tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN June 20, 2015 4:00am-6:01am EDT
led to his stunning victory in iowa caucuses. that victory catapulted him to front runner status where he ultimately won 11 states and nearly 4 million votes in the republican primary process. his consistent conservative stand on social issues and economic growth he refers to as blue-collar conservatism continue to resonate with millions of americans. he has been married to one wife of 25 years and their marriage has been blessed with seven wonderful children. just more than three weeks ago he announced his new candidacy for president of the united states. would you join me in giving a very warm welcome to rick santorum? [applause] rick santorum: thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much.
thank you, craig. i appreciate the kind words. thank you all for the warm reception. it is rate to be here. i am not a rookie here. this is the sixth faith in freedom meeting and i have been to all six. i don't know if anybody else has spoken at all six but i have spoken and all six of these meetings. i wanted to maybe start with that to say that, you know me. i have been here. i have been on the front lines of the issues of faith and freeman, well, for the better part of 20 years. standing up and fighting for the basic values that made our country great. i am best known for that and in some cases, only known for that because there are not many people that do that. there are many people that come and talk to at the podium here or come to your conference, but will they go out and actually fight for these issues? when the rubber meets the road? we had one vote in the united
states senate on the issue of marriage, the constitutional amendment, to institute marriages between one man and one woman. you know what that vote was? aiken 2004 -- back in 2004. you know who pushed for that vote and the people behind the scenes in the caucus to get even get that vote question mark yet, i did -- vote? yeah, i did. go ahead. [applause] you see, they will say they are for marriage, but when it comes to absolutely fighting, they will say they are pro-life, but when it comes to actually pleading -- leading. because when you leave and you fight, you pay a price. the biggest prize is that is all the folks back there will say i do. because it is one thing to be pro-life and a lot of people will talk about voting pro-life. it is another thing to stand up and try to push the agenda. to try and make sure your voices
are being hard. and that is the differentiator. how many times that you voted for politicians love gone to washington, d.c. and let's just say they have not lived up to your expectations? how about in the last few months that they have not lived up to your expectations? and so when you are looking at a presidential candidate, don't just look at the rhetoric because everybody can read poems and no with the american public or the republican primary voters are looking for. look at their track record. look at their willingness to stand up and fight not just on one issue or two, but to be a principal conservative across the board. particularly on the culture issues because if you did that in several candidates have found out, you get pigeonholed. i am going to talk today about a lot of other things that are important for conservatives.
national security is one of them. i put my record up against national security against anybody, not just in this field, but anybody. pweioeriod. i was introduced for gout -- i was introduced as -- and these are his words -- as the winston churchill of our time. why? because for the last 10 or 11 years, i have been warning america while i was in the senate come outside the senate, before i ran for president, and while i went for president about the gathering storm of the 21st century. about radical islam drive and about how they are working together without a radical groups across the world to defeat freedom. to defeat the west. and that there is only really one country capable of standing up and fighting that. there are others who are willing to fight like a state of israel but there was only one country that has the capability of really standing up and fighting. and as have we have seen, people
prospers. -- and as we have seen, if we don't do something, people prospers. we have had a -- evil prospers. we have had a president -- that is why the enemy has prospered. i was in israel a few months ago and one of prime minister netanyahu's senior advisers said to me, he said senator, you need to tell the american public that whoever this next president will be, in all likelihood would have to be, the wartime president because we will be at war. not we as an israel but we as the world. ladies and gentlemen, commander in chief is not an entry-level position. their own -- there are a lot of good men and women who will come up on this stage of talk about what their principles are, what their values are, and maybe what their ideas are.
we will be up in a race against probably a former secretary of state who knows these issues inside and out. has experience at a time when america will be looking for someone they can trust. someone who has a track record on these issues. i served, as you mentioned eight years on armed services committee, but beyond that, we work really hard on defending the state of israel but also trying to alert america about the threat of a nuclear iran. it has always been the number one issue for me. if you go to israel, it is the number one issue for israel. why? because the nuclear iran changes everything. everything. and nuclear iran provides a real shield to the rest of the world of ever going after iran as a country, just like every nuclear country has. this is a country that is the biggest proliferator of terrorism in the world.
in fact, they said they wanted to wipe israel off the face of the earth. said they want to defeat america. and now we are about to engage in an agreement that would put them in a packed quickly. legitimately to an nuclear weapon. we have to have someone in the debates coming up in 2016 who is experienced debating the former secretary of state. it is not a briefing book into the debate but someone who has been a debater on the floor of these issues, which i have. in fact, i offer that iran freedom support act which codified sanctions against israel, which i pushed and hillary clinton, joe biden barack obama all voted against before eventually it was passed and they voted for it. kerry does that a lot. votes something he was against and then vice versa. bottom line is, we need someone with experience and a hand that the world understands and trust. a few months ago, two months to
be exact, i was on -- i was in an online magazine which is usually a good thing. but this online magazine was an online magazine of isis. and i was under the heading in the words of our enemy and there was a picture of me -- a very nice picture, i might add -- [laughter] and a quote describing who they are and why we had to defeat them. ladies and gentlemen, isis knows who i am because i have been out there along time describing the threat that they are. and by we have to defeat them. and i know who they are. we need a president who is strong on this issue. who is willing to confront hillary clinton and all the things that that administration has done to put america and the world in peril. at a time when our country will be in peril, if it is not
already. second, we need somebody out there who is going to engage the large group of people in america who feel like neither party cares about them. i was reading some studies over the last year or so about who turned out in 2012 and who did not. and there was all of this talk about, well, we just need the evangelical vote to turn out and that would make the difference. if you look at the 2012 election, that is simply not true. actually, evangelical voters to turn out and they voted overwhelmingly for our candidate. i will tell you who did not turn out. blue-collar workers. working men and women in this country. if you look across particularly the area of this country -- this is key to winning the election. which is pennsylvania, ohio, michigan, indiana, and go right straight across. you will see very low rates of turnout among working men and women. why? because they don't think either party understands them and the
plight they are going through. the democratic party has long given up on working men and women. they have become the party of the welfare state. they are very happy to their benefits at people but you know what? working men and women don't want benefits they want opportunities from a society where they can rise in america again. [applause] and what about the republican party? well, in the last election there was a survey of all the people i am talking about. because they were asked the question -- voters were asked the question at the poll -- what is the most important issue in this election question mark 23% of the electorate's said this -- does the candidate care about people like me? 23% of the electorate almost all of the folks of that's why percent of the people i am talking about. you know what percentages of vote for candidate got?
90% of the vote of people who said they wanted a president who cared about them. we have -- 19% of the vote of people who said they wanted a president who cared about them. we have an opportunity to change the electorate map if we simply take the principles we have and are right about growing the economy, cutting taxes, reducing regulation, balancing the budget. have trade policies that are fair to american workers. you put those policies in place, and integration system that does not continue to flood this country with legal and illegal immigrants. you know, we brought 35 million people into this country over the last 35 years. 10% of the population of america. almost all of them are unskilled and guess what has happened to wages over the last 20 years russian mark flatlined. in fact, declining in real terms. -- 20 years?
flatlined. in fact, declining in real terms. what if we line up with the business community to see it as cheap labor to lower cost? the democrats have abandoned the working people. they want as many people to come in -- like? -- why? because they think they will all vote for them. what about the american worker? what about the 74% of americans who do not have a college degree age 25 to 65? they are looking for somebody. and it is us. believe it or not, if you look at who the republican party is it is those very workers except we do not get the share of the vote. we do not get as many people out, particularly in the north. we don't get a lot of those people voting for us because we do not have a policy that connects directly with them. but i have laid down -- when i announced for president three weeks ago from the factory floor in western and heart of the industrial heartland of america
i talked about how we have to have a conference of package then only grows the economy. i wrote up a cluster called "blue-collar conservative -- recommitting to an america that works." and i talked about how we have to have a rising tide with votes that we also have to understand as americans that, guess what? there are people in america who have holes in their boats and when the tide goes up and not we do is talk about growth, growth, growth, we do not talk about how we will create economic opportunities for everybody and their people sitting in those votes as the tide goes up and they feel like they have to fail faster because the water is deeper and more dangerous. we need to be the party of working men and women. the party that understands the dignity of everybody in america to work. that is why it is about manufacturing agendas. we can put people back to work in the jobs that used to sustain america.
we can put pride back and america. hope back in america to create opportunity to rise for those workers who have less skills yet want to work and get apprenticeships to get the skills to provide for themselves and their family. i always say that i know everybody's favorite word. because everybody's favorite word is their name. everybody likes to see and hear their name. yet, we as republicans, when we talk about economic policies, high graphs, charts, gdp, we talk about people -- we have to talk about folks who are hurting. who are not seeing the opportunity to rise and we need to put their names in that picture of the future of america. you talk about creating manufacturing jobs to lower skilled workers to be able to rise and get good paying jobs, talk about construction, talk about how america 10 years ago, if you had said that we would have been the number one energy producing country in the world people would have said, that is
just another flag-waving chauvinist who just wants to pump up america again. guess what? we are the number one energy producing country in the world. we should be proud of that. and so when i say within 10 years we can be the number one manufacturing country in the world, again, people say, you know what? it is not just blowing smoke. the bottom line is because energy prices are really low and stable for the long-term, we have now created that change, that switch that creates the opportunity for us to be competitive. to go back to the 1970's when we deal industrial life in america when factories closed and we saw massive dislocation of workers -- does anybody remember what the catalyst was? the energy crisis. it exposed problems in the manufacturing sector, well, now we have the opposite case. jobs are coming back but they can be accelerated if we cut tax rates. i am talking about putting a simple fair, flat tax that
creates an opportunity for businesses to locate here. take every single job regulation that the present put in place and on day one, repeal it, revoke it, and put in job creating executive orders and regulations. [applause] take an immigration system and actually do what the law says. use e-verify for all businesses in america so we have american workers, doing american jobs. [applause] that we have a system -- most of the illegal immigrants coming to america today are not coming from mexico over the border. in fact, a majority of the people coming over the border are not mexicans anymore. the majority of people who are in this country illegally this year are here because of the visa overstays. why? because we do not track visa exits, enforce the law. it is as simple as that. all we have to do is enforce the law only can dramatically reduce
the number of illegals coming to the country every year and create job opportunities for americans and better wages to boot. secondly, we had to do something about the legal immigration system. he have had the highest level of legal immigration in the history of our country. over 1,050,000 every a come into this country, legally. almost all of them are unskilled. but i am talking about is a 25% reduction. still, by the lake, aside from the last 20 years, would be the highest level of legal immigration prior to the last 20 years and i'm talking about reducing it to. why? because we need to be the party of the american worker. both folks who were born here, people who came here legally and give them the opportunity to see their raises -- their wages rise and get a stable and strong middle of america again. it is as simple as that. [applause] so if you have a candidate that is going to be strong and principled on national security
in an election that will matter -- why? we have had the last six elections where republicans have blown last of the 56 with respect to the popular vote. the only one we wanted was to thousand four and the reason was national security. -- and only recently won was 2004 and the recently one -- and the reason was for national security. we are going to incentivize people to go out and get engaged in the political system and transform the heartland of america from what used to be a string of blue states to a string of red states. do you want to win? do you want to win? all right. well, let's elect someone who can go to the states we have to win with a message that is a winning message. i won in pennsylvania.
a 60% democratic district and a 70% democratic district and in a state with twice over one million more registered republicans than democrats. i know how to win in those states. i have done it. and we have a message now that will connect. you have an opportunity to elect a full conservative on fiscal issues, on economic issues, on foreign-policy issues. and yes, on moral and cultural issues. why settle for less? [applause] and for those who say, i cannot win. let me just say this. i have long 11 states. has anybody else 111 states? we will able to win -- we were able to win. you know why? some say because evangelical voters voted for me. i am not a big believer in
polls, but after the election in 2012, after the primary and i dropped out, i met with the romney campaign and their poster came up to me and shared a little information. he said, we always wondered why you did better in the election results than the exit polls showed you are doing. because in the 5:00 exits would come out, you would usually be behind or not doing as well and then you would do better in the end. we started doing something we had never done in polling before. we started to ask this question -- who are you voting for and what -- and when are you planning to vote? we have never done that in my 30 years of polling and he handed me a piece of paper and said, this is the last poll we did from pennsylvania which was the next state up for me before i dropped out. we dropped out a couple weeks before the primary in pennsylvania. he said, he was the poll number in pennsylvania. if you were going to vote between when the polls opened at noon, i was leading romney by five points. if you're going to vote between
noon and 5:00, i was trailing romney by four points. if you going to vote after 5:00 -- who votes after 5:00? i was up by 21 points. so they can say whatever they want about rick santorum did well the last time. polls do not lie as to why rick santorum did well the last time. because we have a message that connected. we had a message that connected with the people. we want to win this election ladies and gentlemen. a better connect. you have an opportunity as social conservatives to have your cake and eat it too. have someone who can win and someone who will win for the values that made our country great. i hope you join our fight. go to rick santorum.com and give us a hand. thank you and god bless you. [applause] thank you. [applause] >> on the next "washington
journal," how would snyder on the economy and potential interest rate hike by the federal reserve. and we will talk with michael buckle for the center of political advertising on tv more than one year before election day. also, conversation on country of origin label for least, pork and poultry sold in the u.s. our guest is spencer chase. "washington journal" live every morning on c-span at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> some are sitting in the left front of the chamber, if you will, so when brooks comes into the chamber, he comes into the center doors, sits down and almost looking directly at sumner. the problem is summer is not looking at him. some leaders head is about and he is literally signing copies on the crime against kansas speech. he gets up, walks down the
center aisle with his cane approaches sumner. sumner again, totally oblivious to what is happening, head bowed signing copies of the speech, he reaches them came over his head and says, mr. sumner, i have read your speech over twice. someone looks up at this point and rooks is blurred their visit glasses because he is so close and brooks strikes sumner on the top of the head with the cane and sumner has blood almost instantly. >> on the caning of massachusetts senator sumner by preston brooks. it drove the country closer to civil war. sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house, congressional hearings, and news conferences.
review new events that shape public policy. and everyone he, "washington journal" is live with elected officials, policymakers, and journalists, and your comments by phone, facebook, and twitter. c-span, created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> negotiation is in the iranian nuclear talks face of june 30 deadline to face a deal. critics say the deal with iran's government including the former agency director discussed the issue posted by the american conservative issue. this is two hours. >> we are going to get started here. i think we need a live mic. [indiscernible] we need a live my care. is this yours, here?
i'm going to stick it right here and put mine on top. 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 defense intelligence agency provides intelligence and analysis to the military. not only identifies military threats we face down in the future but it recommends what we need to do about them.
that means you used to work for general plan, in one way or the other. he has a phd from yale in iranian history and he lived in postrevolutionary iran which is an unusual thing. he is the author of the book "dancing with the double: the perils of engaging regimes." and 90's ago, he had his second child. well, his wife had their second child. finally, my friend clare lopez. she is the vice president for center for security policy and she was a career cia operations
officer. you know that movie "zero dark 30" and the woman who is the hero -- clare lopez. her post cia career has focused on the threat posed by radical islam. and of course, now iran. she is the author of the acclaimed paper "the rise of the iran lobby." before i get to general friend and the other speakers. i want to give a little housekeeping. first, turn off your cell phones and two, understand that general plan has been busy schedule so he will have to leave probably at 12:25. we are going to ask him to make a presentation and i'm going to than interview him and then we are going to throw things open to questions. he will lead and that we will do the same to clare lopez and michael rubin. they will make opening statements and then i will engage them in conversation and then we will know it open to questions. we are out promptly at 1:25
1:30. ok? wheels are up. to talk about iran deal. i'll do a little history to set the stage. iran is to be one of our greatest friends. when i was in the nixon administration, it was one of the closest allies in the region and in 1979, there was an iranian revolution bring to power a different kind of regime that has been historically for the last 35 years the most active sponsor or state sponsor of terrorism around the world. it has pursued a weapons program, particularly a weapons program and what is much worse is what it has done in the last decade. it has continued a nuclear weapons program and the state sponsored terrorism, encouraging regimes throughout the region. it now gives a certain amount of credibility to its frequent chants of death to america.
what iran first started chanting death to america, they were hostages. when president reagan came into office, the diplomats were released but the relationship between the united states iran has been tenuous, at best and probably outright hostility over the last 35 years. or 30 years. one of the concerns that all of us have is negotiating with iran. we are not sure what is in it. we are not sure if it is verifiable or enforceable. the three experts today will talk about all aspects of that. and then i will interject my brilliant thoughts throughout. but i think the key question for all of us is the administration claims that if this is deal or a war, is that a legitimate to options or is there another option? the second is, if it is an agreement, is it verifiable? in other words, president reagan said trust that you have the
ability to verify. is this an agreement that we see it now that it is verifiable? is this an agreement enforceable -- in other words, if they cheat or are deceptive is it an agreement that we have the ability to claw back the sanctions and punish them or have leverage over them afterwards? and finally, what are they up to? why does iran want this agreement and what will they do with it question mark a have seen in the post revolutionary iran since 1979 that they have been aggressive. they have tried to expand the reach throughout the region. we know that they have given aid and comfort to forces that have flown against america. why do they want this and what will they do when they get it? all of that is a very rich topic. we have asked everyone to speak to try and summarize their thoughts and to sort of fly high. if you want to go in the weeds we can go there with the but we would like to have and see a more general an open conversation. with that, i will turn this
podium over to a man who is just awesome and a terrific spokesman for america's national security and now that he can actually talk publicly. [applause] >> ok, i don't really have any prepared comments. i'm going to say a couple of things here that i believe and i'm just going to tell you why i believe them. number one -- on a given day the one that is based on the history of this country and frankly world history, when i look into the future and i see where we went to the as a country, i see it through the eyes of my grandchildren and i have several grandchildren. my mother, she lived until she
was just over 90 years of age. she just recently died. a few months. absolutely the most courageous person i have ever known and an extraordinary woman. and i am one of nine children who grew up in an irish catholic family and my father was a very tough guy, world war ii korea vet. retired from the army as a sergeant. he worked hard around my house and lifelong learning was part of our system within our home. so when i look at my end this grandchild, my granddaughter who is three, if she is able to live to the age of my mom her great grandmother, my granddaughter will be a live in the next century. think about that. so not what we typically do is we think about one administration to the next. most of the people in here don't
even know what they will do saturday night. i mean we have to have people that are very serious about the future of our country because anybody that has even done a little basic world history knows that country go on these sine waves and they eventually go away. a lot of countries are in the dust pan of history and we have to be very careful that we understand and we see the indicators and the warning signs that are coming our way and we have to pay very close attention to those. some of those are very tactical and a lot of the arguments you hear in the media and from elsewhere and other circles are very tactical. what you do not care enough about, you don't see enough people at least talking about it, are what are the real strategic outlook, where we want our country to be an how we want our country to be. it is where, why what. i mean those are really
important. it is actually really good in an audience like this and i spoke to an audience about one month ago, mostly done people. voting matters. you vote for who you want, but voting actually matters. it is a privilege to vote in this country and i tell people voting actually matters in terms of the outcome whether it is local, state or federal. and people have to get out and vote. it got to vote for, pull a lever, or punch dot in a piece of paper or whatever it is and how we do it across the country. one of the most things irresponsible about voting, when somebody goes to vote and they have no idea who they are voting for or what the position is of the person they are voting for. they vote blindly. that is not good for this country. not good. all the young people in an audience like this, you are preaching to the choir because for the most part, you are very switched on as an audience that i would say that most of america
is not. most of america does not pay any attention until they decide, maybe i will try this voting thing. you have to get involved as a young kid. my mom was involved in local politics. very heavily involved in local politics. this was the late 1960's and early 1970's for me as a young child and i used to get picked up by a school bus by a guy down the street by the name of mr. roberts. what would he have me do not go he would have me cuss a lot of the school bus, knock on people's doors who cannot get to the voting booth for local politics and i would escort generally the nice ladies to the bus and we would take them to the voting booths, escort them in, step back, they would vote they would get back in the bus and we would take them home. that still exists in this country. it does not exist, for the most part of what i see, in this crowd. i've been very general that sort of the side of our political domain or dimension.
people need to get involved at the local level and take responsibility. i remember doing that as a child and that affected me because as i have grown up and kind of gotten to where i am at, i remember well, this is what is really important about america. and what is important is get involved. get involved in the future of this country because when i look at young people and i look at my grandchildren, i say, boy, what do i want her to be? what type of life do i want her to have when she, hopefully, is alive going into the next century? which is very, very possible. the words that i wrote down today and i am just going to build them on here because i want to get to some questions very quickly because i know we will not have a lot of time. clarity. this nation needs clarity right now. instead of confusion. we are confused. we are confused from a national security perspective, foreign policy perspective, and i could to get all the way down into
immigration, education, whatever the issues are, but we need clarity and we need it now. and the clarity has to start at the very top of our government. and we need it now. we don't need confusion. people are confused. casey mentioned the iranian deal. you cannot be so secretive these days. transparency is hugely important. the second thing is confidence. i want my leadership to be confident in themselves. i am confident in what i do. i don't want to demonstrate weakness. i don't want the united states of america to appear weak. i want us to be the strongest. i have very, very selfish self-interest when it comes to the united states of america and i want us to be confident a lot of what we do, no matter where we do it. i don't want us to show weakness even though we might be weak in some cases. there are ways to fame that. we have got to make sure we are confident in everything we do. every action that we take and
that has got to start at the top. the third word is coherence. coherence. instead of discord. what in the norma's opportunity we have had over the last two years to bring a sense of coherence. to bring together a nation instead of this discord that we see. it is unbelievable. enormous opportunities squandered. cannot miss opportunities squandered. we need coherence in this country. we need coherence internationally. people need to know who stands for them and where do they stand? are they part of that team of teams within the international community? contributing nations of the world? if you do not contribute, you do not get a seat at the table. iran. you do not contrary to the greater good of humanity. why are they sitting at a table at the united states of america? why? why? the fourth ward is character.
character is really, really important. what kind of character or characteristics do we want the united states to be known for? reliability? trustworthiness? a good friend? a good partner when we need to be? respected? instead of what i would just kind of -- i mean, some of it is -- we lost what our consciousness is of what america was built on. lots of sacrifice. lots of sacrifice over many, many generations of americans. 240 years roughly now this last sunday was our flag day, the birthday of the united states army. we actually have not been around that long, to be honest with you. we have only been a great nation -- really, really great nation and world power since the end of world war ii. world war ii we came into our own. we really did. 70 years and this is the
anniversary. we have to be really really conscious of that and i think that character matters and all the people that we have. i can stand for mistakes that people make. human error is ok. god, we are all human. i have made enormous mistakes. what mistakes that were done in trying something. not done to be intentionally. so we all make mistakes. we can overcome some of those. not all of them. there are some immoral unethical and illegal things that happen out there. part of this is trying to understand what is it that we want as americans going forward? really really important time we are in. we are in an era and a period of our history as far out as i can see, and i try to see what are the major trends happening over the next 25-50 years and certainly by the middle of this
decade? if we do not come to grips with that now, we will be a different country. we will begin to turn into a different country. look for those indicators. look for those warning signs. look for those names that tell? us, what is changing ? -- why is it changing? to like the change? and one of the most important things in this country and i will take it back to voting is to vote. get out there and vote. make it count. naked town for each and every one of you. so, i want to make sure we get to questions. i will stop there and thank you again. i really honored to be up. everybody. these people are unbelievable experts, so thank you. [applause] >> the general has given us a very broad area that we can talk about. can you all hear me by the way if i stand here?
i want to get specific and assume we are in the white house situation room. i am a national security advisor and you are head of intelligence. i am going to ask you about the agreement with iran. first of all, who wanted to deal with iran? general: the agreement is based on a number of false assumptions that we made about iran. one of them is we can change their behavior. they even recently said death to america. if somebody comes up and punches you in the nose, you got to do something. why would you deal with someone who is crying out, death to america why would you deal with the number one state sponsor of terrorism? why do we deal with a country who has all this negative baggage before we change their behavior? again, it gets back to our you
contributed to the greater good of humanity or not? can't iran is not. they are not. i don't think that right now -- we do not start this thing off on the right foot. >> you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with enemies. what would have to happen for us to be even willing to have any agreement with iran? a regime change? different attitude or would you be willing to do eight deals with iran as long as we had complete confidence and verification? general flynn: i would say this is all hindsight right now because we are going to have a deal. there is going to be a deal whether we like it or not. i am going in with that position, so we will have to figure out what are the implications of that. that is really what the bigger issue is that we will have to deal with. i think that we are moving into an era where we are picking a side that i am not sure why we are picking this side. the behavior right now and the
attitude of friends and allies in the region has changed dramatically. in has changed dramatically. the lack of trust, the lack of total uncertainty and what i said about clarity. we are dealing with a country that has violated the sanctions. we are dealing with other of the p5+1 who have violated the sanctions. iran is in a much stronger economic stage than they were a couple years ago. so assume that the deal goes. the president has said for five times, i would rather have a bad deal but no deal. why? why would you do that? and you do cut deals with their friends. we are in business with nato right now, trying to get nato to up on their security and but
they provide. it is not only you deal with the enemies. you do deal with friends sometimes and in this case, we are dealing with not only an enemy that we are dealing with a country that has not demonstrated, not once, not one iota of good behavior. >> walk me through if there was no deal at iran, what happens? general flynn: i think that iran is going to continue down the path that they were already on. their development of nuclear capabilities and eventually, nuclear weapon. i think that people go out, we are going to go to war. if you were in israel, you might feel very, very uncertain and so we always have to kind of check with the israelis to see how you feel on a given day because we do not want them to go in and do something irrational. you can act irrational for those
of you who have ever been to israel, i have been there a number of times in the environment they are in today so i think what we have to do is answer the question -- what are the implications of the nuclear cache of the region going nuclear? not nuclear weapons. we should be seeking nuclear energy development. call the bluff. call the bluff of iran, call the bluff of russia, call the bluff of china. china has been helping violate the sanctions in iran. russia is right now. rush is cutting deals with egypt, jordan, and saudi arabia on nuclear energy development. what are the implications of a nuclear middle east, nuclear region? and i think that will have to be that the question we have to answer. there are some of us trying to address that today, so i am assuming there is going to be a deal. >> you have already made the
conclusion that deal or no deal -- general frenkel and they get their's down the road. you can go back to 1994 and see what deal the cut with north korea and where north korea is that today. there are good examples out there. south africa is another place. from an intel perspective, we kind of missed the boat. >> what do you think happens then with a nuclear iran? what does iran do and what do other countries in the region do? general flynn: if they open themselves up to two inspections and if anybody was paying attention, they have said what they are not going to do. they should not have a choice at this. again, we are dealing with a country that is a pariah country and they are at the table with the united states of america. we should make the decisions about what they are going to do and then let them know what the expectations are on
international law, internationally accepted norms of behaviors. and then say, ok, if you are willing to accept that, then you can come sit at the table. we did not do that. we did not do that. what i would say is that we need to, again, you sort of called the bluff by allowing others the region because others in the region are going to do this. there has already been nuclear energy deals -- >> nuclear weapons. general flynn: these are deals that are assigned. we have one deal going on with the russians right now, so it is going to happen. what we have to do is we have to keep it at a level that is nuclear energy and not nuclear weapons. >> you have implied that the sanctions regime is very collapse. in other words, other countries are basically saying, we are getting tired of these sanctions what happens. administration has said we cannot keep these sanctions on much longer so the pressure and
leverage we have had over iran is going to dissipate in any event. if there is not going to be any leverage left and if you do think there will be nuclear weapons in the region, is there any way to get out of this mess? what do you do next? let's get your head around and nuclear middle -- middle east as nuclear weapons. general flynn: you have sort of a rise of proxy wars which we are seeing right now between the shia and shia communities. these proxy wars indicate that others are supporting them. others being iran, others being russia, essentially china and other countries out there. venezuela is another country that has demonstrated pretty negative behavior. the positive that we have to be thinking about that is a very long-term issue, and it all does come around to energy, why is the middle east important? because for 100 plus years, the
world has relied on the oil coming out of the middle east. whether you like it or not. have you ever seen a chinese aircraft carrier inside the persian gulf? no. to a question, no, you have not. between 50% and 60% of their hydrocarbon, basically oil, is out of the middle east. we have been guarantee that by putting one, sometimes to aircraft carrier task force inside the prison gulf in 35 years. we are guaranteeing their energy in china. the price of a barrel of oil means a lot. it will not go back up. new technologies are creating new opportunities. this country is capable of being energy independence and we are capable of making probably the contribute world independent or dependent or interdependent on the united states of america for energy. the economic system in the middle east has to change.
it has to move away from oil. it has to. and there are some ideas on how to do that and they are in play right now and we are seeing some of this occur in the middle east for those who are paying close attention to certainly their media and some other media inside of our country who are writing about this sort of you energy ecosystem that frankly is built on nuclear energy. it is built on nuclear energy and it requires thoughtful people to get involved in it but it is important because oil is not the future any longer in the middle east. >> you lastly gave some pretty significant and testimony before the house and senate. the house committee and the house services committee and he got a lot of attention. in it, you were talking about where you see the region going. not only iran nuclear weapons but the rise of isis. you made reference to looking at
that whole region and saying that we may be looking at a generation of conflict. the question i would have is how do you keep it there so it does not come here? general fund: it will come here and it is here. again, just pay attention to what our fbi director says fairly routinely. so, that is really important. pay very close attention to that. the middle east, the way i describe it, is there is a new middle east struggling to being born. and we have to understand how it will grow, how it will take shape. and we need to be part of this rebirth of the middle east. iraq, syria, kurdistan, lebanon, all the different pieces, yemen, parts of east africa, certainly parts of north africa are all changing. these are borderless societies in many cases now. and this goes back over 100
years ago when we -- really the british sort of drew some lines on a map. so all of this is going to change. it is changing as we speak here. it will not go back. it will not go back to the way it was. it will take shape. iraq itself could end up in four different things. so we have to decide how to contain it. one of the things i have been a very big proponent of is to create what i describe as an arab-nato like structure. other arab leaders have said we essentially agree. egypt, the king of jordan, others and the folks in saudi. but they are not going to be able to do it unless the united states gets involved. it doesn't mean we have to go on there, boots on the ground, and fight with them, but they cannot organize themselves the way we can help them organize. that is step one, to even recognize that we have to do
that, do it, and then move in a further direction. they have the money to do it. they just have to be -- they have to know that the united states is there. we provide an enormous security umbrella for the middle east to protect everybody for the last 35 years from iran. so, it is like we have given up that? i don't know. that is what this leaderless gcc summit -- that is what they should have talked about. that is what they should have agreed to. kathleen troia mcfarland: ok. i think we are just scratching the surface, but at this point i would like to throw it out to the audience.
we do have to get the general out of here in 20 minutes, so would you call on people? retired lieutenant general michael flynn: i sure will. right in the plaid shirt. yep. kathleen troia mcfarland: oh yeah. wait until a microphone gets to you. could you also say who you are? you know who he is. retired lieutenant general michael flynn: name, rank, and serial number. no. >> i am from puerto rico. throughout history, we have seen that israel, when it sees a threat to its security, it tends to take matters into its own hands. we saw it with the raid on the reactor in iraq in 1981, on the raid in syria in 2007. you know, at what point do we -- do you think that israel, you know, will -- will feel that it has to take matters into its own hands with the nuclear development program in iran?
and in the case that they do or if they do, what do you see as the outcome? retired lieutenant general michael flynn: good question. where are you from? what do you do? >> i study international affairs here at george washington university. retired lieutenant general michael flynn: good for you. really important. i want to pick on you because you are young kid. israel -- israel loses the confidence that they always had in the united states -- you know -- to take care of the issue that you just described. that is when they might act in what some would take as an irrational way. i use that word earlier. because it could lead to second and third and fifth order affects in the region. so, i would like to think that -- and i know that -- they are very thoughtful. the leadership of israel is very thoughtful, very methodical,
very precise. so we have to constantly have a conversation with them at multiple levels. not just government to government, but across the human spectrum. i think that sort of the second part is, you know, it will only lead to escalation, but escalation is going to happen. we are going to see escalation in the conflict in the middle east anyway. this is not about to end anytime soon. we are not going to wake up in the summer of 2016 or after another election and go oh, we are back to normal. this is going to escalate. ok? so i am guessing you are a young 20-year-old kid. i mean, you know, this is partly your problem. or going to be your problem. i have been dealing with this pretty much my whole life. there has been periods where it has been relatively stable, and we have made enormous strategic
mistakes over the last couple of decades, certainly over the last decade and a half. enormous. but we can use that to beat each other over the head with that stick. we have to look at your future. what do we do about it? and that is where -- and i recommend everybody, if you haven't read my testimony that i gave to the armed services committee, please read it. because i offer a whole range of solutions in there. it is not just about bad, bad, bad, but what do we do about it? yes, sir, over here. >> my question is, do you believe that iran would use a nuclear weapon? thank you. retired lieutenant general michael flynn: yeah, i -- actually, i do. i do.
their behavior is so erratic and has been and they have demonstrated both verbal and actual behavior is so out of the norm -- and their beliefs system is something that very, very few people can truly understand. i have been studying it, dealing with it, i have sat down and talked with them. and this is both in the -- you know -- talking about the religious and cultural belief system. so actually, i do. i do. i can see that. and, you know, i mean, when a country is cornered sometimes, they do -- they do erratic things. that is why we have to be very careful about, you know, kt mentioned regime change. a couple of countries in the region right now have changed three times since 2011. so we have to be very -- we have to pay very close attention to some of the stuff. i know that we have to be very conscious about who it is we are dealing with and actions matter. you know?
actions matter. do as i do kind of deal. yes, ma'am, right here. yes, ma'am. that beautiful flower shirt there. >> [indiscernible] -- last week and i want to thank you for it. you used the word clarity. and the thing i am asking -- you have been very clear, but i'm asking the panel. we all here in america are clear, we know the clarity in that there is a strategy in this administration. and that strategy leads to tremendous destruction. why isn't it that more people like you aren't willing -- our administration is not willing to call it islamic terrorism . if we don't name it, why isn't
more people like you are talking out and saying exactly what the strategy is? it is clear. retired lieutenant general michael flynn: you know, i don't know. i would be guessing why. i just know what i have dealt with. and i go back to what i started, you know, my story about my grandchildren. i mean, i believe that. i grew up in a family and i grew up in a country and i joined the army. and i did ok. i have spent my entire life doing this. so when i look forward and i see things, to me, we have to be really clear. and i don't think we had been to the american public because i think some of it is just, don't worry about it, they will vote for you anyways. that is why voting matters. so i don't know. what i do know -- you said dorothy? what i do know is that a lot of -- there is a lot of people like me that don't say it, but they believe it. and, i don't know, i don't know why.
for whatever reason, you know? i don't question their reasons. but i just know that there is a lot that do feel this way. so i do wish that more people would be -- because i am not like, one side or the other. honestly, i go for leadership. i want the best leaders leading this country, period. i don't care about issues to a degree. [applause] retired lieutenant general michael flynn: ok. let me get this gentleman and then i will try to do really quick answers here. yeah. >> carl, a retired u.s. customs agent. i was a health secure trading with iran back in 1994. i was puzzled in 2010 that we have done $100 million of trade with iran. a couple of timeline points. 1953, the u.s. destabilized the democratically elected
leadership of iran. was that a mistake? and under reagan, we traded missiles with iran. i am puzzled by that in retrospect. the issue of oil -- since we have ended our obligations under the agreement, we have kind of backed our dollar with opec oil. is the real issue that for iran to be selling oil for something other than u.s. dollars undermines the dollar? for example, iraq has begun selling its oil before we invaded iraq. and wanted to sell his oil -- and oil isn't really inherently scarce. retired lieutenant general michael flynn: i am going to probably not answer all of that because of time. very thoughtful, each one. the very first thing he talked about was the incident where we, the united states, basically staged a coup in support of overthrowing the iranian
government in the early 1950's. the gentleman by the name of -- was the leader at that time and we basically put the other guy into power. a really great book, you ought to read it. they do still hold a grudge and they will always hold a grudge because of that. and for whatever reasons, that is what we were doing. but many people, they forget that at that exact same time, we were involved in the korean war. a lot of things are going on. the price of a barrel of oil -- and what i will talk about is kind of taking it up a notch to the dollar. the u.s. dollar is still the currency of choice on the planet, ok? the global or the historic
timeline for currency to actually stay as the currency of choice is about roughly 25 to 30 years. prior to world war ii, the british sterling was sort of the currency of choice around the world. after world war ii, it was the u.s. dollar. it is strong, still strong. that is a good thing. the undercutting by using other currency, you know, i could go rhyme and verse today just to talk about the economic trends of buying and selling money at central banks around the world which happens all the time in what is called the gray and the black market. moving currency. we do have to make sure that everybody needs to understand that we want the united states dollar to be the currency of choice forever. we want the english language to be the language of choice for ever. now, forever is a long time. those two things are challenged all the time. they are challenged all the time, particularly the dollar. let me stop there because i just want have time to get into some of the others. yes, ma'am? right here, please.
>> hi, penny. what is the role of the u.s. military with what is happening in the middle east? you say we need to take part in it. and there seems to be very ambivalent feelings about the military of this administration, so what is the role of the military and the conflict in the middle east, if there is one? retired lieutenant general michael flynn: it is interesting. the military has probably become -- we are always sort of very well organized bureaucracy. we can organize ourselves, we plan very well, we do different things. and i would just tell you that -- personally, the roles should be sort of a lowercase m. it is not decisive. it should not be a decisive element. we absolutely have to go and support, you know, our friends. and, i mean, there is a lot of killing and capturing that will happen, that still needs to
happen, and i would just say that i think our military is doing what they are being asked to do. i know they are very much constrained. they are not capable, they are not allowed to use the tools that they have as effective as those tools were designed to be used for. if that makes sense. that is a fact. just a fact. so, i do think that we do have a role. we are sort of late to the party because this has been ongoing for many years now. maybe something will change. maybe we will kill another member of an al qaeda leader or the head of isis and they will go away. they are not. god, i don't know how many leaders of this radical islamist movement we have killed
or captured. it is crazy. there has to be a religious transformation, reformation, in the islamic world. there must be a religious reformation in the islamic world. kathleen troia mcfarland: i think we have time for one more question. retired lieutenant general michael flynn: let me go back to this young lady back here. i'm sorry. just because of time. >> hi, my name is erin. i'm a student of politics. you said that iran doesn't contribute to the good of humanity and does nothing to sit at the table. so what do you say to the fact that iran is openly siding isis and even though the iraqi government allowed the u.s. to allow iran to sit at the anti-isis coalition discussions, and isis is primarily in iraq and syria, what do you say to the fact that we refuse them to do so? retired lieutenant general michael flynn: ok, yesterday
there were fbi agents up in long island. they went in to do a search of an individual household. the individual was there. after the fbi agents -- yesterday, in this country, just another incident -- after the guy tried to le stab the fbi agents, they found out that he and an associate in new york at had plans to do some further damage in this country. don't just think this is an iraq and syria problem. it is not. what you are talking about with iran, now, again, be very careful about -- about, you know, when you hear or see a
headline in a major media outlet. go dig in and find out what they are doing. go find out if the iranian backed shia core, led by a guy who is also an administer in the iraqi government, go see what their behavior is on the battlefield. go see if it is in -- an internationally accepted norm. if it is in the rule of law or the rule of warfare. it is unbelievable, their actions. this is a tit-for-tat over there they are involved in. don't think because they are fighting isis -- i mean, what is happening is there is a civil war between shia and sunnis right now. and to a degree, we have to decide how we are going to participate in this thing. i mean, i think over a year ago i said, let's take a step back. let's take a step back and try to resolve this.
why should iran be involved, and the iranian backed government of iraq, why should iran be so deeply involved in this? if we want iraq to deal with it, let iraq deal with it. get all the players to back out, including the united states. let them try to bring the fire out themselves. it will be really, really ugly. when you see truckloads of women and children being dumped into the euphrates river, both sides, that will change their mind. that will tell you what we are dealing with. dead. so, i mean, and this is not like 2006. this is, like, the past couple of months. so this is -- this is what it is about. the war side of this is really really ugly.
i mean, it is not a pretty thing, but it has to be dealt with. and you have to pay really close attention to the details in some of the stuff that is going on so you can make a good decision and a good judgment about what it is that we are facing. thanks very much to everybody, i really appreciate your time. [applause] kathleen troia mcfarland: general flynn, before we let you go, i want to ask you and bring it back to the topic. if the president or whoever turns to you and says, general flynn, are you in favor or are you in favor of not having the deal? is at this deal or no deal, how would you vote? retired lieutenant general michael flynn: yeah, i am not in favor of it. i have given my two cents on it. i have offered solutions. i think that we are going to see the deal. i think we are going to have one. and so now, we have to really be thinking about the implications of it and what will we do with this deal in the future.
there are solutions. they are not something that is going to be solved in this administration. they are going to be solved over probably a portion of some of the young people's generation in here. and we will be dealing with this situation for a generation more. but that is what the president has to say. the president has to get out there and say, here is the issue. in a very clear way, tell the american public. i mean, just tell us. look at this conversation. you are going to see this play out in the primaries. they will talk about immigration, economic, education, but it will be this. and when you get into the national debate, when the two parties choose, essentially, you are going to have a lot more of this. the problems are not going to go away just because the republican primary says it. anyway, thank you.
mcfarland: thank you very much. [applause] thank you very much general flynn. may you have no traffic on your way to baltimore. good luck. i will reintroduce michael rubin from the american enterprise institute. iran expert, lived in iran and knows a lot about nuclear weapons. then we'll ask clare to give opening remarks, then we will interview both. then it is your turn. michael? rubin: thank you very much. it is an honor to be here. . >> it is an honor to be here her cry want to address very briefly so 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
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 says the iranian regime is she hottest dedicated to revolution that is what the
that's in the motivation and intent of this regime, i think we have to discuss it further. if we look at their behavior that's the the place i would like to start first of all a ran is something with the oic. this is the largest international organization after the united states itself. oic members sign something called the cairo declaration. it was a withdrawal from the
declaration on human rights. did you know that? they almost withdrew. they said instead that the only human rights that they would observe. imputation, beheading crucifixion, that's all part of islamic law. getting to the nature of the regime. the first victims of that horrific ideology is imposed inside of a iran.
they are executing another iranian every two hours. one iranian gets executed inside the country every two hours. they have executed well over 500 people since january of this year. the beginning of this year. women are second-class citizens. they are literally unequal to men. they roam the streets looking for people who are not wearing
the right apparel or the right clothing. that's inside the country. now for 36 years the iranian regime has been outward with the united states. i don't think there's any other way to put it. six american presidents have shied from confronting iran. from jimmy carter to the current president. death to america that they chant every friday after prayer is a staple of this regime. they also chant death to israel. the former president used to say a world without america was not only desirable, he held a conference on this by the way a world without america is not only desirable, but achievable. what does that mean in the context of a regime a regime that is driving for a deliverable nuclear weapons
capacity question mark. >> over these past 36 years iranians and their proxies have held hostage killed, tortured americans. they are currently holding for american citizens hostage and i want to say their names. pastor alba dini was arrested because he was christian. a former fbi agent christian. a former fbi agent was taken in 2007. a former u.s. marine was arrested in 2011 and the white house tehran bureau chief was arrested about a year ago. the other part of the ideology and the nature of this regime is jew hatred. june hatred is intrinsic to the koran but the genocidal threats
have been nonstop. there is no way that israel can look at this regime and listen to its daily threats of genocide, it's dehumanization of jewish people, calling them bacteria and cockroaches and other insects. that is how they talk about them. talk about cartoons? you've seen the cartoons that appear on a daily basis in the arabic newspapers. jew hatred. just in march, three months ago, the commander of the forces said, and this is while our negotiations are going on with iran. the annihilation of israel is non- negotiable. that is our number one ally and partner in the middle east
standing between the barbarism of regimes and western civilization. why are we talking to these people? state sponsorship of terror. terror. since the beginning of the regime you heard michael talking about this, the regime in chiron and i want to make i'm talking about the regime. they have sponsored a whole host of terrorists organizations. at latest count well over 100 iraqi shiite terror militias. the ones who tour our troops apart. they are now kind of sort of our eye lies in iraq. the taliban.
the regime is running guns and training for the taliban. they have been first quite some time. the alliance between this regime and al qaeda over two decades long. it has gone long. it has gone on since the beginning of the 1990s when the iranian regime and al qaeda formed an alliance. the attacks have been a result the attacks against us american citizens since that point in time have been unceasing. beginning with the 1983 bombing in peru. also the embassy bombing the same year. the kidnapping and murder of richard higgins and others. 1992 the bombing in argentina.
including some of the same figures currently holding senior regime administrative positions to the state. 1990 for the attack on the jewish cultural center. 1998 the east africa embassy bombing carried out by those trained by iran by hezbollah. al qaeda learned how to do big building suicide truck bombings from hezbollah. that's who taught them how to do that. the u.s. call in 2000 the attacks on 911 themselves. southern district of new york, a ran co- responsible with legally responsibility. iran was co-responsible for co-
responsible for the acts of 911. it didn't get much flip listed he did it? that was all prelude to what were doing with and while we are so concerned with a ran going nuclear. iran. if sweden tried this we would say oh no another failure of the npt, it's sweden. i don't lose sleep because britain has nukes or france has nukes. a regime like i just described to you, if they have a livable nuclear weapons, that's worrisome. alright, so what do you need to get a nuclear a nuclear weapon? you need three things, three components. enriched geranium and you need to know how to make a warhead out of that enriched geranium and you need a a delivery system
to send it to your target. as we know, from iaea reporting and the international science and, i always get this wrong because the acronym is isis unfortunately. in any case david albright's fantastic group does reporting on this. according to their reporting as long as eight years ago they had blueprints for a nuclear warhead and was working on the trigger testing to set off an imposing sequence to detonate a bomb. general flynn mentioned that the pentagon had estimated that the iranians would have the range to reach continental u.s. from iran this year. missiles are not even on the table for discussion in the current negotiations. okay, so those are the things you need to make a deliverable
nuclear weapon capability. what are we doing? p5 plus one. britain france russia china and oz plus germany is the plus one part. we are in these negotiations that began in secret in 2013. there is the raleys had a find out about them from the saudi's. the saudi's let them know that they were dealing with the u.s. in secret. the united nations security council has passed six resolutions demanding that a ran halt all nuclear.
they can't have such a high percentage or whatever. they can keep their stockpiles of low enriched geranium. that used to be something there was was to give up and shipped out of the country. while they don't have to anymore. the dilution process has also gotten completely stalled and nobody really says anything about it so it's still in the form that's more quickly turned into a bomb. 20% is the cutoff where you begin to cut talk about high enriched geranium. they have stockpiles of low enriched uranium and that's not even up to discussion. they get to keep them all. they're supposed to unplug some of the centrifuges and put them
into storage but were not sure about that. advanced centrifuge r&d. we can keep talking about what the output might be that assumes you're talking about the first generation, most primitive centrifuges that they have developed. newsflash, they have developed centrifuges up to the eighth generation beyond what were talking about that are superfast by comparison. ten or 20 times as fast in enriching geranium, the kind that were talking about. they get to keep on doing that r&d in those centrifuges. they're not going to be stopped from doing the r&d. investigation or inspection of military facilities, iranians tell us that's off the table. you're not a allowed to go look at those. where would you go hide your
military nuclear program? where did the soviets hide there's question mark who taught the iranians how to do programs and hide them? the kgb did. even some that we know about, off-limits. past bomb work we thought that was a redline to that the iranians were going to have to come clean about their whole past work just as michael said the south africans did and were certified given up their program. while now secretary of state carey says while we don't really have to have them explain all that because we already have absolute knowledge of everything they every did.
that's his quote his words. we know for a fact that ever since the iranians nuclear weapons program began in the late 1980s, there has been a clandestine dying program. there has never been a year since 1988 when the iranians did not have a clandestine nuclear program. the one they are negotiating in geneva is the overt part of the program. we don't know what we don't know about the covert part. but we are pretty confident there is one. i'll just wrap up here quickly so we can get your questions. i don't want to take up all the rest of the time but let's quote a couple people. former director of the cia said such perfect knowledge about a rounds pass program does not exist. they said we don't know what they did in the past. the only reason we know about the iranian nuclear program is because the opposition
intelligence services, satellite imagery services, satellite imagery and other intelligence work found it out. they never volunteered any of that. they didn't even know they had a program until they blew the lid off it with press conferences and showed pictures of imagery. the iranians have never volunteered anything and the only reason we know about the program at all is from sources that were not iranian. finally, i'll conclude with this the longtime, i call it a joint venture agreement with north korea is not even up for discussion. north koreans have helped iranians since the beginning of their program with nuclear specifications, with centrifuges assent distance with missile assistance their scientists
north korean scientists are in iran all time. they are attending at the launch pads. the north koreans he appeared before congress in 2015 and open testimony and said the north koreans, this is open testimony, the north koreans have the ability to miniaturize warheads and put them on the top of missiles. the north koreans can do this in the iranians can't? that's not even up for discussion. maybe we can get into electro magnetic pulse capability. north korea has it iran
doesn't? let me stop there and open it up for your questions. >> in the interest of time why don't we just take questions from the audience. i'll call on you and you can direct you want. speak to them i can tell us you are. >> hi i'm an independent consultant. one area we haven't discussed consultant. one area we haven't discussed yet and i have two specific questions. assuming that the president does make a deal with iran, what role should the congress play and what will they do? >> congress has the responsibility when they passed the bill to take about on any
ultimate agreement between us and the iranians. i am not 100% confident that we a hundred% confident that we are going to get to that point. i do think it is a tremendous benefit to the regime to spreading things out. they get the sanctions relief as michael said they get all the dessert upfront and they don't have to either spinach. the congress has responsibility and has taken it upon themselves to vote. unfortunately the way they passed a law is that the bill goes before the president and if the congress time turns down the agreement and the president predictably vetoes it, they must then have a two thirds majority vote to overturn the veto. it will be a very high hurdle they
set for themselves but they have the responsibility. this is a bad deal no matter how you look at it. from what you were hearing, it is a bad deal and a bad a bad deal is much worse than no deal. we need to let our congressional representatives know to vote down this deal. [applause]. >> right over here, is the mike still there? to i'm from. >> i'm from the institute of world politics. i was wondering how these sort of concessions on nuclear proliferation's will affect saudi arabia's potential acquisition of nuclear weapons. >> very good basically we have a bad habit of assuming it's just us and a specific adversary or state of concern at any point time. the second order effects on this are incredible. it's not the issue of concessions it's the fact that this is an incredibly bad deal and if we would listen to any of our allies in the region, israel
or any of the arab countries, for whom this is brought up a great deal of unanimity, i'm told look we don't oppose the idea of diplomacy but have enough self confidence to share with us the draft. were draft. were so used to working with the iranians who can point out the loopholes. they don't need to cheat because they can drive a tank through these loopholes. i would point out that in 1994, as framework negotiations were concluded, south korean concluded, south korean president at the time gave an interview to the new york times in which he said this is an incredibly bad deal. you should listen to us because we have decades of working with the north koreans and the white house, when they read this went ballistic. they got the bb treatment.
that only convinces everyone in the region that we need that they need to go it alone. i'm not one to defend saudi arabia, not at all. when we have given them the three am phone call, because of the nature of the alliance they've answered the call. i would expect to be put on permanent call waiting from here on inches the in. the last point i would make is when the president of the united states loses credibility, it's automatically restored to the oval office every four to eight years when a new president comes in. there is no matter magic wand to restore the credibility that united states is losing. north korea's calculation and
throughout the world, we are hemorrhaging our credibility and that's only gonna lead to bloodshed. >> i'm a a member of the acu board and a former member of congress. we have been hearing for what seems like forever that iran is three months, a year away from having a nuclear weapon. we fiddle around with whether we get a deal or don't get a deal. i wonder frankly it matters or if we wake up one morning before or after we got a a deal and we find out iran does in fact have a nuclear weapon. when we get to that point and iran has a nuclear weapon it feels to me that the obama administration which has a little time left, has already made the decision that will you with it after they have one. what do we do then? what do we do then and what's the balance of how it will look like in the middle east but in
the world and what are americans options to defend america in our allies interest? >> if i can jump in on this quickly before turning the floor over. if i could rephrase the question a bit, too often we focus on what will we do when they get a nuclear weapon. we have to wake up to the reality that five years after they have a nuclear weapon, what we can do after they have 100 of them? we treat containment and deterrence as rhetorical strategies rather than military strategies. they are loosely defined containment is all the states in the region to wage war independently until the caverly can comment. it's a multibillion-dollar strategy and were trying to do it. deterrence, loosely put is the willingness to kill millions of people and that's not a road i want to go down if there are
policies which we can apply now to never have to get to that point. >> agreed. i would just add that the united states intelligence community does not have a great record on predicting or knowing ahead of time when a country is going nuclear. i can mention the soviet union and its time china, pakistan et cetera. so given all of the input that iran has had in the regime has had for all of these years from north korea, pakistan, russia china in the technical assistance and all kinds of expert assistance and so forth it's inconceivable to me that they do not already have at least warheads. again go back to the joint venture with north korea and the exchange in the presence of their offi