Strike tomorrow night and theres a danger that if they are somewhat on the fence that would change their mind. What argument book as we said the time it with what the red lines are. That is when we should take military action. If iran is emerging to 90 and kicked out inspectors at that point itll be clear and if we dont do anything they will build Nuclear Weapons of taking action will be the only thing that creates the possibility of a nonnuclear outcome. Uniting the iranian people. I think thats almost certain the short term it would create a rally around the flag effect. The other thing we know about it is they tend to be relatively shortlived and many people understand avesta policy much better than me from a u. S. Military strategy and National Security strategy point of view that those who know domestic politics very well say the longterm it will create opportunities for operation figures to criticize the government for mismanaging the problem to this point that led to an armed attack on the country that led to iran having its Nuclear Program destroyed and the other thing i would point out is we cant just look at the cost on one side the cost someone stuck a village or the other. We have to compare them so one of the things said in the book is say what does acquiring Nuclear Weapons due to domestic politics . It allows them to differ for an attack and make the argument to domestic publics that they steer the ship of state in the International Crisis maintain a Nuclear Program and one of only 10 states honored to become a Nuclear Power and that would be loved and potentially longer because there is only than one country that will have Nuclear Weapons. Difficult issues here but my own view taking all these issues into account is a strike is less bad than acquiescing. My name is steve davis and im on the council here for some years. I live in a house that was built in 1954. We have been in a state of belligerence with the iranian people or are the iranian government since that time. Much of it instigated by the United States primarily by the overthrow of the democraticallyelected president. The iranians have a point of view. The iranians ostensibly like other countries have a right to selfdetermination. We talk about them as though they are but a pawn on her chessboard. I would like our diplomacy to wipe out an include and respect for other peoples history and how they view us. We are not innocent in the wor world. I would like your comments on that. Well thanks. First in terms of respect for iranian history or culture its something i talk about in the book. An amazing civilization in history and a lot of respect there so i have no problem with the iranian people. I think most people in the u. S. Government on either. The problem is the sponsorship of terrorism and the Nuclear Program so what that is what poses a direct threat to the United States. Iran has a point of view and i completely agree with that. I think given irans stated goals to the turf for an act of being the most out of state in the region that acquiring Nuclear Weapons makes sense from the iranian point of view. If i were an iranian adviser given those goals acquire Nuclear Weapons makes sense. The problem is its an anarchic civil government. Countries do things that they think is in their own interest and that ends up threatening other states. Iran acquiring Nuclear Weapons might be good for a rant but its bad for u. S. Interests and National Security so if i would become an iranian citizen i might argue Something Different but as a United States citizen i think its something as threatening and something we should try to stop. My name is caleb and im an intern. Im from texas and rick perry was happy that north korea put us on their target list. How do deteriorating relations with russia and the status quo affects soft power calculus or coercive diplomatic action and change the response to shortterm military action . One of the concerns with worsening relations with russia is at what it does to p. Five so being able to get the major powers permanent five members of the Security Council and germany on the same side putting pressure on iran basically provided by the sanctions having unified face in negotiations has been helpful. Many people are worried that if relations with russia continued to worsen that russia might not be on board with the negotiations with iran. Talking to some of my colleagues who work on this issue they say so far we havent seen signs that russia is being unhelpful with iran. There has been some discussion of a possible oil deal between russia and iran that would help alleviate economic pressure but so far thats just talk. I think we should hope in a way that those issues stay isolated and the crisis in ukraine but if russia wanted to play the spoiler role in iran that could do that and make a diplomatic settlement even harder. Hi. Thank you so much for the talk. My name is will pitino and im a student in u. S. Foreign policy at american university. Thank you so much for the comments about the cold war and how it ended and how we are lucky and that was a poignant point to me. I was interested on your thoughts on this demand issue that you brought up. I feel like if you could maybe expand on that a little bit mo more. I guess that there are ways that the u. S. Can in its geopolitical calculus in the middle east worked to reduce the demand. If you could just address that a little more i would appreciate it. Thank you. A couple of things come to mind. One is there are different factions within iranian politics and a lot of the talk of iran is a coherent entity often in Foreign Policy. We talk about states as a coherent entity. There are hardliners and the ra gc in the parliament who strongly believe iran should be the most dominant state in the region and needs to acquire Nuclear Weapons to do that. Thats one of diplomatic settlement with the great satan which is what they call the United States threatening to iran what it stands for that iran stands for resistance in the International Community facing negotiations and the deal is something to be avoided. On the other hand you do have more moderate forces in iran and i think rouhani the current president and the foreign minister represent that point of view. I think they think International Isolation is not good for iran and they understand the economy is being badly damaged so they would like to get relief and i think theyre willing to put curbs on the Nuclear Program to get that. The important thing to point out is that the Supreme Leader is the ultimate decisionmaker. The Supreme Leader is looking at these viewpoints in making the final decision. Historically the Supreme Leader has been more on the hardline cap than the moderate camp. I think what he is trying to do is have his cake and eat it too youd like to have Nuclear Weapons or not as advanced Nuclear Program as possible and get sanctions relief. I think probably that is what iran is trying to achieve in these negotiations. In terms of addressing the demand in Foreign Policy we often talk about using carrots and sticks. Promising carrots or inducements for good baker and threatening sticks for bad behavior. What many people have said is you really have to rely on sticks because when you look at benefits theres nothing we can promise iran that is more valuable than Nuclear Weapons capability. There is nothing we can promise that is more valuable than to deter foreign attack and become the most dominant state in the region so therefore the dominant key is to sticks. At the end of the day take military action so i think i agree with the point of view that the key to addressing this issue isnt addressing demand because i dont think theres anything we could possibly offer iran. We have tried Peaceful Nuclear technology and tried promising other things and they havent been interested so i think the key is making it clear that we can threaten economic and in the end military action if they dont accept this deal that they dont really want. My name is tom retired u. S. Government. I have two very different questions. The first one is more substantive. We keep talking about two or three months or six months. Is this based on iaea and by the iaea is doing today and what kind of thing are we going to get out of, six months out of this current agreement thats going to be better so they wont cheat . Old trust but verify story. The second one, trickier. You might not want to comment on it is i was pretty sure that obama was heading, i was believing in obamas red line until we have this critical juncture on syria where the congress and the American People got to fill out opinion polls and so is the diplomatic option fails who is going to decide . First on the trust but verify issue we are fortunate enough to have ali kohn and in the audience who worked at the iaea on the iran portfolio for many years so thank you for coming. I should probably turn this one over to you but, three two to three months is how one would take iran if they decided immediately to to 90 . The other thing i should mention that i talk about in the book the other thing the interim deal guess is International Agency access so now the iaea inspectors are visiting key nuclear inspectors i believe every day. Or close to everyday and in a conference of deal we would want to get that kind of access. Also as part of the interim id deal iran is allowed access so a week or so ago they allowed us to access uranium mining and uranium milling facilities. We have good eyes on the program. If we got a conference of deal that would need to be part of it so we would detect quickly if iran were trying to break out. Of course you dont know what you dont know. Its possible they have secret facilities that they dont know about that the iaea doesnt know about that there are good reasons to believe we know the full extent of the program. The good news is a forget the conference of deal and iran try to cheat we would like to catch them. The bad news is we would only have six months to do it. So i share your concern on syria and its clear setting this clear red line on syria and backing off of it that has been damaging to u. S. Credibility. I have a colleague who went to the east asia talking with allies and seoul in tokyo and she says she was surprised how often syria came up. What does this mean . The president said he was going to use force and he didnt. What does that mean to her security commitment from United States . Can we count on the United States in a more . Because of that our commitments are being called into question everywhere including on iran. Again the president has said hes going to use force hes willing to use force and i talked to one of his advisers and they say he wants to solve this diplomatically and he doesnt want to have to use force but he is not going to allow it if he doesnt have to. The problem is nobody believes that. The president does and a couple of his close advisers do and i do but my sense is the American Public doesnt believe person obama would use force on iran. I think in some ways thats the worst possible situation, the president is willing to use force but nobody nobody believes them. In that situation iran might be tempted to cross those red lines and we could get into a war that could have been avoided if we have more credibility. To address that issue a talk in a book about things United States can do to increase the credibility of the military option of diplomacy breaks down. Being more explicit about what the plans are would be helpful if the president made a clear statement about what is what is red lines are. I think of diplomacy breaks down asking congress for having congress provide an authorization for the use of military force would help to lend credibility and i think engaging in a more robust or breach with their friends and allies abroad about this to make sure its clear they know we are serious and iranians see we are taking these steps. I think all these could help increase the credibility and the romans used to say if you want peace prepare for war and so i think i would be the purpose of the mechanisms. These are the steps you would go through to prepare for war but a fair fancies of them believes that they might be deterred from crossing our red lines. Thanks matt. I want to offer a couple of nuances here. First of all i like your analysis as such but we all know the story of 1001 nights. He wanted to buy time so he does not get killed. With the Iranian Nuclear crisis and it depends where you start that my clock start somewhere and 2002 so we have july 20 depending on where you put your line, 4001 nights. I think what has happened to us is we became a hostage in the second hostage crisis with iran. I think here actually a thing in between that iran really doesnt test Nuclear Weapons manufacturing. Its a small country with limited resources that doesnt make sense. They do exactly this and how to deal with the metal base and how to embolden etc. This is very difficult for the International Community to deal with because iran has the right to do xyz and they have no proof they have violated their safeguards for mpt undertakings. The International Community is a little bit and when i look at today, two months, three months, three months, six months, first of all when i worked at the u. U. N. , six months is an extremely small period of time if you want the International Community to act. Keep that one in mine. The second thing is what do we really know about the program . This is based on the numbers we know. There are also numbers which we may not know and therefore this next deal whether its another interim deal or a longer deal actually have to address that to bring clarity, to make sure the iranian declarations are complete. As much as i like iaea but we cant leave it only to the iaea inspectors. President rouhani was advocating two days ago really goes much further. It has to be the way it was the 1960s where information was provided to the other party in such a way that was able to verify the statements without going into the country. This is a new challenge which in my view should be part of whatever is the interim deal or final deal. I think its a great book but i have not yet read it. I will do it during the weekend. Thank you for those comments ali and thank you so much for coming. I think you raise an excellent point to get Greater Transparency and more than what they iaea can provide that would be great. On this challenge that you propose to iran stopping just short of the line and staying there i think that is a possible option but i think thats a not a longterm stable option. I dont see why iran would stop short when they got that close. Again if irans major closer to the to the dfar attack having advanced Nuclear Facilities doesnt allow you to deter foreign attack. Having Nuclear Weapons and the ability to retaliate with Nuclear Weapons does. Japan has an advanced Nuclear Program. Its not the most, stayed in asia. My own assessment as that might be a stopping point somewhere along the way but if it gets to that point at some point iran will stop short but reasonable people can disagree. Thank you very much matt for speaking to us today. Please join me in thanking him. We really appreciated. [applause] we now invite you to joindistan. They spoke about their book sliver of light at this historic synagogue in washington d. C. This is one hour and 20 minutes. I would like to begin by uld congratulating shane bauer, Joshua Fattal and sarah shourd on their memoir a sliver of f light three americans imprisonee in iran. The Three Friends who met as ery students at cal berkeley decided to go for a hike in the mountains of iraq. Frie shane and sarah were living enta together int syria, teaching a writing and josh was visiting. From the u. S. Sarah shared recently that there are very few moments in life one where everything changes forever. And this wasti one of those moments. This hike was one of those moments. Their capture was thore beginni of a 26month long experience oh living in captivity. Sarah, shane and josh were cut off from the world, and from everything that they knew in including one another. Osh wer after more than a year in solitary confinement, sarah was freed in september 2010. Solita just one year later, almost to the day, shane and josh were freed and released and they lar began the a process of healing d which youll hear more about tonight. Today, shane and sarah were wirried, have both found work focusing on prisoners rights in the u. S. And around the world. Shane is an investigative rk journalist and a recipient of the guggenheim award for criminal justice reporting. Nalit sarah is a writer, educator, anm contributing editor at solitary watch. Her work as an advocate for tryi prisoners rights has been featured in the New York Times,a the San Francisco chro