and academics, iranians and americans. Thats why i felt perhaps in a unique position knowing the u. S. Living, well, nine years in the u. S. , over three decades in iranian policy making system to write a book about the relation between iran and the u. S. Tehran and washington have experienced one of the most dysfunctional relations, if not the most, one of the most hostile relations, if not the most. And during recent modern history, i really can find rarely such hostile relations between the u. S. And and any other country, even with the soviet union there was official relations, ambassadors. Even with vietnam, such a war between iran between the u. S. And vietnam, still now they have official relations. But iranians and americans, they have failed to establish a normal relation, and they have experienced all means of hostilities from economic war, covert war, intelligence war, cyber war, political war. The u. S. Definitely tried over three decades to bring regime change in iran and failed. Therefore, i tried to explain the roots of hostilities between iran and the u. S. From the u. S. Point of view, the wests point of view and the iranian point of view. You will see a lot of literatures, books written about iran and the u. S. , west and iran, but rarely you would find a scholar in the west extensively living in iran and or have an opportunity to have access to the policy making system in order to be able to write, to explain, to elaborate from the lens of iranian policy and culture. The policy making structure of the country and how iranians view americans and the u. S. I did my best to be balanced in order to explain both point of views, but i think the vantage or my objective was more to explain the iranian point of view because of the vacuum in in the western literatures. I have tried to focus on relations after revolution. I have explained in one chapter good relation between iran and the u. S. For about a century, 18561953. I have discussed 25 years of relation between iran and the after 1953 citizen coup coup before revolution, the time the u. S. Supported the shah. But the focus is about iran u. S. After the revolution; during the war, during different presidency ies presidencies. Its interesting to recognize that all iranian administrations during last 35 be years have tried 35 years have tried to normalize relations with the u. S. , and they all have failed. And it doesnt matter you have had a moderate president or reformist or a conservative president , i have explained in detail me events many events that all president s have tried to bring rapprochement between iran and the u. S. , and they have made a lot of unprecedented overtures during 30 years. They all have failed. And there has been the same approach not always from the u. S. Administrations, but some of administrations in the u. S. Since 1979 also they tried to wring an end to the hostilities between iran and the u. S. Again, americans also have failed. Thats why one of the main issues in my week is the root causes in my book is the root causes of failures between iran and the u. S. For rapprochement during 30 years. Its about the mistrust, mutual mistrust, about misunderstandings, about misanalysis, about misperceptions, about miscalculations, and i have explained the detail and many events why iranians do not trust and cannot trust the u. S. Why iranian Supreme Leader always is emphasizing that he cannot trust the u. S. , the reasons, the mindset of the iranian leader, Supreme Leader, why and what is the reasons, the evidences, the facts. He cannot trust the u. S. Interesting issue is despite the fact the leader does not the u. S. Since his onset of his leadership, he has not prevented different administrations to make approach to u. S. And even during rafsanjani, i have explained during khomeini, ahmadinejad, and at the end he came to be correct because they all failed. But the Main Objective, actually, for me is to present a road map for iran and the u. S. To end hostilities after over three decades. My Main Objective was to use my experience, my knowledge, my engagement in many, many events between iran and the u. S. , iran and the west understanding both parties to present a road map, a comprehensive road map how iran and the u. S. Can improve the relations. Actually, tehran and washington, they have decided wrongly, i believe to concentrate, to focus on the nuclear issue, and they want to discuss other issues after the nuclear. It is a wrong policy, but this is a fact. Therefore, the first step for iran and the u. S. , iran and the world powers is to resolve the nuclear in order to open the other possibilities for bilateral relations. One of the major steps between tehran and washington which really could pave the way for a normal relation would be civilian diplomacy. I mean, if you have hostilities between the two states, i really cannot imagine americans and iranians, nations, the nation have hostilities together against each other. And i do not see a legitimate reason why we have prevented the two nations to have normal relation together. Thats why civilian diplomacy is one of the major issues i have explained in detail about academic relations, tourism and many z many other issues many, many other issues. The other subject i have introduced is about the end state on differences. We have had many, many piecemeal approaches during last 35 years. And the reason, one of the reasons of failure of approachment between iran and u. S. Is because during decades iran and the u. S. , they have relied on piecemeal approaches. They have never engaged in a comprehensive dialogue, and for the future my understanding is iranamerica problem does not limit to nuclear. It is not only about terrorism. It is not only about Peace Process. We have to engage in a comprehensive dialogue to put all bilateral, regional, International Issues on the table the negotiate with. To be able to agree on differences, iran and the u. S. Both want to see the end state on every issue from Peace Process to terrorism to weapons of mass destruction. I give you just one example. We fail for ten years some years i was involved in the negotiations. The reason was iranians, they want to see the end state. Of a deal. For iranians the end state was recognition of their rights under npt for Peaceful NuclearTechnology Including enenrichment. And e. U. Iii during our time or p5 1 never was in a position to accept the full rights of iran under npt including enrichment. Thats why iranians never could sign to any deal during ten years of negotiations. For a period the red line for the u. S. Was no enrichment in iran. Actually, this was the main reason never iran and the e. U. Iii could get together for a deal. But recently the u. S. Recognized this is not correct policy. They changed no enrichment to no nuclear bomb. When the u. S. Red line moved from no enrichment to no nuclear bomb, then the end state for the u. S. Should be, could be no nuclear bomb. Thats why they could sign a deal in geneva november 2003, because both parties could see the end state. Iranians, they were assured that at the end their rights under npt including enrichment would be recognized, respected. Americans or the world powers, they could see that at the end iran would agree to different measures, transparency measures, no breakout capability measures assuring the International Community that iran would not seek in the future nuke bomb. Nuclear bomb. This is exactly the case about every other disputed issues. If they can see the end state from the beginning, then they can enter for a comprehensive deal on every issue. The other issue which i have discussed in the book is the wrong strategy both from washington and tehran to focus on differences for three decades and to forget to discuss, to cooperate on commonalities. Warren mentioned a statement from Henry Kissinger that iran and the u. S. Have huge common interests. It is true. You can see today the situation this iraq. Iran and the in iraq. Iran and the u. S. , they both face the rise of one of the most dangerous version of terrorism during the history of mankind. It is a threat to iran and the u. S. They are worried about that the crisis from syria and iraq spilling over to the whole region. They both break out of sectarian war through the whole region. They both want safe passage of oil and energy from the region. They both dont want to see the position, possession of terrorist on the Oil Resources of the region which can be a threat to International Oil market. And stability in iraq, integrity of iraq, even integrity of syria preventing the collapse of iraq as a state and as a nation is a common interest between iran and the u. S. And practically, tehran and washington for a decade they have supported the same government in iraq and even in afghanistan. Tehran and washington, they have supported karzai as part of all hostilities and differences. They have southerned maliki supported maliki despite all robs and hostilities. Problem toes and hostilities. This is one of the main robs, and main problems, and in order to build the future, we need tehran and washington to begin to negotiate, to talk, to cooperate on the issues of common interests. From truck trafficking to organized crimes to stability in afghanistan, iraq, syria to security of energy, security in theers gulf and many other persian gulf and many other issues which are really vital to the National Interests of the u. S. And iran both. Im not going to take too much of your time to explain every detail of the book, but i believe there is a chance, there is a serious chance. When im looking to the Current Situation of the middle east, i see iraq and syria are on the brink of collapse as a nation, as a state. Libya is not far from being a failed state. Everyone knows the internal crisis in egypt, in yemen. No one knows we are going in egypt and yemen. Taliban is coming back in afghanistan. The pakistani crisis seems to be ungovernable. Many scholars, they are really worried about the future of pakistan. Whether we like it or not, i mean, whether the u. S. Like it or not, iran is one of the most stable countries in the region. Despite of 30 be years of pressure 30 years of pressure, sanctions, war, ultimately iran today is one of the most stable countries. And then i look at the region, i see iran and turkey, the most stable countries. And the others either they have unstability like iraq and syria or afghanistan, or they are very vulnerable to the crisis. Therefore, this is additional responsibility for tehran and washington to cooperate. To end my statement, i do not believe the crisis in the region would be resolved only by cooperation between iran and the u. S. We need to engage the other regional ours like saudi arabia powers like saudi arabia, like turkey. We need a Regional Cooperation system which i have discussed in detail in my book in persian gulf and in the region. We sought a Regional Cooperation system, we sought close cooperation between iran, saudi arabia, turkey, the regional ours, even bilateral cooperation between iran and the u. S. Would not be with able to manage the crisis in the middle east. I would prefer, warren, to stop here and then to go