tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN September 4, 2015 9:01pm-11:01pm EDT
with author programs featuring cokie roberts and joseph alex, and your opportunity to speak -- davidd kola mcauliffe. later, at 9:00 on afterwards, catherine eden talks about how families from chicago and appalachia are surviving on no income. monday, authors like erik loomis and coulter and oners share their thoughts social issues. evening, at 8:00 on lectures in history, boise state
university professor lisa brady discusses the vietnam war. crowded out, the 1958 national education association film addressing overcrowded schools following the post world war ii baby boom. with day, our interview david rubenstein. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. >> congress returns next week and will begin debate on the iran nuclear agreement. next, a panel of journalists, policy analysts, and officials from the carter and clinton administration discuss the deal. the center for global interests hosted the event.
>> let me see if we are on. we are. it is my privilege to welcome program today to sponsored by the center on will not taket, i too long describing the center. i think it is apparent to many people that washington these .ays is over think tanked but i think the center is actually a very special and unique place. for one thing it is the ,rainchild of nikolai's lovin one of the more interesting and creative people in town. heritage.ussian
not only to its programming but i think to its approach to the issues, which makes it forresting and worthwhile participating in. my relationship with global zero, and common friends, i was .appy to join the board we are focusing on the iran deal . i have been asked to not only introduce our chairman or moderator, but to make a few brief remarks for they will be .rief given my background i thought i would make these remarks in the context of maybe these are issues the six panelists could explore in one way or another in their remarks. is first point i would make
in my experience, arms control good asts are never as the advocates make out. they are never as bad as the critics complain. because arms control agreements do not really fundamentally change facts on the ground. they tend to ratify or reflect those facts. the -- the isis move more four to in 2003 or negotiate a deal with iran. the deal would have been very different. it would have probably been a deal that would not be as controversial as the deal is for the iranians were much greater distance away from a nuclear
weapons capability than they are today. sometimes delay and arms control can be disadvantageous. if you don't like trends or a changing balance of power, a the example of that was in late 1960's 1970's. the agreements themselves are not going to fundamentally change the realities of where a ron is -- iran is. that needs to be clearly
understood. something toe is this to agreement, in the past we haven't had the kind of pressure brought about by sanctions which played an important role in bringing the iranians to the negotiating table. this leads to a difference in -- supporters and critics interpret the agreement. the supporters see it as a traditional arms control agreement. ,nd recognize that both sides interests have to be served. there will be criticism about certain features and facets of the agreement. many solve this negotiation not so much as diplomacy, as getting ready for a surrender ceremony.
on the battleship missouri. a form ofhis as coercive diplomacy designed to disarm iran. it is because of that interpretation of what this negotiation was all about, the agreement itself was so controversial. my final point is to me the most interesting thing about this agreement is not its arms control elements. the most interesting thing about this agreement is the one thing that people are in some ways afraid to discuss. the long run political and strategic implications of potential iranian normalization. internationally and specifically in the middle east.
no one would agree that this is going to lead to a normalized relationship. creates that possibility. given the fact that central problem in the middle east today is the kind of 30 years war that is underway between shia and it ranthe fact that a ron could become a more normal actor in the region raises some really interesting options and choices. one of the big foreign-policy maybeons that at least not this administration but another will have to address it seems to me is whether the united states is going to
continue a policy of supporting sunni arab states against iran as the saudi is one us to, whether we will pursue a more balanced diplomatic effort which would mean inevitably closer tehran.s with to ron -- i hope the panelists in one form or another will address them. i want to turn the floor over to jim fallows. just like there are many think tanks in washington, there are arguably washington has too many journalists. i can say that because i was once one of them. i don't think of jim fallows, who is the national correspondent for the atlantic , many important --ks and articles beginning
i do not think of jim fallows as a journalist. i think of him as a writer. that in my view, there is a difference. journalists run around and report what is going on. about whatnk deeply they are saying, and they are explaining the world to their readers. jim has done that in many capacities. most importantly if you have a chance to follow his brilliant writing about china, over the last decade, it has been a toilblazer in explaining western readers. we lucky to have jim with us.
without any further it do you have the floor. jim: thank you for that introduction to me and the informative set up for our panel. thanks to the cgi and chairman who have us here. and to c-span for broadcasting our discussion. we have six panelists, a finite and what isme, fascinating here is in the last 48 hours the terms of discussion of the iran deal have changed. it is not a question whether they will participate but what that won't mean -- will mean. with the announcement of senator mcconnell ski -- senator mikulski that she will be the vote. what this means regionally, what it means for united states foreign-policy, evolution within
iran. we have a range of views to discuss this topic. ambassadorrt with whois pickering to my left has held every ambassadorial role the united states has to offer. the russian federation, india, el salvador, united nations. every other eminent role that our state has. not onlyayed a role over the decades and how we should think about the iran deal . now that this in the stage that the sin is not going to be able to block it, how should we think in your five minutes, what are haveain things you want to
in front of our minds? >> i agree with most of your points. the sanctions were coupled with bad economic mismanagement and perhaps military threats to help drive this toward negotiation. i think your conclusions are right. i think i can agree with you that there are too many think tanks and too many reporters that there are so many -- too many retired diplomats. let me address your very cogent question. if this goes through, and nothing is certain because even ,enators can change their minds let's assume that it does. let's assume that the process begins and it will mentation complies.d iran and people are worried they enter -- they will have a flow of iranian money coursing
through the most serious problems including syria and other places for it people opposed to this deal who believe that it is a mistake to work with iran against isis. why, i don't know. nevertheless that is out there from time to time. more extreme on their views. that raises question number one. we have in a backhanded way been working against isis with a ron ineract -- with iran in iraq a very backhanded way by bombing in syria. there will be certainly an opportunity if this moves to begin to talk to iran about two issues that constitute in the fruit.low hanging we have shared interests. we don't have all interest
shared but there is something to talk about. and how we could coordinate in a more direct basis through the our bombing,ent, their training. and the important obstacle in iraq, how can we build a political complement to the military activity we have undertaken. that doesn't mean to brush out and begin to negotiate with ice is, god for bid. i don't think that is a possible option. i do think it is important we encourage the iraqi government morey a great deal attention to their sunni friends. majority role must be complemented by minority rights, even in iraq. finally, as my time draws to a close, there are opportunities that lie out there, given that
the moment in syria. we have an effect a no-fly zone that gets turned off and on when , abomb in northern syria soughthe should not fly when american planes are bombing. there is a possibility in my view for coming together on a transitional government. this would not require a cease-fire but that would help. a transitional government first might help. which involves representatives of various parties, as hard as it is in my view, is something we ought to try. we cannot try until we talk with iran and russia, and turkey and saudi arabia about making that happen. iran plays a critical role in this. iran must know that a link to a solid is getting them know where.
as we know that a link to the moderate syrian opposition, as much as we like it, is giving us nowhere. the process of getting nowhere slow or fast in syria has come to the point where the terrible damage to human life in the diplomatic fatigue could possibly be harnessed as a result of the nuclear agreement into something more useful. a hell of a long shot but we ought to think about that. there are things in the history of our relationship that need cleaning out. it is mistrust and difficulties on both sides. everything from dealing with the shaw some money in escrow to the question of the -- to hostages are all out there and they are important. the president was right to say there is nothing in this agreement that forbids me for taking a tough line with iran that steps over the boundaries,
and that has to be part of the process. let me leave it there and look forward to further questions. mye something that i know in reportorial mode, it is fascinating how until the last two or three days the discussion about this deal was about the first strike nuclear potential, what this happen or not? the discussion is moving to the regional applications that both of our ambassadors have mentioned. we have heard of the surplus of think tanks, journalists, diplomats, and energy experts. we have an eminent one, the principle of international market analysis. respected andt influential voices on broadcast media for the heritage foundation and other foundations. as we move to talking about these implications of what this deal, what the new position is going to mean, tell us what you think we should be thinking of
the ramifications now. councilith the atlantic . before we jump into the oil and , which wouldn iran be terrific just as it would be terrific if we could cooperate on fighting isis and afghanistan, and all these wonderful things, i would like to take a step back and evaluate the process and the agreement, and i would say that the united states brought a formidable coalition to the table. become the five members of the security council, including iaea. and china, and we walked away weakened. the one celebrating or the iranians. the american public, the majority of the public is against the agreement.
it used the agreement negatively. and unlike what we all witnessed, i am honored and humbled to follow ambassador pickering, whose career i always admired and came to know him back in the 1990's where he was an excellent ambassador, but as we all remember the soviet union that negotiated arms control changed the behavior fundamentally, and that process the big transformation, to the collapse of the soviet union and emergence of russia. the anti-american and abandonedrn town was until 20 years later, as we witnessed today. empire, theup its soviet union gave up its empire
places like vietnam. today we are witnessing the expansion of the traditional persian imperialism in the middle east with involvement in yemen, where iran is backing the who aziz --- hossis. and the shock of the assad regime, and our sunni arab allies are really insecure and frightened. we are thinking in the united two years, four years. they are thinking the glory of the pre-islamic iranian empire.
15 years from now the iranians will be only weeks with the capacity to enrich uranium on an unprecedented levels. they will be weeks from the bomb. so, what are the results of this agreement? a nuclear race in the middle east. buying reactors. the saudi's are buying the french reactors. the turks are buying reactors from france, korea, and russia. all these are building the skill set of the multipolar nuclear environment.
a gentleman told me 10 years ago if iranians go nuclear we go nuclear. i believe him. the turkish industrial base is bigger than the iranian. to wrap up my 14 points i will try to bring it in the q&a. what can we do? we need to show we mean business. thiswe be able to enforce agreement by having military power in the middle east? both naval base and land base. we need to make sure that any violations of this agreement extracts a high price from the iranian regime. it is unacceptable that this rhetoric continues. when he to put pressure on he ran to cease -- iran to see sentences genocidal rhetoric that comes out of toronto every friday. -- tehran every friday.
iran is rife with tv, satellite above and beyond the hands of the regime to the people of iran. to those dissidents who are in jail, to those minorities, women, gays, others whose rights are violated, hanged in tortured, we need to talk to that people. if iran normalizes and goes the route the soviet union went in trying to become a part of the international community, of course the natural gas resources are probably competing with russia to be the second largest in the world. you can have pipelines, natural gas, the reserves for the oil companies they can put on their books. they are enormous. this is why we see a stampede of business people to cut new
deals. has to bee security our first priority. this administration bought it. if it breaks it, it owns it. next administration will have to re-examine the performance until 2017. thank you very much. >> we promised you a range of views. we will engage the other panelists back and forth. our next speaker, i don't know enough about iran to speak with confidence. when it comes to the millennial long view of china it is possible to overstay that. we heard the exchange between he said too soon to tell. what is often left out as they were talking about the 1968 upheaval in france.
nothing one 200 years earlier. many people have some connection with iran over the years. both having dealt with the shock in the early days, the fateful toes that jimmy carter gave the shawl in 1977, i was there. how would it feel to be the speechwriter at that event where the president toasted the shaw as an island of stability in a sea of turmoil. that was a memorable moment. we have our next speaker who will tell us about one of the themes and dr. collins presentation. the texture of what it is like in iran now. you have recently been back to iran. he of done a number of interesting reports for the foreword. you have been in many tv shows pre-tell us how your visit to
iran is the first reporter from a jewish publication and decades , what that experience as to our discussion. dr. collins: sure. how everyone can hear me now. after that yen and yang of pro and con, i have nothing to say about the agreement. it is not my expertise. i was in iran. i came three weeks ago. was the first generalist from a jewish publication the lead in since the revolution. i'm interested in the timing. it was something i have been trying to get a visa for for two years. i finally got a visa. i was given understanding after applying a few times that i got a letter from a member of the iranian jewish community that would make a good difference. things started to move. i found it was fascinating.
it was amazing to see people were reeling to criticize -- were willing to criticize the government with their names attached. you can see some people speaking to my little phone video on our website. and i would make a habit after they spoke to me, i would ask me, tell me would you be willing to speak to my cell phone video and ask the question do you wish to destroy the state of israel. and they would answer the question. by in large, people have no interest in destroying the state of israel. this gets to an important point about iran. among ordinary people, the support for the agreement is -- is just almost blanket. i had a hard time finding anybody who was against the agreement on the popular level that wasn't the case all the time with popular people. that's not to say that ordinary
people have any clue about what the agreement -- what's in the agreement, what the agreement is about, whether it's a good thing or bad thing for iran. what they see in the agreement is reconnection with the world. and this is very interesting to me because i done a lot -- i probably wasted a lot of time researching the economics of iran today after the sanctions. i was ready to talk to them about unemployment, about economic depravation, about poverty. this is not to say that none of those things exist there but that's not what they talked to me about. what they talked about to me was not the economic depravation but the psychological depravation. they felt very sice lated over decades. they very disconnected. palpable hunger. people talk to me about, you know, going into a domestic place -- a security officer looks at my passport and said
more of you should come here. a security guard asked me what do americans think about the iranian revolutionary guard. and i told him most americans are frightened by the iranian revolutionary guard and said but why. [laughter] so there's a sense of -- of disconnection coming from many political angles. the iranian revolutionary guard was not friendly to america. he was weary and suspicious. and he was suspicious with me. of course the course of the one-hour conversation sitting in front of the tomb became clear that he like many iranians have this love-hate thing with america. he has this lively curiosity about's going on there. he was baffled why a super power with defensive expend di chure larger than the 10 countries against the
revolutionary guard. he said oh, oh, that. kind of what the americans say about 1953 and the c.i.a. oh, that, if they even know about it at all. there's this mutual bafflement and ignorance. there were people who are against the agreement and there are people who are hostile to america for sure. i spoke with two grand ayatollah and a very senior ayatollah. and i asked my stock question do you wish to destroy the state of israel? it was a fun question to pop on people. and one of them said, yeah, kind of. i do [laughter] he said that i think that israel's policies are atrocious but i think they're atrocious because of the inherent nature of zionism and because if israel
cannot change it, then they should be destroyed. two people said we oppose israel because of its policies not because of its existence. and that offered some implications for the future. right now the supreme leader is definitely in the camp of people who oppose israel buzz of its existence and he's also in the hostile of america camp. it's a deep-seated thing. i don't see that changing in a long time. underneath him there's division among the senior clerics where some of the most interesting debates take place. this hung tore reconnect with the world -- hunger to reconnect with the world, i think a strategist with how to go with this agreement all of these are relevant factors in terms of exploiting the potential of the agreement to create greater change. >> thank you very much. so we've had a really fascinating unfolding of the conversations so far hearing
from our two ambassadors about some of the next stages of opportunity for the united states and other players hearing from dr. cohen what he would use as the dangerous ramifications. hearing from larry about the fabric of the society that's going to be changed under that oh, comment about the iranian hostage. i went to vietnam about a decade after the u.s. withdraw from there. i was asking the vietnamese people how are they with the united states. they said there are hard feelings with vietnam. and i said why? oh, the war. we have anti-chinese, anti-french war, etc. most americans were born after the fall of zy gone. the median nage the u.s. is -- age in the u.s. is 38. now we're going to hear from a scholar who's going into various aspects now with georgetown
iversity previously at the pelper center. tell us what you think should be added to the discussion about the ramifications of the deal. >> thank you, we've been talking about all aspects of the nuclear program, the nuclear deal except the actual nuclear aspect of the nuclear deal. let me take a step back and address that because this is what the deal was designed to do. the deal was designed to curveball iran's nuclear program to stop a tense country from developing a nuclear weapon. of during that in violation the treaty and the safeguard agreements with the it. e. with the international atomic agency and it does that well. it may not be a perfect deal. and again, for a lot of people unless iran stopped its enrichment program, any deal
falling short of that would not be a good deal. but that would not be a realistic deal. this is as good an agreement as we could possibly get. it gives us eyes on virtually every aspect on ian's nuclear program. the thing that it does as well is that it strengthens the nonproliferation regime. we've had a bit of a crisis in this arena for the past few years. we haven't done as much as we could on a number of aspects of it. but this deal brings a country back into compliance. it does that without a single shot being fired. and it does that with u.s. leadership. aerial mentioned he took a completely different stance on that. but that's a very important point. the u.s. was instrumental in getting this deal. and essentially strengthen the nuclear proliferation regime. i want to also emphasize some of
the things that have been said going back to iran's regional activities and what's happening domestically. but these were things that were not part of the agreement. the agreement was designed to do. however the agreement does also strengthen a number of u.s. interests not by design. so for instance, this is empowering a team and the iranian foreign ministry that is very much pro engagement. this is a team that knows the u.s. well. the foreign minister has spent decades and the united states still has a number of the the rs and others in iranian government. it is a team despite getting a lot of backlash for it at home. and it's done that without the political capital that it is now going to have thanks to this deal. not only sit willing to engage with the rest of the world, it also is willing to pay the price
for it and now it has a political capital to do that. you have to be careful not to overstate iran's power and you know the return of the glory of the persian empire. let's face it, getting yemen doesn't get you the glory of the persian empire. it does not. and also to the extent to which iran is backing the houdi and to the extent that it is successful in doing that we should be careful not overstating these things. has a very dynamic civil society. a number of folks -- it's one of the key talking points is iran's human rights track record is awful. yes, it is awfulful but we're holding irans that we don't hold the same sunni allys that ariel was talking about. i ran needs to improve the track record but is it going to do wit sanctions? has the past 35 years of
sanctions helped? >> no. you know what has helped? stopped the regime from everything it's wanted to dosm it's been iran's very civil society. i was there. we saw it in 2009. i saw people my age come out and take to the streets. a lot of them -- a number of people got killed. a number of people end up in jail. many were stopped from pursuing an education because of that. t this dynamic open fairly educated young portion of the population is now going to have the ability to pursue what it wants to pursue which is more rights which is more engagement with the world. so far people came out to the streets, the government would say, look, we have this nuclear crisis, we could get attacked tomorrow and it gave it an excuse to essentially send people back home. now with the deal done this is not going to be as easy anymore. so for all these reasons, i think that the deal does a very
good job of what it was designed to do which is curve the nuclear program but it helps achieve other national interest not by design. >> great. thank you very much. i think it's very valuable in our contributions so far. we've had engagement on a lot of the main long-term issues whether this agreement will help or hurt nonproliferation activities. we've heard opposing views whether which forces are going to strengthen in iran. that is good. also i want to not jippings it but i want to congratulate all previous four speakers keeping right to time. the pressure is on the two of you. this is why i'm pointing this out. wire not going to hear from politicalnk who has a background. he's the senior director in the washington institute he had senior roles with condoleeza rice and colon powell.
tell us how you think we should be thinking about the agreement including anything that has been mistated so far? >> let me start by saying thank you for c.g.it. . it's a great honor to be on this panel with such fabulous experts as we have here. i've been working on this issue for 10 years and so -- i imagine everybody feels like they've been hearing about it for fwice that long. i'm going to try to be brief. i think that -- i was present at the creation borrowed phase of this p15-plus process. i've been a supporter of a negotiated outcome. it give mess no pleasure to say this deal is a weak deal. i don't think it's a strong deal. i think that we didn't -- we didn't manage a diplomacy as skillful as we might have. i think what's interesting about the debate, in a sense we're
having a debate about a congressional vote but what you hear is a lot more agreement than disagreement even amongst the opponents and the supporters on that congressional vote. those were coming out like corey mckowski has bara done that without reservations. i think the next president is going to come into office thinking that they want to strengthen this deal. i think that the charge they'll give their national security staff regardless whether it's a democrat or republican is how do we strengthen this deal and how do we strengthen our broader iran policy while avoiding all of those negative consequences that have been raised in this debate? with not just military conflict, which i done think it's imminent as it was painted up to be. but also our allies. we don't want to have a break obviously with our allies with this issue or any other issues
because we have a lot of irons in the fire in the world that we need to tend to. so i think that will be the charge for the next president. i think that will be tough to do with this deal on the books with the u.n. security council in trying it. we're going to need a lot of creative thinking hopefully from all the experts who are currently thinking about this now. i think the idea that iran will fundamentally change ilts strategy or policy in the region is really not much more than a gamble at this stage. i think there is an idea that some folks have that this deleel ow -- deal will clear away problems. the way i see it there isn't really anything in this deal which certainly not requires, certainly doesn't require iran to change its regional poll schism and i don't think there's anything that incentivizes iran
to deal with the regional strategy. remember iran's regional strategy is not just about the united states and nuclear diplomacy. iran has a strategy which is quite coherent and poses serious threat to american interests. they support proxies in lebanon, west bank, elsewhere. they have area denial strategy in the persian gulf. these are serious problems an there isn't a sign that they're changing as much as we would like to see them change. i think what we are liking to see apropos is i think we're liking to see iran strengthen lynx with russia and china which may share an interest in challenging the international order which the united states and the west have -- have led for some time. obviously that challenge is playing out not just here in iran but it's playing out in places like ukraine and the south china sea and so forth. iran is much more likely to
corporate with that broader effort than it is to try to draw close to the united states which is a much more difficult lift in a sense within the iranian system. so i think that at the same time also we could bear in mind aside here that iran has serious international challenges. this has been alluded to. but remember, lifting sanctions certainly is very helpful to iran. but in a sense it's not the only problem that iran faces internationally. i think there are significant political divisions within the regime. there are significant economic go beyond the sanctions. it's hard to say what direction those things could go. that could be a fill up for a positive change for reform or it could be the reverse. we've seen that in analogous situations around the world. as far as removing the threat,
which arianna mentioned i think the regime are good at crafting the threats to maintain their own domestic security. none of this to say that we shouldn't try to improve the situation on all these fronts but it will be very challenging. i don't think we should be under any illusion. i done think to ambassador's byrd's point that the u.n. will be the obstacle. i don't think we have an anti-iranian i'dology. it's gotten obscured in this debate but since 1979 every u.s. president has had their effort to reach out to the iranians whether it's jimmy carter, bill clintop, george w. bush and now president obama have pursued different earths along these lines. i don't expect that will be different in the future. the one thing which i think is different now in a very negative way is that we're terribly regional positioned for all of this. we've had obviously a difficult
time in part because of regional events. i would say in part because of our own policy choices over the past 10 or 12 years with our alliances in the region with, you know, the support of the american people for doing ambitious things in the region. and this is -- this is a time where it's going to be difficult to tackle the challenges that iran poses. and i think those challenges around going to go away as well as all the challenges we have like isis, the syrian civil war. that's something the next president is going to really think hard not just about this issue but i think comprehensively about the region and how do we start to rebuild some of these alliances, how do we start to rebuild our power in these region. >> great. thank you very much and now to wrap this up we're going to hear from kelsey. she has an academic and think tank background in the united states an in israel on many of these issues.
and you're free to tell us what you like about the nonproliferation aspects or any other concluding remarks before i ask questions of all of you. >> thank you very much for having me. thank you for the center to put on this event. i don't think i can synthesize all of the range of comments that we have today. i will offer a few ought tos on the nonproliferation of the deal. here i have to respectfully disagree with dr. cohen that this leaves the u.s. in a weakened position. right now based on the current trajectory they could obtain enough material for a nuclear weapon in two to three months. t also blocks iran's pathway using plutonium. and the monitoring and verification that's put on iran is the most intrusive that a country has ever voluntarily
agreed to adhere to. will be conuous monitoring. this is a strong deal and it serves the u.s. national security interest but where i share the concern is what happens after 15 years. at that point key restrictions will start to come off of iran's nuclear program and as dr. cohen said the timeline could decrease where iran could obtain the material for a nuclear weapon. there will be intrusive monitoring verification in place to give an early warning in that and while iran will still be prohibited from pursuing certain weaponization activities, it is without question a possibility that iran could ramp up its enrichment. but that is by no means a foregone conclusion. nor sit a foregone conclusion that other countries in the region will choose to follow iran down the path of obtaining domestic enrichment.
so i think the question becomes then whether or not you agree with this deal. and i believe that the deal ll be implemented. the question becomes what can we do to strengthen the agreement within the next 15 years to insure that when iran gets to that point, it does not have the incentive to ramp up its nuclear program and that other countries in the region do not feel like they have to achieve that level of parity. i think there are a number of options that the u.s. government working with its international partners both in the p 5 plus one in the region can explore and should explore within the next 15 years. for instance, iran has said it is willing to accept a permanent cap to reactor grade levels. that about 3.67% as compared to weapon levels which are about 90% enrichment. they said they would accept that
permanently if other countries were will be to accept that cap. let's see if it is possible to put that kind of restriction in place. iran has agreed to far more intrusive monitoring and verification from the international atomic energy agency than any country has ever agreed to. let's see if those restrictions including monitoring at key sites could be works into any country in the region that chooses to pursue a nuclear program. these areas i think, including certain u.s. policies like guaranteed fuel supplies for countrys that want to pursue nuclear power could play a critical role in staving off an interest in any other country in the region, certainly turkey, saudi arabia, jordan, the u.a.e. all have considered nuclear power. staving off them by insuring that they can fuel their reactors, these measures i think
could be critical then in staving off an enrichment race and also insuring that when iran reaches that 15 years it has guaranteed fuel supplies and has no interest in dramatic increasing its enrichment. >> thank you very much i think is has been a very enriching conversation so far. i would like to explore some comments. one of them that i would suggest not to go in detail is the deal. we can spend the next six weeks doing that. we know it's going to be implemented. however there are there have been different views whether whether this deal the u.s. is going to impede whether it's going to kick off a regional arms race. i would like to invite different views on that there's a related question on whether this deal should be thought of as similar to one with the soviet union
where there are still very deep complex of interest or similar to the one they had with china where there are a million disagreements but not fundamental conflicts of interest. do we think the u.s. and iran have very deep conflicts of interest? we've heard different views of that. it's been fascinating to hear that now we now -- now we think we know the congressional outcome of this deal. people are talking about what needs to be done by the next administration, next five years, next 10 years to make it happen. also fascinatingly to me given the prominence of this theme and the u.s. political debate we've had very little discussion of the u.s.-israel iran triangle which has been 80% of the discussion in the u.s. and smaller per portion here. let me invite one round of discussion between thomas pickering and arial cohen on whether this is likely to produce more arms race arm stability in the region. you were suggesting no -- arial
cohen was saying yes, what do you mick of the agreement he was making? and then you'll -- >> the argument that he was making on what he hear from the turk. the turk said if iran gets a thue clear weapon we may go. and that may be true. the agreement is to prevent iran rom getting a nuclear weapon despite that netanyahu would like you to don't that the cility -- area facilitates that. record of nonproliferation so far is that, in fact, what happens in nearby countries with respect to civil nuclear power es not drive the nearbi-countries to a weapons posture.
what happens after 10, 15, 25 years? a very important piece in addition to what kelsey said. she said a number of porn things is that iran has some interest in nuclear power. they have, in fact, bought a reactor twice, once from germany and secondly from russia. the russian policy is no reactor without a strong commitment to provide fuel and take back spent fuel. that ought to become the goal standard. and anybody who is selling reactors to iran should insist on that goal standard. that takes away this wonderful idea of iran that we have to produce all kinds of low enriched uranium and many centrifuges. the iranians haven't got their
enrichment or their money back. they want to have a domestic guarantee. by let them develop it to pile the fuel. put them under iaea supervision from the fuel bank or the provider. this will begin to build some soldity in the region. many other organizations that are working in the region and beyond -- should be important. why the hell the united states dn't start itself with multi-nationalization? right now we're using black box centrifuges from urenco. so why don't we exploit that and say the new gold standard is all new enrichment has to be multi-national and we will work our bhinds off to make that
happen. so in effect we don't get this breakout capability. we don't get in a sense people saying well, we have some justification to pile up a lot of it. these are the follow-on things that can make a real difference in this problem. >> what in that do you disagree with? >> first of all, let me say that i agree that if iran ascribes to -- b cribes to a mull multinational supervised of low enriched uranium that would be the best for everybody. unfortunately they didn't agree to that goal. they agreed to something that's not reachable. i cannot see how if a country pro claims that it is committed to a civilian nuclear program it's on the path to expanding
the bank of its centrifuges and is modernizing its bank of the centrifuges. ith the opening of the low enriched uranium storage bank in kazakhstan. here is a non-american, nonwestern source of l.e.u. for everybody including iran. why not codify in the agreement and shut down the enrichment or at least scale it to the point ere it doesn't look like a military purpose facility or a facility of dual use. because that's what it is. it's a dual use facility. further more we discovered verification and colleagues here said that it is unprecedented. i'm sorry, this verification process openly and grossry violates the additional protocol
by having a 24-day period in ich the -- the inspectors -- >> there's agreement on the 2446 day point. -- 24-day point. 21, 24inspectors -- for days -- there is a debate on that. >> let's move on. >> you raise the prospect of the regional arms race. just address that for a moment. race -- thenal arms evidence is strong. the egyptians and the saudi's are talking about an enrichment program for themselves. and, by the way, one thing we did not address is the platforms and delivery vehicles. i run has built and is modernizing -- iran has built and is modernizing a fleet of short-range missiles capable of
delivering nuclear weapons. the explanation of having the uraniumf enrichment of and having the delivery vehicle prompts you to only one conclusion. this is a military program. >> would anybody like to address, briefly? >> a few things. just by saying that the evidence is strong doesn't make the evidence strong. there are a number of technical, legal, and political challenges to a nuclear arms race in the middle east. just remember we bring up this whole domino effect every time we are about to make poor foreign policy decisions. we have leverage in the region. all the countries we mentioned -- turkey, saudi arabia, everybody else -- egypt, depends on the u.s. and other suppliers for their nuclear programs. the onset, they can do it by themselves. -- beyond that, they can't do it
by themselves. they need technical experts from the west to go and help them build their program. what that means is it the burden on the shoulders of the suppliers. let's make sure that the suppliers make these countries come up with guarantees before they build nuclear reactors. that said, i will emphasize again, there are a number of technical, legal -- first all of these countries are part of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. they are technical challenges because they depend on other countries to supply them with reactors and nuclear technology. egypt has been going at it for decades. they still have a functioning nuclear program. -- they still don't have a nuclear program. one thing i have learned my short career in foreign policy, when you are asked about the future, the correct answer is, i
don't know. >> wise man. [laughter] --i worked for: powell, for colin powell, so that gave me some experience. thinking about the future and preventing bad things from happening, and responding - if they do. what we are seeing in china is an example. these crises are not unpredictable. this would not be a black swan if it happened. we can have an interesting debate whether it will happen. we can't ever claim to be surprised if suddenly now iran's rivals pursue their own nuclear programs. the relevant policy questions are, how can we just incentivize sincentivizen we di it, and what will we do if it does happen? i agree with arielle, the only way to move this incentive strengthened the nuclear constraints on iran.
that is why the next president will be thinking along those lines. we start january 2017. but how do we strengthen it? how do we address some of these glaring flaws, that even supporters have identified? >> i'm not going to look into the future. i think it is worth taking a second to look into the past. when we consider where iran started with its richmond itgram over 15 years ago, was known to other countries in the region that iran was keeping -- was developing these abilities. the saudi's have not taken fundamental steps to develop an enrichment program while iran's nuclear program was going. i think that speaks somewhat to their intentions. now that iran's program is limited, that it's under severe restrictions, why would they pursue that now when they didn't pursue it when iran's program
was growing? one thing that the saudi's are cognizant of is that if they chose to pursue a new enrichment program, they would be under the microscope of the international community. is that something that the saudis want? that level of monitoring, that level of verification and scrutiny, and perhaps sanctions that would go along with it? i don't see that within the saudi interest at this point. >> you have 90 seconds to respond. >> the funny thing that has happened with this process is that until this, we had a notion that a negotiated agreement on nonproliferation or nuclear issues is the end state. the iranian tradition is, if you have an agreement, then you start negotiating again, i think we have an iranization of this process. now we are looking at
disagreement as a base for future negotiations. the devil is in the details. how we are going to move forward. one other thing. ran --ion that after he after iran waltzed around the iaea and got itself to the threshold state position, somehow we, the u.s. and our allies, will stand there and tell the saudi's and egyptians not to do that. i think that presumes a level of a u.s.-iranian alliance that is not developed yet. >> just two things for ariel. nine seconds. [laughter] don't tell us about the future with such confidence in such a miserable, despicable, downer way. because the future is not
chiseled in stone. to be something that is miserable, downer. secondly, don't underestimate the commitment of the united states to nonproliferation in the region. and certainly with the other parties. 3rael is part of our 1, 2, approach, and something that you play games with as you describe it. >> we are going to get to audience questions in a moment. one issue i want to survey opinion on. oversupplied -- two oversimplified ways of looking at the u.s.-iranian relationship. one of that they are inimical and that's the steel strengthens a force that is -- that this deal strengthens a force that is pernicious to us. the other is that the relationship has been absent over 30 years.
each is an open simple fight -- each is an over simple if i'd view. i'm curious which of those th emes is more accurate. opposedranians who are to closer relations with america have a grievance. without endorsing the grievance, it's important to know what it is, because it relates to real events. cia,953 involvement of the installing a democratic leader. but there is more. ining the iran-iraq war, 1988, shortly after the revolution when saddam hussein invaded the country. america decided with saddam hussein, knowing that he was using chemical weapons. they know that we knew that, and we supported him anyway. it makes a lot of what the
americans say about opposing the abuse of chemical weapons and mass weapons of destruction -- they hear is very cynically. >> explained 20 seconds for those who have never heard of it. war, by theiraq time of 1994-mike enzi five -- 5, there were many ships in the persian gulf. it shot down an iranian aircraft. it was a civilian aircraft with 290 civilians aboard. within, men, children pilots, copilots. everyone died. there was no apology. there was an admission is that it was a mistake. shortly afterwards, the
commander of that ship was promoted and given a medal of valor. the iranians noticed this. americans don't because, by and large, we have a sense of innocence about their grievances. part of addressing the relationship with iran is to begin to understand that this is what is on their grievance list. it would make a big difference. the other thing i want to say is that right now, looking forward with this relationship in the agreement appearing to go forward, there is a big battle taking place in iran between of those who see the agreement as a gateway to further engagement. rohani is in this camp. he has given enough speeches and has been consistent enough that he sees this as a gateway to greater engagement on military cooperation, hopefully, on cultural, artistic cooperation engagement. then you have what i call the
deep space, who are set against it. leader -- the supreme leader has called us to the parliament without negotiation. you will see a battle on the iranian side just as we have in the u.s. wait until the americans see what we are about to do. americans have a stake in how this turns out. most americans would like this to be a gateway to human rights issues, to cultural issues. right now, anything that the americans can do to create this agreement is a great way -- as a gateway to broader issue will be to the american's benefit and to the agreement itself. >> let me ask my microphone-bearers to go to the crowd. would anyone like to address this question?
with a premium on concision. >> i will be concise. it's important to bear in mind that the regime in iran, one of its core pillars is anti-americanism. i think that we need to change for there to be better relations between the u.s. and iran. i think that is quite simple. again, one question has to be, how likely do we think there will be this transformation inside iran? that takes longer than nine seconds. >> forget it. >> but i have written about this. one thing i can say is that if this regime is unusual for iranian history. one thing we don't know, when we think about the future, is what it is going to be. you can bet there are many people in the regime who are dedicated to its survival first and foremost, and will not be eager on this domestic debate to see this kind of agreement. on the basic of interest, we need to bear in mind that we have conflicting interests with
iran. we are interested in freedom of access to navigation in the persian gulf. the iranians quite openly talk about wanting to deny us those things, and occasionally act to demonstrate that. they are not interested in regional stability, which is a core goal of the u.s. we would have said before isis that iranian proxy supports to bhezbollah would be primary threat to regional stability. there are deep problems here. >> our queue is 1, 2, 3. then we will go to the crowd. >> not everything is black and white. it's not that all u.s. interests are fundamentally opposed to iranian interests, for that interests align perfectly. it is neither of those things. we have interests aligned with iran, and those that diverge. more of a second category then the former, but there are interests that align.
including in afghanistan, where the u.s. is likely to be stuck for the near future. the u.s. and iranian interests align there. and and iraqi -- iranian u.s. interests align in iraq as well. it's important to look at the nuances and all the shades of gray in the. not to say that we have no common interest. things.3 picking up on what has been said. this agreement, in my view, has to have been based, and i believe it is, on planned for the worst and work for the better. it is very much in the ronald reagan tradition -- trust, but verify. what i said about this agreement is that it is based on this trust -- based on distrust, but verify. it seems that anybody comes to you and says, this agreement is
based on a presumption, that iran will certainly become an angelic dr. in the middle east, has got to be wrong. -- angelic factor in the middle east. we have a varying number of serious problems to solve between the u.s. and iran. it isn't going to happen very quickly. all of those who have hopes that this agreement is going to make a remarkable shift, i would say, continue to pray. we needed all. -- we need it all. in will not -- it will not inevitably happen. regime change is not our strong suit. we really haven't done very well with it. the obvious concerns have played a huge role in the problem. regime change is an internal question in iran. that is where i believe we should rest. the notion that this agreement
has to produce regime change to be successful is again, another error. nice to have, say your prayers, but don't count on it. sayinge clear, i'm not that-- >> you said something should produce regime change, it's on the record. >> i will not give mr. prima the leftward on that. >> i'll take it, watch out. buto be clear, it's not me, president obama who has said that he hopes this deal will produce a moderation in iran. that is an error. all, i did not present a view of the future that is either despicable or miserable.
with ambassador pickering. what i listed was a realistic future, and go back and realize our support for the arab spring, and what it resulted in. the realism of the middle east, yes, it justifies our conversions of interest with iran. the sunni radical threat to our interest in the middle east is just as huge as the shia extremist threat. in terms of the iranian national interest, yes, the iranians would be interested in a realistic tradition of iranian policy. -- iranian diplomacy. for that, they need to examine the extremist shia view that informs their anti-semitism, anti-americanism, and anti-western inclination and start acting the way we want
them to act -- real polity players in the middle east. unfortunately, i would argue there was a strong current against realpolitik in iran. those at the microphone will be choosing the questioners. we will start back here. >> this question is for whichever the panelists wants to feel that. -- wants to field it. u.s. should be focusing on the long-term game, after 15 years, what do we do then? what specific policies can we years, ensure after 15 devoting a nonnuclear iran? diplomacy, or further agreements for sanctions? >> who has short answers to that? >> i would certainly agree with the comments made by ambassador
pickering that the u.s. should pursue a gold standard, ensuring that other countries do not pursue enrichment. toshould certainly work strengthen the nuclear suppliers group, which includes the country that provide and sell nuclear reactors. i is a think there is a lot that can be done with multilateral control regimes to prevent the transfer of technology that are related to weapons of mass destruction development. there are areas in which missile technology control regime's can be strengthened. areas where the liberation security initiative -- proliferation security initiative can be strengthened. there is a lot we can do on export controls. this combined targeted nonproliferation elements and a wider look at her multilateral regimes to focus on the region in combination to stem the transfer of these technologies and their further development. >> thank you very much for a
fascinating panel. >> identical yourself please. -- identify yourself please. >> if the minister netanyahu invited you for coffee for advice, what would you tell him? and ambassador pickering, what can you talk about the u.s.-iranian relationship going forward if the deal is voted on? thank you very much. >> prime minister netanyahu, i guess my advice would be very simple. i would advise them that when he views iraq, he should buy a color television set instead of a black and white one. that is so fundamental, i don't know what i would say after that. the presentation he is made up iran has done a disservice to him. i think there are others in israel in the security
assessment who have some appreciation for that. that doesn't have anything to say against people who point out that the supreme leader in the states surrounding him are to being against the state of israel. at the same time, there are very real policies in pursuit of that goal. at the time iraq invaded iran in 1998, -- in 1988. they do have goals. the goals that they want are not the same goals as civil society. people should be aware of that tension. >> on u.s.-israeli relations, i would say recall ever between fourth, 2013. -- i would say recall november 4, 2013, when it promised her netanyahu said is the worst negotiation we could have made.
he was almost on his knees to the president of the united states, keep this agreement in place. that was quite a shift in mr. netanyahu's outlook on life. one can't predict that it will be the same, but one can hope that. hoping for that isn't necessarily going to make it possible. my own view is that israel will sooner or later have to learn to live with the agreement. the president's, but i would call on restraint commitments -- would call on restraint -- unrestrained commitments to defend themselves in light of a changing situation in the middle east has been the bedrock of keeping equality in the hands of israel. that should not change. i think mr. netanyahu made a serious mistake in trying to polarize support for israel between the american political parties. not a wise idea.
anybody who spent time inrelationship, and i certainly have in my time in service and israel, thinks that was not a wise or helpful issue. supportingpening in the president, where we have come is interesting. it will be more interesting to see whether in fact the democrats will get enough votes to block closure. that too, would be very interesting. it will be a hard slog. the relationship between the u.s. and israel is embedded in more than political personalities in the triumph in both sides signed two-time of domestic -- both sides of time to time of domestic interests, which is what we have to come back to. there's a good time in the aftermath of the agreement to look for it. i think the president is wise at taking a hard look at the israel-palestine situation.
there is still time left in this administration to take a hard look at that. i think it's becoming time, if in fact the parties cannot succeed at getting a negotiation going, for the u.s. to consider outlining its own views for the first time in history on what the solution it believes should look like. not to dictate the solution. not to prescribe the treaty. but to give the parties some hints as to what we in the international community, because i think they will join us in this, would be prepared to support and not be prepared to support. that can be very helpful in the long term. i think in the end, solutions to problems in the area are not in permanent occupation. not in great uncertainty about whether israel has to choose between being a jewish state in a democratic state. it must continue to be clearly a jewish and democratic state, but it must also, obviously, deal
with all of its people on a company has a, and i hope, fair basis. -- with its people on a comprehensive, and i hope, fair basis. >> i was hoping to ask you about the arb. when you are undergoing your investigation, did you know about hillary clinton's private e-mail server, and if you receive any e-mails? >> you have 15 seconds to answer that, and we will move on. >> if not, would you consider the investigation and complete? > >> no, i don't consider it incomplete. there are a lot of things that have come up since the investigation took place. we have always said, in respect the investigation, we did the job we were asked to do with the material that we had. we could not foreclose, as michael singh continues to warn
us, that the future will produce all the results. we are welcome to look at other results. not further activity on our part. individuals will speak for themselves. >> a question in the second row. >> my name is eduardo. you said this is the best deal u.s. can get realistically. receives iran is set to will probably go to terrorism and that behavior. in the u.s. also has options in iran. do you really believe that the u.s. could have negotiated from a stronger position that would have resulted in a better steel with the hostages and economic benefits? >> again, this deal is about iran's nuclear program. it's not about its human rights record, it's not about its regional ambitions. that said, there is also something to be said about the fact that we keep hearing this idea that iran is going to spend all the money it's going to get
to support terrorists. that is not true. first of all, the official budget of the country is not w here supporting terrorism comes from. there is a clearly different fund, and years of sanctions have been changing that. we can put more sanctions in, we continue sitting at the table. it's not going to stop iran from funding hezbollah were doing other things. that is number one. and number two, frankly, iran has a lot on its plate. the economy is not doing too well. people expect some kind of blueprint. they expect rohani to get more money. they elected him because they want to see movement on an economic front. he has to deliver something. the idea that iran is just going to take the money, and instead of -- and directed to lebanon and yemen, i think that is misconstrued.
again, my limited experiience, anybody that tells you they negotiated the best possible permit is clearly selling you something. some result in a worse agreement, some have resulted in better. i think there are a divergence of you. i think we need to strengthen it. on the question of how rohani will spend the money. we will look at the past. budget,t rohani in his did increase funding for the ministry of intelligence. iran is engaged in very costly wars in syria and iraq. i have no doubt in my mind that iran is going to use some portion of its money for what is engaged in overseas. it would make no sense for them to bring it all in domesticly. we need to be honest with ourselves about the costs of the policies with which we engage. this is one lesson we hopefully learn many times.
you can say this is the best of the benefits. but to say that the cons don't exist will never lead you to the right policy. >> i like to relate an anecdote that i found eliminating. -- i found illuminating. he worked in the nuclear industry and ran for president 2012.t success in 2009, i asked him to draw a pie chart of how he would like to see the unleashed assets spent. just do a thought exercise. to my surprise, he drew a pie ch art that had summoned like, under 10% for military security purposes. the quote that he gave me, trying to keep up with saudi
arabia. for every $100 that saudi arabia spends, we should spend one dollar. the new wants here -- the nuance is that you don't have to spend a lot of money to make progress in hez >> circle back at successful and unsuccessful diplomatic ventures. at the very tail end of an administration that has a raucous relationship with israel to go push for some kind of comprehensive solution when bill ,linton, the great charmer failed to do it in camp david in two weeks and that resulted in a war that killed 1000 israelis and 4000 palestinians. sitting ont would be
a proposition that has less than 10% chance of success. >> we have lots of questions to go and only one we have time for. i have been hearing mention of similarities to president reagan. it's a very popular russian proverb. in mid july, president obama calledesident putin -- president putin to thank him for his support of the iranian deal. the white house statement described this as important. considering current the poor statend
of russian-american relations, why do you think russia supported the iranian deal? considering the falling price of oil and growing reputation for energy markets come a what are the applications? thank you. >> a number of people around the table will have their views. my sense is that the russians have had a very strong policy of nonproliferation. they see it as working against their interests as we do. secondly, iran happens to be a lot closer to moscow been a lot than a lotaces -- of other places. russia happens to do business with iran. we shouldn't lose sight of that, including the s3 hundred among other things and potential for military equipment sales. as we saw in the end of the .greement
those are the kinds of things that played a role in the russian look at it. we shouldn't be deceiving ourselves to say they are purely wonderful motives and they will stay pure and simple and we can totally count on that. on the other hand, it is true that despite the messy and difficult relationship we have with russia, with some legitimacy in my view over ukraine, it is a situation in which there are places we can also find agreement. my sense is that we should not let one particular issue so dominate our relationship that we can't take advantage of finding ways to move the question ahead. if we are going to move the question ahead, we need all the leverage we can get and the leverage comes out of common views on some big and important issues when that time comes. >> i interviewed president obama two weeks ago.
surprised byappily the way russia was able to compartmentalize this issue given the other stresses here it -- stresses. the panelists will be around afterwards to discuss your questions with you. i want to thank cgi for putting on these sessions. want to thank the six excellent panelists. please join me and extending your gratitude. . [applause]
>> the house and senate return from their summer recess this week and get right to work on the iran nuclear agreement, particularly a resolution of disapproval of that agreement. getting ready to cover that debate is laura barron lopez. who will be some of the key players and what will be here in that debate that begins tuesday? >> thanks for having me. now, thenate right administration is pretty confident that democrats will be .ble to protect this deal far, 38 democrats have announced their support for the
deal. that is just a few shy of the number needed to filibuster if they wanted to filibuster the resolution of disapproval. the debate is going to be pretty heated. they will start on tuesday. it looks like even if it does pass the senate, democrats will have the vote to sustain a presidential veto. >> one of the votes they won't is ben cardin, the ranking member who wrote about his opposition friday. here is his tweet here it he says, regarding the iran deal, this is a close call but after lengthy review, i will vote to disapprove. or does his opposition it change at all the nature of the debate in the senate? >> i think senator cardin's opposition very much embodies how difficult this issue has been for all of the senators and congressmen were's, every single
person whether they come out for it or against it. they have said this has been the most difficult decision they have ever had to make as a lawmaker. -- a lot of us didn't really know where he would go. now he is the third democrat on top of schumer and mendez -- menendez to say he will vote against the deal. -- mendez. the it comes down to numbers, i don't think the administration will be sweating too much because they know they have the votes in the senate to sustain a veto. >> let's take a look at the house. nancy pelosi sent out a colleagues letter about getting everybody on board to support the iran deal, to vote against the resolution of disapproval. the rules committee takes it up in the house on tuesday evening. the floor debate begins midweek. who will be some of the floor >> the house is a bit
more fluid right now. minority leader pelosi did say they have well over 100 democrats that have come out in support of the deal. they need 146 in order to sustain a presidential veto. they are not quite there yet. she has been very aggressive over the august recess as well as the administration have been to make sure they are getting the support they need. it is going to be very interesting next week. go back to the senate for a second. there had been talk about the potential for democrats to be able to filibuster and prevent this from ever coming to a final vote. i believe the number they were talking about is 41. our democratic leaders in the senate indicating that they
might have the ability to stop that from coming to a final vote? >> because they are so close to the 41 number as you said, it will be interesting to see if they decide to do that. people have said that -- there are five undecided democrats. they may not end up getting the vote. congress for the huffington post. read more at huffington post.com. thanks for the update. iran nuclear agreement will be the focus of several events next week in washington dc. on tuesday, dick cheney will talk about the nuclear deal and its implications for the u.s. and middle east. that is at the american enterprise institute.
we will have it live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two. tuesday, the carnegie endowment will host harry reid's talking about his support for the nuclear deal as the senate prepares for debate on the issue. that is tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the iran nuclear agreement was one of the topics of discussion for president obama and the king of saudi arabia friday at the white house. they met to discuss u.s.-saudi relations and other global issues. they spoke with reporters for about 10 minutes from the oval office here it -- office. pres. obama: it is a great
pleasure to welcome his majesty to thelmon -- salman office. this visit is indicative of the long-standing friendship between the united date and saudi arabia. -- states speaking foreign language] pres. obama: this is obviously a challenging time in world affairs, particularly in the middle east. language]ng foreign and so we expect
a conversation across a wide range of issues. >> [speaking foreign language] we share a concern about yemen and the need to governmentunctioning that is inclusive and that can relieve the humanitarian situation there. migrant] -- foreign [speaking foreign language] pres. obama: we share concerns about the crisis in syria and we
will have the opportunity to discuss how we can arrive at a political transition process within syria that can finally end the horrific conflict there. speaking foreign language] pres. obama: we continue to cooperate extremely closely in countering terrorist activities in the region and around the world, including a battle against isis. language]ng foreign
pres. obama: and we will discuss the importance of effectively implementing the deal to an sure iran does not have a nuclear itson while counteracting destabilizing activities in the region. -- ensure >> [speaking foreign language] pres. obama: we will also have an opportunity to discuss the world economy and energy issues and i look forward to continuing to deepen our cooperation on issues like education and clean , science, and climate
change because his majesty is interested obviously ultimately ,n making sure that his people particularly young people, have prosperity and opportunity into the future and we share those hopes and those dreams for those young people and i look forward to hearing his ideas on how we can be helpful. >> [speaking foreign language]
thank you for allowing us to enjoy your hospitality. i intended to make my first official visit to the united the deep a symbol of and strong relationship that we have with the united states. it is a historical relationship that goes back to the day when the king met with president roosevelt in 1945. language]ng foreign >> a relationship is beneficial not only to our two countries but also to the our entire region and the world. emphasize that we want relations and
further our cooperation in all fields. >> [speaking foreign language] >> as you know, mr. president, our economy is a free economy, therefore we must allow opportunities for business able to exchange opportunities because if people see that there are common interests, they will further themselves in relations between them and our relationship must be beneficial to both of us come and not only in the economic field but in the political and military defense field as well. speaking foreign language]
>> once again, mr. president, i am happy to come to your country to meet a friend. we want to work together for world peace. our region must achieve stability which is essential for the prosperity of its people and in our country, thank god, we are prosperous, but we want prosperity for the entire region and we are willing to cooperate with you in order to achieve that. >> [speaking foreign language] >> thank you, mr. president, for
your hospitality and i look forward to seeing you and other to myan officials coming country and saudi officials coming to the united states. pres. obama: thank you very much, everybody. [shouting] pres. obama: thank you very thank you -- thank you. thank you. thank you, everybody. >> thank you, guys. pres. obama: thank you. [indiscernible]
>> president obama will meet later this month with pope francis. in pope will attend events new york, philadelphia, and washington dc. one of his appearances will be before a joint meeting of congress. we learn more about the pope's visit from archbishop joseph kurtz. >> it is my understanding that it is the first time our holy father has been invited to this session. we want to welcome a special
guest into our home and we are happy that he will also be at the public square. we are eager for him to come. hear a littlee to bit about the overall themes you think he will strike. how much of his address will be interpreted in light of the political season with .residential elections how much will politics be seen to play in his address? >> i think we have to make room so that we can hear the message of our holy father. i don't have a text or anything of what he is going to say, but we can certainly no on other visits he has had where he has talked in the public square. i think that is a good direction to begin with. i believe that his primary coming is for the world meeting families where he will be that
saturday and sunday in philadelphia. however, this joint meeting of congress, i suspect he will focus in on themes of the common good, of what it means to see the dignity of every human person, the great gift of our home which we call the earth, and i suspect that he will also take up themes such as what he calls the throw away temptation. the temptation for us to become so involved in consumerism that we miss the sight of the person outside of ourselves. >> you can watch the entire interview on c-span. death ofsudden president harding, vice president calvin coolidge takes office. grace coolidge was enormously taster and influenced the
of american women by becoming a style icon. although, she married a man known as silent cal, she never spoke to the press it used her office to bring attention to issues she cared about. great coolidge this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original theories, first ladies, influence and image. examining the public and private lives of the women who filled the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency for martha washington to michelle obama. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. up next, from washington journal, a look at the role of progresses and the tea party and campaign 2016. then, ben carson speaking at the steamboat institute's annual conference in colorado. later, ohio governor and republican presidential candidate john kasich meeting with new hampshire voters at a house party in bedford.
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] host: joining us now is anna galland who is executive director of moveon.org. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's start with iran because we learned that the president -- the white house has secured enough votes, starting in the senate, to keep this treaty alive and it avoided being defeated. what is your group's reaction to that? guest: this is an historic victory and armor -- and our members worked their hearts out to help secure this outcome. it is a good, diplomatic agreement that will help keep americans safe and prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. alternative to this diplomatic agreement is putting us on a path to another open-ended war of choice in the middle east, which is devastating and an avoidable outcome. the majority of the american public supports this, so good deal, the public supports it,
and the alternative is war. moveon members have been working for multiple months. in fact, looking back, there is a track record of over one decade of moveon members working to prevent and then stop down, dumb, devastating and destructive wars like the iraq war and now the possibility of a war with iran. we have been working in particular over the past two months to encourage democrats in congress to come up strongly supporting this breakthrough historic deal and we have been telling people that we will hold them accountable. telling our elected officials that we will hold them accountable if they oppose this deal. just in the last month, we had hundreds of events organized by constituents around the country, outside of congressional offices, in city squares and all around the country. we have seen the results of that work.
as you noted, this week, we have the 34th senator mccluskey come out saying that she would support this deal. that means that he awoke survived, but the fight is not over. we need to see every single democratic senator and every single undecided member of the house come out and say that they will support this deal because ideally, we would like to keep a bad bill of killing diplomacy and undermining diplomacy often desk altogether but we need to desk the president's altogether but we need to see every member of the democratic caucus cannot and support this deal for the reasons i said about how good it is and the fact that their constituents, voters, and in particular their democratic base will hold them accountable if they vote to kill diplomacy and put us on a path to war. host: our guest is in chicago, anna galland executive director of moveon.org. we put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen and we start with iran but we will do with presidential policies and other issues. our guest just talked a little bit about moveon.org's work over the iran deal. we are reminded by this headline
-- moveon aims to withhold 10 million a contribution for them to oppose the iran deal. we also noticed the tweet recently by moveon.org which we can show on the screen. it is in new york. it looks like senator menendez there and senator schumer, to folks who did not support the deal. most likely to start a war it says there. tell us more about your effort, anna galland guest:. first, i should say this donor strike that we helped organize was wildly successful. we hit 10 million early on. that eventually climbed the wedding million dollars that -- climbed to $40 million that they promised to withhold the democratic senators and democratic representatives succeeded in undermining the president's breakthrough diplomatic agreement with iran. the reason is that we do not need another devastating, costly, and avoidable war in the middle east. we have seen that movie before.
we know how it ends. democratic voters, progressive activists in the party were saying clearly and strongly that if you put us on a path to war, we will hold you accountable. with our actions, donations, volunteer hours and with our support. that donor strike you mentioned really has been heard in washington because even from small donors, even from people who can only write a check for $25 or whatever it is, that money adds up and members of congress need that grassroots support. the second thing you mentioned, the schumer mobile -- chuck schumer wants to be the next leader of democrats in the senate. if he wants to be -- if he wants to obtain that leadership position, he needs to lead.
leading right now means supporting and enabling this birther diplomatic deal with iran to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. this is a weapon that nuclear experts, nonproliferation experts, retired generals, friends and allies from around the world believe is a good deal and the best option available. when chuck schumer came out and announced that he was going to vote against the deal, i members were furious and heartbroken. this is not what we expect from someone who seeks leadership in the democratic party. one of our tactics in response has been to take out the mobile billboard in new york city. we have been driving it around for one week. we had an amazing response and launched it with a rally with 100 people. we have that individuals coming off the street and taking selfies with it. i think it has been a really visible way of putting our money where our mouth is and say that if you stand against the clumsy, diplomacy, if you put us on a path to war, we will hold you accountable and this is what accountability looks like. host: richard ur