I just remembered that I should say one thing, my making this concern about peaceful relations with Iran, a centerpiece of my own presidential campaign, because I think this is a test of who we are as a nation. We have to stop this willfulness, this projection of force and dominance.  We have to change this whole paradigm and model.  We must change it.  Thank you

Person A introducing  Person C

I have to say also we put this event together not only on US-Iran relations, but to recognize the many long years of ... distinguished career and service not ... to the international community, to the cause of peace and justice to US-Iran relations, and to have better understanding of this country and Iran.  We are very grateful to him and ... Thank you.

Person C

Thank you very much for that gracious introduction. And thank you for organizing this very impressive luncheon with such a wonderful group of friends and distinguished colleagues both from the U.N.  Community, and former U.S. and current U.S. members of Congress, as well as other friends from the Iranian community.  I am grateful to all of you for having participated in this important discussion. 

Person B has a rightly stood his principles over the past many years, against the war in Iraq, and against the very serious misfortune that has befallen not only on the  United States and on the region, but on the international community as a whole.  As a result of that unfortunate war he has been a very courageous advocate of understanding...and we are all looking forward to listening to Person D  who has also been a voice of reason, and right on time...  Let's recognize Person D has just arrived.

But, as I was saying, we're very fortunate to have today with us Person D, who has been a voice of reason and principle, whom I have had the honor and privilege of meeting in the past.  

Senators, distinguished colleagues, and friends.   Let me just make a few comments and then we'll go to the main part of our event.

I believe it is a very important time for all of us to reflect on what direction we want to take.  I believe it is not only possible butt necessary to find avenues of understanding and dialog and cooperation in order to avoid a nightmarish scenario of confrontation. Because at this stage in the relations between Iran and the United States we can either take the road of building new enemies, or try to resolve problems together, and creating new enemies is always an easy avenue. Creating new enemies is also a good tool for government, a good tool to justify policies, sometimes a good scapegoat.  Unfortunately in Iraq, and sometimes in Afghanistan, we see that being played.

But what is happening and in our region is extremely important.  The future of the region of the Persian Gulf, and more broadly the future of the Middle-east, depends on being able to articulate policies that are not based, as Person B rightly pointed out on the threatened use of force, not based upon violence, but based on understanding and cooperation.  So let me put that hat on just two weeks in advance, and tell you as an observer:  I believe it is quite possible to reach that understanding.  It is possible to resolve problems.  The most serious problem that is facing Iran and U.S is the nuclear problem.  It is an easy problem to be resolved, if we are determined to find a resolution.  On the other hand, if you're looking for trouble, then there are plenty of excuses that we can use in order to move towards that very nightmarish scenario and objective.  And I hope that people in Tehran and in Washington are committed.  And on our part, we will not be looking for confrontation, but in fact for finding avenues, possibilities for dialog and cooperation.  I can convey to you this message both in my official as well as my unofficial capacity, that Tehran is not looking for confrontation.  There is no point for Iran to engage in confrontation, either in the region or globally, provided that an opportunity is there for understanding and dialog.  I'm sure that with serious minds in Washington...we will find the possibilities for that understanding and cooperation, if we establish the necessary political will.  Thank you again, and thank you very much for listening.

(applause)

Person A

Thank you Person C for that eloquent statement that you made.  Next...I'm much honored to introduce to you and present to you our distinguished guest,  Person D.  Thank you.

Person D

Thank you.  Thank you.  Good afternoon....I want to thank Person C, you been a very important voice and figure in this country...in a very insightful way, and I have always appreciated your wise counsel and the opportunity to get acquainted with what you've had to say....I hope your council is listened to and sought often.  I not only wish you the best, but also hope that your government will find other significant, substantive reasons to engage you at a very critical time.

I just came from a meeting at the U.N. with a number of the senior members of the Secretariat.  As you all know, Secretary General Ban (Ki-moon) is in France, and he is engaged in an important issue on the Sudan.  So I will not see him this time but I had 2 hours with most of the undersecretaries and assistant secretaries and others, who gave me a bare assessment of the Middle East, and particularly the Iraq situation.  We talked about Iran, and North Korea came up, and then we exchanged thoughts on those issues.  And a point that was made is that a nation, the United States, cannot engage the issues in the Middle East, as if they are in vacuums, if they are segmented into pieces, and we will concentrate our efforts and our energies and our resources on Iraq.  Then we will move to the Israeli Palestinian issue, and then we may or may not engage in Iran.  We may or may not engage Syria.  So we will segment and target our efforts, and the point being that you cannot do that, because the Middle East is a region of the world that is complicated and certainly most beyond our ability to control.  And I've never understood how we could engage Iran on the basis of, well we'll take this issue first, and then if we're successful with this issue, will get to the next issue and then maybe the next issue, but even more fundamentally we will engage Iran only based on our preconditions for engagement.

I have had a strange sense of what diplomacy has been about historically, and I notice that we have some of the most distinguished practitioners of diplomacy in the room here today.  Former U.S. ambassadors who have spent their lives in diplomacy; but diplomacy has never been, at least in my sense of it, talking just your friends and engaging your friends.  Diplomacy is about engaging your adversaries, engaging nations who have different interests, where you have disagreements.  After all, it was the fundamental point of the U.N. essentially to avert WWIII and the crazy assumption there was, that actually if people are talking, if people are engaged, if people are trying to find some consensus, some common denominators of common interest, that might just lead to a foundation that you can build from and engage the big differences.  And certainly with Iran we have big differences. 

I also noted as we were talking about the humanitarian piece of the Middle East, this morning, the fact that that most of you are aware that Iran is not unlike most of the world in that of the 6 ½ billion people on the face of the earth today, 40% are under the age of 19 year old.  Iran is a young country.  I believe that by these numbers I have seen on that, more than 2/3 Iranian people are under the age of 30 years old.  That's a young country.  And if you further examine the nations of the Middle East, you will find even more dramatic numbers.  Well, what has that to do with anything?  Well, it has to do with everything. 

We are dealing in the world today that is experiencing the greatest generational shift in the history of man.  We're looking at numbers of people of a different generation that we have never experienced.  Whether there was a relationship through the building of the world economies, that the Marshall plan helped do after WWII, or whether it was Allies, or whatever that relationship was, trade agreements in the building of all these, at the time, new, almost revolutionary coalitions of common interests, starting with the U.N.,  NATO, Breton Woods, the World Bank, IMF, General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, which now, as we know, is the WTO, dozens of multilateral institutions, dozens of multilateral development banks.  We all we helped rebuild and restructure the world.  And generally, the world has worked within that structure, and that structure has worked pretty well. Let's start with the fact that since WWII, we have not had a WWIII.  I think that's a significant accomplishment. 

Some of you may be old enough, to have known Eisenhower, worked for Eisenhower or Truman or Marshall, those leaders were not sure.  We're not sure whether we could avert a WWIII.  They were not sure whether there would be a nuclear exchange, but we have prevented a nuclear exchange from happening the last 65 years, and the strides for mankind have been historic.

But, the group of people in the world who were not the beneficiaries of this represent the areas of the world that are the trouble spots in the world.  The Middle East is a clear example.  Most of the Middle East was left behind.   Most of Africa, left behind.  North Korea, left behind.  A large portion of South America, left behind.  And if we do not understand, that it's the human condition that drives history, that drives actions, that drives everything, then we will never be able, because we're not rich enough.  No nation is.  No alliance of nations will be capable of dealing with what's coming.

When groups of people prey upon those who are locked in a cycle of despair, and we're talking about 2 to 3,000,000,000 people on the face of the earth today, locked in some cycle of despair; whether it's the Palestinians on the West Bank or in Gaza where there is no hope, where there's no dignity, not much else matters.  I don't necessarily connect terrorism to poverty.  Bin Laden disproved that, but there's no one in this room that does not understand that when men and women are without dignity, when they are given no respect, when their living conditions are worse than animals, that something is going to happen.  Those who would use religion and other philosophies to prey upon those people will do so, and are doing so today, and until we start to focus our resources and energies into that direction, we will never put enough Marines around the world.  No nation will have enough wealth to deal with it. It is a fundamental human condition.  What does that have to do with Iran?  Well I think it has something to do with Iran.

Iran has a very significant history.  It is unique, wealthy, and educated country.  I do not subscribe to the policies of the Ambassador's country.  I understand the current government of Iran is not monolithic, it is difficult to track, it has different power bases, and who controls what power bases.  I accept that it is not a linear form of government.  That is a factor we must deal with.  We must realize that when the president of Iran makes these incredible statements like Israel should be removed from the face the earth, as much as we abhor that and think that he's out of his mind - why would he say that?   I don't believe it is wise for us to judge all around the people of Iran based on those comments of that leader.   And I'm hoping that we may see some changes in the government of that country.

I've never been to Iran, I'm very limited and my knowledge of Iran, but I listen carefully to people who have been to Iran and to people who know something about Iran.  I pay attention.  I am on the intelligence committee, that's a scary thought actually, I recognize that and most my colleagues say that this it's an oxymoron that Hagel is on the intelligence committee.  Nonetheless, somebody made a mistake, and I got there and I've been there, so I had some sense of what's going on I don't know it.   I do know this: 

If we push away the young people of Iran, the people who do want more individual liberties, the people who do want more for themselves and their families and who do want a sense of freedom and possibility, not unlike the young people in every country, in every society, we will make a terrible mistake.  So our actions must project some understanding of that sensitivity and that reality. Our actions on Iran, like all of our actions and foreign policy, must be careful.  We must be sure of those actions.  We must have some objective for those actions, and we must be wise with our words - because words matter.   Now I have encouraged this government for a number of years to engage Iran directly, on every issue, and I don't think you can go to a table with a country, especially the big issue -- the nuclear issue -- hanging over all of us, and say we're not going to talk about nuclear, but we are going to talk about the mess your are causing in Iraq.  We are going to talk about that and then maybe we'll get to Hamas and Hezbollah, and then maybe if you're worthy we will talk to you about nuclear.  Well, I think that is not only self defeating, but it undermines the very influence that this country, the United States of America, is trying to project in the Middle East.  Iran is a centerpiece of that.  We may not like what  Iran is doing, and I don't like a lot of what Iran is doing.  I disagree with it, and I think it's very dangerous some of the actions that Iran is taking.  That doesn't change the reality of want Iran is doing. 

That means, it seems to me, that to engage Iran we've got to find some consensus or foundation to build upon to be up to deal with these issues.  Now the ambassador says the nuclear issue might be an easy issue to resolve.  I hope that's the case, but I think we should put it to the test and find out how easy this is to resolve. We should give the Iranians an opportunity to deal with this.  The Middle East is a complicated region that represents all the pieces of a fabric.  And you cannot take pieces of the fabric out and think that you can deal with them in a solo, singular moment.  It doesn't work that way.  I was in the Middle-east three weeks because I was in the west bank in Israel and Jordan.   The king of Jordan has been a strong ally of the U.S.  He said to me we've spent half of lunch talking about Iran, the Jordanians the Saudis, the Egyptians, all concerned with Iranian behavior.  The King of Jordan said to me, "Senator the U.S. must engage in Iran, and the military option is not an option, we don't need that option, and it can't be an option."  I've heard this from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, I've heard it from President Mubarak, I've heard it from every Arab leader in the Middle East.  I've heard it not just once but many times and always they start with this issue: the Israeli Palestinian issue. And until there is some movement, some perception of progress, some high ground, to break the cycle of violence on this issue, then all the other issues that we are dealing with will not be resolved. 

Now you can disagree with that.  You may not like that.  You can question that.  But that's irrelevant, whether you agree with that or not.  If 400 million Arabs believe it, or 1.4 billion Muslims believe it, then that's what you're dealing with.  Now that doesn't mean that you give up your position.   But you'll never get to negotiation on any issue until you engage.  Even more fundamentally, why we don't engage Syria in any serious way is even more astounding to me.  We have diplomatic relations with Syria.  And until we are wise enough to understand that, things in the Middle East will only get worse, they won't get better.  And I think you can take some measurement of that as I did three weeks ago, when I was in Beirut, when I was on the West Bank, when I was in Israel and I met all the leaders.   When I was in Jordan and in Iraq for the fifth time, five weeks ago.  Anyone in this room think things are getting better?  I don't think so.  I don't think so.  Things are getting worse.  Measurably worse and far more dangerous.  The Ambassador talked about consequences. 

Well, all we need to do is go back and study a little bit of how the world got into WWI.  When there's no engagement, there's no communication. That results in misunderstanding, in missteps, in miscalculations and then the next stage, of the consequence of that, is conflict.  You cannot isolate countries today.  We are going back in and tightening sanctions on Iran.  By the way, I'm not opposed to sanctions.  If all countries play by the same rules, but unilateral sanctions will never work, they never will work, look at Cuba.  Multilateral sanctions, if you've got all the nations and the U.N., that's different and understand the kind of pressure we're trying to put on Iran, obviously short of military, to try to get Iran's attention.  But we're going to have to come part way too.  Now obviously Ambassador Crocker's meeting with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad three weeks ago was a good start.  Our meeting with the Syrian foreign minister offline during the regional security conference in Egypt was a good start.  But there must be a follow through. I've suggested to the President.  I suggested to the Secretary General of United Nations, three weeks ago, in a letter, we talked about this morning.

I think in Iraq, it is now time for the U.S. to shift a policy, and that's going to require an international mediator under U.N. auspices.  If in fact the objective in Iraq is to influence the outcome in Iraq, that outcome is going to be determined eventually, and has been determined now, by the Iraqi people.  The U.S. is not going to impose a settlement there.  We're not incapable of imposing anything.  We can buy time with our military that's essentially what we're doing.  I'm not sure what we're buying time for. 

The regional neighbors have to be part of that, far more involved than they have been.  Iran is going to be a part that.  Iran is in Iraq, in many ways.  Iran is in Iraq not the way we want them to be in Iraq, but that is irrelevant. They are there.  The Arab nations, the Middle East nations, are going to have to be part of this.  All the nations of the world are going to have to take responsibility.  Now we broke it.  I got that, that's right.  Five years ago we invaded, but it's not going to help anybody to go back and blame George Bush or Dick Cheney or Bill Clinton, or anyone else.  We are where we are.  We've got to find a way out of this mess. We have a very dangerous mess in the Middle East, principally focused in Iraq right now.  How best do we do that?  Well, we must find some political accommodation to break the cycle of violence.  It won't make any difference whether we put 30,000 or 60,000 more American troops in there.  We can hold the line for a while, and you all know where the political dynamics are going in this country.  Politically, it's impossible to do anything.  About 70% of Americans are opposed to the President's handling of Iraq our policy in Iraq.  It's a matter of time before we start to see policy shifts in Iraq.  We want to be smart on how we do this.  It's going to take day-to-day mediation, day-to-day working with those political leadership components, to try to find some accommodation.  We may not get to reconciliation.  Iraq may go on for years, in some state of limbo, in some state of civil war.  I don't know.   We don't want this to flow over into the other areas. We don't want the Middle East to become a battleground for sectarian violence, Sunnis vs. Shi'ites.  And we're headed in that direction right now.  The Palestinian Israeli issue is the same thing. 

A Secretary of State can't get on a plane, go over to the Middle East, once every three months, maybe hold a press conference - you have to get along, pat them on the head, now you boys get together, every two weeks, I'll be checking on you, and I'll come back -  it doesn't work that way.  Now in the meantime it unravels and unravels and unravels and unravels.  Now this is doable.  This is possible, but we must be far wiser in how we use all the instruments of our power.  And a new frame of reference is going to have to be put in place to deal with the Middle East.  That's obviously going to have to start with diplomacy.  That doesn't mean America would automatically have to pull troops out of Iraq.  I think we must redeploy troops.  And get our guys out of the middle of a civil war and Baghdad and some of these cities.  We could be doing a lot of things: continuing the training, we could be working those borders; we can be dealing with a counterinsurgency measures in the Anbar Province and some of the provinces where Al-Qaeda is tougher, Diyala Province.  But as General Petraeus has said, there will be no military solution to Iraq, to Iran, to the Israeli Palestinian problem, to Lebanon or anything else.  Just as Baker-Hamilton said in their 79 recommendations, wise recommendations, should have been incorporated in the base of bipartisan consensus that the President could've used, to do something about the Middle East.  Just as they said in their report -- A great nation uses all its instruments of power: diplomatic power, economic power, military power.

I refuse to believe that we cannot deal with man-made problems.  These are man-made problems.  God did not ordain the world to blow up because of differences in Iran and U.S. in Iraq.  It could well be that that's what's going to happen.  And if we're foolish enough, if we squander this moment, history will mark us down in ways that very, very few peoples of a society in a time have ever been recorded.  And we will pass on to the next generation of the world, the most dangerous, complicated world, the world has ever seen.  That's what is in play here and I'm betting on the side of the fact that we're all wise enough, before we get right on the edge, that we're going to turn this around. And it's people like you, Mr. Ambassador, who have been very helpful in that cause.  So with that, I'm grateful to say hello and thank all of you, so many in this room, who have been so involved in these issues.  Ambassador Murphy and others, their whole careers have been devoted to a more peaceful world to better mankind and I'm grateful for that as I am for all of your efforts and you coming together today.  Thank you. 

(Applause)

Person A

I know that you have to leave soon.  I think we will give the floor a chance to ask a few questions.

Questions to Person D

Well I think the next step is going to come as most of you are aware in September.  The political reality starts to come together in September, and it's almost a self imposed kind of deadline and no one actually really ever says September is the date.  The reality is that General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will come back to the United States and testify before Congress in September on the progress of the so-called surge.  Where do we go from here, what has worked what has not worked, what do you recommend as you know we had in one of the ultimate last financing package a provision to set up an alternative commission,  It will be headed by former NATO Supreme Allied commander.  I think one of the ablest smartest generals, I think you can take General Jim Jones put him in the State Department and quite frankly I think he can be just as good as a secretary of state as he is a general. I think he's that good and that smart.  He will head up another commission looking at the Iraqi potential as to their capabilities.  I don't think the polls are going to change and I think the polls keep as they have been getting worse for the president's policy on Iraq.  You've got a number of republicans that are already building exit doors.  They don't want to just abruptly leave the president but self preservation is a hell of a motivator in this business, and you see it now you see republicans talking and saying well the Iraqi's are going to have to step up.  Those are all exit lines and you are going to see many republicans just move right towards the door as subtly as they can for the end of this year to prepare for elections next year.  All those things are coming down at the same time plus all the uncontrollable things going on in the Middle East.  I mean I don't know what happens in the next three months, for example in the Israeli Palestinian thing; that situation gets worse and worse, where will be with Iran I don't know, I doubt things get much better in Iraq.  There is no reason to believe that.  That will be the next catalyst, that will be the next jarring gong to produce something that also then will be shaped by our defense authorization bill, which we'll start debating after we come back from the fourth of July recess.  The first two amendments on the floor will be when we come back from the 4^th of July and reassess our Iraqi amendments.  I've been told by the majority leader Senator Reed that the first amendment will be the Hagel -Webb amendment that will be the readiness and a redeployment amendment that Jim Webb and I have wrote.  You can't continue to send our kids back in there, hold them there, really dishonestly for 15, 16, 17, months and then bring them back home and send them right back.  That's wrong, we're ruining our military.  But my point is that authorization piece will start playing out in mid July, and Iraq will be of course the cornerstone of that.  So all that's coming together, and all that will kind of metastasize in September.

New question to Person D

Well, thank you for the question.  It is an absolutely central question.  The quick answer is no, as far as I'm aware of, but let me just take this a step further.  I said recently in a speech, I've said it more than one time in more than one speech: One of the things the United States is going to have to do with our allies, I think within the framework of United Nations, is build an entirely new nuclear framework for the 21^st century.  You saw in the papers the last couple of days about Pakistan now moving into a third most likely plutonium production facility.  You're not going to unwind where Pakistan is, you're not going to unwind where India is, and those are realities.  Now I just went back and reread Eisenhower's autobiography on his first four years his first administration, and many of you know this history far more than I do, but one of the concerns that Eisenhower had (and had it as much as the key concern of his administration and his life after World War II) was the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction' specifically nuclear weapons.  In a 1953 speech that he gave in Denver he laid out the framework for peace.  That was the beginning of an entire system and structure of nuclear protocols; the IAEA, so-on and so-on.  We now need a new 21^st century protocol to recognize the realities as they are and stop spending our time trying to back down and change everything and go back in.  It won't work, so what do we do.  Well for one thing, and this is part of the undermining of our own self interest around the world, in my opinion which completely and continually diminishes our standing we say one thing on nuclear power, but we're already talking about financing new upgraded nuclear weapons.  So we're saying to Iran no you can't have them it's too dangerous, your making a dangerous world. Yet here we are in our budget billions of dollars of new updated nuclear weapons now there's a disconnect here somewhere.  Now we may not see it, I guess we don't, the Americans don't because we essentially have been in charge, and are the dominant power today by any measurement.  Those are the kind of disconnects that so undermine our interest in our efforts.  I think proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, specifically nuclear, has got to be at the top of the great challenges facing us in the 21^st century.  I don't know how you get around that.  Now we're doing nothing that I am aware of to restructure this, nothing.  The next president must make this a priority for the four years that that administration will be in power. At least for that four years they've got to do this and got to work through our alliances and all the smart people that know about this.  I don't know how you do it.  I'm not smart enough to know that but I do know that it has to be done.  Because it isn't just Iran.  You've  got a whole sequence of other nations that are going to start playing this out, and some already have the things that the United States of America and people in this country aren't even aware of.  Some of these other countries are already working on these things. Well, Pakistan has got them.  India has got them.  Iran's got them.  Israel's got them.  North Korea.  I mean we're going to have to get out a bill, but I don't see anything happening whether it's with the administration or in Congress.

New question to Person D

No that's a very good point, and we have missed that, you're right.  I'm not aware of any...Person X, are you aware of any parliamentary inter-parliamentary exchanges between parliamentarians, the Middle East and the United States... No, I suspect mainly because most of our guys like to go to Paris or London, nothing wrong with Paris or London. (Laughter)  It's a little different when you take a little detour off to the middle east somewhere, but you're right we need to talk to Biden and Lugar about that, and we will. That needs to be, we should do that more and more, and that obviously has all kinds of value added consequences that come with better understanding.  That's part the world you'll notice most Americans don't know about.  We are scared of that part of the world.  We know our oil comes from there, but most Americans don't even understand that.  Most of our oil doesn't come from the Middle East!  But they think it does so this would help break some of that down.  Thank you.

New question to Person D

You're right I did note that we have a breakdown in what we say and what we do, and I'm not ready to disarm so don't be confused here.  I'm not ready to give up our nuclear weapons, we haven't disarmed though we still have a number of reliable operational weapons.  Your point is a very important point and that's what I was talking about in response to bill a little bit.  We got to find a new regime here, a  new regiment, something new for the 21^st century that does not undermine the credibility of what we say versus what we do, and when we sail those aircraft carriers into the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean everybody knows they have nuclear weapons.  We take them through the Suez Canal so how do you answer that Mr. President.  Now we answer by saying peace and stability in the world and we have some responsibility to help maintain that, I think we have some appreciation for that, but your point is a very good one.  Until we take leadership, and till we take a new frame of reference on this, there's not going to be a lot of credibility in what we say, and especially these countries like Iran and other countries that are going to come on the line of these weapons.

New question to Person D

You'll have to be very brief and I'm cutting into Person X's time.

Let me say this, because your questions and points are very important and valid and I think it is a perfectly introduction to Person X, and he will handle all those points elegantly.  I'm sure and that he can be far more in depth than I could possibly be on those.  Thank you your points are important.  As you escape and get out of town, thank you Mr. X, thank you for what you're doing and have done. Thank you all very much.

(Applause)

Person A:

Person E is a ..., and I have to say I'm learning a lot from what he is writing.  He is really bringing sense and understanding to the most pressing problems that we face, poverty, mass murder, at every corner of the world.  Where there is a problem Person E is there and we thank you for that ...  Also ... in Iran is a good report on the grand bargain that the Bush administration killed, and he is going to tell you a bit about that, thank you.

(Applause)

Person E

Also in the best of times I know a lot less about Iran and U.S. relations than a lot of people in this room, and as it happens I returned last night from two weeks in the middle of the Congo.  I am in particular a little bit out of date, but let me just make a couple of points:  One of the things I think that has to be the backdrop of Iranian-U.S. relations, for those of you who have traveled in Iran know that at the people-to-people level Iran is one of the most pro American countries that you run into these days. I wouldn't be surprised in fact if present Bush's approval rating is higher there than it is here in Manhattan, but that would be setting kind of a low bar. *Laughter*

The whole time I was in Iran during my last trip I had lots of wonderful tributes to the US and only one Anti-American comment, and in Fact the Anti-American comment came from a group of Europeans who were backpacking through.  To the degree that we have really I think a dangerous situation coming up that I think that is because if you look back at our history we've repeatedly tried to trade some kind of short term benefit for some short term gain.  In fact, the consequence has been to tread on Iranian nationalism and to undermine our own position.  A starting point for that was the Mossdadeq affair which after more then 50 years continues to hugely overshadow our relations with Iran.  Then in the early 1960s we were trying to negotiate the SOFA agreement, and were trying to get the best SOFA agreement we possibly could, those as you know were tough negotiations, which really gave Ayatollah Khomeini his first great platform and his first great national stage by saying why Iranian run over by an American be regarded as less than a dog who has been run over. The next leg of that is the grand bargain proposal from four years ago.  You look at those documents, what was under discussion and the degree to which they addressed the nuclear issue issues in Iraq, issues about Hamas, and the Palestinian Israeli question, and a whole gamut of issues.  It's by no means clear that that proposal would indeed have led to resolution of issues.  There was an awful lot of very tough bargaining maybe it would not have worked but the notion that the administration killed and rebuked the messenger for even having forwarded it I think he usually undermines moderates in Iran and empowered hardliners there.

I'm afraid that's the next in this litany of events.  We are making things worse. There is something that hasn't been discussed a lot today and let me put it on the table.  That is the possibility of military strike on Iran before the end of the Bush administration.  But I think that one thing that needs to be said is that while everything I've said involves our own behavior in undercutting Iranian moderates and empowering Iranian hardliners, Iran today is doing the same thing.  President Ahmadinejad is undermining American moderates and strengthening American hardliners, and this is something of a vicious cycle in which you have a Cheney and an Ahmadinejad, and the edge of each kind of reinforcing each other.   I once had a column and raised a question as to whether Dick Cheney was actually an Iranian mole.*Laughter*  I don't know ambassador whether you could confirm that or not.  **laughter**  But you do have this really very dangerous situation in which each side reinforces the worst suspicions and attitudes toward the other.  I've been asking people over last six months or so, to try to place some kind of a quantitative estimate as to what the possibility is that before the end of the Bush Administration that we will launch a military strike.  The guesses tend to be all over the map, a typical one is about 30%, and I find that absolute terrifying I can't imagine something that would do more to undermine American interest in the region, and permanently undermine the pro American quality at the people-to-people level that you do see in Iran.  There's also I think a lot of military people that are concerned that there is so many ships running around the gulf these days, that there's a real possibility of accident that could lead to an escalation.  Since I spend much of my career in China let me leave you with one thought on that.  If you think back to the 1960s China was regarded very much as Iran is now and there were indeed proposals that the U.S. together with Soviet Union would launch a strike on Chinese nuclear facilities.  Well, if that had been done been China would still be a Maoist country today, so I think its important to bring this issue of a strike out and make it a very public issue because I think that is the one thing that  may make it less likely to happen over the next couple of years.  Thank you very much.

(Applause)

Person A

I must also say they have put a tar wall from the committee on foreign relations of the senate, and he runs that committee.  Thank you for making the effort to come. Thank you

(Applause)

Person A introduces Person F

Person F

I just want to thank you so much for inviting me and that I have a chance to participate in this, though that I am neither American or Iranian, but I have a little background in participating in the mediation between Iran and Iraq in the 80's.  I know many of the people here, and as the Ambassador of Sweden to the UN, have followed the issues in the Middle East for many years.  Of course we are very concerned about possible confrontation and a military confrontation.  Something which would have terrible consequences obviously for all of the Middle East.  I must say in my career, at least in the last couple of years when I was the political director of foreign affairs ... I made many travels.  I was in Afghanistan and in different places and I often met with Iranian diplomats, all of them said, that we really need a dialog with United States.  They were simply very open to cooperate, that I think coincides very much with what Mr. X said, but there's a pro American trend there among some of the Iranians and if they're going to prevail and become stronger I think they need some kind of encouragement.  I'm very glad that you have organized these discussions and keep up the dialog which we would like to encourage very much. Thank you.

(Applause)

Person A

I know Person F wanted to ask a question when Person B was here, now is your time.

Person F

(Person B) used the word "respect" in his comments about respecting the status of the dispossessed young, the millions around the world. I wonder, because as a diplomat it's a term that's very hard to quantify, we talk of the issues that are so easy:  nuclear issues, this issue, that issue, but we don't talk much about respect, our politicians practically never use the word respect in Washington, but I am wondering what an Iranian would consider signs of meaningful respect from Washington at this time in a very strained limited exchange.

Person C

Well I think Person F, you touched on probably the most important concern that Iran has in discussions with United States.  Iran has two concerns:  One is the United States is not prepared to negotiate, but it if it comes to the negotiation table the issues that the US uses as Senator Hagel pointed out, and the issues the US wants to raise, and the concerns that the US has without having any concern for the fact that Iran also has a grievances and concerns.  That is issue number one. Issue number two is the absence of mutual respect, even in terminology not in practice but the fact that the U.S. government is not prepared to even utter the words "mutual respect".  We are willing to engage Iran with mutual respect or in mutual respect. In fact, the story Person E wrote about of the so-called grand bargain, which was considered as an initiative from Iran, but in our view our perception was and it was a paper that had originated in Washington.  We responded to that paper as the author of the response.  I can tell you that I had a piece of paper in front of me, which I Re-typed and I corrected and I provided a counterproposal.  The only reason we considered that paper to be a good basis for the beginning of discussions was the fact that first the United States (according to our perception,) was prepared to deal with the issues of concern to Iran as much as it wanted to raise the issues of concerns to the US because it had three sections: U.S. aims, Iran aims, and procedure.  So we thought the US was prepared to listen to our concerns and to address our concern and also to raise its own concerns that is what is required in negotiations rather than a prosecution. The second it started with the words that the united  states was prepared to engage Iran in mutual respect.  That was the key to Iran considering that proposal and responding positively to it.  Unfortunately when it got to Washington it got shot down someplace in the White House, and we all know what address is in the White House.  So even the utterance of the word mutual respect is extremely important and is totally absent.  If you read the Secretary of State's statement on, if I'm not mistaken May 31, last year when she stated their readiness to engage with Iran to start discussions with Iran.  In addition to the fact that it was full of preconditions, preconditions that she knew would never be met.  You will find that the entire statement is a 13 page statement, with the exception of three lines in which it says that the United States is prepared to talk to the government of Iran under certain conditions;  The rest is an attack on the Iranian government, she never even uses the word government in the entire document.  The only word she uses is regime.  So the absence of mutual respect is so apparent, even in these even gestures which were considered by some of the people a breakthrough.  I received a paper (the statement) about 15 minutes before it was delivered through the good officers of ambassador Bolton, that was the only interaction that I had with ambassador Bolton, basically delivering and receiving a paper and I read it fast and 5 minutes before the statement the secretary general called me to tell me that a important statement was going to be made by Secretary Rice, and I told him that I had read the statement, and this statement would create a negative reaction in Tehran because it is so disrespectful.  Unfortunately it was already too late, so I think you touched on important issue.  Person D touched on an important issue that I think we need to start at least believing that the other side, which is coming to the table, has concern, has interest, preoccupation that we need to address in such a framework

Thank you.  Thank you.

Question from the audience

Person C

I think it's an important development that Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani agreed to setup the modalities for resolving the outstanding issues, but I don't think that is the solution.  I think the solution of the Iranian nuclear issue does not go through Solana or ElBaradei.  The solution of the Iranian nuclear issue goes through Washington and unless Washington is prepared to resolve the nuclear issue, it wont be resolved.  I am saying this as somebody who has almost destroyed his career negotiating with our European friends for two years on the nuclear issue.  We had good proposals, we had a good understanding, but unfortunately once those proposals got out of the room and were checked with Washington, there was always a block.  Yesterday or two days ago, you read in the newspapers that your European countries were considering something similar to what Mr. X said;  The possibility of agreeing to some amount of enrichment on Iranian soil.  That is not a great compromise on the European side, because absolutely accepting the facts on the ground.  It's just not trying to reverse the clock and go back to three years ago, but Secretary Rice didn't allow it to even stay on the books for two days.  I saw at 5 o'clock in the morning on Sunday I saw that secretary rice had already found an occasion to reject it.  So it is not possible while there's no willingness in Washington to recognize realities.  Zero enrichment is no longer a reality, it's an illusion and unless Washington agrees to that and finds a mechanism, then  we will be going in this very difficult and dangerous track of Iranian increasing the centrifuges and the US and its allies increasing the sanctions on Iran, which will only strengthen the resolve of the people in Iran who believe that the international community is out to get us.  So I think while importance should be given to negotiation between Solana and Larijani and ElBaradei, and while it is important that the next IAEA team will go to Iran, we have always had inspections to resolve outstanding issues.  I can tell you that in November 2004, when we had an agreement with the European Union Dr. ElBarradei went to the IAEA and you can look at his report, he said there are only two remaining outstanding issues, and one is already being resolved.  I'm not making that up, go read this report.  Now in June of last year we were almost at the height of tension with the European Union and United States Dr. ElBaradei  said in his report, there is a huge number of outstanding issues.  Now all these outstanding issues relate to the past not the present, and how come the past issues got even bigger over a year and a half without moving forward.  My concern is that unless there's political agreement, I know that there are outstanding issues, I know they need to be resolved and im not trying to belittle them, but I'm saying that these outstanding issues will not be resolved unless Dr. ElBaradei knows that there is an agreement for a political solution.  Every time the United States can come up with a new laptop, remember this story of the laptop of highly classified information that surfaced somewhere in Washington.  All sorts of news stories can come up, I'm not accusing Dr. ElBaradei of political manipulation, I'm saying that if the United States doesn't want the situation resolved, it can come up with new allegations, and Dr. ElBaradei has to investigate that new allegation.  And once that allegation comes to rest, then another allegation can come up and these new allegations will expand the number of outstanding issues.  They will go and search and new questions and find new answers.  So the way to resolve this is to address the critical issue at the center this problem and that is:  whether the United States is willing to accept the fact that Iran has the technological capability to enrich uranium on its soil.  The best way as far as the nuclear nonproliferation is concerned, and here I can put the hat on as someone who has worked in nuclear nonproliferation, I spent 90 minutes standing up in front of the International Court of justice arguing for the illegality of nuclear weapons, so I am committed to this.  As somebody who's committed to nuclear nonproliferation I'm saying that the most stupid policy that can be followed as far as nonproliferation is concerned is to ask Iran to suspend its enrichment, because what do you do with all those scientists, what do you do with all that machinery, and what do you do with all of the equipment.  That is the most proliferation prone policy that someone can take.  If you want to address proliferation, you got to make sure that Iran is totally watched.  I do not believe that Washington is prepared to go as far as that, Person D has pointed this out. I hope that this could change and once it changes there is whole range of possibilities to resolve the nuclear issue.

Person G

I feel somewhat like I'm walking into the lion's den after the conversations that had been just to say  that I am in the UK mission, and I follow this very closely, and I found it an extremely useful dialog.  A few things strike me: one is that I am fascinated as a British representative of the motor discussion here which is about the U.S., the U.S needs to involve itself in dialog.  The stream of dialog here has been about the process rather than the substance of what might be spoken about.  The UK has an embassy in Tehran and it's a rough relationship that the two governments have, but the dialog is ongoing on a day-to-day basis.  I think day-to-day mediation is discussed, or day-to-day contact.  I'd invite people to reflect a little on if you have the process in place.  Nevertheless what would be the bottom lines that the interlocutors would have and would probably stick to, to have this discussion and another issue.  I know it's fashionable to sometimes to say that the security council is not necessarily primary or that the United States government is, but the resolution of 1747, 1737 before it and 1696 before it, that it's pretty clear about what Iran has to do.  It starts in its first paragraph that Iran shall without further delay take steps required by the board of governors and its resolution to suspend essentially.  The other side in this discussion is three European countries, plus the US, plus Russia, plus China and that last resolution was adopted unanimously. Now there's a lot of politics to it that none of this is now even, I may look fairly fresh faced but I too can see the undercurrents, but I invite not just necessarily the U.N. ambassador, because you have come to the pinnacle of your career, but the group as a whole to reflect on essentially whether one takes a stand on certain issues.  I'm always in favor of looking for that fourth way out: there's military action, theres the not very satisfactory sanctions track. There is a lets say fair approach, and where we just leave it and all hang, and there is this fourth way and I recognize that, but meanwhile as a bureaucrat of the UN I have this resolution to stick to, and I don't want to have to go back into the council for a further one. So I would have hoped that Solana and Larijani would come up with a little bit more, and we'll see indeed what they do to deliver.  Thank you very much thank you,

Person C do you have a comment.

Person C:

My good friend Mr. Y, who would be your boss soon, wrote in a letter to his colleagues who are also my friends and negotiating partners, that in order to deprive Iran of the argument that suspension was voluntary, we needed to go to the security council and make it mandatory.   You didn't make it any secret that in the first resolution 1639, you said that in order to make suspension mandatory even in the warning of the resolution.  So flipping between negotiations and  resolutions doesn't help, but we can recognize the realities.  There has been three new security council resolutions; a good number of sanctions, which will hurt Iran.  At the same times there have been about 2000 more centrifuges that are spinning in Iran and I don't know if you put that on the balance sheet who is winning and who is losing, and whether we all end up losing in the process of confrontation, because we're all going in the wrong direction.  We need to look at this a new, and the way, as I've told John Sawyers and others, the way that we are moving in this nuclear issue is simply to push a confrontation.  Everybody who negotiated knew that Iran would not suspend just because there was security council resolutions, because we knew why the security council was brought into this.  The security council was never part of the solution.  The security council was always an impediment to our negotiations from reaching a conclusion.  Let me tell you that for the two years that I negotiated, I spent most of the time trying to achieve an agreement on how to alert the security council, rather than to find an agreement on how to resolve the nuclear issue.  So that is how I wasted my time.  Now the new administration in Iran decided not to waste its time on that.  They said if you want to take this to the security council try your luck.  Now, there is a possibility for resolving this issue.  If we can until the end of the day, the permanent members, and the 15, and the unanimous in all of that, and nobody has forgotten all of the very many studies that have been done. Nobody has forgotten the fact how much pressure is imposed on countries in order to work in favor of these resolutions, we all know.  The fact is we got to see whether these resolutions are resolving the issue or whether they have a chance of resolving the issue.  Now let us suppose that your country went ahead, and leaked new sanctions that would be imposed on Iran before the day that Larijani and Solana meet.  Couldn't that have poised the atmosphere in a better manner than leaking sanctions to the international press.  Let us suppose that all those sanctions are in place.  Is there even an iota of evidence that those sanctions will change Iranian nuclear policy.  Those sanctions will hurt the Iranian people and will make Iranian people anti-western.  I mean each time they want to fly out, they will curse every western country. Maybe they will curse the government too, but they will curse every western country.  Would that change Iranian nuclear policy; It wont.  That's what I'm telling you.  In the end of the day that won't change Iranian nuclear policy. if you want to change the nuclear policy, you have to present a valid, viable option.  Simply to insist upon suspension is not a viable option.  Whether its five countries or ten countries or 20 countries, Iran is not alien to a time in its history where everybody was not passive in supporting Saddam Hussein, but actively supporting Saddam Hussein  but we withstood that, we resisted that.  Now you want to tell us that there are five plus one countries, I can tell you there can be 190 countries all because we went through that.  That will not bring a nation to its knees.  once we realize that there are probabilities, possibilities for resolution.  Once you believe that on the eve of a negotiation a leak can threaten the negotiation, can frighten the negotiator in order to give up the rights, then you can continue not the only leaking but imposing resolutions, and just check and try your luck.  Last year this time you could've resolve the nuclear issue.  The year before we could have resolved the nuclear issue.  I can tell you that if in March 2005 your friends had agreed to my proposal the nuclear issue would've been resolved.  By today, Iran would have had less than 160 new nuclear centrifuges running, but you decided to insist upon the impossible and the outcome was that today Iran has almost 3000 centrifuges running, and we have a number of resolutions that are making life harder for the Iranian people.  Who has achieved anything, I doubt that we have, I doubt that any of us have so let's take a positive element in your suggestion to look for the fourth layout.  We don't want sanctions, we don't want an Iranian nuclear bomb, if we agree that Iran should not have a nuclear bomb ill be the first one joining you on it because I believe that nuclear bombs will be detrimental to Iranian Security.  Lets agree upon that.  Nobody wants war I'm sure people who lost an election don't want war again.  So we can agree on the three and thus agree on the fourth way out.  The fourth way out will require no illusions.  There's a scientific capability In Iran lets make that capability as transparent as possible.  I think if we do that we can move forward.

Person A

Questions from audience

Question from Person H

1:50:10

Question on Israel attacking Iran.

Person C

I do not believe Israel has the capability to finish the job.  So if Israel attacks Iran, I believe this will be a prelude to the United States getting engaged in Iran, and I think more than the Iranian people the American people should recognize what it is and react to it as it is.  Because if Israel attacks Iran it is the beginning of the US attack and a situation where the U.S administration will find itself in a position to be able to justify attack and that is how it will take place.  I do not believe it will take place.  I do not believe that Israeli war mongering propaganda will lead to an attack, unless there are strong enough circles in Washington and giving the green light to Israel to start this so that they can finish.  I don't think they can finish it.

 (Applause)