sees it as transformative, or simply a transaction. and in other words is there a gesture towards publicly that this could open the door towards more cooperation with iran? or that they a concerned about. >> so we have been very clear, that it is the latter. this is between the united states and iran. on a range of issues it is very specific agreement. of international norms with the program. at the same time, we made clear we will still be just as concerned with the destabilizing activities support for terrorism and in fact, we will continue to have sanctions imposed for

iranian actions and behavior in those areas as well. score this is a nuclear deal we are doing on the merits itself, not as a part of a change broadly in the u.s. iran relationship. if iran in the aftermalt of the deal were e able to conclude one that would be good for the region. but that's not the purpose of the deal itself. >> there would be a change in behavior though. >> what i would always say about this, is we would do the deal, if we are able to get the type of deal that was in the frame work, whether or not iran changes over the next ten or 15 years because if iran is just as difficult and challenging ten or 15 years from now, we will want to make sure they don't have nuclear weapons capability. however, what is also clear

is they are more likely to evolve in a more -- in a world that is a deal in which a world there is no deal. because frankly, an iran that is resistant to the west, and america, and our partners in the region, has been the norm, and the current context, that may mean -- that may continue to be the case, if this' a deal, but you may see an iran that wants to be more integrated with the international community, wants to see a nuclear deal as a first step towards that integration. but again that's not the reason for us concluding the deal, the reason for us concluding the deal is to address the nuclear threat. and that's something we will have to monitor in the years to come. >> i just want to go back to jim's question if i can and are you looking for assurances from these leaders that they are not going to try to match iran's capabilities as it is based on the agreement as it stands

now. ire ran is mott the model to follow. acting outside covertly developing capabilities. violating a variety of different international norms that's not the path way to accessing peaceful nuclear energy. and so yes we would say to these countries we don't want to see any type of arms race in the region, if there's an interest in nuclear power there are established means of accessing that power. and again we have a 1-2-3 agreement that does just that. that provides them with access to energy without having a domestic infrastructure committed to enrichment, so yes our view is what we don't want to see in the region, and why we are pursuing a deal, is we don't

want to see a nuclear arms race in which is already the most volatile part of the word. the deal where iran contributes to that, should make these g.c.c. partners more confidence, that iran is further away from a nuclear weapon and that their inspections can verify that in that context, they can work through the means of accessing the nuclear energy. the feeling inside the room, and part of that. just getting a lot of attention, and i know they said these are the problems that know the details of this. and does it at least remove some of the prestige. >> you know, i don't think so. this is a very unique gathering to have.

and the goal here was really to not just have a photo op, to set up a game plan for security cooperation going forward. you are going to see out of this very clear assurances from the united states about the nature of our security commitments. very concrete path ways layed out in terms of developing capabilities on security issues going forward, and important check in on heavy strategies in encounter isil that are very relevant. in that context we have here very senior delegations. the people that are responsibility for the different security portfolios in these countries. with respect to saudi arabia

who are the individuals. is that absolutely appropriate representation. in this session the crown prince he clearly has a critical roll within ba ran by the g.c.c. general. a good discussion to set the context for the summit at the dinner last night. the discussions i think are very focused on the issues not ceremony, but what are the practical steps that we want to take together. missiles from the countries to improve the capacity and the ability and in terms of

more integrated the g.c.c. system, and what roll do you envision for the united states to play and how do the countries. there have been requests not just here, but over the last few months. we have been having a dialog. i think some of these partners of us have indicated look, we recognize that they are emerging threats that we have to confront. i think there's a recognition among the partners if they are concerned about potentially maritime activity they are going to have new capabilities. that the united states comes at, as we have discussed on both the missle defense there is a desire to better integrate the different systems.

new terrain in many respects we have had significant presence in the gulf region. cyber maritime c.t., special operations. these are the things that matter. there won't be large conflicts. we will have a role to play, both in the expediting of capabilities in the building their capacity. in exercises and i think it will be a clear signal, out of this meeting that will want to continue to enhance and expand our joint exercises. and the capacity building provided by the military. helping the g.c.c. parter ins be more inner operable, and with our military.

so there's going to be a very extensive program coming out of this, of cooperation, and look, the g.c.c. countries have occasionally had differences among themselves. no secret to anybody in this room that's the nature. however, we do believe that as a collective, the g.c.c. will benefit from having the ability to cooperate in dealing with threats. we will get in the more technical details later. it differs in different areas. the maritime capabilities that you develop through exercises so i can't put a

timeframe on everything. we are going to do though is expedite our ability to provide that assistance. make sure we have a team working on it with them. like you mentioned in the interview. >> as a general matter, we regularly raise issues associated with human rights. with each of these countries i can't say whether or not for sure it will come up in the sessions this afternoon. i can say again as a general matter, we believe that not just for the purposes of our values, which

lead us obviously to speak out. a variety of challenges that it is important to provide models that allow for inclusive political participation, and also inclusive economic participation. for the people in the region. there's another incident. i wonder if that came up at all, that seems to be precisely, what they are concerned about. yeah on the specific incident, all i can say is that no u.s. vessels or persons were involved. so beyond that you are right

this is exactly the type of challenge that many of the g.c.c. partners are focused on. this incident didn't come up. but maritime threats and challenges in areas like this are one of the types of concerns that lead us to the determination that an area of focus for the g.c.c. in capacity build canning be maritime. in terms of the naval capabilities with the region, in addition to our capabilities our partners are also able to deal with maritime threats. >> do you have any update on the reports on chemicals. just to follow up, do you believe whatever comes out of this meeting will stop iran

from being able to continue with the threat of action. you think the agreement will lead to a change -- >> look the united states is committed to addressing concerning a behavior in the maritime space, so we ourselves will be focused on that challenge and yet over time, as our parter ins in the region develop greater capacity, there will be less of an opening for dangerous maritime events whether it a esfrom iran or anybody else, and you can see terrorist groups seeking to operate in what is a very busy space for the global economy in terms of tanker traffic. so we do want a outcome to be g.c.c. partners having the capacity to provide for their

own defenses, and then also contributing to a more stable maritime space, along with us, and other countries in a part of the world that is not just facing internal conflicts but also is crucial to the global economy. >> to what extent is this emerging gulf alliance when it comes to -- how much will that play with issues today? >> so, syria i think will certainly be on the agenda later today. we believe it's very important that both the g.c.c. countries and the united states are on the same page in terms of our support for the opposition. in the past, at times you have seen divergent strategies. people -- go get them. >> thank you, pool.

making sure we are coordinated to the opposition. within terms of he that will assistance through the training program but also nonhe that will and political support. so i think there will be a discussion of what is the current state of the conflict in syria. the opposition, the coordination of our work with the opposition. and with respect to a no fly zone that has not been a substantial topic of discussion this the run up to the summit itself so it may come up, some of these countries have favors

aggressive action, all of them are supporting our efforts inside of syria against isil. but i think as a base line, we want to make sure in the provision, the opposition we are working together, and this is an area where for instance, a leading figure for the saudis even getting back to before his taking on the role of deputy and now. we have on 24 question that comes up with turkey, frankly more appreciately than our gulf partner thes even, we have said we are open to evaluating different option os inside of syria but we have not seen a know fly zone as being a viable option that

can contribute to essentially changing decisively the situation on the ground, given the nature of the fighting that's taking place in urban areas and across the country, but we have had on going discusses and if our partners have ideas question are always hear them out and we are always looking at where the additional steps we can take to support a more stable outcome in syria. >> thank you. yemen, that will be part of the discussions i would assume there's still people talking to leading up to the summit, that some of these countries feel as though the united states encouraged them to say the regional coalition, some sort of backseat driving unless things don't go, or the methods that you would like to see happening now you push them for a pause in the fighting of the campaign there.

how much friction is there and secondly, on the iran sanctions hundreds of billions of dollars will be available to destabilizing action, but many of these nations are worries about highway do you counter that. >> well, to take your second question first. the fact is that iran has been under these sanctions over the course of the last several years. during which time they have been carried out these actions the sanctions have not preventing iran from enganging in destabilizing activities. that are frankly very low cost because they are frankly asystem metric capability. what is also clear is iran has been able to find the funding for both of the perhaps. and for it's activities even under this pressure of

sanctions. the fact of the matter is yes, they will be able to access substantial amounts of revenue over the lifetime of the deal with sanctions relief, we believe that it is far more likely that that money will be invested in the iranian economy. given the size of the hole they are in the given the budgetary commitments that the government needs to fill and given, frankly, president rah hanie's linkage of relief we believe again what we would expect to see with respect to sanctions relief. that doesn't mean that there won't be some revenue that is used for iran's security purposes.

the sanctions have brute to the nuclear issue because their economy has suffered. so we need strategies that are better able to deal with destabilizing actions. sinks alone are not a panacea, if they were, you wouldn't see the destabilizing actions. we have supported the saudi led effort. i think frankly the comments from the leaders here has been complimentary, in terms of support the united states has provided. which has been essential in terms of the contributing to what they have been aiming to do with their air campaign. i think that the two things we also recognize are number one, there's a grave humanitarian situation inside of yemen. and this pause is essential to facilitate humanitarian access reaching populations that are in very dire circumstances. in the saudis have stepped up in terms of providing

significant amounts of humanitarian assistance. so i think we have a shared view that there needed to be a pause and a cease fire that allowed for that type of humanitarian delivery. secondly, i think saudi arabia has been clear since this began. they didn't think there was a military solution, what that i want is a political process that can get underway. and restore the government. i think the u.s. in a common view that there's been a challenge to legitimate elected government of yemen. from the houthis rebel. that there needs to be a solution to the government but there also needs to be

this window for humanitarian access. who is the deputy national security advisor he is speaking as that summit gets underway at camp david between president obama and leaders of the gulf cooperation council. let's take you live now in maryland, and as we have expected, most of the questions what the assurances has been able to keep that council countries. and again, ben was making the point, that this isn't a grand deal they are not looking for iran to settle everything, this is solely about the nuclear issue and the question he asked is the world a safer place, orr works towards nuclear weapons

then without a deal that would let them do whatever they wanted without any sort of observation bethe international community. he also made the point that he understands iran is involved beyond it's borders. huh much more bold would it be, so what is he giving to the members that have made it all the way here. he said there will be a look at missile defense that is clearly a concern for many countries. they want to talk about maritime security, because iran and the streets very very important very busy waterway, they are talking about anti-terrorist operations that's because of the threat. i have border security as well, and the special forces.

he is also talking about more joint exercises with the council and the united states. there has been a huge arsenal, and have done for 25 years. so he is giving the g.c.c. this shopping lift of things we can expect. and in return, he essentially wants them just to back off and not worry too much about what they are doing. this is a deal that will replace the partners. this is stopping one aspect of what they are doing. the g.c.c. because if you list sanctions as part of the deal, which you will have to do, it gives them more power and money good for the middle east and the world.

>> we want them to understand the deal how likely is that? >> there's going to be skeptical. i don't think they understand proximity, because they are two oceans away. when you live and in other cases like syria and so on. you don't have the same security if you are a super paul h power so i think the gulf countries will remain skeptical.

one, there's no turning back with the deal with iran. we are excited about it, this is good, and three deal with it, get with the program as they say in america. i think to do that, how do we make you the gulf countries and other neighbors comfortable with what the americans are doing with iran. the arabs are more worried about the implications of being the nuclear deal itself. you and i talked about this. sounds like a salesman, so

here they are, they are cyber, naval. special forces. defense systems naval i said, right. so many. >> antiterrorism border security. so it is all of these we will help you with all of these things. we are going to sell you -- now the united states is involved in organizing it's guard and so on and so forth. involved in selling more arms to the gulf region. >> we will talk more in the hours ahead. >> thank you for the moment. >> that's just about it for this hour of news, but i will be back in a couple of minutes time, with much more news and more analysis of that summit taking place in camp david in the united

states, stay with us.