announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: we begin this evening with our continuing coverage of the iran nuclear deal. the united nations security council unanimously endorsed the agreement and authorize the lifting of economic sanctions. the u.s. secretary of defense ash carter, arrived in israel to meet with the country's leadership. prime minister benjamin netanyahu is one of the most article -- is one of the most critical of the deal. ari shavit is a popular "haaretz columnist for." -- columnist for

"haaretz." he's an author of a highly regarded book that is now out on paper back and will soon be an hbo documentary. i'm pleased to have ari shavit back at the table. you have in your hands what? ari: i have the text that will transform the middle east. i think will shape the next decade and possibly the 21st century. charlie: the 21st century? ari: i think this is the most important, dramatic document i've read in recent years. and probably the most important document, international document of recent decades. charlie: whitey you say that? -- why do you say that? charlie: a nuclear iran is not an israel issue. that's where i disagree with my

prime minister. a nuclear iran would be a challenge to our civilization because it will make the middle east nuclear it will destroy the world order, and long-term will endanger europe and america. charlie: let me interrupt you just before you go on -- is it because iran will threaten the use of a nuclear weapon or because nuclear proliferation will interrupt in the region? ari: the second. even if we have a guarantee -- i don't think the iranians will throw a bomb in tel aviv. i think they are too smart to do that. just by having a nuclear weapon, they will force saudi arabia, egypt, turkey and other gulf countries to have nuclear weapons. you will have a multi polar nuclear system in the world's most dangerous region. as a result of that you will have potentially nuclear terrier -- nuclear terror and the next

9/11s will not be conventional. we will feel it in 10 or 20 years, not now. charlie: in other words it there are that many nuclear weapons with that many parties somebody with enough area's mind will be in control of one? ari: absolutely. the greatest achievement of the international community in the last 70 years the greatest achievement of america, and i'm such an admirer of america, i must -- i am much more pro-american than many of my american friends, is the fact we prevented a post-nagasaki disaster. if we brought this nuclear demon into the world and we controlled it in a remarkable way for 70 years. if this deal is right -- charlie: the doctrine of mutually assured destruction worked. ari: right. if there is a mistake, the

implication -- all this discussion about israel and specifics and even about the american-iranian relationship all of this is pennies. the main thing, the main danger that if this goes wrong, the 21st century will be about nuclear terror and nuclear war. charlie: when you say that, the president of the united states would argue with you that this is the best way, this document is the best way to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon and there is no alternative. as likely to prevent them as this document. that is his argument. ari: let me say two things. i have deep respect for the president of the united states. i think the values he represents are my values. i am totally with him in what he wants to achieve in the world, unlike some others who oppose him.

i am totally with what he represents and what he stands for. charlie: including his policy toward israel? ari: i have no doubt he loves israel and cares and wishes the best and is a very able man, very elegant. i have deep respect for him. the second thing that is important for me to say years as an israeli, when it comes to america, i have gratitude and respect. this decision regarding this deal has to be an american decision and i will not do anything to intervene in this unlike some of my countrymen. i think it is very important, but having said that, we israelis and some arabs live in the middle east. i think it is worthwhile to listen. perhaps we know something. the challenge is how to take the obama values that i cherish and implement them in a brutal dangerous region that is so

politically incorrect? charlie: you are right on target to suggest that is where our focus has to be. ari: i am not saying there is better alternatives. i'm not saying the decision was wrong. i want what i think -- it's important to understand the implication that perhaps there is no better alternative. but first of all, let's see what we have, and if i may, there are two achievements and there is a hope. one achievement is the iranians have a declaration, a very strong declaration that they will not pursue nuclear weapons. that's an important declaration. i don't believe them, but it's an important declaration. the second achievement which is dramatic is that this agreement diffuses the old nuclear program of iran.

the sites will be monitored, there's no doubt about it, stockpiles will go down, and the old danger will be suspended. the president hope, which i understand, is that change will come in iran before nuclearization. doing this, you will unleash the constructive forces in iran and we will have a new iran before we have a nuclear iran. that's on the positive side. the problem is that one this document in an incredible way, guarantees the future nuclear program in iran. it does not only stop all the holes, it is affirmatively says iran will be able to produce these sophisticated centrifuges that will make field once ridiculous. so from 2025 on, we will have a vigorous robust, new iranian

nuclear program. that is number one. number two, the danger is you will not have enough ability to control what is happening outside of the known sites. the problems with verification and control should the iranians go forward with the operation will be very difficult to monitor. i think they won't do it right away because the deal is so good for them, they are not stupid. later on, they might try. the third problem i think as dramatic is the lifting of the sanctions is almost irreversible. what is so amazing about this step is you totally crash the sanctions regime while you maintain the foundations of the nuclear infrastructure. i think there should not be symmetry altogether, but the symmetry goes the wrong way. sanctions are gone, as of today,

by the way. on the other hand, the nuclear project is at best suspended. it is definitely not crushed. charlie: what you are arguing is an your program not as it has been, but as it might be. that's a crucial point. ari: do we want to live after 2025 and how to we want our children to live in 2035? the present will be much rosier than the alternative, but the future is something. charlie: and there is unlikely to be any change in iranian leadership? ari: there could be. sanctions work in such a remarkable way that there is ability to have more sanctions for a longer time, but it was the only diplomatic option. when you have to strike a deal with the mafia, you have to be

very tough and are members it's the mafia. don't pretend it's mother teresa. i think there was an opening but i will tell you what i think are the implications. i don't think the iranians will throw a ball met israel or any other country soon. but we will have long-term, in the future we will have a future nuclear arms race. second, we will have an immediately conventional arms race which is already beginning. mr. carter is going to the middle east to deliver arms to everybody. already, it's a much more rangers -- charlie: and first office israel. ari: israel will get its share. iran is remarkable. my respect for the iranians. i think they are an evil regime but i love the iranian people. i deeply respect the iranian

civilization and i hope they get rid of the regime. what the arabians were able to do is remarkable. when they were nearly bankrupt they've a military industrial complex that is one of the best in the world. they are today where the israel was in the 1980's and 1990's. they can manufacture satellites, accurate missiles, drones, you name it. they did it when they were nearly bankrupt. now, if you are going to inject 10 billion dollars or $30 billion into that, you will have a conventional monster. hezbollah's budget is about a billion dollars. now they have the ability to triple or quadruple that. you will have the return of strategic, conventional danger in the middle east like we did not have a long time. number two, while they were an international pariah, the iranians took over indirectly or directly for eric capitals -- --

four capitals. the sense of victory and glamour they will have in the region the danger of them becoming a hegemonic power is imminent. the arab world is sadly so week now, there is an air of chaos. -- an arab chaos. it's like to unleash a tiger on steroids that will be able to walk around. that is dramatic. the fourth point, and that is the last one, is the fact that there was no demand for conversion. i am a positive person. i believe in change and i'm willing to take leaps of faith. but when you deal with a convict, you want to see conversion before he goes out. the fact that the deal itself -- leave aside israel, the deal does not respect america.

there is honor to iran here on every page. there's more respect than there is to american congress. how do you think if you do not have any signs -- the supreme leader goes to talk about the legitimacy of death to america. you want conversion, if you want peace, you need to be respected and honored. some marriages go bad. but if the evening before the wedding, one of the partners says about the other one that his death is legitimate, where would the wedding go? what can you expect of the future? there are achievements here. there's definitely goodwill here, but the dangers are serious and these 60 days are 60 days of reckoning. it's a great opportunity for

your great democracy to discuss it and take about what the implications are. charlie: if in fact you have studied it as you have and if in fact you know the middle east as well as you do, your editorial positions should be please american congress, stop this deal. ari: we are at the crossroads. all options are there. it is not the end, it is the beginning. it is a new beginning and all options of stopping the deal will have -- i am an israeli. i have no right to ask american senators and congressmen to take that decision. charlie: but you are public intellectual and you have the right to say i have looked at the deal and this is what i think are the concert and as of this deal, and they are bad. you are saying the consequences of this deal are bad. ari: what i say is within

american-israeli relations our role is to be respectful, and i hope people in washington and elsewhere throughout the world would listen to us, listen to israelis who have been thinking about it. it is only an american decision because either way the prices can be very high. this is an american decision and it must be taken by americans. i will not say anything about your political system and what's happening. i hear it's a wonderful system. charlie: sometimes, sometimes not. at the same time, you have to argue and you say this is the most interesting thing you have read in a long time. because it is what for you? ari: first of all, it is really and. it is a brilliant document.

with dramatic consequences. what is striking about is if you come from mars and you read this document come you think iran is one of the leading seven rate powers the world. the iranians have managed -- third -- their diplomatic brilliance is unmatched. have managed to turn the process around in a way that it's like a totally legitimate discussion between the seven or eight hours and them. as i said, they are more respected in this document. there's no sense of guilt of we have done something wrong or we are changing our ways. charlie: you know who help make iran in the conception of the world a power was israel. prime minister netanyahu his primary worry is iran, not the palestinians or his neighbors, it is iran. that has been the force of his

rhetoric over the last four or five years correct? ari: i am much more free to discuss my prime minister than your president. mr. netanyahu deserves the credit that he is worth listening to and his historical analysis is a good one. he made every mistake in the book. by making it an israel issue, by being not friendly enough to the american resident by not paying in palestinian currency. head israel gone for a peace initiative, clearly a peace loving and peace searching country, if we would have had a much better relationship with the president, everything would have been different. mr. netanyahu likes to compare himself with winston churchill. winston churchill knew that you could not win the fight without winning the heart of franklin delano roosevelt. he is worth listening to and his analysis is sadly pretty

accurate, but he made many mistakes. everybody makes mistakes. the old stories over the last decade, many mistakes were made and now it's time to have a much more intelligent and serious conversation. charlie: i want to come to him and a moment but the interesting thing is the president will and does argue, it is his argument that is the principal argument, which is the reflection of the opinion of his administration he will argue that mr. netanyahu , at the time of the framework deal came to the united nations and came to america and said this is terrible and these are the things that are going to happen, and none of them happened. that's the argument. the prime minister made all of these arguments and they didn't come true. therefore we shouldn't listen to the prime minister as if he has

superhuman wisdom. ari: we should listen to everybody. i think some combined thinking and insights is what is called for. but let me talk about where mr. netanyahu and president obama succeed. the policy led by president obama in 2011 and 2012 with harsh sanctions and harsh rhetoric, making it very clear to the irani and that he is tough, that changed iran and brought them to the table. if there is still an option perhaps it is too late, to go back to that kind of attitude of diplomacy led by a person who represents the best of america and the free world but saying to the people out there who have different ideas and different psyche and a different approach

to life, that we will not have it, that we will not let them take over the middle east and endanger world stability. charlie: this is the best possible deal in best possible way and that there is no alternative as good as this is what the president would say. that is his argument. his argument is this will stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon and you agree with that over the next 10 years. let's assume where we are now. with the passion you have, the intelligence you have, any experience you have and the amount of energy you have applied to this, what is the alternative in your judgment? ari: i think the first thing is not revolutions. to understand where we are in this junction both options are

very problematic and we will pay the price for them. i think if there is any sort of options to have this return of a certain diplomatic roach while accepting it or after rejecting it, that is the only way to make sure what we don't have here is done out of this document, that the demand for and iranian conversion, the demand we will see a new kind before iran unleashes its new power into the unstable middle east, that is crucial because the alternative is, as i said, long-term nuclear danger. we might have in the short to medium term, conventional -- if we got from it make a mistake. charlie: in terms of where it is

or in terms of syria? ari: i think there is a danger of iran taking over larger parts of the middle east. and the danger of iran having through its proxies such capabilities that will in danger israel and saudi arabia and others. the main danger is not immediately clear warfare but the reactivation of the conventional warfare. we have enough bloody revolutions and civil wars. if now the iranians be much stronger conventionally and politically. israel will arm itself. these are the ingredients of a strategic mess. we might have this strategic hell later on with nuclear capabilities, but right now, the

mess we have seen in the last three or four years, this will not waiver us. this will make the middle east much more chaotic and the world more dangerous. charlie: why do you think the saudi and emirates are not saying this as vehemently as you are? ari: if i'm not mistaken, after henry kissinger wrote his memoirs, he said politics in the middle east is the most sophisticated than any other region he has seen. the middle east knows, many people in the middle east know how to say a, want the and do see. we israelis sent to have the exact opposite -- we are to direct, we are too loud, we say what we think, sometimes in a very blunt way. i know this for a fact -- all the arab leaders with the exception of qatar are terrified

. but as they see iran as a potential winner and the rising power, they want to hedge. charlie: they want to hedge with respect to iran? ari: i have no doubt. some of the statements you see that make people feel better should actually make people more worried cousin -- worried because the fundamental danger is you have iran because it is such an able nation, if it becomes the regional power before it becomes the benign iran we all wish for, that is the major danger. you see signs here of this process where people are afraid of it and they are thinking perhaps this is the new ruler of the region and that endangers america's position in the region and obviously endangers the arab moderates.

charlie: where are we in syria and where will we be because the iranians will have 100 early in dollars, of which some of which will clearly go to hezbollah? ari: this will enable the iranians to support president assad. charlie: will it therefore be much less likely to find a transition or negotiated agreement even though it was said the russians were maybe moving to that kind of stance? ari: he is in big trouble and he is very weak, but he read this agreement as a great hope. perhaps it is not good enough. perhaps he is too weak and cannot survive. but this will definitely enable the iranians to support him in a big way. charlie: they have money. ari: they have money, they have

weapons iranian markets and -- iranian rockets and missiles have become so precise and sophisticated they will now have the ability to fill the middle east. we have 100,000 rockets at our northern border. charlie: are you safe because of the iron shield? ari: it will not be good enough. israel will be exposed -- i'm not talking about nuclear, what troubles me more is the danger that we will have a more unstable region with more sophisticated weapons the result of which is america's allies will be much more endangered. charlie: my question for you is what is israel likely to do now? if this deal goes through, is it likely the israeli prime minister will feel compelled to over the horrors you suggested and do something to make sure it

doesn't happen? if that is possible? ari: first of all, let me say even the lesser evil is evil. that is my point. even if it's true there is no better option, we have to realize what we are walking into. that is my point. i wish the people in israel would be engaged in a dialogue in the present and present -- ref respectful and friendly way not with all of this that blood. look at the problem we all face and look for better solutions. talking of israel, a major mistake. this is not about israel. it has dramatic implications for israel, that is true. but the major mistake in the entire discussion for years was

making it an israel issue. this is not about israel. it's about the middle east, it is about world order and long-term, it is about america. americans, i hope and pray, will take the right decisions because it's good for america and good for the free world while looking at the dangers we face and finding creative solutions. charlie: it is clearly on the part of the president and others too late -- to take a look at the warnings you and others will make and say how do we avert that is to mark it's great to have you here. back in a moment. ian bremmer is here. ♪

charlie: we continue our conversation now about iran with ian bremmer. he's the president of the eurasia group. i'm thankful for having him in and for sitting in for me while i was away. he said to things to me. one, you have a complicated relationship to it. you look at it and see things many people might not see. the coverage has not been as good as it might have in in explaining all the ramifications. ian: i think that is true. i think part of it is because obama has been arguing for the iran agreement on the terms of

the actual nuclear deal and frankly, that's not a very good argument. it's a fairly weak deal. it doesn't get us a lot of what we want and we are -- they are likely to cheat, and enforcement will be challenging. on the other side the geopolitics are actually quite favorable for the united states and those are not eating argued by the white house or by many people at all. charlie: they come later and you can do that later. ari: -- ian: it is a question of oil, a question of regional balance. charlie: what's the connection between the deal and the geopolitics? ian: when you are actually working with the iranian government, that means the sanctions are removed. you will have another one million barrels of oil a day on the market by the end of 2016. that is an unmitigated good for the u.s. economy. we benefit from lower energy

prices as do consumer states all over the world. charlie: do lower energy prices hurt our emerging fracking industry? ian: we are producing almost as much as we were at the peak. just like old producers, when prices go down, they are fairly efficient and quite competitive so they find ways to become even more efficient. the united states is not saudi arabia or russia. we are an incredibly diversified economy and most of the american economy is not about energy production, it's about energy consumption. our citizens will benefit from having lower prices. charlie: what will lower oil prices do for iran? they clearly have not been a factor. but saudi arabia and russia? ian: the saudi's and the russians are going to take it on the chin. with oil prices around $50 a barrel over the course of one year with their present

budgetary projections, the saudi's will burn through about 1/6 of their total reserves of cash. that is a lot. the saudi's have a very rapidly expanding population, so it's hard for them to turn back and limit what they are spending. their security environment is getting much harder. the terrorism in saudi arabia itself coming from yemen challenges with the iraqi border, and the need to provide support and aid to a lot of countries in the region having their own challenge like the egyptians, lebanon and jordan. for those wondering if iran gets into the nuclear arms race -- the saudi's are not in an economic position to do a big arms race. they are under the gun and the russians also will be under much more pressure going forward. these are countries -- venezuela, saudi arabia, russia -- are countries the united

states does not want to see lining their pockets. charlie: one benefit is lower oil prices. what are other benefits that come out of the deal? ian: three others. one of them is easy -- we have been working on this deal for a very long time. the united states has not had an enormous amount of diplomatic credibility undiplomatic deals over the past years, certainly not in the middle east. now, we have a deal we have led. we led the sanctions, we led the coalition. it was john kerry who was there focusing almost maniacally on iran. and we've got the deal done and i think the americans get the credit for that, with their key allies, the brits, the french the germans and canadians. if it had fallen apart -- charlie: that's why he would be

in trouble with his allies on this issue. ari: -- ian: a third, which is important is you have spoken to many israeli leaders, pretty much all of them. and they are not happy. but the gulf states, listen to the gulf states. they have come out either assertively in favor of the deal and even the saudi's have said we have always said we wanted an agreement with the p5 plus one and we will immediately come out and say you don't like it. charlie: didn't the king of saudi arabia say they had some problems? ian: it is a radically different perspectives than you get from netanyahu. other gulf arab states like qat

ar immediately embraced the deal. so here's what's going to happen -- the saudi's realized the ron stronger and that's a problem for saudi arabia with everything in the region -- it's a problem with iraq, a problem in yemen, a problem with syria. you name it, the iranians and audis are on alternate site. but in terms of the other gulf arab states and even a country like pakistan, they are going to see the iranian deal and they are going to say we are going to work with both countries. we want to hedge. we don't want to be part of a coalition of sunni arab monarchies. we want more flexibility. that is a plus for the united states and absolutely beneficial. charlie: these are geopolitical relationships. the president's hope is what will come out as a better

relationship with iran and some capacity to ameliorate their behavior. is it likely? ian: a better relationship with iran is more likely. more capability to regulate their behavior is likely. charlie: leverage. ian: i don't think their behavior is going to change much in the near term, but when you open iran -- jeb bush today came out of that we should have criticized obama for rushing into opening an embassy in cuba. after 55 years, i don't know what the rush was but he is from florida and marco rubio -- they have the cuban population so they are doing that. but now that we are opening an embassy. it silly and its politics. and now that we are traveling to cuba, the places to open up. it's much more likely to cuban government is going to start

becoming either more engaged with the american war will ultimately fall. charlie: the big question is with the castro brothers being as old as they are, what happens after them? ian: i'm willing to bet it's a government for more receptive to working with americans that if we had 50 years of sanctions on cuba. with iran, it is the same story. iran is a dynamic culture and civilization. it is very educated. women play a large: society. they have 80 million people in their economy. charlie: more politically involved. ian: and it's not a petro state. they manufacture cars, and operate will sanctions. 30% of their industry's shuttered and when they start seeing more money, it's not just going to be oil and gas. that means the wealth that comes into the country won't just be controlled by the regime. charlie: the ayatollah has said

it's ok with him. he did not oppose it. ian: he also said it would not change his relationship with the united states. he's playing a hard life. there are still people who demonstrate and state death to america and the iranian regime has not suddenly become a friend to america overnight because of this deal. but if you ask me five years in, are the iranians going to be significantly more close to the united states as of the demographic and economic changes that occur, the answer is yes. ♪

charlie: there are those who speculate will leave the -- we will be closer to iran in five years and we are saudi arabia. ian: i have speculated that. [laughter] thank you, charlie. charlie: i didn't know if you wanted to own up. ian: i will own it. within five charlie: to 10 years, i believe that. what does that mean for saudi arabia? ian: bad things for saudi arabia. if i were advising the obama administration right now, i would be saying look, on the one hand, the saudi's feel very vulnerable. their economy is going to hell and they know it and they are worried about the relationship. by the other hand, because you have pakistan much closer to china and you have qatar that

doesn't want to be under saudi arabia, that's when the americans can stay -- can say let's start working with you in a way that's more stable. the saudi just two days ago announced they arrested some almost 450 -- charlie: it was like a grand sweep. ian: individuals they say connected to isis. i find that timing industry -- find that timing is. they were not doing that years ago. charlie: there's a growing realization of the threat. ian: i think all of that including the toronto deal creates a saudi arabia that should be more receptive to working with the americans in a way that is more sustainable. charlie: the deep connection between the intelligence agencies of the united states and saudi arabia? ian: that will not go away.

there's also an interest to connect the demand with the energy supply and that has gone away. charlie: because we found in others life. ian: we found another supply right here. -- charlie: because we found another supply. ian: there is a lot of concern the saudi's have not been willing to stand up and say we're going to do some because we have many clerics within our own country continuing to proselytize extreme ideologies supporting a lot of young man that are now part of isis. if the saudi's have gotten this today, it was a little late. i do believe the americans and saudi's can maintain workable relationship, but i absolutely believe opening up toward iran gives americans more leverage and i think we should use it. charlie: does that include some lessening of their influence or

support of hezbollah? ian: that is the real question. charlie: there are for soldiers in syria and other places. ian: the fact that the iranians will have $100 billion made available to them, and frozen after the deal is in effect their own assets, and you cannot snap that back. i'm sure some of that -- charlie: even the administration realizes a significant portion in the beginning will go to that. no one assumes it's not going to be used to -- used to support their own activities, especially in yemen and syria. ian: i asked that question to suzanne maloney, who is a strong expert on iran. don't you think the iranians are going to misbehave and she said there's no reason to believe that. the president charlie: alluded

to that himself. we are not -- charlie: we are not naive. ian: i think it is a good deal for the u.s. but i have to recognize, i'm not just in the tank for this deal. i think there are problems with it. i don't think the iranians are gagging to have a nuclear weapon tomorrow. they were getting closer to it and it gave them more leverage. but the existence of this interim deal was not bad for the u.s. and we signed this deal too quickly. the iranian government understood that the best deal they were ever going to get signed and implemented was under obama and carry. they knew anyone else likely to become president and 2017 they were likely to have a much more significant challenge. charlie: including hillary clinton. she would be much tougher on iranians. ian: i believe so.

implementation, including congress, was going to take eight months. that meant as we got closer to t minus eight months at the end of obama's presidency, the iranians would be under more pressure. i absolutely believe the obama administration should not have been gagging for, rushing for, getting this site. charlie: you suggest your perception of where iran is is closer to where people including the energy secretary and secretary of state, including a range of people from intelligence and other sources have waited in on this. you are saying our team vastly misperceive the negotiating tack of the areas? ian: i'm sympathetic to john on this. he was there for weeks in the

anna, longer than any secretary of state on any issue then george sills and 1983 -- george schultz in 1983. when you are spending 20 hour days working on a 150 page document, you get so monomaniacal about it that it's hard to take a step back and think bigger picture. charlie: and the deal would have been better because the arms embargo would not have been tampered with. ian: the arms embargo was a real problem and because the russians came out late in the process and unilaterally publicly split from the united states, which they had done before and said we think the revocation of the arms embargo needs to happen. the russians undermine the u.s. charlie: the president said russia was very helpful here. ian: he did say that.

there's a lot going on there. the americans are trying to find ways to not talk about ukraine. charlie: where they helpful? ian: i would say the russians were 90% helpful until the last week or so because they saw the americans were close to a deal in a safe we can get something we want here. at that point, it would have been smarter for obama and john kerry to say we don't have to. we have missed three deadlines, we can miss the fourth of -- we can miss a fourth. there were many that wanted to do a deal in the previous thursday or friday and was raised by the white house. i give -- i happen to think closing this iran deal after the transpacific partnership is the most positive thing the obama administration has accomplished in six and a half years and i'm a supporter. i've given you all the reasons

geopolitically i think it works. charlie: it's not a perfect deal. ian: the composition of the nuclear deal, on a scale of one to 10, i would give it a three or four. it was an incredibly hard negotiation but a lot of things were hard. we should have taken longer on this and we could have gotten more. at the end of the day the americans drove the negotiation process. the implementation will be driven by the p5 plus one. charlie: i think the iranians want the deal and they were driving the deal and did not want to give up because sanctions were hitting them. and -- may be a classic negotiation if -- ian: if i'm coming on yours show and saying these guys are been a and i'm giving them a be plus or a minus, have to talk about how we

could have gotten a better deal. the reason i'm going to do that is the obama administration has to sell the deal and they have to sell it domestically to the gop which for the next few days the republicans, all they are going to talk about is how this is a horrible deal and obama is not going to be talking about the geopolitical things. he's going to focus mostly on the marist -- on the merits of the deal. i spent the last couple of days talking to democrats and republicans. they have been saying we hate the iranian regime, the let's talk about why we have to do it. i think this debate will be acrimonious and i suspect almost every republican linda voting against it. -- every republican will end up voting against it. by the united states taking a longer time and leverage not just from the sanctions but the iranian danger that it -- even if obama signed it, it was going

to be another president who implemented it and that would be worse for them. charlie: perhaps you're right. deals like that are never perfect. i've never seen anyone walk away from a deal and say i got 100%. negotiations are about finding common ground so you can move forward. ian: my concern is the iranians are walking away from this deal feeling better about the deal than we are. charlie: certainly not better than the administration feels about it. ian: that may well be the case. charlie: let me turn to greece. what's going on over there? ian: we had a few people saying there was no way they were actually going to stay and, i felt that wasn't the case. the deal happened because the prime minister was able to build a mandate for himself in greece and make it clear to angela merkel that if the deal didn't

happen, she was going to be blamed for the disintegration or removal of one member of the eurozone. charlie: he had a no vote, which was an affirmation of what he campaigned for, rejected this offer. my impression is he went and took the offer. ian: he took the offer with the explicit understanding that had to come with a level of debt restructuring from the germans and europeans. whether or not they will actually get there is an open question. angela merkel has come out publicly and said there will be no haircut. we are willing to talk about making the interest rates lower or extending up the date of required retained from the greeks which is not where she was or her government was before the prime minister had his referendum. from that perspective, he has made -- he had a political

victory. the economics of greece will not be fixed i the negotiations we are having right now. they're dead is still completely unsustainable. charlie: what do they have to do? ian: what the greeks signed up for includes a raft of pension reforms, significant increases in taxes on just about everything. their tourism sector -- it's the privatization of some 50 billion euros of greek assets that will have to go into a fund to deal with their debt. that implementation -- there are very few economists that believe it's going to happen. the terms they have agreed to they probably cannot get done. meanwhile, the international monetary fund has come out publicly with a report that the europeans knew well about and said no bailout, no additional

bailout can be made unless there's a reduction in debt charlie:. how was it that christine lagarde came down and became the best friend of the prime minister? ian: this came out weeks before. she's not a public diplomat. it was given to the europeans and the americans. a response to the private report on the part of the europeans was we don't agree and we are going to view this as an adverse scenario. this is the baseline best economists in the world are coming up with and the europeans say it's an adverse scenario. it wasn't an adversarial for the europeans, but it was a realistic scenario. the reason the report came out is because it was obvious people needed to understand if greece if there wasn't going to be a deal, you had to have some level

of debt forgiveness. going forward, the germans are on the hook in large part because of the imf. if they don't deal with the debt, there's no deal, no bailout. i see two things that are hard to get done, both of which will scuttle what we had in last week. charlie: ian bremmer thank you very much. of the eurasia group. thank you very much. see you next time. ♪

angie: wrong number. iphone sales rose 35% last quarter but still missed estimates. apple shares are tumbling after hours. largest ever lost. microsoft hurt by falling sales in the right down at nokia. go pro has the wind in its sales. china is among its top 10 revenue earners. welcome to "first up."