Just in terms of the human rights aspect, there are numerous things that are objectionable about the Iranian regime from the standpoint of a western democratic country. You just finished describing something we find hard to relate to in the sense of that abusive type of power by which they are sustaining themselves.
But the connection between the nuclear weapons.... I'm just wondering if you could locate that a little more precisely. I think your broad thesis was that it acts not so much as a distraction but as an actual deterrent to their having to contend with other international norms. Is that correct, that they hope it will draw people away? Do you actually believe it has that effect of drawing people away from some of the things they might otherwise have to contend with that could lead to--whether it's a Velvet Revolution or some other kind of disturbance--that very rigid kind of control that they've elected to follow in the current regime?
For a while, I guess you could realistically have talked about some reformist trends. I don't know that you can now.
That's the main thing I'd like to ask. If we have a minute after that, I'd like to hear your response to Mr. Reid in terms of the blunt thing, whether there's any prospect of something else arising from what we know are factors in place.
I really wanted to try to get directly at your thesis of nuclear weapons and the status of human rights. In other words, if Iran were persuaded to drop the nuclear weapons program, how would that benefit all these other outstanding problems?