tv Nikki Haley More Sanctions Wont Necessarily Work Against North Korea CSPAN September 5, 2017 8:55pm-9:44pm EDT
journal, live every day. with the news and policy issues that impact your. coming up on wednesday morning. congressman al green discusses hurricane harvey aid. studiesor immigration speaker talks about the trump administration's decision to overturn daca. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7 a.m. eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion! announcer: next, u.s. ambassador to the u.n., nikki haley, talks about iran's nuclear program and the around nuclear deal known as the "joint comprehensive plan of action." which she said is flawed. this was sponsored by the american enterprise institute. >> you guys are quiet, wow1 making us look good!
good morning everybody. i am the senior vice president for defense and policy studies here at aei. we are a little bit tight for time today so i will not take a lot of time for introductions. i think ambassador nikki haley is well known to most of you here. she is a former governor of south carolina. she is the daughter of immigrants, what a great success story she is! and she is now our united nations permanent representative. become toosingly has many rogue nations around the world, the voice of america and a strong and clear one at that. let me tell you quickly what we are doing here today, she will come to the podium and deliver a short speech. we will then sit down and do a little conversation and take questions from the audience. we will then clear the room, and with that, ambassador haley? [applause]
haley: thank you very much. it is great to see you all in the room and thank you for hosting me today. arthur brooks is one of the coolest people i know. reallyative heart was written and impacted me greatly, so i valley his friendship and the contributions that aei continues to make. speak aboutday, to iran and the 2015 . should a topic that concern all americans, as it has a serious impact on our national security and the security of the world. it is a topic that comes up frequently at the united nations, and it is a topic that we have been looking at carefully. withding recently visiting the iran nuclear monitors at the international atomic energy agency in the anna. we were impressed -- in vienna. we were impressed by their efforts and the director general is a very capable diplomat.
person, whoous clearly understands the critical nature of his task. made aniscussion, amano observation that stood out to me. iranianthat monitoring compliance with the nuclear deal is like a jigsaw puzzle, ticking up just one piece does not give you the full picture. that is a very appropriate metaphor, and it goes well aea.nd the work of the i it goes through the entire way that we must look at iranian behavior and american security and trust. that point,rs miss and think that as long as iran is meeting the limits on enriched uranium and centrifuges, then it is complying with the deal. that is not true. this is a jigsaw puzzle. next month, president trump will once again be called upon to declare whether he will find iran in compliance with the deal.
offsetquirement to compliance does not come from the deal itself. congress in anby act also known as the "corker cardin law." it is a very important distinction to keep in mind because many people confuse the requirements of the deal with the requirements of u.s. law. i am not going to prejudge in any way what the president is going to decide next month, while i have discussed it with him, i do not know what decision he will make. it is his decision to make, and his alone. question, andated -- it is a complicated question and the truth is that the deal has many flaws. it is tempting to leave it. but the deal was constructed in a way that makes leaving it less attractive. it gave iran what it wanted upfront, in exchange for temporary promises to deliver what we want. that is not good.
iran was feeling the pinch of international sanctions in a big way. in the two years before the deal was signed, iran's gdp actually shrunk by more than 4%. more than 4%. in the two years since the deal and listings -- lifting of sanctions, iran's gdp has grown by nearly 5%. that's a great deal for them. what we get from the deal is not so clear. i'm here to outline some of the critical considerations that must go into any analysis of iranian compliance. and i hope to debunk some of the misperceptions about the decision the president will face next month. the question iranian compliance is not as straightforward as many people believe. it's not just about the technical terms of the nuclear agreement. it requires a much more thorough look.
iranian compliance involves three different pillars -- the first is the nuclear agreement itself. the joint comprehensive plan of action or jcpoa. the second pillar is u.n. security council resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal but also restricted numerous other iranian behaviors. and the third pillar is the corker-cardin law which covers the president's relationship to congress. before diving into these details it's important to lay a foundation for what we're dealing with when we talk about the iranian regime. judging any international agreement begins and ends with the nature of the government that signed it. does it respect international law? can it be trusted to abide by its commitments? is the agreement strong enough to withstand the regime's attempt to cheat?
given those answers, is the agreement in the national interest of the united states? the islamic republic of iran was born in an act of international law breaking. on november 4, 1979, a group of islamic revolutionary students overran the u.s. embassy in tehran in violation of international law, they held 52 american marines and diplomats hostage for 444 days. for the 38 years since, the iranian regime has existed outside the community of law-abiding nations. henry kissinger famously said that iran can't decide whether it's a nation or a cause. since 1979 the regime has behaved like a cause. the cause of spreading revolutionary shiite islam by force. its main enemy and rallying point has been and continues to
be what it calls the great satan -- the united states of america. and the regime's main weapon in pursuit of its revolutionary aims has been the islamic revolution guard corps, or irgc. soon after the revolution, the irgc was created to protect the revolution from its foreign and domestic enemies. the irgc reported not to elected government but to the supreme leader. soon after its own creation, the irgc founded hezbollah to spread iran's influence and its revolution abroad. then came the bombing of the u.s. embassy in beirut in 1983. 63 americans killed. then came the bombing of the marine barracks, 241 americans killed. then the kidnapping and murder of c.i.a. station chief william buckley.
in 1985, a t.w.a. airplane was high jacked. the body of a u.s. navy diver was dumped on the runway at the beirut airport. in 1988 u.s. marine colonel, robert higgins, a u.n. peacekeeper in south lebanon, was kidnapped and executed. under the irgc's direction, hezbollah then expanded its lethal reach to europe, africa, asia, and the americas in search of victims to kill. in 1994, a jewish community center was bombed, 85 killed. in 1996, a bomb blue up khobar towers in saudi arabia. 19 u.s. airmen killed. throughout the iraq war, the number one killer of u.s. troops was improvised explosive devices or i.e.d.'s, the deadliest of
which were supplied by the irgc. thousands of american men and women were wounded or killed. in 2005, lebanese prime minister was assassinated. in 2011, the u.s. disrupted an irgc plot to bomb an american restaurant less than two miles from here. the target was the ambassador. today, hezbollah's doing the iranian regime's dirty work supporting the war crimes of syria's assad and it is building an arsenal of weapons and battle hardened fighters in lebanon in preparation for war. this is the nature of the regime and it's quest to overturn the international order. its power and influence has grown over time. even as it remains unaccountable to the iranian people. it's hard to find a conflict or a suffering people in the middle
east that the iranian regime, the irgc, or the proxies do not touch. in parallel with its support for terrorism and proxy wars, iran's military has long pursued nuclear weapons. all while attempting to hide its intentions. for decades, the iranian military conduct add covert nuclear weapons program. undeclared and hidden from international inspectors. in 2002, iranian dissidents revealed the existence of a uranium enrichment plant and heavy water reactor. both violations of iran's safeguards agreement with the iaea. the regime went on to break multiple promises to abide by international inspections and limits. it hid its nuclear weapons development and lied about it until it got caught. in 2009, american, british, and french intelligence revealed the
existence of a secret uranium enrichment plant deep inside a mountain, deep inside an irgc base. the british prime minister, some dubbed it, well calling it, quote, the serial deception of many years. it was soon after this that president obama began negotiating a deal with iran. the deal he struck wasn't supposed to be just about nuclear weapons. it was meant to be an opening with iran. a welcoming back into the community of nations. president obama believed that after decades of hostility to the u.s., the iranian regime was willing to negotiate an end to its nuclear program. much has been written about the jcpoa. i won't repeat it all here. let's just say that the agreement falls short of what was promised. we were promised an end to
uranium nuclear program. what emerged was not an end but a pause. under the deal iran will continue to enrich uranium and develop advanced centrifuges. we were promised any time, anywhere inspections of sites in iran. the final agreement delivered much less. the promise 24-7 inspections apply only to iran's declared nuclear sites. for any undeclared but suspected sites, the regime can deny access for up to 24 days. then there is the deal's expiration dates. after 10 years, the limits on uranium advanced centrifuges, and other nuclear restrictions begin to evaporate. and in less than 10 years, they have the opportunity to upgrade their capabilities in various ways.
the jcpoa is therefore a very flawed and limited agreement. but even so, iran has been caught in multiple violations over the past year and a half. in february, 2016, just a month after the agreement was implemented, the iaea discovered iran had exceeded its allowable limit of heavy water. nine months later, iran exceeded the heavy water limit again. both times the obama administration helped iran get back into compliance and refused to declare it a violation. if that's not enough, the biggest concern is that iranian leaders, the same ones who in the past were caught operating a covert nuclear program at military sites have stated publicly that they will refuse to allow iaea inspections of their military sites. how can we know iran is complying with the deal if
inspectors are not allowed to look everywhere they should look? another major flaw in the jcpoa is its penalty provisions. whether an iranian violation is big or small, whether it is deemed material or nonmaterial, the deal provides for only one penalty. that penalty is the reimposition of sanctions. and if sanctions are reimposed, iran is then freed from all its commitments that it made. think about that. there is an absurdly circular logic to enforcement of this deal. penalizing its violations don't make the deal stronger, they blow it up. iran's leaders know this. they are counting on the world brushing off relatively minor infractions or even relatively major ones. they are counting on the united states and the other parties to the agreement being so invested
in its success that they overlook iranian cheating. that is exactly what our previous administration did. it is this unwillingness to challenge iranian behavior for fear of damaging the nuclear agreement that gets to the heart of the threat the deal imposes to our national security. the iranian nuclear deal was designed to be too big to fail. the deal drew an artificial line between the iranian regime's nuclear development and the rest of its lawless behavior. it said, we have made this deal on the nuclear side so none of the regime's other bad behavior is important enough to threaten the nuclear agreement. the result is that for advocates of the deal everything in our relationship with the iranian regime must now be subordinated to the preservation of the agreement. the iranians understand this dynamic.
just last month, when the united states imposed new sanctions in response to iranian missile launches, iran's leaders threatened once again to leave the jcpoa and return to a nuclear program more advanced than the one they had before the agreement. this arrogant threat tells us one thing, iran's leaders want to use the nuclear deal to hold the world hostage to its bad behavior. this threat is a perfect example of how judging the regime's nuclear plans strictly in terms of the compliance of the jcpoa is dangerous and shortsighted. more importantly, it misses the point. why did we need to prevent the iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons in the first place? the answer has everything to do with the nature of the regime and the irgc's determination to threaten iran's neighbors and advance its revolution. that is where the other two
pillars that connect us to the nuclear deal come into play. the second pillar directly involves the united nations. when the nuclear agreement was signed, the obama administration took iran's nonnuclear activity, the missile development, the arms smuggling, the terrorism, the sport of murderous regimes, and rolled it up until u.n. security council resolution 2231. critically, included in this supposed nonnuclear activity is the irgc's ongoing development of ballistic missile technology. you can call it nonnuclear all you want, missile technology cannot be separated from the pursuit of a nuclear weapon. north korea is showing the world that right now. every six months, the u.n. security council general reports to the security council on the iranian regime's compliance with
this so-called nonnuclear resolution. each report is filled with devastating evidence of iranian violations. proven arms smuggling. violations of travel bans. ongoing support for terrorism. stoking a regional conflict. the secretary-general's report also includes ample evidence of ballistic missile technology and launches. the regime has engaged in such watches repeatedly, including in july of this year, when it launched a rocket into space that intelligence experts say can be used to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile. it they are clearly acting in defiance of u.n. resolution 2231 by developing missile technology capable of deploying nuclear warheads. unfortunately, as happens all too often at the u.n., many member states choose to ignore
blatant violations of the u.n.'s own resolutions. in this way we see how dangerously these two pillars of iran policy work together. the international community has powerful incentives to go out of its way to assert that the iranian regime is in compliance on the nuclear side. meanwhile, the u.n. is too reluctant to address the regime's so-called nonnuclear violations. the result? is that iran's military continues its march towards the missile technology to deliver a nuclear warhead and the world becomes a more dangerous place. that's where the third pillar of our iran nuclear policy comes in. the corker-cardin law. as you recall, president obama refused to submit the iran deal to congress as a treaty. he knew full well that congress would have rejected it. in fact, majorities in both houses of congress voted against
the deal. among the no-votes were leading democrats like senators chuck schumer, ben cardin, and bob menendez. despite president obama's constitutionally questionable dodge of congress, the legislative body did attempt to exercise some of its authority with the passage of the corker-cardin law. the law requires that the president make a certification to congress every 90 days. but importantly the law asks the president to certify several things, not just one. the first is that iran has not specifically breached the jcpoa. that's the one everyone focuses on. but the corker-cardin law also requires something else. something that is often overlooked. it asks the president to certify the suspension of sanctions against iran, certify that the suspension of sanctions against iran is appropriate and
proportionate to iran's nuclear measures. and that it is vital to the national security interest of the united states. so regardless of whether one considers iran's violations of the jcpoa to have been material, and regardless of whether one considers iran's flouting of the u.n. resolution on its ballistic missile technology to be nonnuclear, u.s. law requires the president to also look at whether the iran deal is appropriate, proportionate, and in our national security interest. corker-cardin asks us to put together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. under its structure, we must consider not just the iranian regime's technical violations of the jcpoa, but also its violations of resolution 2231. and its long history of aggression. we must consider the regime's repeated demonstrated hostility towards the united states. we
must consider its history of deception about its nuclear programs. we must consider its ongoing development of ballistic missile technology. and we must consider the day when the terms of the jcpoa sunset. that's the day when iran's military may very well already have the missile technology to send a nuclear warhead to the united states. a technology that north korea only recently developed. in short, we must consider the whole picture not simply whether iran has exceeded the jcpoa's limit on uranium enrichment. we must consider the whole jigsaw puzzle, not just one of its pieces. that's the judgment president trump will have to make in october. and if the president does not certify iranian compliance, the corker-cardin also tells us what happens next.
what happens next is significantly in congress' hands. this is critically important and almost completely overlooked. if the president chooses not to certify iranian compliance, that does not mean the united states is withdrawing from the jcpoa. withdraw from the agreement is governed by the terms of the jcpoa. the corker-cardin law governs the relationship between the congress. if the president can't certify, it would signal one or more of the following messages to congress. either the administration believes iran is in violation of the deal. or the lifting of sanctions against iran is not appropriate and proportional to the regime's behavior. or the lifting of sanctions is not in the u.s. national security interest. under the law, congress then has
60 days to consider whether to reimpose sanctions on iran. during that time, congress could take the opportunity to debate iran's support for terrorism, its past nuclear activity, and its massive human rights violations. all of which are called for in the corker-cardin. congress could debate whether the nuclear deal is in fact too big to fail. we should welcome a debate over whether the jcpoa is in the u.s. national security interests. the previous administration set up the deal in a way that denied us that honest and serious debate. if the president finds that he cannot in good faith certify iranian compliance, he would initiate a process whereby we move beyond narrow technicalities and look at the big picture. at issue is our national security interest. it's past time we have an iran nuclear policy that acknowledged that.
thank you. [applause] ms. pletka: thank you so much. you have given us an enormous amount to talk about and i'm going to use the mike as i always do to ask a couple of questions. you were just at a security council session that was called urgently in the wake of a potential hydrogen bomb test in north korea. you are talking about iran. a different challenge but in many ways the same kind of a challenge. how do you -- do you see the possibility that iran ends up in a north korea situation if more is not done in the coming months and years? ambassador haley: i think that's why it's so important for me to talk about this. because i know if we continue to not look at the iranian activity, if we continue to just say oh, we'll deal with that later, we will be dealing with
the next north korea. because we're allowing them to go and develop advanced technology right there in front of us. we're allowing them to have behavior that's in violation of the resolution right in front of us. we're allowing them to sit there and actually tell the iaea they are not going to let them inspect military sites where we know they have had covert nuclear operations in the past. so what i want the country to understand is we need to wake up. we need to understand this is not something that just suddenly went away. it is still there. but it's hiding behind an agreement that has everyone so scared to touch it without realizing things are going on right now. ms. pletka: you spent a lot of time with our allies and others in new york.
one of the things you hear from iran and their friends and supporters is, if the united states chooses to walk away from the jcpoa, for whatever reason, the europeans and the asians and the russians are not going to be with them. you are going to be walking away on your own and we're not going to put sanctions back in place. as you lay out your concerns, as you talk to people up in new york, where do you see our allies standing on this? ambassador haley: i think our allies are frustrated and concerned. they see what we see. they see the violations of u.n. resolution. they see the fact that the iranian regime is saying they are not going to let us look at military sites. they are concerned. everyone hoped this deal would make the iranian government good people. but no one looked at the history of iran. no one looked at all the past aggressions that they have shown. and what we're saying is, this deal doesn't change all that. and this deal doesn't change what's happening right now. so our allies very much know
that we should be concerned. no, they don't want us to get out of the deal, but this is the thing. are we going to take care of our allies in making sure they are comfortable or are we going to look out for our u.s. security interests? that's the thing. this is about u.s. national security. this is not about european security. this is not about anyone else. this is about the president making a decision on are we -- is this in our national security interest to continue down this path that we're on? ms. pletka: one of the things that got the iranians to the table were the sanctions that you mentioned that really took a bite out of the iranian economy. the challenge for us, then, is if the assessment is that, in fact, they are not complying, that this is no longer in the u.s. national interest, how do we constrain them? this is one of the conversations a lot of people have in washington. we focus a lot on the jcpoa, ok. it's a lousy deal, but it was a carefully constructed one. what happens next?
have you started talking and thinking about what's next? ambassador haley: you can't put lipstick statistic on a pig. no matter what we do we can't make the deal look better than it is. we have to look at the reality that this deal is flawed. do we allow ourselves to have blinders on to a flawed deal or do we say what else can we do? is there something else we should be doing now to prevent what's going to happen 10 years from now? that's a very realistic thing that we need to look at. that's important for our children and grandchildren and everything going forward is that we can't continue to kick this down the road. we have to make sure that we're looking out for it. if you look at north korea now, the reasons we're pushing for so many sanctions, do we think more sanctions are going to work on north korea?
not necessarily, but what does it do? it cuts off the revenue that allows them to build ballistic missiles. what we did with iran is we cut off the revenues so they couldn't do bad things willingly as much as they wanted to. so instead we gave them this influx of money that suddenly allowed them to do whatever they want with 24 days notice if we're going to inspect a site. there is a problem there. i think we need to be honest with ourselves that when the jcpoa was passed, when the resolution was passed, when the corker-cardin law was passed, that doesn't change the iranian culture and belief of the government. they were still who they were prior to the deal. ms. pletka: one of the things you mentioned that we don't talk about enough is there are a whole array of other security council resolutions that affect iran that are not nuclear related.
not just the missile technology butt transfer of weaponry. you obviously mentioned hezbollah. do you think that there's support out there to start putting pressure on the iranians how now in yemen, lebanon, syria. we could go on. do you think that there is a growing consensus we need to do something about iran's other activities? is this our standing alone again? ambassador haley: the interesting thing -- you can look at any place in the middle east where there are problems. and the iranian tentacles are there. just the reality of the situation. if you know that, if you know that there's proof of support of terrorism, if you know there's been arms smuggling. if you know that they are in violation of multiple things from that resolution, why isn't it anyone standing up? they are not standing up out of fear that the iran regime will pull out of the jcpoa. how smart is that? so we're going to ignore all of
these things they are doing throughout the middle east in the name of protecting a flawed deal? that's not smart. it's not being careful. it's not being in front of the situation. what we're looking at is we're not keeping iranians from doing bad things, we're empowering them. and we gave them a ton of money to do it. so we can't expect any different behavior. and they will do exactly what they did when i went to the iaea to have conversations they will threaten to pull out of the jcpoa. they are threatening the entire world because the entire world thinks the jcpoa is untouchable. but it's not. and what they are doing is happening with or without us. and we have to be realistic about that. ms. pletka: i want to open things up to everybody for questions. i'm sure pretty much everybody is familiar with the rules. please put your important statement in the form of a question.
raise your hand i'll call on you. if you would be nice enough to identify yourself and wait for the mike. >> thank you very much. ambassador. the question i have is, did the jcpoa encourage and embolden the formists in iran, are they sincere, or are we caught up in a game of good cop-bad cop when it comes to iranian politics. ambassador haley: it's a great question but i don't know that i have the answer. what i do have the answers to is the historic nature of the iranian regime. if you look at how they have been in the past, they have always threatened the united states. they have always done bad activities. they have always been involved in terrorism.
they are not going to change their stripes just because of a deal. so what we did is we gave them a deal. governor haley: hundreds of undeclared sites that have specific schists -- suspicious activity. we are going to come in and protect this deal. theill ignore the fact that reality is that they could be cheating like they did many times with her. that is why the united states needs to have a conversation about whether we are being smart to ourselves or are we being played for fools? that is a bigger question here. none -- nuclear
nonproliferation treaty. there are all these country that have nuclear weapons. is a toothless tiger, this is serving nothing. governor haley: i don't think toothless tiger. experts can only look at so many sites. they have said of the sites they have seen that they are in compliance. no one is talking about the sites they haven't seen. that is the talking point that gets missed. it is easy to say they are in compliance. asking my son if he finished his homework and he said i finished the first page -- that is not all the homework. that is what we are talking about when we are doing this.
ms. pletka: cnn, nice to see you again. i would like to put this in the context of north korea. yesterday you said north korea was begging for war, today you are talking about -- it seems as if even though you know you're talking about the president making his own decision, you are laying out a strong argument for decertifying and re-examining the deal. i am wondering as we looked was north korea and try to get north korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions, whether there is concern that the u.s. is not counted on to make good on the deals that it has done with other countries. north korea will see no incentive to make a deal with
the united states if a local out of this deal and just as you laid out, you said the president will make a decision. you seemed to lay down a persuasive argument for decertifying and triggering nationwide debate. >> i think there is a couple of things, i am not making the case for didn't -- decertifying. what i am saying is should he decide to decertify, he has ground to stand on. all i want to do was put out the facts. i think it is very easy to just talk about compliance in the jcp away. there is so much more to the story that we need to be looking at. there is a much more that the president has to be looking at. but i am doing is trying to lay out the options of what is out there, what we need to be looking at and knowing that the theresult has to be
national security of the united states. it is to protect the americans so they are not endangered to threat. you talked about north korea and if wer others would think stayed in the deal. we need to let others know that we will stay in a deal as long as it protects the security of the united states. we should be -- at no time -- the holder to any agreement and say that we will do it. we should let every country know that whether it is north korea, iran or anyone else that we will look at for our interests and our security and make sure it is working for us, not making sure it is working for everybody else. that is very important. president obama has submitted this as a treaty to congress, we constrainedh more and italy's walk away. if there is anyone to blame for the fact that donald trump can
make this decision, it is the previous administration. that was their call. governor haley: it would be interesting to see what the debate in congress would be like. when they have to look at everything, when they had to look at all aspects of corporate pardon. do they still agree with the agreement? encouraged have you them to hold these kind of hearings in the run-up to this decision? governor haley: i have not had conversations with congressional members. we discuss it at the united ations -- we discussed it united nations quite a bit. we had to look at things that might happen before they happen. because i had to make sure that i provided the most information to the president as i could, going to the iaa and asking the right questions and saying we
never asked the iaa to do anything. what i did was ask questions. how many have you looked at russian mark other declared, are the undeclared? all of these questions needed to be answered. to whatit all goes back the director said in the very beginning. this is a jigsaw puzzle. you can't just look at a few of the pieces and think you know the answer to the puzzle. that is not the case. >> hello. i wanted to ask you a question. if the president decides to the agreement and congress has this debate, with european allies support where they are going if they understand what is happening or would you expect resistance from
them moving forward? >> i think because the european allies understand the concerns that we have with iran, if they saw the president decertify -- they would realize this is going to congress. they would watch the debate very closely. no one wants to get out of the deal out of holding out hope that the iranians will do the right thing. i think that we have to be honest enough to say -- what if they are not? what if they are not doing the right thing? what if they start nuclear work? i think our european allies understand our concerns. i think they would very much understand the debate. i think they would have their views about whether we should stay in or not, that will go on but i think they will really have a willingness or want to
debate about this. >> surely they understand the cost of allowing iran to meddle in the region with a freehand, that is how the iranians seem to feel if we are going to have time for one more question back there in the corner. just one second please. times, ms. ambassador, this administration has thrown the dreamer and docket to congress. it sounds like you want to throw the iran deal to congress. even your allies on the republican side will tell you that it is not really a debate they want to have right now on capitol hill with all the things that are going on, this administration had the power to decide to stay in the deal or get out of the deal. why this middle path where you decertify and force congress to make this hard decision for you instead of making that hard decision yourself?
when i talked to the european allies, they say very clearly that they want this deal to continue. do you really think that you will be able to persuade them if you get out of the deal to create another sanctions regime when their message during the debate was uniformly that they would not do so? governor haley: thank you for the question. this is not just a middle-of-the-road situation. that is u.s. law. what it says is that the president is obligated to make the decision on whether this is still in the u.s. national interest. the law says is that the president has to relook at this every 90 days. that is not a strike to sidestep, that is u.s. law and that is law that the president has to follow and in good conscience, for
all americans, we should want the president to reevaluate every 90 days to make sure that if things have changed that we are moving accordingly. i get that congress has not want this. this is not an easy situation for anybody. it is not easy for the president. it is not easy for the security council. it is not easy for congress. not about being easy. our lives are about being right. i agree with you, the european allies want us to stay in the deal. how many attacks that i just theribed in history that iranian regime has gone against americans, our shoulders, our diplomats -- soldiers, our diplomats. make sure thatto europeans are happy with us. our job is to make sure we are keeping the american public
safe. tot is a heavy price to pay just try and stay in a deal. i am not saying that this should go to congress, i am not saying we should get out of the deal. i am not saying anything in terms of what should or should not happen. but i am saying is that we owe it to ourselves to look at every aspect of this deal and understand that this was a thatd deal and understand this flawed deal has negative consequences as well. have a tight schedule and so i am going to thank you on behalf of of our audience. [applause] >> that everybody would be nice enough to stay after the ambassador leaves, you can look at her as well.
this week, the pensions community will hold to individual hearings on the insurance markets. members from state insurance commissioners about trying to stabilize health insurance premiums thursday, several state governors will testify, live coverage begins tomorrow at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three, thursday's hearing begins at 9:00 p.m. eastern, also on c-span3. -- rules committee will work
meet for a second day tomorrow on 2018 federal spending which ,ncludes money for the interior justice, commerce, education, labor, even the service departments, live coverage begins ought -- at 2 p.m. eastern. you can hear these on c-span.org or the free c-span radio app. >> c-span paz washington journal, live, every day. coming up wednesday morning, texas democratic congressman al green discusses hurricane harvey aid and center for immigration studies talks about the trump administration decision to immmigration policy. everye to want on c-span mo