tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 19, 2015 8:00pm-10:01pm EDT
the best access to congress and nonfiction books. here's a look at what's happening over the next few hours on c-span two. first two. first the state department is releasing its annual report on terrorism. then the perspective on the nuclear decision. a few issues on the table when brazilian president comes to washington d.c. at the end of the month. >> the number of terrorist attacks rose 35% 13463 between 2013 and 2014. that is a state department that was released today. another story in this headline regarding global terrorism that that has nearly doubled in 2014. here's the press conference on the report from the state department. it's about 40 minutes.
>> hello everyone. okay, again thank you all for coming this morning. today the state department is issuing the country report on terrorism in 2014. it provisos with an opportunity to review the state of terrorism worldwide and to assess the threat. it also allows us to assess the threat and plan our strategy. it helps us make informed assessments about our priorities in our various capacity. first i would note that according to the statistic annex
that was provided the number of terrorist attacks in 2014 increased and total fatalities increased 81% compared 81% compared to 2013. that is largely due to activity in i rock nigeria and afghanistan. 78% of all fatalities due to terrorist attacks also took place in five countries. iraq nigeria pakistan. it was in part due to attacks that were exceptionally lethal. there were 20 attacks that killed more than a hundred
people. while i cite these statistics which are compiled by the university in maryland are not a u.s. government product per se, i do want to stress that in our view they do not provide the full context. aggregate total for number of attacks are not a useful measure for identifying the aims of these groups or countering those activities. to that and i'd activities. to that end i'd like to talk a little bit more about the content of the report itself and some of the trends we noted in 2014. despite significant blows to al qaeda's leadership, they continue to provide enabling environment to extremely radicalism in nigeria, yemen and i rock.
the self proclaimed isis affiliates and tens of thousands of terrorist fighters are exacerbating violence in the middle east and posing a continued threat to their own home country. the war in syria has been a spur to many witnesses of terrorism. as of late december is a number that exceeds any similar flow of travelers going to those countries in the last 20 years. many of the foreign terrorists joined isis. iraqi forces in the coalition have dealt significantly with
isis but they continue to can troll significant territory. they are brutally repressing areas under their control and using ruthless methods such as beheading and crucifixion. it demonstrates a specific sill by using social media. they can attract new recruits. these tactics include systematic oppression of women and girls including enslavement and torture. the leadership has been weekend but their organization continues to serve as a focal point of inspiration for affiliate groups.
al qaeda and the islamic groups are happening in south africa, québec and many other places. it was places. it was difficult to assess whether these attacks were directed or inspired by isis. these attacks may bring a new era in which centralized leadership matters less and group identity is more fluid and violent extremist narrow lists focus on a wider range of enemies. enforced and enhanced security measures have made it difficult for them to travel internationally therefore they encourage alone actors residing in the west to carry out attacks on their behalf.
i just want to state that they continue to raise funds and those do not come from external donations but was internally gathered in iraq and syria. they earned several million dollars a month through oil smuggling and other methods. some progress was made in 2014 and constraining them from earning money from smuggled oil but the oil trade was not fully eradicated. they were not the only serious threats that confronted the
united states and its allies. iran continues to sponsor terrorist groups around the world. these group include lebanese groups, iraqi shiite groups and palestine jihad. the need to undertake efforts to expand the range from security to rule of law and pushing back on terrorist messaging in order to effectively combat the growth of these groups. it requires an expanded approach to our counterterrorism engagement. president obama has emphasized repeatedly that we need to bring strong, capable and diverse partners to the forefront to enlist their help in a mutually important endeavor of global counterterrorism. it must therefore evolve around partnership.
the vital role that our partners play has become even clearer in the last year with the emergence of isis as a hugely destructive force in iraq and syria. they will build a coalition that is crucial because the height fight against isis is not one that the u.s. can or should pursue alone. more than 60 partners are contributing to this effort which is multifaceted in its goals. not only to stop their advances on the ground but to combat the flow of foreign fighters, disrupt their financial resources and counteract their messaging and undermine its appeal to other objections. it also highlights the un council as a particularly significant step forward in international efforts to cooperate in preventing the flow of terrorists to and from other
countries. the notion of finding enabling strong countries. the notion of finding enabling strong partners is not limited just to the isis effort. ending many of our most significant effort that were successful in the past were due to working with others on intelligence and aviation security. the u.s. needs partners that cannot only contribute to military operations but also conduct arrest prosecutions. it's critical for ensuring the sustainability of our effort and preventing the rise of new forms of violent extremism. the global car and some terrorism form can also play a critical role in these practices in this regard. if we develop the partnerships needed we also need partners of
governmental and nongovernmental who can help counter the spread of recruitment and address the conditions that make communities suspend the susceptible to violent extremism. that's why we are committed to enlarging our strategies and ways that address the underlying conditions. not just about the spread invisible systems. this was a major concern this year. it has brought another 300 participants from other 65 countries representing local and national government multilateral organizations and private sector. partnering with symbols of society plays an important role in our counterterrorism efforts. we can provide a wide array of
expertise and support for to help them identify terrorism, strengthen aviation and border security and sharpen law enforcement and crisis staff to respond to these threats. we cannot predict what the landscape will look like one decade or even a year from now. we believe we can best protect america's interest and its people over the long run by engaging in robust diplomacy standing our partnerships building bilateral capabilities in providing holistic and rule of law taste approaches to terrorism. this remains our course of action over the months ahead. now i'd be happy to take your questions. >> you said one of the reasons
for the report is to assess your effectiveness in fighting terrorism. given the attacks killings and kidnappings, what does that say about this department and this administration at-large? what is their effectiveness in fighting terrorism in 2014? >> the numbers 2014? >> the numbers don't tell the whole story and there's a reason for highlighting that. they are geographically focused in conflict areas which is not surprising and the legality of some of those attacks has gone out. i don't think it's surprising the array and numbers that were put forward in the report. it's one way, but that the sole way of addressing the effectiveness of our efforts.
we can talk about the whole array of things that we are putting in to those trends. i do think, and i emphasize this is not a battle or an effort of the united states can take alone. that said, we have plenty of things we can offer to our partners. we have and we will continue to do so to intensify that effort. on the array of things we just talked about and we can go into any one of those things in more detail. >> if that's not a good criterion for an assessment can you explain what you are using for that assessment? what is that assessment? was the united states effective last year and fight of terrorism? >> we've been effective in working with our partners globally. you can chart that in a variety of ways. we've seen a a number of efforts specific to foreign terrorist fighters. a number of countries have
enacted a rule of law framework to deal with some of those issues in ways they had not previously done. they have upped their efforts on border security and information sharing which include information sharing agreements with a whole a whole host of countries. we continue to urge them to do more in that respect. there was also a variety of efforts from several countries to shut down their financing for these groups. >> given that the islamic's date is bigger than al qaeda, and can you talk about the rise of terrorism and you spoke about nigeria and africa. specifically saying africa was
one of the biggest areas where these new terrorist groups are finding ground. >> to address your first question on the relative importance of strength of isis it's hard to make those comparisons and i don't really want to make it because we have concerns about a variety of groups. we have real concerns about al qaeda and some of their affiliates, especially those in yemen their capabilities are still strong. we are continuing to track that and have concerns about what they have planned and we keep a very sharp eye on that. what are we doing to protect the american public are a set of concerns that we need to consider.
i've laid out all of the things we've seen in 2014 that concern us. there's good reason to be concerned there as well as the fact that some affiliates in other places in the world have now specifically align themselves. to what extent that has meaning, we can have that discussion. nevertheless there is a new appeal for isis globally. those are concerning and we don't want to take our eye off either of those. there are places in the world, certainly in africa there are places and groups that we concern ourselves with. west africa and east africa both
have concerns. our partners in concerns. our partners in somalia have done quite a bit in terms of state building. that's important in terms of pushing back on violent extremism. we've also seen groups in the northern part of africa. that's one of the areas but not the only area exclusively. >> you had a section in the report as you do every year on iran and they have been on this list for more than 30 years. you don't indicate in the report whether iran's terrorist activity increased or decreased in the last year. can you give year. can you give us some indication on that? what is the administration or you and your advisory position going to say about why are we going to sign a a nuclear deal
with them? >> it doesn't necessarily talk about numbers of attack that are inspired by specific countries. i think it would be hard to make an exact calculus of what you're talking about in terms of rat i ron. we continue to be very concerned about proxies that act on behalf of of iran. i mentioned a few of them earlier. we watch that extremely carefully. i don't want to talk too much here about the nuclear negotiations and all of that. i think we have been very clear that we consider that important to have a specific context. we think it's we think it's important to pursue those negotiations. that said, none of that implies that we will be again in any way taking our eye off the ball in
respect with what i ron i ron is doing as a supporter of terrorism. we have sanctions in place against iran related to the terrorism issue and that's not going to change. i would picture that as a going concern and it's not going to change as a nuclear discussion. >> they won't be taken off any sanctions list? >> what i just said is what i said. were not going to remove any of the sanctions related to terrorism. i want to follow up. why you don't want to talk about specific numbers in your on going concerns, it does suggest that shiite militias you've seen
less u.s. targeting of them on the ground. have they made more of a deliberate choice, given the negotiations and a little bit of improving relations have they decided to look away from targeting the united states? and can you expand on the idea that the emphasize her of people who want to be like isis. is that isis. is that a new era? doesn't matter if they are having command and control and money? you can see some of these loan attacks that don't require a lot
of money or command or control and could be anywhere in the world. it seems like it doesn't matter if they are an official affiliate. it matters about how you go after them. >> on the first part of your question, i question, i don't want to spend too much here and i'll refer you back about what they see on the ground and why they might not be taking action against our troops. it's a critical situation there as well. what i will say generally in respect to your second question, i think, again we are concerned and we continue to watch carefully and analyze and assess the impact of isis creating these affiliations. i don't know that even creating them as much as some are self identifying. what the impact is is different in each case. you want to look at it against
the specific regional circumstances that you see in each instance. they've had affiliates declare in many places of the world. i would say again, it's a little hard to assess about the level of back-and-forth between these affiliates but it is concern and something that were watching. there are places that are obviously, in ljubljana for example, a political process underway. we want them to press back on extremism at large. >> what you say about the smaller groups that are only four or five guys. that must be harder to go after? >> i mentioned that it's harder for international because we've
undertaken a number of efforts i've spoken of to share with other countries, it's harder for them to get around. you don't see as much of international terrorists traveling from place to place. they still do it but not as much. we still track them and watch them but the real question is how do they mobilize in a new environment? one of the ways they've chosen to do that is with these loan wealth attacks. they have been successfully able to use social media to inspire and encourage those attacks. >> i have a very quick point of clarification please. in your discussion on iran you mentioned several activities in the report having substantial military support and the facilitating of jihad fighters in iraq and even afghanistan.
the report cuts off in december. i gather from media reports in your remarks that there is nothing in iran's activity since then that would lessen your concerns on the score. >> we watch a variety of things and certainly their support and proxy support is concern to us, yes. >> first i just had a quick housekeeping matter and then i'll proceed to miming question. in your opening you said them university of maryland numbers were not an official government report. did the government have input into their conclusions? >> they do it according to criterion that they layout. we utilize it because it's helpful to us.
it does provide a good sense of the trends but no we don't shape the way they do that. >> and you have no reason to challenge the statistical findings. >> know their findings are just a little different than ours. you mention there were rather distressing numbers. you said that if some of the numbers were based on the most useful metrics. i'd like to run through a couple a couple of methods that do provide a fuller context and then ask you to comment if you would. first and most obviously there is since this president took office at which point the rise of isis has spread to as many of
seen on the part of other countries to take up counterterrorism. it's not something we can do by ourselves. we have to talk to all of our partners. we have done that and we continue to do that and they are in fact responsive. they're doing it through the military coalition. they're doing it through a variety of other means, counter finance and information sharing as i said, there's an array of activities. all of which we all feel very vested in and we bring our apps expertise, our funding and support bear into a variety of places all over the load. i think by any standard that you set you can look at that and say we have made progress. have we done everything that can be done in order to push back on these groups.
>> how do you explain the spreading of influence of these groups and how do you regard that as a success? where we training ground instead of losing ground? >> that's a very broad question and beyond what i'm speaking to. if that answer isn't satisfactory we can have another conversation off-line. >> :
first of all i would encourage you to talk to the domestic homeland agency. they are engaged at u.s. context certainly and they are doing it right it thinks some of which the majors they are not specifically security oriented. obviously there has to be a variety of efforts to monitor to try to fix on individuals we know are of concern but also what you want to do is identify early people who might be vulnerable to that kind of that's here and overseas as well so that's another aspect enabling our partners that it's important we are engaged in a full conversation. you want to be engaged and we
brought a number of stakeholders from overseas to talk to representatives in our city of minneapolis, los angeles and other places who have experienced these problems and they have a body now a very good skill sets that they can bring to bear to get into those communities and build trust and try to identify early where we may see problems. it has to be in a variety of efforts and sometimes you have individuals who may have turned it in that and how you bring them back into a productive relationship with the community? it's a pretty broad span of things you need to address and frankly we are engaged in all those things. >> thank you. >> i have a quick question for you. you mentioned hamas and is there a point where hamas is in talks with israel for a long time. if that occurs with that -- and
my second question who is the one question most responsible going to syria. >> the first question is beyond my expertise because it's related to the political process so i will leave that to the nea to give you a better answer. on the second part, look this is a problem we have seen. it's a multifaceted problem and we have been engaged my bureau particularly for quite a while and this problem. you see it from a variety of source countries. you see it from not just one region but locally. at the numbers have gone up in part because we are better at counting and we are paying a lot of attention to it. and part though because they going and we have seen it happen not just in one region but a friday of regions so there are a whole array of source countries and transit countries and final destinations as well. i will tell you i truly believe
that countries along that continuum have actually made significant effort. is there more to be done? oh yeah. i would frame a couple of things that we are trying very much to do. i've mentioned them but information sharing is a big part of this. we have to ensure that we and other countries are doing as much as we can to share what we know essentially about who these people are, where they are going and where they abandon that kind of thing. we also have to encourage them to do more that their borders are secure as possible. that's a big part of people moving to freely and you want to know who is crossing our borders. we also want to be able to ensure obviously and i talked about it just now that we can counter message to stop the folks trying to get there in the first place from considering going which is quite important and more challenging in an environment where social media is frequently used and so forth. and then beyond that once they are there we have to again do what we need to do on the
battlefield and elsewhere and that is where the coalition comes then as well as again the variety of efforts on counterterrorism finance and all the things that i spoke about. it's a very layered and textured approach that but all of that needs to take place. >> a couple more questions. >> equipped follow-up question on iran. i understand the numbers are not the leading indicator and it's tough to use numbers to draw conclusions but as i read your section of the report on state sponsors of terrorism there are several instances of iran working to expand its exporting of terrorism in asia latin america and africa. is it fair to say that 2014 iran worked to increase its export of terrorism? >> we are engaged in efforts to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can again with partners to undermine, undercut the efforts that iran
and its proxies are undertaking to do a number of activities with it -- elicit that support the terrorists efforts. c my question is from your reporting is it fair to conclude from this clear reporting that iran worked to expand? >> i would say they are continuing their soup pursuit of activities and whether expanding that's harder to judge but the point is they are still doing it. >> the second thing is as i look at the state sponsor of terrorism it seems clear to me and tell me i am right or wrong that iran compared to the other state sponsors of terrorism the leading state sponsor of terrorism that the preponderance scope, scale of their activities range you name it any indicator that you have studied is qualitatively and quantitatively more than syria, cuba and sudan.
is that right? >> state sponsored terrorism is a statutory one. we have it definition only look at who is a state sponsor of terrorism and we have to make that assessment. it's not leaving or not leading leaving. they are state sponsors of terrorism and we have designated them as such and we continue to have concerns. >> but in your professional opinion is iran -- >> yes. >> the report refers to some governments doing different things that enable terrorists and in the section you also mentioned some policies. what do you think is the trend in china of this kind of act 70
with political question under the name of counterterrorism and also the second question about the situation in southeast asia like in countries like the philippines and indonesia how do you see the growth of isil affiliated movements and sending fighters to syria and europe. >> the first part of your question with respect to china i think we see china as an important partner with us. we are engaged in a dialogue with them. i will probably go to china later this year to have a conversation with them. there are concerns about the activities of groups within china that have carried out attacks. we condemn terrorism in any form as long as we have enough evidence to say that indeed something is a terrorist attack. oftentimes do we see governments
characterize something as a terrorist attack. we either they don't have enough evidence to make that assessment or again we would characterize the efforts that they are making against it as perhaps counterproductive in and of itself because it may encourage extremism, particularly if it's not human rights based and if it's not democratically inclusive. so i think we have a robust conversation with the chinese on this issue. what i would say specific organizations we are concerned with back in 2002 so we understand their concerns but again we expressed our feeling that they should do more themselves to lessen that threat not simply through security but through other productive means like human rights and so forth. and i'm sorry the second part of your question? >> the situation in southeast asia. >> those countries themselves in the nation in malaysia we have robust conversation with them as well. they have given their own
concerns about extremism problems that they have seen pop up up. i still have self-declared affiliates in various places but again how meaningful that as we continue to assess it. i don't want to characterize it specifically but i want to say we are continuing to work closely on our counterterrorism approach writ large. >> last two questions. >> a quick follow-up question on the self-proclaimed islamic state affiliates. other ones that are out there either one or one or two that concern you the most because they seem to have operational ties with isil? i'm thinking particularly at libya or afghanistan but maybe you have others. >> i mean i guess what i would say is working tonight to look at the range of these. the activity in libya is concerned. it spawned local skirmishes. it's clear that there are are isil affiliates that really have been there longer than other
places. i would frame for you that each of these affiliates need to be looked at in the specific context of what we are seeing on the ground in that place and i would make a strong case and libya really what needs to happen is not only an effort against isil per se, a few is a factor in that particular space as well but really truly we need a political process that will lead ultimately to the formation of a national unity government. without better without some basis for further formation of a state and something that provide support for our efforts not just our efforts but libyan efforts, it's just a place that's going to lend itself to the growth of more extremism. we are trying to make the stakeholders they understand that we are very supportive of the u.n. effort under bernadino leon. we will continue to support that effort strongly and again that's basically the precursor for everything is stability and political inclusiveness. to the extent you have that you
have much less of a problem on the cd front. >> last question. >> thank you. sonia schott. cuba is not in the report that venezuela and at the beginning you mentioned that venezuela failed to hold account over governmental officials involved were seemingly involved in drug trafficking activities with the colombian cartels but at the very end he mentions also that venezuela is part of the peace process with the colombian guerrilla in cuba. so what is venezuela? is a cooperating? it's not since venezuela started a dialogue a bilateral dialogue with the u.s.. is this part of the issues you are going to talk to the venezuelan government? >> i really don't want to get into the back in the fourth of the politics in venezuela but from a antiterrorism front i will say venezuela is a country that we have persistently been
watching and we do every year and we have again this last year year. request them as a country that is not core operating fully with their anti-terror efforts. so that's her assessment and we would like to see changes in that but we can have that further conversation. >> but since you mentioned that venezuela is part of the speech dialogs. >> i'm not going to get into the back-and-forth of that but that's our perspective and we made it clear in our report. >> tanks, guys. thanks, everyone.
president obama continued his call for stricter gun laws after shooting in the charleston south carolina church on wednesday that killed nine people. he was in san francisco this afternoon speaking to the u.s. conference of mayors. here's some of what he said. >> obviously the entire country is shocked and heartbroken by what happened in charleston. the nature of this attack in a place of worship where congregants invite in a stranger to worship with him only to be gunned down adds to the pain. the apparent motivations of the shooter remind us that racism
remains a blight that we have to combat together. we have made great progress but we have to be vigilant because it still lingers and when it's poisoning the minds of young people and betrays our ideals and tears our democracy apart. as much as we greet this particular tragedy i think it's important as i mentioned at the white house to step back and recognize these tragedies have become far too commonplace. few people understand the terrible toll of gun violence like mayors do. and whether it's a mass shooting like the one in charleston or individual attacks of violence that ad up over time it tears at the fabric of the community.
it cost you money and it costs resources. it cost this country dearly. more than 11,000 americans were killed by gun violence in 2013 alone. 11,000. if congress passed and safety reform after newtown after a group of children had been gunned down in their own classroom reforms for 90% of the american people supported, we wouldn't have praised -- prevented every act of violence and we don't know if it would have prevented what happened in charleston. no reform can guarantee the elimination of violence that we might still have some more americans with us. [applause] we might have stopped one
shooter. [applause] one family might still be home. we all might have to attend fewer funerals. we should be strong enough to have knowledge this. at the very least we should be able to talk about this issue as citizens. without demonizing all gun owners who are overwhelmingly law-abiding but also without debate about this involves a wild-eyed plot to take everybody down. i know today's politics makes it less likely that we see in a sort of serious gun safety legislation. i remarked that it was very unlikely that this congress would act.
and some reporters i think took this as resignation. i want to be clear i have not resigned. i have faith we will eventually do the right thing. [applause] i was simply making the point that we have to move public opinion. we have to feel a sense of urgency. ultimately congress will follow people. and we have to stop being confused about this. at some point as a country we have to reckon with what happens. it is not good enough simply to show sympathy. you don't see murder on this kind of scale with this kind of frequency and any other advanced nation on earth.
every country has violent hateful or mentally unstable people. what is different is not every country is awash with these easily accessible guns. and so i refuse to act as if this is the new normal. or to pretend that is simply sufficient to grieve and any mention of us doing something to stop it is somehow politicizing the problem. [applause] we need a change in attitude. among everybody. lawful gun owners those who are unfamiliar with guns. we have to have a conversation about it and fix this.
and ultimately congress acts when the public insists on action. and we have seen how public opinion can change. we have seen it change on marriage. we have seen it beginning to change on climate change. we have got to shift how we think about this issue. and we have the capacity to change. but we have to feel the sense of urgency about it. we as a people have got to change. that is how we honor those families. that is how we honor the families in newtown. that's how we honor the families and --
>> reuters reports despite obstacles and those -- negotiators appear likely to reach a deal to restart iran's nuclear from sanctions according to western and iranian leaders. concerns about not being able to monitor iran's nuclear activities. one of the panelists is the former director of the defense intelligence agency lieutenant general michael flynn. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> we are going to get started here. we need a live mike. we need a live mike here. so this is yours here. i'm going to put it right here. is that on? there we go. could i get everyone's attention up here? i know lunch has you very excited. i always get excited about lunch, i know that. thank you very much. thank you all so much for being here. it's great to have this packed house for a really important event today. for those of you who don't know me my name is matt schlapp and
i'm the chairman of the american conservative union and a little over a year ago i was elected chairman of this the nation's original conservative organization. we were created to unite conservatives to attain greater political and policy victories and we need them now more than ever. it has been a great honor to work with their team to help restore our financial health and reimagined this year cpac. i hope many of you are this ear cpac and to make it clear that the american conservative union will stand for a conservative philosophy across the policy spectrum. we will advocate for strong families, the right to life and a the culture buttressed by our sacred traditions. we will fight the growth and incompetence of our out-of-control centralized government and on behalf of the constitutional principles that empower the individual and curtail government.
and as we clearly state today the american conservative union and the american conservative union foundation will stand up for america, for her security and for a foreign policy that recalls the guidance of president ronald reagan who urged us to strive for peace through strength. it gives me great leisure to be able to tell you that we have unveiled their new policy center which many of you may have read about today and town hall. the policy center for statesmanship and diplomacy in this event today is that centers an inaugural event. we believe that the content that this year cpac was too valuable to leave at a conference and we need to talk about it all throughout the year. that's the spirit that we need here today. that is why we are coming back today with more policy centers in the weeks and months to come on a full range of considered -- conservative issues.
our intent with these policy centers is to better inform activists, elected officials and their staff many of whom are here with us today and other key decision-makers. with i don't know if you feel like i feel. i don't suffer for lack of opinions especially my family with five daughters. i don't suffer with a the lack of opinions or information. we are deluge with opinions and information but what we do lack is the confidence to get timely information that is digestible that we can understand so we can make a positive difference. and we do suffer from a perception that conservatives are simply people who complain, who yells stop but generally stand at the corner with their arms crossed. i have been this guy and their minds closed. and actually with the topic today that mike exactly the right stance. we also know that we love our country and we know that our philosophy will help us develop
policies that can bring us peace and prosperity and improve the state of the world. we are confident and we are optimistic that we can still make a difference. so why why have we started with statesmanship and diplomacy? because there is a very unusual dynamic occurring in this country and our politics? usually political issues affect the elections. we all hear about the analysis. as people's economic stance that determines who they will vote for and i think much because of president obama something is going to change in this next election where i think issues of security will dominate this election. security in our communities in our homes and of course the security of our nation as americans watched in horror the brutality of a let radicalized islamic terrorists this white house seems to base our entire future on our simple rose garden
strategy. we would not be here today if it wasn't for two dynamic groups of people and i want to quickly say thank you to all the acu staff who have worked tirelessly both to put on cpac and after cpac and all the centers and great policy advocacy work we are doing so i want to say thank you to the staff and i also want to give special recognition to one of our acu board members john eddie who flew here i'm not going to say where you came from but to resizing colorado and god and who very early this morning into his business partner whose vision ideas and support that may not only the center possible that the entire plan for acu and its foundation going forward. now my next task is to do something that's easy. speaking of energetic people and energetic leaders i'm proud to introduce kt mcfarland who is
a great to be one of our foundation fellows and we are honored to have her on her team. it's rare in politics to find someone who is smart, famous and dynamic but to his also sincere and caring and let me stress hard-working. there is no one in the country who helped us more to put on this fabulous cpac we just haven't helped dan and ian in the team more than kt. it wasn't all about her comment was about making the country understand the huge problem of obama's foreign policy. she has earned our enduring respect and she is the absolute perfect person to lead our discussion here today so kaytee kaytee -- kt please come to the podium. [applause] >> thank you all very much. the topic we want to talk about
today is iran and there's really no issue on the american agenda, foreign-policy agenda that is more important than iran in nuclear negotiations happening supposedly to result in a nuclear agreement with iran by the end of the month so in other words in two weeks time. we have assembled the greatest group of experts that we could find. it's not so much numbers as quality and we have two of the great iran experts from the united states today who have spoken out on this issue and spent years studying this issue but the person that i particularly am pleased to is able to join us as general michael verland, the guy at the end. [applause] general plan for those of you who don't know it's a lieutenant general in the air force. he stepped down as head of the defense intelligence agency last year. everyone is familiar with the cia. no one has heard of dia but the
clare is the vice president for the center for security policy and a senior fellow at policy research was a currier cia operations officer that movie's zero dark 30 that woman was clara lopez. her post cia career and she is the author of the paper the rise of the area of law be. before i get to the general and the other speakers i want to give some housekeeping. to understand the general has a very busy schedule he will have to leave promptly at 1225. wheels up. he will make of presentation
i will interview him that we will throw things over to questions then we will do the same to make opening statements i willing gauge in conversation then open to questions that we are out promptly at 1:30 p.m.. to talk about the iran deal deal, iran used to be one of the greatest threats to the shah of iran was one of the closest allies and in 1979 there was the iranian revolution to bring to power a different type of regime. with an ad after a state sponsor it has pursued a weapons program but what it
has done in the last decade it has continued the nuclear weapons program and encouraging regimes throughout the region and it now gives credibility to death in america when iran for started to chant death to america with president reagan came into office there was the relationships to be tenuous at best over the last 35 years. one of the concerns of all of us have is the agreement to negotiate with ivory and. and the three experts will talk about that but the key
question is the administration claims is that a legitimate question or two options? the second is if there is an agreement is a verifiable? trust but verify. is this as we see it that is enforceable if they are receptive with the agreement to clawback the sanctions with any leverage and finally why does every and once this agreement in the post revolutionary i re and they have tried to expand their reach and given comfort to those that fought against america so why do they want this and what will
they do when they get it? for everyone to summarize the thoughts but we would like this to be a more general and all this conversation so i will turn this podium over to a man who was a terrific spokesman and for the national security interest now if he can speak. [applause] >> i don't have prepared comments why i believe them number one where they are on a given day and when i
looked into the future to see where we want to be as a country i see it through the eyes of grandchildren and i have several. she lived intel 90 years of age the most courageous person i have ever known is an extraordinary woman to grow up in an irish catholic dimly retiring from the army as the sergeant has the system within their home. looking at my granddaughter who is three in she can live to the age of my mom my
granddaughter will be alive in the next century. think about as we think about one in administration to the next most don't even know what they will do saturday night. there is serious about the country even just doing basic history fat eventually they go way. in the dustbin of history we have to be careful that we understand to see the indicators and the warning signs that come our way they are tactical but what you don't hear enough about
they vote blindly. but you are preaching to the choir for the most part it doesn't pay attention that we will try the voting thing. you have to get involved. my mom was involved in local politics very heavily as a young child i was picked up by a school bus and he would have the hustle of the school bus local politics to was court -- escort the ladies to the bus to the voting booth then step back in and take them home.
that still exist in this country not what i see with this cry of being very general but a side of the political domain people need to be involved at the local level to take responsibility that affected me because i have grown up this is what is important about america. to get involved in the future of this country when she hopefully is alive going into the next century. so i will throw that out there into some questions we will not have a lot of time.
this needs clarity instead of confusion there confuse for national security perspective we need clarity and we need that now. that has to stop at the top of the government talk about the iranian deal transparency is important i want my leadership to be confident. i am confident in what i do and i don't want to demonstrate we can settle with united states of america us to appear weak but i have very selfish self-interest with united states of america and i want
us to be confident the matter what we do or where we do it to even though we may be weak we have to be confident in everything we do has to start at the top the third word is coherence instead of discord what an enormous opportunity to bring a sense of coherence instead of the discord that we see. edits unbelievable enormous opportunities squandered the nato herrin's it -- coherence we are the team of teams in the international community then you don't get
a seat at the table. you don't get to the greater good of humanity. the fourth for his character. what type of character to relaunch united states to be known for? trust for the best? of a good friend and partner when we need to be? respected we have lost our consciousness of what america is built on with a sacrifice over many generations to hundred 40 years roughly this last sunday was the flag day of
the united states army but we have not been a long that long to be honest we have always been there a great nation pre-world power since the end of world war ii and we came into our own. we did. 70 years is the anniversary so we have to be conscious of that and character matters with all people that we have i can stand for mistakes that people make human error is okay i have major mistakes but mistakes to try something. with those moral or unethical things we're in a
period of history where the major trends are happening so then we will be a different country but for those things that tell us why is it changing and will take a back to voting make it count for each and every one of you. i want to make sure we get to questions so i will stop there and thanks again i am honored to be here with
everybody they are unbelievable experts. thank you. [applause] >> the general has given us the broad area of but care and you hear me if i stand here? in the white house situation room as a national security adviser i will ask about the agreement with iran first of all, did you deal with iran? >> the agreement i think it is based on false assumptions we've made in one is that we can change their behavior even recently said death to america somebody punches you in the nose you have to do something so why would you deal with somebody who cries out death to america?
why would ready deal with the number one state sponsor of terrorism? why do we deal with a country that has negative baggage before we change their behavior? it gets back to our you contributed to the greater good or not? so i don't think right now we did not start this off from the right flecked. >> to negotiate with friends -- enemies, not friends so what about the regime change a different attitude or we're to be willing to do ideal if you had complete confidence and verification? >> this is all hindsight right now because we will have to deal with every like it or not.
that is the bigger issues to deal with. we are moving into an era to pick a side with the attitude with friends and allies to the have the lack of trust to violate the sanctions with those of violated the sanctions with the p5 + 1 it has been a bigger stake in it only a couple years ago assumed that the deal goes a rash of
bad deal they had no deal. why? you do cut deals with your friends we're trying to get nato to up their security so it isn't just dealing with the enemies you do deal with your friends but in this case not only the enemy but the country that has not demonstrated one iota of good behavior. >> if there is no deal what happens? >> i think iran will continue down that path they were on to have that development of nuclear capabilities and eventually a nuclear weapon that people thought we will go to war if he were in israel you might
feel very uncertain so we always have to do check with the israelis to see how you feel on a given day because we don't want them to do something irrational you can act irrationality of venture israel with the environment they are in today's so we have to answer the question what are the implications of the region going nuclear? we should seek nuclear energy development but called the bluff of iran and russia and china china and has been helping to violate those sanctions in iran right now they are cutting dated - - heels of egypt
what are those implications but i will assume. >> deal already made the conclusion "deal or no deal." >> they will get them down the road. so the deal they cut with north korea and where they are at. from the intel perspective we've missed the boat. >> so what happens with a nuclear iran with two others in the region to? >> if they open themselves up to routes through inspection they said with they will not do, they
should not have a choice we deal with a country that is a pariah there at the table with the united states of america we should make the decisions with what they will do then let them know the expectations of international law with the norms and behavior's then say if you are willing to except that you can sit at the table but we did not do that so i say that you call the bluff by allowing others in the region to do this there has been a nuclear energy deals already that have been assigned one is going on with the russians right now this will happen so we have to keep that the level that is a nuclear energy and not nuclear
weapons. >> the sanctions regime is already collapsing and other countries are basically saying we are tired of the sanctions the administration has said we cannot keep them much longer so that my fridge will dissipate so there will not be any leverage left is there any way to get out of this habit you get your head around the middle east with nuclear weapons? >> - - is you have the rise of the proxy wars which we see right now with that she has a unique community that indicates others are supporting them like iran or russia or china or venezuela
but the positive that it is a long-term issue that it does come around to energy because 100 plus years the world has relied on the oil coming out of the middle east if you like kidder not have you ever see in the chinese aircraft carrier inside the persian gulf? rhetorical question. no. they have between 50 or 60 percent of their hydrocarbon out of the middle east. we have been guaranteeing that to put aircraft task force's 40 am your 35 years. so we guarantee their energy in china so the price of a barrel of oil means a lot down the road will not go back up this country is
capable of the energy independent to make that into depended on the united states of america for energy that economic system has to change and move away from oil. it has to and there are some ideas how to do that and they are in play right now and we're watching a list occur for those who are paying attention to their media and inside of our country that are breaking about this new energy ecosystem that is built on a nuclear energy but it is important because oil is not the future any longer. >> you gave certificate
testimony in it to see where the region is going but with the rise of isis you made reference to look at that region to say. >> but it is your so pretension so pay close attention to that there is a new middle east struggling to be born how it will take shape with sad rebirth of the middle east with an iraq
or syria or kurdistan all the different pieces of east africa certainly north africa are all changing as borderless societies and this goes back over 100 years when the british drew lines on a map it changes as we speak here it will not go back to the way it was but iraq itself could end up for different ways we have to decide how to contain it i had been a big proponent to describe the erev structure arab leaders have said we agree and others have said
they had sessions or forums to discuss this but they cannot do that unless the united states gets involved does it mean boots on the ground but they cannot organize themselves the way we can help them that is step one to do that then move in their direction read day take care of their own security responsibilities they can do it. they have to know the united states is there. we provide enormous security umbrella for the middle east to protect everybody from iran it is like we have given that up? i don't know that is what this leaderless summit should have talked about or agreed to spin dash egregious started to scratch the surface but we do have
to get the general of the fear in 20 minutes will you call on people? >> straight back. >> please wait for the microphone also say he wore. -- and. you are. >> naming and serial and frank. >> we have seen it tends to take better isfahan into its own hands resawed that with a nuclear reactor at what point will israel feel it has to take matters into its
own hands and in that case if they do what you see as the outcome? >> a good question where you from? or what do you do? >> i steady international affairs at george washington university. >> good for you. when israel loses the confidence they have always had to take care of the issue that is what dave might act as the irrational way. i use that word earlier because it could lead to a fifth order of facts in the region so i would like to think they are very thoughtful and very
methodical and precise so we constantly have to have a conversation but across the human spectrum so that second part is it only days to escalation but we will see that in the conflict anyway this is said about to end anytime soon we will not wake up in the summer of 2016 that we are back to normal. this will escalate. i'm guessing you are a young 20 year-old kid. this is partly your problem or going to be your problem i have been dealing with this pretty much ruled life there are periods where it is relatively stable wave
may be vermis strategic mistakes over the last couple of decades enormous over the decade and a half but we cannot beat each other over the head with that stick delegator futures and forward what can we do about it? the recommended everybody don't know my testimony please read it i offer a full range of solutions but what do redo about it? >> my question is to believe iran would use a nuclear weapon? >> actually i do. the behavior is so erratic and has been and they have
demonstrated verbal and actual behavior is so out of the norm and their belief system is something that very few people can understand. to sit down and talk with them talking about the religious and cultural belief but i do see that. when a country is cornered sometimes they do erratic things. so to the regime change of a couple of countries in the region have changed three times since 2011 so we have
to pay close attention. so we have to be very conscious who we are dealing with and actions matter. actions matter. >> you use the word clarity and you have been very clear. we are clear we know there is a strategy in this administration why is it more people like you are not willing to call is on the terrorism if we don't mean
it if more people are not saying what that strategy is. >> i don't know. i know what i dealt with. starting with my grandchildren i believe that. to join the army and i did okay but i spent my entire life doing this. so i see things that we have to be clear. because some of that don't worry about it.
but what i do know there is a lot of people like me that don't say it but believe it. i don't know why but there is a lot that feel this way i wish more people would be i am now one side or the other. honestly i want leadership the best leaders leading this country. period. i don't care about issues to a degree. anyway. [applause] >> as a retired u.s. customs agents i hope to prosecute
back in '94 i was puzzled to find $100 million of trade with iran and who facilitated that but with the timeline u.s. destabilized the democratic leadership of iran was said a mistake? under reagan retreaded missiles with iran for i am puzzled by that in retrospect. the issue of whale and did our obligations under brennan was its agreement to back the dollar with opec oil. there is a the real issue for iran to sell oil that undermines the dollar is up from the floor we invaded iraq with israel?
and to protect the dollar if oil is inherently scarce. >> i probably will not answer all that because of time but each was very thoughtful. the first thing is where the united states basically staged a coup in support to overthrow the iranian government in the early 53 timeframe we basically put the shot into powers it is a great book all the shots and then it is fascinating because yes they do refuse to hold the a grudge because of that but many people forget at that exact same time we were involved in the korean war so a lot of things were going on at that time the price of the of beryl of whale with the
dollar is the currency of choice on the planet the historic timeline for currency is 25 or 30 years the british sterling was the currency of choice around the world after reports to a was the u.s. dollar and still is that is a good thing. but undercutting by using other currency just to talk about that economic trend which have been all the time with a great and the black market we do have to make her that we want the united states dollar to be the currency of choice for ever
and the english to read the language of choice for a river that is a long time but those are challenged all the time but i will stop there because i don't have time to get into the other stuff. >> what is the role of u.s. military with what is happening in the middle east? you said when you take part there seems to be ambivalent feelings with this administration about what is the role in the conflict of the middle east if there is one? >> bay have become we are all well organized bureaucracy to plan will and do different things strategically personally the
role is not decisive absolutely we have to support our friends there is a lot of killing and capturing that will have been and still needs to happen and i would say that our military is doing with their ass to do under very much constrained and are not allowed to use the tools that they have because the tools are designed to be used for. that is a fact. redo have a role but we are late because it has been going on for many years thinking it will get better next summer something will change or we will kill another member of the al qaeda leader or head devices
and they will go away. but they are not county leaders have we killed or captured and now are released. it is crazy there has to be a religious reformation with the islamic world. >> we have time for one more question. >> i.m. the student of politics and you said iran does not contribute to humanity and does not deserve to set the table but they are openly fighting isis even though the iraqi government of last them blood dash ask them to sit at the anti-isis coalition
and discussion although it is the iraqi and syrian problem but we refuse them to do so? >> yesterday there were fbi agents in long island that went to do research of an individual's home this is yesterday in this country another incident after he tried to stab the fbi agent they found out he and his associate had plans to do further damage in this country so don't think this is just the air rapport syria problem. it is not. it is not. but what you talk about with iran but be very careful
when you see a headline in the major media outlet go find out what they're doing those that are led by the minister of the iraqi government go see their behavior on the battlefield if it is within the rule of law or warfare. so this is tit-for-tat and don't think because they fight to i says there is a civil war between the shia and to a degree we have to decide how we will participate we said let's
take a step back. i said that recently. why should i rand be involved why should it be so deeply involved then let iraq deal with it to get all the players back out including the united states but them burn out the fire themselves it will be brutal and ugly when you see truckloads of with ben and children dumped into the euphrates river that will change your mind to tell you what we're dealing with and this isn't 2006 but the last couple of months this is what it is about the war
side is really ugly it is sent pretty but it has to be dealt with and pay very close attention to the details as you can make a judgment of what we're facing thank you very much. i appreciate your time. >> before our we let you go talk about the iran deal if the president turns you to sarah you in favor of this deal or not how do you vote? >> i am not in favor of it i have given my $0.2. i have offered solutions and
i think we will see the deal i think we will have one so now we have to think about the implications and what we do in the future. that is rusty and right now and i am serious there are solutions it won't be solved in this administration but and apportion we will deal with this situation where a generation or more but that is what the president has to stay. he has to say here is the issue. tell the public look at this conversation you will see this klay out in the republican primary about foreign policy and national-security about economics and education and all that but then you'll get into the national debate you
will have more because the problem will not go away just because of the republican primary. thank you. [applause] >> from god slips to no traffic for you. good luck. dell i will be introduced from the american enterprise institute that knows a lot about nuclear weapons and we will ask clerc to give opening remarks then i will interview both of them then it is your turn. thank you. >> it is an honor to be here her cry want to address very briefly some of the problems
that our inherent in the current field as it tries to a conclusion first of all, there has been absolutely no bias from the revolutionary guard corps is problematic because when it comes to issues with command-and-control with the nuclear program the islamic revolutionary guard corps would have that control and custody so we're dealing with the foreign ministry that is un able to show they can bring the of core into compliance. number two the president is about style the leader is about substance he has not firmly committed to the nuclear program talk about her awake flexibility the
office has suggested it means the change of tactics but not policy he is happy to get more than $100 billion of sanctions relief with unfrozen assets but that does not mean with basic policy with regard to nuclear weaponry also looking at the term flexibility the state department prides itself on cultural understanding and doesn't understand the religious connotation of the term to alternately suggested our own good will when it comes due president rouhani he has been known as mr. fix it his campaign commercials put forward his legitimacy he was the first
to bestow with the messianic figure upon the ayatollah khamenei. the a year before we began then negotiations by rand said economy shrank 5.4% now it is in the black and arguably the goal has ben to come to the table but not for the same motivation that we do and as the father of two young kids is like giving the toddler deserve first and asking them to please please please eat your spinach it does not work but what about through monday we can moderate? between 2000 and 2005 there is a hard currency windfall
and as european reunion abrasives that philosophy it is moderate and according to many estimates approximately 70% of that windfall went into the ballistic and covert nuclear programs and by the way this is during the time that iran was engaged with a dialogue that some of those negotiators said it is the strategy to import what ever we need if the goal of the above if frustration to give sanctions relief and then assume that many will trickle-down it under estimates the of role of the revolutionary guard with the name of the conglomeration
up to 40 percent of gdp it would control import/export talking money into the wallet of that unit when it comes to voluntary compliance this is that the foreign minister has with additional protocol but back in 2005 rouhani was a nuclear negotiator he said we didn't voluntarily then said so we ted remove that suspension anytime we wanted as long as we've voluntarily do it so that always raises a red flag so at the time he was stepping down as the supreme national security council chief gave a speech
to assemble a deal the eight iranian officials to defend his negotiations at this point and translated by the open source center that he calls a doctor in a surprise to give the overview of u.s. iranian history at every critical point in time we have triumphed to lethal the adversaries into complacency then to deliver the knockout blow have things changed and if so what evidence do we have to support that? another new she -- negotiator suggested also in persia that north korea was a model to emulate rather than condemn that also
raises red flags so before i enter a the floor over to talk about the dimensions of the regime i'm a historian by training so i get paid to predict the past and i write half the time but we have a situation when it came to a nuclear program south africa in 1991 and in order to drust certify it had come clean and mandated it had no longer anything to hide that they had come clean on 20 years of previous nuclear work so everything could be accounted for at present we are letting them off the hook that the atomic energy
agency said no go. i never would have thought they would play three-dimensional chess while we play solitaire but that is what has become of our strategy in comparison what iran every use nuclear weapons i do not believe iran is suicidal but what if they are terminally ill if you have a situation like romania where you have an uprising but instead of putting them down day joining and and we don't have insight with the revolutionary guard? if the regime is collapsing in 24 hours it will be:so then what would stop them
for those from using it? would anybody really retaliate against those that have regime change reno mutually assured destruction the you cannot assume that will buy stability with the ideological regime when it comes to the 1953 coup, i the shah was ahead of iran but if you agree with him then it you could get lynched but at the same time the over all were co-conspirators?
the allies concluded that makes of the leadership they do like it to but if you want to be accurate to apologize to the co-conspirators again and again read we come to the antipathy but the guys with the guns that control. to have very good relations into the revolution looking in 1953 as the breaking point so with that i will turn it over. [applause]
>> thank-you very much for sponsoring this fantastic event to talk about a critical topic. but michael schaede such a great foundation about what the regime is about so to talk about the components of iran nuclear weapons program and where we are with the negotiations. so i would start with the iranian constitution one version available online it