tv Heritage Foundation on Iran Sanctions CSPAN November 21, 2018 3:55pm-4:54pm EST
the first lady barbara bush. saturday ep eastern, such as in history and how the problems became part of america's founding story. sunday at 9:00 a.m., scholars talk about how the europe constitution defines senses for the president. thinks giving weekend, c-span network. the trump administration announced new sanctions this week on alleged plan to ship oil to syria. over the next hour, to show you heritage foundation. future of u.s. iran relation. welcome to heritage again. people came through the rain. hope you get out to vote. if you haven't done so yet. we are approaching a key flexion of the evolving confrontations
with yesterday. the trump administration we activated nuclear sanctions that it had initially reimposed. the second round of sanctions, iran's oil and banking sectors. at this time, the crisis during the obama administration, there was about as much in the international sanction. that has led to more about the likely impact of those sessions. iran is likely to react. he apparently believes it can outweigh trump administration. the negotiation of the trump administration and hopes to have
a new administration. to negotiate with. i think for that reason, officials will be launching this election as much as may others. our expert panel to look at the number of issues, it will include the ceo and foundation of it. michael. and patrick of the washington institute. who will be looking at the likely impact of sanctions. what additional u.s. policies are needed. to deal with a wider range of iran. behavior. and what needs to be done if anything, to get to an approved nuclear agreement.
i'll introduce the speakers in order of speaking, patrick is the start senior fellow and director. he directs the iran's initiative there. his widely consulted. his authored more than hundred and 50 articles of the middle east. his the author and editor of 18 books. studies on iran. it has a major american papers. we -- more than 20 times. he is an expert witness. he has 30 federal cases against iran. washington stu, the -- institute for national.
he also was in congress, the international monitoring. a research scholar at the foreign-policy church. take it away, patrick. >> the sanctions were u.s. is imposing. it will work more effectively if the united states formed a broad domestic consensus. it can demonstrate an enforcement of the sanctions. these are all going to be. i'm going to leave that. their greatest interest, or m my -- talking about the elements inside iran. >> the challenges that we face,
making our sanctions and policy work effectively, to change its behavior and are really -- the difficult political environment inside iran, where there is two factions, each in which are dedicated during this, they have different ideas about how to do that. most of the time and effort is on each other. ... to achieve this is by smiling rather than blowing smoke in your face rather than spitting in your face. then there is a group around the revolutionary guards who
believe that resistance, resistance, resistance is the way to go. right now the latter camp the revolutionary guards are really quite delighted by the country's economic problems. ever since the iranian rial we are starting to crash in march they have mobilized their immobilize their speeches to contrast the successes that iran has been having in the regional policy, which they run in places like syria and yemen. with failures of economic policy for which the iranian team has taken responsibility. this theme is that we can do it, the revolutionary guards can do a good job but those guys can't. so those guys, the technocrats, told us when they replaced each job with something of a buffoon
that we would have a competent team living things but we have it. indeed i would say the ronnie teams incompetence has been stunning. the revolutionary guards are saying that is a very good position where if the economy does poorly as result of sanctions they can say that's irani misdiagnosed things when he was running for president that the way to solve iran's economic problems was to do a deal with the west which is not true. this shows that rani is a nacve and we should listen to him. on the other hand if the economy does well then the irt c can say we told you that the resistance economy is the way to go and we don't need the west and that in fact our policy of resistance is what
makes sense in the economic sphere as well as foreign policies. the economy does badly ret siebel to credit if the economy does well to credit. meanwhile, romani is in somewhat of the opposite situation.and he did promise that and did say when he was running for president that the country's fundamental problem was its economic situation and promised he would more competence could solve it and he actually did have an okay economic performance for a little bit but in general the economy is not done well under his presidency. the average iranian household budget according to iranian government sources is down about 10% from where it was when he took office. that contrast the previous decade in which the average household budget rose by 20%. if you go from a decade of 20%
growth to six years of 10% decline you are not happy campers. that's a situation rouhani faces. frankly most of the problems are because of their own corruption and mismanagement and the political deadlock which makes it impossible for the irani team to make the most obvious structural reforms. but sanctions is going to make this easier. what we have seen is whether it's the irani and modulus research center or international institutions like the world bank in the ims, all agree that they change their forecast from in march they were forecasting the iranian economy would grow quite briskly over the next few years and now they are all saying that iran is already in recession it will be worse. so rouhani is in a tough situation. and that is going to be the environment of maneuvering
about whether or not to resume negotiations with the united states about an additional deal. i think that jim put it very nicely when he said the basic strategy irani team is going to be to outweigh trump and my talks with the iranian officials in the spring were very nervous. now they are extremely competent. that confidence is that they think we've sustained bad sanctions in the past we can do it again. and anyway we are well-positioned to control the population if there are going to be any kind of protests. and we can outweigh trump. the challenge for the trump administration is shaking that confidence. >> thank you patrick. on time, unusual for a speaker.
our next speaker is mark duplicates, the ceo of the foundation for defense of democracies. he is the chief executive at fdd, it's a washington dc based nonpartisan policy institute where he leads projects on iran, sanctions, and nonproliferation. mark is an expert on iran's nuclear program and global threat network and widely recognized as one of the key influencers in shaping sanctions policies to counter the threats from the iranian regime. according to the new york times, markb campaign to draw attention to what he saw as the flaws in the iran nuclear deal has taken its place among the most consequential ever undertaken by the washington think tank leader and that monster cost you a lot to get him to say that. take it away mark. >> thank you so much. great to be here with patrick
and mike. i want to actually begin today's election day talking about the challenge that you raised, which is there a possibility of a bipartisan. iran policy and what is the iran policy look like potentially if the iranians are right and they can wait out trump and there's a new president in the white house in 2021. i want to begin there because i think it's important for us to acknowledge that the iran issue in some respect has become very partisan and polarizing. in other respects has a deep bipartisan foundation to it. the foundation to it is the concern that both democrats and republicans have a have iran's nonnuclear program ãbsupport for bosch or asad slaughter in syria. and its destabilizing activities both in the middle east and around the world.
that's where a new president will begin. facing an islamic republic that continues its aggressive from a line in destructive behavior and sanctions instructor ãba number of the restrictions that are in the jc poa will be coming to a head. so in 2021 the arms embargo that's in the un security council resolution 2231 that essentially embeds the jc poa internationally those arms embargo will be sunsetting and iran will be able to engage in almost unlimited purchases of weaponry from countries around the world. in 2024 the restrictions on iran's missile program, the un missile embargo will set.
iran will be able to procure parts and components for its missile program from countries around the world but at least not facing you and restrictions. the irt c restrictions that are both in the un security council resolution as well as a number of european restrictions are going to sunset. in 2024 iran will be able to start to send the industrialized center fuses. these are the most powerful that iran will be able to install enrichment facilities. fewer numbers which makes it easier to hide. so then iran tends to develop an easier advance central fuse power with a sneak out option. in 2026, so just in the president's second term early in their second term, many of
the restrictions go away. that's the 10 year mark of the jc poa. in which we date from implementation day 2016. that's a number of very important restrictions on iran's nuclear missile military and irt c activities that will come off in the first term that new president or early in the second term. so the political and national security reality is whoever is in the white house in january 2021 is going to be facing the necessity of combating iran's destructive activities and putting in place and iran policy that's going to deal with the reality of these flaws of a jcpoa where these key restrictions start to go and at that point it's not 10 years away, it's a few years away. i think that's a wake-up call for anybody sitting in the white house. i think that's a wake-up call for people sitting in iran who
think they can wait out donald trump with the view of the next president coming to office is going to be very flexible and list all the sanctions and what have using instruments of national power to conduct the islamic public ãbi think they are in for a big wake-up call regardless of who's sitting in the white house in january 2021. what about this administration? this administration has at least two years potentially six years to implement their iran strategy in their iran strategy is very much modeled after the strategy that ronald reagan used against the soviet union during the cold war. which is to use all the instruments of national power to weaken the regime to neutralize it, to rollback its influence regionally and globally. and with respect to all instruments of national power, the one you've heard most about, which patrick has talked about and you probably been
reading about the past few days. its financial economic power. we can talk a lot about sanctions and other instruments of financial power but it's clear that this administration is fully committed to financial warfare against the islamic republic and the sanctions that came back yesterday and sanctions that came back six months ago are both powerful and having the impact that you all have been reading about with respect to iran's domestic activities. it is legal open questions about other instruments of national power. i know mike is going to talk about iran's role in the region and what united states is doing to combat that. the other instruments of national power besides financial economic coercion include political and information warfare, cyber warfare, covert actions, obviously what's happening on the military side. and they are the administration has developed a comprehensive policy it's developed a policy detailed in the agency policy and some of that is visible to us. some of it is not particularly what the agency is doing under the leadership of mitochondria.
cia director pompeo to look at the agency on a much more aggressive footing in the authorities with renewed old authorities that have lapsed under president obama to really engage in covert action against the islamic republic including psychological warfare. if done a recent reporting on cyber including recently some reporting that there was a major cyber attack against iran's telecommunications facilities and infrastructure we are not sure where that comes from but it's clear there are people out there if not in the u.s. but elsewhere engaging in offense of cyber warfare against the islamic republic stop as is the islamic republic engaging in cyber warfare against the united states and our allies. on the political warfare side i think director pompeo is in particular the really the most eloquent spokesperson for information operations campaign in the islamic republic.
through his twitter accounts, through his speeches, through the oa persian to florida and through the constant drumbeat about this regime and its destructive behavior. that's at least the overt side of this campaign which i would expect seeing more and more of. my only concern and i will edit this is is there a, mike i think you will address this, is there a robust military plan to really neutralize and rollback the islamic republic in the region? is there a plan for the u.s. military is prepared to provide a measure of deterrence to send a clear message to the islamic republic that if they do escalate in the region there will be serious consequences. or are we essentially subcontracting this through countries like israel, saudi arabia as well as circuits on the ground. we backing them up with the support they need? in terms of public reporting
israelis have done significant damage with regards to ãbwith 200 strikes in a year and and a half and every indication that will continue despite many of the competitions that israel obviously is going to have with russia. i will just conclude that it's my expectation over the next two years if that's all the trumpet administration has is that this will be a relentless and unrelenting campaign of pressure against the islamic republic, will they cracked the islamic republic in two years? most experts say they want. i will remind you that in 1983 when ronald reagan unveiled national security directive 75 to target the soviet union most experts predict the soviet union would crack six or seven years later. thank you.
>> our batting cleanup is my cold iran, he is the senior fellow at the hudson institute. where he specializes in middle eastern security issues. he served as the senior director the national security council and the administration of george w. bush. and he was responsible there for helping to devise and coordinate u.s. strategies on a variety of bitter easton issues in and u.s. efforts to create iran and syria. he's also served in the bush administration as a senior advisor in the state department and deputy assistant secretary of defense of the pentagon. before coming to the hudson institute he was a senior fellow at the brookings institution and he's also taught at nyu princeton and the university of central florida. his latest book ike's gamble is out there and soon to be a major motion picture may be. take away. >> i wish that was the case. thanks jim.
i like to start by just putting it the truck policy in the widest possible perspective. there are two ideas out there in the world about how you should be dealing with the iran challenge. for the sake of discussion i'm going to call one of the european plan and then the european/obama plan and then the american plan. these are ideal types i don't think any control is a perfect representative of what i'm talking about. and they are two different theories of iran. the european and obama idea was that the way to deal with the iran challenge was to entangle iran in a web of international agreements and mutual dependencies the ãbin the
last few years i've been talking quite frequently to berlin. i think what i'm calling the european and obama plan is best simplified by the foreign ministry of foreign germany. the germans have a set of assumptions about the world that are diametrically opposed to our own. we believe the general americans are tentatively in hard power competition with rogue regimes and we believe in hard economic competition with rogue regimes. german attitude is whatever the problem is the answer is money. you invest in these countries and you entangle them in economic dependencies and that changes the calculus in the capital which is moscow or
tehran and neither is even at the hardline leaders which are hostile to the west. they start to out of their own sense of self interest and their own economic interest they start to shady some of their options more toward engagement than toward competition. and similarly with hard military competition you want to show these countries that you are not inveterate lee implacably hostile to them that we can work together on certain common projects and so you tend to tone down the deterrence or outright competition in the military. that was as i understand it that was the theory of the jcpoa. the trumpet administration has come in and really leading hard at least rhetorically with the other view, which is that the
way to deal with the rogue regime like iran is to wear it down to hard economic and military competition. i chose my words carefully when i said rhetorically though because i don't think of these as a scale of the german foreign ministry over here and i'm not sure who i want to put who is on this end of the scale? ronald reagan. i don't know if ronald reagan is on the scale. john bolton as is understood in the new york times. the administration i don't think his way over to the right. it's more toward the center moving toward the right and i will explain what i mean. mark already kind of foreshadowed what was going to say when he asked the question is there military component to this strategy. my answer is going to be not really. not as much as one might think. let's go back and let's look at
list of some of the major changes since the obama administration left office. i think they are major. and i say it that way because i've been in the last few days in an argument i can't hide my own views. i want as robust military and economic competition with iran than the american public will accept. and i have been in an argument in the last few days with my friends who share that view who are actually i don't think we are seeing a lot of this in the press but they are in morning waivers that the administration gave to the six countries to import iranian oil and some of the waivers about civil nuclear cooperation with iran has led them to believe that the trumpet administration has completely capitulated. i don't see it that way at all. i think this is a robust
economic and military competition strategy but not as robust as i think some people were hoping for on the business of rhetoric of the administration. so what has changed since obama left office? number one, the rhetoric has changed completely and iran is no longer identified as a potential partner it's an adversary. number two, the administration has worked closely with allies in the region in the middle east and outside the middle east to begin to rebuild a kind of anti-iran coalition. most notably with saudi arabia and israel. as mark noted that is not just a diplomatic implications but it also has military implications as well and particularly with the country like israel which has significant military capabilities which is using in syria against the irradiance. the israelis can use that power
with these confidence that the united states will support it diplomatically. and the support which it needs particularly with respect to moscow. the israelis can act with greater impunity and also in the clandestine world which we don't know for a fact mark said we now know that there are covert actions being taken against iran's nuclear program. we don't know who it is presumably the israelis are in the mix, the israeli covert action against the israeli nuclear program was shut down under the obama administration and presumably now nobody is talking about it but presumably the prohibition from washington has been lifted. then thirdly our military posture in the region has changed. you see this most notably in
syria where it is now part of the stated policy of the united states to remain in syria until the irradiance leave stripping around, stripping syria of iranian led forces was one of mike pompeo's 12 points with regard to iran. and we are now going to keep our forces in syria until we are satisfied on that point. that's a significant fact, i think, but it doesn't really add up to a robust military strategy. it's striking to me that both israel and the united states now and terms of the rhetoric say that it is the goal of their policy to ensure that syria does not become an iranian base and that the asad regime is it simply an arab face to it within iranian
power. i don't see two things, however, one is the actual military strategy by either the united states or israel that will achieve that goal. the israelis are taking significant action to cause the irradiance pain in syria but if present trends continue it doesn't look to me like those actions are enough to prevent the irradiance from turning syria into ãbinto what the irradiance already have in lebanon. sort of a forward base with forces poised to strike israel. the americans and the israelis are hoping that putin will help them here and that putin will conclude it's not in his and interest to play that role in syria. i personally am skeptical that
that's going to work whether you are skeptical or not skeptical i think we can all see that the military strategy is not there to achieve the stated goals. the second thing that's really striking to me is that the united states and israel have the same stated goal with respect to iran and syria but they don't have any kind of significant military coordination between the two of them to achieve that goal. in fact, the messaging coming from u.s. syncom is really and even from the secretary of defense at times, is really that we are deterred by the irradiance. particularly because we fear that if we compete too aggressively in the military sphere with the irradiance and syria we will pay a price for that in iraq. we are not seeing although we and the israelis are saying we
want exactly the same thing and we are cooperating to achieve it, i don't see that cooperation in the military sphere at least not to the level that one might expect given the otherwise level of agreement. then of course finally with respect to how things are changed we can see all of my colleagues discussed about the changes in attitude toward sanctions and the jc poa and so forth. what is it really clear to me about the new strategy is what its goal is. the obama administration sought an agreement with iran. some kind of accommodation. the trumpet administration has bent over backwards to say that it is not carrying out a regime change policy. that the europeans don't believe us. they look at mike pompeo's 12 points and they say, that is a regime change policy in all
that name and they pointed john bolton in national security advisor and say this is really a regime change. personally i don't believe that. because of the personality of the president i think donald trump ideologically as opposed to regime change this is one of the ways in which he has distinguished himself consciously from george w. bush and sort of character logically sees himself as a great negotiator. my best guess, i don't know what better than anyone else in this room what he wants but is that trump actually wants a deal. and what will never know is to keep it in his head is what's the deal that he would accept with the irradiance. the fact that he wants a deal also if he goes back to the spectrum with the germans and the american artist of
hardliners it moves it in our policy in the direction of the germans although i definitely think we are in the hardline sphere of the spectrum. but i'm not as confident as mark that this means that in the next 24 to 27 months we are going to win. he what i personally would like to see is a complete reversal of the obama strategy and i would like the trumpet administration to ensure that by the 2020 elections they have made it as hard for the next administration to overturn what they've done as the obama administration did to those of us who didn't like what obama did. i'm not convinced given the way things are at the moment that if trump were to lose in 2020
and of the obama administration was to come in and whatever form whether president deval patrick or, here's, that they couldn't just very quickly return back to the obama policy to the jc poa because that's what the europeans and democrats are hoping to work with the irradiance to keep it on life support until they can come back and revive it.>> thanks mike. we are going to open it up to questions and to give the interns time to get around and going to ask the first question. that would be to basically everybody on the table is that if you were in the place say the nsc advisor to talk to president trump and you could only emphasize two points, what would be the major took away you would leave with the
president on how to increase the economic or geopolitical pressure on iran. we talked about re-imposing tack don acosta sanctions but there are a lot of other new sanctions that the administration has hinted about. >> brought in the base of support for the sanctions. for instance. the administration and its actions yesterday actually did not put reauthorization on nuclear sanctions. almost all of those were done for counterterrorism reason, some for human rights reasons, that offers a birders basis for getting support from democrats here in the united states and a broader basis for getting support for europeans, especially since the europeans are stupid enough to be carrying out terrorist actions in new york. to the extent in which he can remind democrats and europeans
that we share all of us common ejection to iran's behaviors and supporting terrorism in destabilization in the region you're more likely to form the kind of consensus about sanctions which is going to outlast this first trumpet administration and that's what's going to most persuade the irradiance that come back to the negotiating table if they think these sanctions are going to be around for a long time. my advice mr. president is frame what you are doing in terms that are going to get the maximum degree of support from the democrats and from europeans. >> if the advice is only limited to sanctions then ã >> you can brought it out. >> when i first recommend is to be much more aggressive in going after the regime on human rights grounds. yesterday's designations there were 700 designations, 300 new ones, i counted only to human
rights designations. i think there is a lot of opportunity for this administration to go after iran's leadership, to go after the brutal repression, the corruption, fdd prada support on iran's so-called dirty dozen the 12 most abusive iranian officials with respect to human rights on corruption. i was pleased to see the designated supreme leaders $95 billion corporate conglomerate the execution of the imam community order but that's only the beginning.there are number of them the stone foundation. there is a lot of foundations that this controls that have been valued by experts at over $200 billion or $300 billion. i go after the corruption and go after the hedge funds and corporate conglomerates. and then my general advice to the president i think this builds off my comment is to be
careful. the reef is itching to get you back in the room for negotiation despite interviews he is giving that they won't negotiate with the trumpet administration until the u.s. is back in the jc poa. i think the both ricky's and ronnie can't wait to get back in the room and the president is going to be very careful. irradiance have been trapping uranian leaders for years. i can see them using negotiations to significantly undermine the maximum pressure campaign and i think the worst thing that could happen is to have donald trump with a lame-duck president like raw rouhani discussing some comprehensive deal because i think you will potentially get rolled. >> i too would expect them to want to get into negotiations if only as a tactic to string
the administration along. not necessarily to reach a deal but to wait out the administration and forestall any harder policies by the u.s. the issue that i would like to see greater attention given to is the military competition and in particular i would like to see the united states define defeating the hislop on model as a goal in american strategy. we say we want to challenge iran's malign influence to come and refrain that you hear. the malign influence is built on the ãusing proxy militias and neighboring countries to hold the governments of those countries hostage or to take over those countries. iran has protected through experience in this model it's
now building on it in iraq and syria and yemen and it's now brought ballistic missiles into the equation. we have not we have never focused on this issue. perfectly with our capability to come up with answers that everything iran is doing we are far more powerful. but we never define it in those terms and amazing things happen with no response from us. ballistic missiles in yemen that can hit rhe hot. saudi arabia is our ally. iran escalated in yemen and put missiles in place that can threaten our ally in what price did we make iran pay for that behavior. and it's not like in the case of iraq and neighboring country iraq and say we have vital interest. iran has not been historically active in yemen.
it shows it to escalate. we did virtually nothing in response. i call that superpower malpractice. one last point with regard to what mark said. the iranians have out negotiated us historically. i disagree in one sense and that's we have out negotiated ourselves. it's not the day are so clever. they are clever to all the people but we have come to this or this conflict and i cannot explain why. something deep in the american character it's not just republicans or democrats we
think that there is some kind of clever formula by which we can open up the dial on the back of the irradiance and move it a couple notches and suddenly they will become our friends again. this fantasy has dominated our diplomacy on the republican and democratic side for three decades. i'm mystified by it. i like to see that change. >> with that we will open it up to the floor for questions. let me try this man right here in the front. >> in a retired navy officer. question on you guys talking about yemen, the impact of yemen, the issues with cutter in the other gulf states. how does that play into our strategy what can we do to mend those riffs? the second part would be the iranian americans that are expatriates living in america. what role can i play in trying to achieve our goals?
>> with regard to the split it's not just the color it's also with the turks. as i see it, we can't have a successful containment strategy of iran or any kind of serious competition if we are not working with the saudis and the turks. i would like to see, and i'm sure this is the goal of the administration but i like to see the administration work to sing with the differences particularly between turkey and saudi arabia. more portly than between qatar and saudi arabia. i think what that is going to need know is it's going to need some concessions from the turks. my reading of erewhon could be
wrong, my reading of everyone is that his conflict with saudi arabia is also a conflict with us about syria. he's trying to move us into a different position in syria. if we don't have the turks and the saudi's, at least having amicable relationship with each other and the blurry but general agreement about where we want to go in the whole region we are going to have a lot of trouble containing that. >> i would say on the question iranian americans, i grew up in toronto, which is essentially known as toronto. in my experience with the iranian-american american canadian community is the only place in the world where iranians don't succeed is the islamic republic of iran. they're incredibly successful, entrepreneurial, community conscious. i think the administration is doing the right thing particularly pompeo reaching
out to the iranian-american community. he gave a speech at the reagan library in the summer. not only because it was the reagan library because i think his speech really reflected channeling ronald reagan. in both hips respect to how to deal with iran. it also reaching out to the uranian community three quarters of the room was full of raining americans. i think that's critical. some of the things the administration can do from a policy perspective one would be to list ãblift the ãbto have a travel ban that makes it almost prohibitive for irradiance family members to come here and if it's up to me i'd give 100,000 regards to qualified iranians to demonstrate no connection to the regime. that would be a critical move also in terms of opposition
groups that we do support the administration has to be very careful in who they are supportive. i think they should be supporting more opposition groups and focus more on the corporate side but they need to be very careful about how that plays inside iran. >> let's try this man down here in the front. >> and peter humphrey, former diplomat. we consistently miss a really pulpit opportunity in pointing out that everything that iran does is supposedly on behalf of god and we don't throw that back in their face. or say that to the rest of the world every single day. if we did decide to go for broke, can each of you assess quickly the opportunity ãb what the probability would be in the age of twitter of opposing the regime from within without external military activity. >> there has been quite a lot
of work done by both the intelligence community and economic analysts looking at what is our success rate at predicting revolutions. there is a very broad consensus in both parties that we have never accurately predicted revolution. in the last 200 years. that should be a warning that we are unlikely to know whether or not the regime in iran is or is not vulnerable to being a referral. i can give you a dozen reasons on either side of the equation. i have to tell you right now that it would be quite inappropriate for the united states government to base the policy on the assumption that it knew what was the answer to that question. i would rather frame our policy in terms of how can we get the changes we want in iran's policies such as pompeo's list of conditions. whether or not the regime stays
in power or not. by the way, there are lots and lots of indications that this regime in iran is much more revolutionary regime then islamic regime. and much more run by the military, especially the revolutionary god that it is by the man of god, people of god. in fact the clerical influence over the regime is slight, whereas the revolutionary guard influences very profound. this is much more of a revolutionary military regime than it is an islamic regime. >> can i follow up with the question patrick cannot what does that factor mean to you? revolutionary rather than clerical with respect to the question of regime change? >> i think that the heart and
core of this regime is shifting toward nationalism rather than toward islam. and that there are lots of popular nationalists events in iran these days and that the guard is doing pretty good job in tapping into that ask for getting what we want. >> we have to understand that those hard-core regime's ideology is opposition to the west. it's not support for islam. it's opposition to the west. therefore any idea that we are going to have some kind of good relations with this regime is not even an appropriate. >> i would say it's a positive development that this regime is transforming from a clerical dictatorship to a military dictatorship and i think it's important because it no longer has legitimacy of an islamic government of an islamic revolution to try and attract the support of millions of its
coreligionists in the middle east. it becomes another brutal middle eastern group of autocratic dogs, those governments in the middle east have done very well. does that suggest it's going to survive for decades? perhaps. i think patrick is exactly right we have no idea how long this regime will last but it certainly has an ideology that today's bankrupt. i think we could do more of what pompeo did was walk ronald reagan and channel his west minister speech which reagan said earlier in his pregnancy it is inevitable that marxism, leninism and the soviet union will end up on the heat of history along with other reagan didn't have an explicit soviet regime change policy, his view was that it was inevitable that the soviet union would collapse because of ideology was bankrupt, the economy was bankrupt, ãb policy for decades.
i think that's a very good way of looking at the islamic republic. for those of us in washington to ultimately believe that the only answer to this question really in a long-term is a change in government. a peaceful change in government where iranians have the opportunity to vote and to have their future advanced and respected by the government, we should be advancing not of the case that it's not regime change but it's inevitable that this regime is going to end up on the same dust heap of history. >> i agree with all that and i agree with patrick's two points that an explicit regime change policy or policy designed to carry out revolution is brings about more problems than it's worth and also it's not going to happen in the trump administration.
has donald trump ideologically opposed to that. it also alienates our allies. and commits us to actions that i'm not sure we the american people in general are willing to take. i'm very much chastened by what we seen in syria as the asad regime neared collapse the russians moved in and the iranians moved in to say that i think of the uranian regime nears collapse we are going to see the chinese and the russians will then to say that i don't think we are going to be up to at least we make it and i don't think we are going to want to move indirectly and challenge that but we should be aware of that possibility. i also agree and i think it's the most important thing to remember is what patrick ended with, this regime, this
revolutionary regime is invariably hostile to us. hostility to the united states and the west is at the core of its identity. any deal we make with it we have to recognize we are making with a regime that sees us as an enemy and always will. that's one of the things that was profoundly wrong with the jcpoa is its embedded in the jcpoa was the notion that working to transform these guys from devils into angels and that's not going to happen. >> we may not be committed to a regime change policy but i don't think there's anything wrong with the regime thinking we are. i also don't think there's anything wrong with a policy that is dedicated to severely damaging the regime severely weakening the regime. severely undermining its capabilities of influence and nefarious behavior. i'm not of the view, maybe you guys are, that we should adopt the view of confidence building measures in order to ensure
that the regime will trust us to honor the deal that we signed and that we can take a very obama state department view that through confidence building measures we can bring the iranians to the table to get a comprehensive agreement that permanently their pathway to nuclear weapons. icbms and regional hegemony. to me that's a delusion and nacve. the policy should be based on not confidence building measures but fear inducing measures. >> i don't disagree with any of that. >> how many of use but 20 years warning that the united states plans to overthrow the islamic republic through a developed revolution through cultural invasion, is often said that hollywood is much more dangerous than washington and the real danger of regime change comes from western culture and not from the actions of the united states
government. this is a man who is deeply convinced that people that people exchange is ãbthose kinds of measures are part of the plan and washington to deal with the regime. for him when you see michelle obama after giving the academy award to argo, this is an example of how washington and holywood work hand-in-hand to bring about the islamic republic. >> isn't that an argument that support the obama theory of the case?that we should seduce the hard man of iran? >> know it's impossible. he really thinks that everything we are doing to seduce them is an effort to overthrow them. he is convinced that the things which we see as benign measures to create confidence, he sees as part of our plan to overthrow him. he's convinced the people who are trying to promote more exchanges, more students that their real effort is to go for
the islamic republic. where as we see this as all benign things you should do to build confidence he sees this as a mortal threat to the islamic republic. >> the disturbing thing for me is that he sees hollywood as tenacious as i do. a little bit disturbing. >> any other questions out here? we have room for one more. >> that gives me a chance to also throw in my two cents. i remember i told you many that i fear of us universities more of the marines because of the values they taught and that was one of the reasons hezbollah targeted so many professors that american university beirut to use as hostages. they really do see those as transmission belts for values that are going to bring down the totalitarian islamist regime. at that point let me just wind
up the panel and thank you all for coming and joining me in given the speakers a very big hand. [applause] booktv is in prime time this week while congress is on break. tonight's focus is readers and publishers, beginning with john grisham's interview of author james mcbride. that will be followed by author karen swallow prior in her book on reading well. and marion wolf peter come home. but tb is in prime time beginning at 8:00 p.m. eastern time here on c-span2. >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house, the supreme