>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: welcome to the program. this was an important day in america. in washington, the supreme court said same-sex marriage was a constitutional right. in charleston, south carolina, president obama spoke to the issue of racism and how much work we have to do. we begin with the president in charleston. president obama: we are here today to remember a man of god who lived by faith. a man who believed in things not seen.

a man who believed they were better days ahead, off in the distance. a man of service who persevered knowing full well he would not receive all those things he was promised because he believed his efforts would deliver a better life for those who followed. we do not know whether the killer of rev. pinckney and eight others knew all of this history. but he surely sensed the meaning of his violent act. it was an act that drew on a long history of bombs, arson shots fired at churches.

not random. but as a means of control. a way to terrorize and oppress. [applause] president obama: an act he imagined would incite fear and recrimination, violence and suspicion. an act he presumed would deepen divisions. oh, but god works in mysterious ways. [laughter] [applause] president obama: god has different ideas for many. that flag was a reminder of

systemic oppression and racial subjugation. we see that now. removing the flag from the state's capital would not be an act of political correctness. it would not be an insult to the valor of confederate soldiers. it was simply be an acknowledgment that the cause for which they fought, the cause of slavery, was wrong. charlie: in washington before he left for charleston, president obama spoke about the historic day at the supreme court. president obama: this ruling is a victory for america. this decision affirms what

millions of americans already believe in their hearts. when all americans are treated as equal, we are all more free. this ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving, same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land. charlie: it was an historic day and decision from the u.s. supreme court. it will stand as a milestone for the american equality movement. the court declared in a 5-4 ruling same-sex marriage is a legal right nationwide. the decision means 14 states can no longer enforce pre-existing bans on same-sex marriage. justice kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that gay american citizens ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. the constitution grants them that right. conservator justice scalia said the decision shows that court is a threat to american democracy. joining me now is david boies. he successfully argued against proposition eight and the federal defense of marriage act. i'm pleased to have him on this program on this day. it is for you, for all americans, and historic day. david: it is a great day. charlie: tell us what it means in terms of everybody.

david: it means at the first level that loving gay and lesbians couples across the country in 50 states can get married to the person they love. it means the children they are raising can have the stability and recognition of being in a marriage and family were the parents are married and they know they will be together and are committed. they are receiving the benefits that come from marriage, economic benefits in our society. at another level, it means i think every american can be proud today. proud we have taken another step towards creating the equal society our founders envisioned. they wrote a great document. they wrote great principles. they did not practice those so well, but they set out a set of principles we could aspire to. we have made a lot of steps along the way. today was one of the most important steps in eliminating the ban on marriage equality and permitting people to exercise that fundamentally important right to marry the person you love.

charlie: it stands up there was civil rights equality? david: i think it does. where the supreme court struck down bans on interracial marriage, brown versus board of education, this is a major civil rights decision the court made today. i think every american can be proud of it. charlie: the dissent argued this is against democracy, that it is up to congress. david: every constitutional decision is by definition against democracy if you mean majority rule.

but we do any constitution is say there are certain rights freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be free from searches and seizures equal protection, the right to go to the same schools as everybody else, the right to marry the person you love, all of these fundamental rights are so important. our constitution says no legislature can take them away from you. no majority of your fellow citizens can take these away. these are basic principles. you don't have a vote every year on whether we want to have freedom of speech. you don't have a vote every year as to whether you want to have freedom from searches and seizures. charlie: you can't vote to eliminate it because it would be against the constitution. david: exactly right. we did not leave it up to the legislature whether we would have segregated schools. we did not leave it up to the legislature whether we would permit interracial marriages. we said that is a fundamental element of equality, and the constitution guarantees equal

protection of the laws. that guarantee applies to every citizen regardless of race religion, national origin, sexual orientation. it doesn't make any difference what the other characteristics are. if you are an american, you deserve equal rights. charlie: judge anthony kennedy stood up again. what was it about the opinion that resonated with you? david: i think it was in part his recognition of how important this decision was to human dignity, to equality in the constitutional sense, but also to dignity in a very basic human sense. we are saying to our citizens you are no longer going to be considered by your government as inferior, as second-class. your relationships are no longer going to be considered somehow inferior or second-class by the government.

you, the person you love, the children you are raising, are just as good as everybody else. in a sense, that has always been true. but in another sense, we are only now beginning to recognize that and make that the law of the land. that is what our constitution guarantees. charlie: everywhere you go from one state to another, is still applies. in the past, you could live in a state that allowed same-sex marriage and go to another state that did not. david: that is what happened with interracial marriages. somebody got married in one state and went to virginia, and it was a crime. we have one country, one constitution, one set of rights. those rights apply to everybody in all 50 states. charlie: you cannot forget this

has been a struggle. it did not happen overnight. what happened, the president suggested, was a thunderbolt today. here it is that people who stayed on the ground, who tested the law, in 2013 the court said we are not hearing this. two years ago. david: they left it up to the courts of appeals and individual district courts. that got us 2/3 thirds of the way. 36 states already have marriage equality. but those last 13 or 14 states it would have been a long time coming without the supreme court decision. the windsor decision was very important. the romer decision, critically important. all decisions written by justice kennedy, all 5-4 decisions unfortunately. it is a great judicial legacy of recognizing human dignity, human

liberty, the rights of all americans to have equal protection of the laws. charlie: justice roberts on another decision yesterday about obamacare wrote the majority opinion, disappointed many conservatives. he said if you are among the many americans of whatever sexual orientation who support expanding it, celebrate the opportunity for new expression of commitment to a partner. celebrate the availability of new benefits. but do not celebrate constitution. it had nothing to do with it. david: i agree with everything he said except about the constitution because the constitution had everything to do with it. constitution guaranteed equal protection of the laws. the constitution provided people cannot be treated unequally based on any characteristic, whether it is race, gender

sexual orientation. every american has the right to equal protection of the laws. that is written into the constitution. you don't have to look far to see it. charlie: justice kennedy said an interest in dignity is central to the fourth amendment. david: that is what the supreme court has held. not just justice kennedy. the supreme court over and over again, 14-15 times over the last 75 years, has ruled marriage is a fundamental right because of its value in terms of human dignity. justice scalia sort of pokes fun at some of the principles

justice kennedy writing about. but those principles were not created by justice kennedy. those come from supreme court decisions. there was a decision you and i have talked about in wisconsin where the wisconsin legislature prohibited somebody from getting a marriage license if they were not satisfying their obligations for a prior marriage in terms of child support and the like. the supreme court said you cannot do that. marriage is too fundamentally right. there was a missouri statute where they said you cannot get married if you are an imprisoned felon. the supreme court said no, spiritual intimacy marriage brings, the dignity it brings to relationships is so important

that you cannot deprive people of it, even if they are an imprisoned felon or child support scofflaw. and yet there are people who argue people ought to be deprived of that right simply because the person they love is of the same sex. charlie: thank you for coming, david boies. back in a moment.

charlie: return now to the finance minister of paris.

islamic militants launched attacks on three separate continents. a beach resort was struck in tunisia, a mosque blown up in kuwait, an industrial plant was attacked in france where a man was decapitated. these events come a year after the islamic state officially declared a caliphate. joining me is the finance ministers of france since 2014. at 37, he's one of the youngest people to hold a cabinet position. i'm pleased to have him on this program. mr. minister, thank you for joining us. it has been a busy day for you

and in washington. >> i'm very happy to be with you. charlie: i realize it is not your primary responsibility. it is the responsibility of the interior minister and president, but what can you tell us about the terrible events in your country today? >> first, we are all extremely shocked because of this horrible attack. obviously, the whole country is completely shocked today. the president was in brussels and came back to france and gathered a committee to take additional measures to preserve safety and security for people.

i think this tragic event reminds us how violent is the war against terrorism and fanatical islamism. we have to keep calm in this situation. investigation is ongoing. i think it is very tragic news that the war against terrorism will continue. everything will be done to preserve the safety of our population in france. i want to present my condolences to the families of the victims in paris, tunisia, and all the victims today. as well, i want to present my condolences to the american company because this person killed in france works for an american company in our country. charlie: do we know anything about the suspect? >> not a lot of things. i want to be extremely cautious at this stage. he was observed by our services between 2006 and 2008. but after that, given his behavior, there was a decision taken by government to release specific measures taken. i don't have additional information about the situation and suspect. charlie: let me turn to the

greek debt crisis. you have certainly been involved in that with your colleagues in europe. where does that stand as we speak this afternoon? >> i think we are reaching a great momentum. now all the creditors are aligned on the greek situation to discuss reforms and the debt situation. i have the opportunity to discuss the i.m.f. and mr. lew today in washington. i think we all concur to say we are not so far from agreement. now, the greek government has to present additional reforms and credible reforms to be implemented.

i'm confident over this weekend were at the end of this weekend, we will find an agreement. i hope we will converge. we know where we are. we know what we have to deliver. i'm confident we will find a common solution. charlie: what makes you so optimistic? >> i'm not so optimistic, but i know everybody around the table perfectly understands there is no plan b at this stage. i think it is the greek government's interest to present new reforms. that is our interest, to find a holistic solution for reform in the fiscal situation. this win-win agreement should be found in the coming hours. i remain extremely cautious because everything is still to be negotiated. but i do think we all take into consideration the political consequences of the absence of an agreement. i am not part of those who

pretend the greek exit would be a good solution. agreement is a necessity. i think an agreement is reachable. charlie: what do they have to do? what reforms do you believe are essential? >> the greek government presented additional reforms for the pension system and so on. from my point of view, the key measures are those which will modernize the greek economy and put more competition in the economy. one of the key concerns when you look at the greek situation is we want them to deliver fiscal consolidation. we want them to cut pensions. it is hard for me social point

of view. if at the same time you introduce a policy for more competition and to modernize the economy, on this the former government failed. it is extremely difficult. today the greek economy is captured by some insiders. we have to push them and help them to modernize the economy. first to increase potential growth and put more competition. in terms of pension reform, i think the average retirement age is not sustainable because today it is 52. they would have to increase that much more than decreasing pensions because they already are extremely low. you have a series of technical measures. i think now we have to finalize this holistic negotiation with reforms on one hand and credible and sustainable reform because we have to respect the greek democracy. on the other hand, we need sustainability. i know the i.m.f. will raise such a discussion. that means we will probably have to extend. we are all against a potential haircut.

but i think we need to negotiate about the whole package. charlie: would you say the i.m.f., the french government, and the german government are on the same page? >> yes, i think a lot of people -- everyone has their own sensitivity and insists on specific points. president hollande has converged with chancellor merkel to create the access on this topic. the i.m.f. plays a role. sometimes the i.m.f. was more demanding, which i understand given its role.

but there is a franco german position, and the i.m.f. now concurs with it. charlie: if there is no agreement and there is an exit from the eurozone by the greek government, the possibility of contagion so others might leave, so it will have a profound impact on the global economy? >> my responsibility is not to comment on that. it can create such consequences. i'm extremely cautious in this situation. i want to say it was risking of the european system and the eurozone after 2012 because we created this banking union which

is an extraordinary step forward. now the situation is not the 2012 situation for sure. my concern is on political consequences in this case. that is why we have to be extremely careful and monitor the situation to take into consideration greek democracy and greek commitment with the european union. charlie: do you worry about the rise of greek political extremism that will be a product of economic events and social issues in europe? >> look, i think extremism is fueled by crisis and unemployment. they are largely helped by the absence of projects, the absence of vision, the absence of willingness. i'm not concerned about that. i just want to solve the situation and fight against it. my deep conviction is there is a strong future for europe. europe is a great continent. what we have to do is accelerate

our reform programs, to accelerate solidarity programs inside europe and the eurozone to deal with unemployment, especially unemployment for young people. and to propose something new, to propose a future for this

generation. if we fail at that, the dismantling of the eurozone will be the fate. my strong willingness today is to say we have to accelerate reform in france, and we have to deliver. that is our program. that is what i am pushing at home. i'm here to explain this reform because it is key for our credibility or for the whole of europe. we have to put more solidarity in europe and more investment to recover. for me, this reform agenda, this optimism, this new vision for europe to have a more integrated eurozone is key to the extremism and populism. charlie: i want to talk about the wikileaks issue. but first talk about the french economy. you are here to make the case for france to encourage investment in france and france as a business partner. what is the case you make when you talk about france today? as you know, many people look to france and think there is too much state control of the economic reign. >> which is not the case at all. my point is to say france is back, and we are here. we are reforming the country and the country is changing. first because we are dealing

with public financing and reducing public expenditures by 2.5 g.d.p. points in three years. second because we have a competitiveness agenda. we are decreasing corporate taxes and charges by two g.d.p. points in the coming years. that is the most aggressive policy ever. third, because we are accelerating investment. we need private investment in our country. it is key. we have big acceleration programs for industry to accelerate digitalization of industry. that is key. for that, we need investment. intel, facebook, general electric, samsung. all of them decided in recent weeks to invest in france or french startups. we are here and we need private investment to strengthen our economy.

on top of it, we are implementing the big modernization program. i am pushing a lot of will be passed by mid-july with 400 articles to unlock levers to modernize the economy to enable people to get more possibilities and enable outsiders of the economy to get more opportunities. if we want to modernize france we have to reduce the cost of failure in this country. it's exactly what we are doing. is there a new socialism in france? emmanuel: for sure. we are making it. it's just about emancipation. it's just about how to enable people, how to provide more opportunities. the government is not the one who will create growth. the government is not here to correct all the inequalities sometimes it created. our role is to enable people to provide more opportunities

especially to young people and outsiders of the system, to protect social failure, and to allow people to take risks, to try, sometimes to fail, and to promote those opportunities. it is an efficient and fair few and if you don't produce, if you don't succeed, that's impossible to redistribute. charlie: is that the view of president hollande? emmanuel: he knows me very well because i advise him, and i do think that is president of elan's view. charlie: it is said that when you were working with him as a member of his staff that he

encouraged you to develop proposals for reform that early on, he knew that france's economic policy and france had to reform, because the past had not worked, and that he had to change direction, although it might seem unusual for a socialist president. emmanuel: you are right, but being socialist -- when you look at the french situation, we had a lack of headedness. i think our view is, we have to deal with reality. we have to improve the french situation.

it's part of the job. we're here to govern. we are here to reform and modernize the country. with fairness. i think that is how to be socialist. we've modernize the country, but at the same time we don't lose the social model, and we protect it. our past mistake was protect the people and protect jobs, i.e., by refusing any chance. now we want to accelerate. we will protect people, and we protect people by education, training, social security system, but we have to promote risk and risk takers. that is why i'm here to encourage more risks in france because we are now risk friendly. it is key for the recovery. and you know what, taking risks is socialist. you help people who are ready to take their risks to succeed.

but at the very beginning, they are not automatically the insiders. charlie: let me turn finally to wikileaks and the notion that the u.s. was spying on france, including three french presidents. was this surprising to your government? because there is an assumption that governments spy on each other. i think your ambassador has even taken note of that act. emmanuel: no, i mean we knew the situation after 2013 and in some cases the revelations, so it's not brand-new. the leaks are problematic because they spread all over the place. that is an issue. that is acceptable, especially between france in the u.s., but that is past practice. two days ago the president had the opportunity to discuss with president obama, and he repeated the statement, and i think president obama repeated the fact that now there's a strong commitment from your side that there is no more -- the situation is completely over

now, which is most important in a few days to french officials that will visit their counterparts in the u.s. to be sure that all the technical measures are put in place, to be sure -- no more of this between the u.s. and the french government. charlie: it is said that because france has been strong in its efforts against terrorism around the world that there is a strong foreign policy connection between france and the united states in the battle against terrorism, that it's one of the strongest bonds that exist correct? emmanuel: your perfectly right. that's why the reaction of the french president was efficient demanding, and appropriate which is to say we are two extremely important strategic partners, and the most important thing is to work together on foreign policy and against terrorism. that's why he had such a reaction.

but you are perfectly right, the strength of all the links between our countries are extremely strong. that's why do believe that all the relevant measures are being taken and were taken by the federal government after the revelations made in 2013. charlie: thank you so much, the french minister of finance. back in a moment. stay with us.

♪

charlie: we turn now to the nuclear deal with iran. the new york times reported that five former advisers of president obama and iran have written an open letter to the president questioning the deal. david sanger said the public nature of the announcement has a challenge to secretary of state john kerry as the negotiations

had to a deadline next tuesday. it's one day after iran's supreme leader rejected a freeze on nuclear research. he said iran will only sign a deal of national sanctions are lifted first. joining me are two of the former advisers of the letter. gary is the president's former top advisor for nuclear policy and ambassador dennis ross is a counselor for the washington institute for near he's policy and former president on iran. david sanger is the national security correspondent for the new york times. i'm pleased to have all of them on this program. tell me the significance of this, as you reported in the new york times. david: i think the letter that was written by the five, and it was a bipartisan letter that had many more signatories, including a number of republicans, including steve hadley, the national security advisor to president bush, was an effort to lay out some parameters for the

administration about what kind of deal they could all support. so the positive news for that, i think for the administration, is since most of the -- what they laid out were talking point you would hear from the obama administration at various points over the past year or two, i think it means there is an opportunity there to bring both republicans and democrats together. on the other hand, if secretary kerry, at the end of the process that is going on behind me here, and he will be here tomorrow night, if at the end of that he has something that is significantly less specific on issues of inspection, on issues of how much fuel the iranians can possess, on how much research and development they can do on making faster centrifuges, then i think it's going to be a hard sell in congress, because i think many congress will say the

president's own advisers lay down these markers. charlie: gary, why go public? gary: we wanted to encourage the administration to stick to our demands on the unresolved issues, especially now that the iranians and to be walking back some of the earlier, at least tentative understanding say made in april. as david said, we think these are not only important in terms of substance for the value of the agreement, but we also think these are achievable objectives. in fact, in many cases the iranians have earlier agreed to them and now the supreme leader seems to be backing away from that earlier agreement. so we wanted the administration to both stand firm, but also to

field a has the luxury of taking their time to get the deal right, even if it means negotiating past this next deadline at the end of june. charlie: dennis, and you? dennis: i think what gary said was right. we felt it's more important to get the content right than to worry about that deadline. b, we felt that by putting out a bipartisan statement we were actually helping the administration. the signal we were sending is, there is a bipartisan can insist that will support an agreement that has these principles, and these principles themselves are embodied in the framework understanding. if you can produce this kind of agreement, you can have this kind of consensus, and in many respects, this is something the

administration should be able to embrace. as gary said, it's a kind of reminder that these are the principles that the administration itself has used as a criteria to define a good agreement. we are simply reinforcing that point. charlie: why do you think -- is this a negotiating tact, or have it decided to take a harder line for some other reason? gary: i think it's the style the iranians employed when it comes to negotiations. first, they tried to use a deadline as a form of pressure on us as opposed to pressure on themselves. secondly, it's interesting that the supreme leader would come out making these public statements on the eve of the deadline, which is another way of signaling that his negotiators are operating under more time constraints. i see it much more related to posturing than to the interplay of politics on the iranian side. i think it will be used by the iranian negotiators to try to

make a case that there's a limit as to what they can agree to. here again, it's the reason why our approved ought to be, june 30 is a target date. itzhak rabin used to say there are no sacred dates. sending a signal to the iranians will make it clear that if they want to take more time, we are quite relaxed about that. we won't be pressured into changing what was worked out in the framework understanding. charlie: david, i know you have just arrived in vienna. tell me what the feeling is on the ground there. is there an evan flow with the sources you've already talked to before your plane touched down? david: charlie, there is usually you have a sense when you are a few days out if a deal is sort of coming together. in the background conversations we've had, not only with administration officials but with the french, the germans the british and others, you don't have that sense. there are big, wide areas that one would have expected would have been closed up by now, and today we had one senior administration officials say to us that these aren't just technical issues, they are also political decisions.

i think that was evident from the ayatollah's statement. i think it's fair to say that the letter that dennis and gary and others sent gives a sort of alternative for the administration to say to the iranian foreign minister, who will be here on saturday, look we have politics back in washington as well, and if the president's own former advisers think we have to meet this standard, we can't to congress with anything less. so to some degree, it's a useful bargaining tool for them and for the united states as well. on the ayatollah's statement, there are a lot of people in the iranian revolutionary guard corps who are opposed to this agreement, known only because the nuclear program has been

essential to them for 15 or 20 years, but because they are making a lot of money from the black market that has come up around selling goods that evade the sanctions. if the sanctions when a way, that money source is going to go away for them. it's very possible that you're seeing real politics inside iran to try to kill the deal as well. charlie: gary, one thing i have noticed is that there is genuine concern about where the iranians will be if there is a deal after 10 years. what is allowed during this 10 years beyond inspections and beyond access to military installations? there's the question of what they will be able to do to prepare themselves for what happens after 10 years are 15, or whatever the period is. am i correct in that? gary: the fundamental concessions were to allow the iranians to retain a substantial enrichment infrastructure, several thousand centrifuges continuing research and development, so they can have equipment and people trained and so forth. and then after 15 years, all of

the physical constraints on that infrastructure are removed. and the iranians, according to the agreement, can then expand to have a much larger industrial scale enrichment program, which would give them a more credible nuclear weapons option. so basically, this agreement kick the can down the road 15 years, which is a long way, but we don't know in 15 years what iran will be like, what u.s.-iranian relations will be like. maybe no change will take place in those 15 years so that we won't be so concerned about iran having a basic nuclear capacity. on the other hand, if there's no change, president in 15 years may be faced with the need to oppose iran expanding its program, even have complied with the agreement for 15 years. charlie: so what do you think the president is expecting to

happen? that somehow if he can get this to happen for 15 years, the iranians might change their mind in terms of wanting a nuclear weapon? are they will be a different regime, or what? >> i think it requires a change of iranian leadership. the supreme leader has been interested in it nuclear weapons capability for 25 years. he's not going to change his mind about utility of having a nuclear weapons option to defend iran and pursue its foreign-policy.

i think it's really a gamble on our part, that he dies in the course of the next 15 years or some other change in government takes place, and you have a different government with a different set of calculations and interest. charlie: that is his bet? >> i think that is the gamble. dennis: i think there is probably a hope within the administration that you will have an iran that is increasingly dependent and connected to the international economy, the global economy, and that will build their state in not warning to become isolated or ostracized again. they will see all the benefits of this, the pragmatic constituencies that might be associated with people like rouhani. maybe they will become empowered by this. the hope is that you will see that kind of gradual transformation. i don't think you can never base policy on hoax. you always have to hedge against the unknowns and plan for the worst.

i think the hope is there. i think when the administration says they are not banking on trust, that's why there's going to be verification, i think that reflects their understanding that in fact, you can hope for something, but the outcome can be based just on hoax. we put in our statement of very clear point that the consequences have to be real number one. and also if iran is going to be a threshold nuclear state, it becomes very important that they understand from the time this is concluded that the president now is making a commitment that in fact his successors should be bound by, that we will not permit iran to become a nuclear weapons state. it's very important to say that and make it clear that we will use whatever means necessary to ensure that, so that iran isn't tempted to move from a threshold status to a weapons status knowing what the price would be. charlie: all of these issues have been debated within the walls of the white house and the pentagon and the state department. is anything new about this debate and the questions being raised? my assumption is that all of these questions have been

considered, and considered thoroughly, by the obama administration. david: they have been, and they have been from the first days. gary and dennis, there were more meetings on iran issues in 2009. president obama's first year than on any other topic, even though iraq and afghanistan were still alive. and you seen the president do a lot of things. he's done of military forces in the gulf to show the iranians that there was a credible military option. you and i have discussed before the range of cyber attacks that were done on the iranian nuclear infrastructure. that was to send a message that there was a non-kinetic way of trying to slow them down. now we are down to the crunch here. of course whenever you get into a negotiating dynamic, you get this inevitable tension between what you can negotiate and what your principles are.

really, that's what the next four or five days are all about. they are about the decision, is this just good enough that even if we have to cut back some on some of the principles of where we wanted to be, it's more important to get the deal and take the gamble that gary just described and that dennis just described. and that's a really hard call. for the president to come back with something that looks like iran could have a significant breakout capability after 10 years or 12 or 13, it's going to require a lot of explaining to congress. and now of course congress does get a vote on this. that's why the letter was so interesting, because it tried to say here are the things on which the administration must hold the line. and we will know in the next week or two whether they really are holding the line on those. charlie: either dennis r gary, have you heard from john kerry since this became public?

dennis: i have not. gary: i have not. charlie: do we know what the state department response was? >> the principles that are laid out in the letter are very consistent with the principles that are being discussed in the negotiating room. but that's different from what agreement you actually end up with. the administration has moved in recent times on a few things. we did not expect six months ago that they would allow iran in a negotiated deal to keep such a large infrastructure in place, even if they're doing so with very little nuclear fuel. that infrastructure would allow iran to ramp up quickly at the end of the agreement, whether that is 10 years or 15. we did not really understand what iran's inspection regime would look like. we are still trying to get a handle on how quickly sanctions

would get relieved. if a lot of the sanctions on oil and financial transactions are lifted early, then the administration will have a lot less leverage when they are dealing with iran later on. charlie: final question to dennis and to gary. do you think there will be a deal? >> i think the recent hand grenade raises questions about whether the iranians are ready to close the deal right now. we have seen this before, last summer of number facing a deadline, khamenei gave a similar speech with red lines that were unacceptable, saying iran would not give up a single centrifuged and insisting on a rapid buildup over a few years. i think that delayed a deal for a couple of months, or a partial deal. we may have the same deal here whether for bargaining tactics or domestic politics, he has put forward these new red lines which the iranians cannot walk away from right away. that may lead these talks to

extend and drift through the summer. dennis: i do believe there will be a deal. i also agree that i think it will take some time to produce it. i suspect that khamenei sees something to be gained. the revolutionary guard may not have much of a stake in the deal, prices that that by the end of the day we will see one. i also suspect that the supreme leader will probably compensate the revolutionary guard in the aftermath of the deal, but i think it will not come immediately, but we will see a deal. ♪

>> going to be live in singapore. here is a look at what we're watching. asian markets opening positively. speculation that any fallout from greece will be contained but shanghai at the moment stocks extending that fall at a three-day, 15%. investors do not believe irresponsible rumors.

and alexis tsipras saying the eu doesn't have the nerve to throw his country out of the eu. the prime and esther saying that europe needs grace. asian shares rebounding, generally speaking. indonesia just getting in on the action. will be live in jakarta later. let a look at what is the last trading day of the first half of the year. >> we are still seeing that volatility continue in china. officially still in bear territory after we saw yesterday. down by more than 22 from a high on june. the asian markets are rising from those three-month lows