>> coming up shortly, we will go live to capitol hill for a hearing on state department and funding for africa. the 2018 budget calls for cuts in programming funding and policy changing. live coverage starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern. you can listen for the free c-span radio out. while we wait for that get started, a portion of the journal, looking at the future of the rand nuclear agreement. >> joining uswa now from the bipartisan policy center, he serves as our national security program director and we are here to talk about the future of iran nuclear agreement. >> could you remind us what the u.s. role has been in this agreement and what our current stance is on it. >> the u.s. is one of the leading countries trying to get this agreement in the first place. as part of the agreement that was reached under president obama, the u.s. has a responsibility to keep off

sanctions that have previously been put on iran because of the nuclear program. the deal specifies nuclear related and non- nuclear related sanctions under the deal that the u.s. is obliged to keep nuclear sanctions off iran. >> what was the hope of the obama administrationy, w in putting this deal together? >> a couple different things, depending on who you ask and also at what point you listen to president obama's speeches on this. first and foremost the goal was to prevent a nuclear iran or to delay that's what was to restrict their nuclear program. if you listen to president obama discussing it, there was more of a hope there, by bringing back engagement, with commerce internationally, that would lead to the regime change itself.

>> any evidence of those things happening. >> certainly not. >> i think of anything we've seen the regime strengthened by the fact that they've had an influx of money coming from the unfreezing of frozen assetsun, the beginning of international commerce, and are using that to strengthen at home and undertake greater engagement in the region that, from the perspective of the united states, it's dangerously destabilizing. >> we are expected to see a decision.gu >> it's important to remember this was a deal struck by president obama, sort of unilaterally. it's not a treaty or doesn't require congress but it doesn't mean congress didn't want to say. in 2015 they pass the iran nuclear agreement review act which set up a process for congress to be able to vote on

it. it also set up a process that if the deal did go forward, it requires the president to certify that iran was living up to his type of the agreement. every 90 days they have to say there meeting for criterion that is that the deal is fully implement it, that iran has not reached theof deal, is not in violation of the deal and that iran has not tried to engage its nuclear weapon program and it remainsin in the vital interest of the united states for the next deadline is october 15. we expect president trump to say he refuses to give thatp certification of the deadline. >> if you want to ask ourdl guest questions about where we are and where we might be, 2,027,488,001 for republicans, 8000 for democrats, 8002 for independence. is iran keeping up with that, those four principles. >> i think their solid ground for the president to say iran

is not meeting at least one of these criteria and he could probably make an argument for all four. the separate question is e ether or not he should. let me run to the criteria. the one that president trump will focus on is the one of vital national security interest of the united states, to continue with this deal. we know he has said this is the most one-sided deal ever and he had some reason to points to that. most important being that the restriction on iran's nuclear program are actually time-limited. it currently has to limit the centrifuges and how much uranium it stockpilesn m d d h. within the next 15 years, all those restrictions go away so that by 2031, iran can have as big of an enrichment program as it wants and still remain in good standing under this deal. the limits on u.s. sanctions on iran are permanent and that one sidedness, that worry that we are just delaying the nuclear program, not preventing it is what i think president trump is going to react to.vek

>> you can also point to certain things that iran has done that indicates it mightngs not be fully complying with the deal. there have been instances where iraq has had more nuclear material than it supposeded to under the deal and we've just said okay, will deal with this but we will call it a violation. there's been instances where the united states has wanted to inspect facilities in iran. you can make a case that there's been violations of the deal and that it's not being fully implement it. >> this all access to everything that might produce or has there been some closed off. >> so there's a couple different categories of facilities under the deal. anything relayed where there is nuclear material, anything with there's your uranium or plutonium, there is 247 access. in addition it gives inspectors access to facilities that produce things

related to the nuclear program. it also goes a step further and says if we think there's a facility whether doing something related to nuclear weapons we can inspect but there's a more convoluted process. it's not immediate. so far the iea has refused to try to go to some of these facilities. they're saying they haven't pushed it far enough for the trumpet ministrations liking. >> are just talking about the iran nuclear agreement. allen from brooklyn new york. you are the first caller for the democrats line. go ahead. >> caller: my first comment neutral andpocyab procedural. in the time of the founders there was no mass media, twitter or primaries. anyone who elevated as high up to be considered i the

presidency was vetted by colleagues. he worked over to elbow and people knew the abilities of the people who are getting high enough to be considered for president. only todayhe, after the advent of televisionn and twitter and primaries and cable television, searching for things that attract eyeballs more than often shed as much light as your program, we have the ability for someone like mr. trump to rise for the top in the process of selection that bypasses the betting of people in government who are ready know he is capable of y doing the job. >> the point of the iran deal. >> the point of the iran deal, we have to have someone who has a modicum of substance of knowledge that's been vetted by colleagues so he's even qualified to talk about the issue. we have people who are advanced physicists and others

who have expertise, but at least he should know who to ask and what questions to ask and we need to have something in place of exam the bedding we used to have to establish that someone is qualified to even be on the ballot. >> as far as trump is concerned, who's leading the effort? >> i think you've seen a very engaged administration, whether that secretary of defense matters are tillerson, hr mcmaster, i think they've all been very much engaged in trying to craft to the iran policy. certainly there has been an iran policy review going on in the white house since the very first days of this ministration. whatever decision is being made, whatever is being announced this week, i think will be the result of a multi- month deliberation and

certainly one that has been thinking about iran well before this president came into office. secretary of defense matters, has he was general mattis been ask what he felt the three greatest threats were. the people who are working have given a lot of thought to this issue. >> the morning. good morning guess and thank you for allowing me to express myself. i used to be a democrat and i do remember one of the failure that made me switch to independent because president obama, according to me, that was one of the worst deals he ever made. i think he was really naïve to think that they would change after a snap of the finger. i'm going to show you that

iran will get a nuclear bomb. they are learning from thin something from north korea and they feel it's the only way they can be protected. benghazi, libya, and now libya is the training ground for isis. there are just so many form policies under obama. i completely agree with president trump and if it were up to me, he should just cancel that deal completely. >> thank you. >> i do think libya is an interesting case when thinking about nonproliferation more largely. qaddafi had a nuclear and chemical weapons program that he gave up completely in 2003, not just partially like iran hasm he done but completely it allowed the international community to come over and take c everything. for other countries that mak

might be thinking about doing the same thing, they look at he gave up his chemical nuclear weapons program and look what happened to him in 2014. i think that is unfortunate of it example that they will say if i want to survive this and i want my regime to stay intact, maybe i better hold onto these weapons of mass destruction and that's overseeing happen in north korea. hopefully that's not what we will see in iran but it does pose a major challenge to nonproliferation. you work with these regimes that might be really bad but try to give them reassurances in order for them to give up their dangerous weapons or after the regimes himself.veve >> and crestline, richard, hello. >> thanks for taking my call. you said general mattis and other people in the administration are going to be in on the decision. general mattis came out and said they want to stay in the agreement. i want to know what gives

president trump expertise to make the decision to decertify it when a report came out this morning saying he wanted to raise the united states nuclear arsenal tenfold. thanks for taking my call. >> this raises a really important point, and one that is a little tricky and technical. deal isication of the actually not related to withdrawing the deal. the certification process was created by congress under the iran nuclear review act and is basically about the president telling congress whether he thanks the deal is working or not. it doeste not, by itself, change the american standing of the deal. under the terms of the deal, as long as the unitedin states has not put back the sanctions it had on iran, we are

complying with the deal. we can call the deal horrible, one-sided, we can say whatever we want about the deal, we are still part of the deal. decertification will change that. the question is, what will president trump say beyond decertification. what will his policy be beyond decertification. the comments of the members of his administration, like you just pointed out, suggest they're pushing toward saying we will decertify and we don't think the deal is working as it should, but we won't leave the deal, we will stay within it, try to work to improvehi it and also what i think is important is construct a policy that goes beyond just dealing with iran's nuclear program. we have a lot of problems with what iran is doing in the region. whether that's in hezbollah or supporting assad or using children to fight in support of assad or harassing u.s. ships in the presen persian gulf, there's a whole range of issues beyond the nuclear program that need to be

addressed., i think you'll see secretary madison secretary tillerson push the president to do that in a addition to just denuclearization. >> what iiona hope to hear, and then what would be the reaction depending on if he agrees to go ahead and decertify. we have actually seen all the members of the p5 plus one, the international body that help fast the steel say they don't want to see president trump decertify.ey i think that's partly based on this understanding that it means that he will try to pull the u.s. out of the deal which isn't necessarily the case. i do think from the perspective of the europeans that want to continue doing business in the russians and the chinese, they don't want to see thehe steel and. in fact you'vet also seen uranian strata signal they are going to portray any attempt of decertificationan as they claim a violation of the deal

as a sign of the u.s. being untrustworthy, that it doesn't live up to its international commitments. >> it's also important to note we have another group of partners in the middle east, whether that is real or others that are itching to see the united states to more on iran. not necessarily pull out of the deal but have a more aggressive strategy for countering iran in the region. werave differen have different expectations from different groups that have to f be balanced. >> the national security program director and the bipartisan policy.org, i the website, tell us about the bipartisan policy center, particularly what you do as director for the program. >> as the name suggests, we believe bipartisanship is vital on critical issues facing the united states. i think that's true on national security where you face long-term threats, whether its nuclear programs are north korea dealing with russia and china, where one congress or president isn't going to see the conclusion of those issues.le

bipartisanship and having a bedding and consensus -based strategy is really effective to solving the strategies and we help try to craft those. >> jack from rhode island. >> i was taught as a kid when i took science, that technology can never be regressed. it can only grow. now, with this deal and with north korea, you can slow down technological growth, but you can never stop it. iran, in time, will become a nuclear state. north korea is a nuclear state that i don't think can hit the united states right now, but they are coming to that point. the country that has the problem with iran is israel and israel is a technological

superstate,ic however the geographics are very small. basically, the size of rhode island. you need is to nuclear warheads to hit israel and israel ceases to exist. you can't stop it, you can only slow down, and one other thing, israel and saudi arabia today, they've got like a quiet alliance. they have to keep it quiet. saudi arabia, sunni muslim, iran is shiite muslim, they are at each other's throat.