[applause] [applause] >> coming up in 15 minutes here on c-span2, a conversation with iraq's ambassador to the u.s. about the future of his country. that is life in the hudson and get in washington at noon eastern. until then, some of this morning's "washington journal." >> host: join us for the next 45 minutes or so, former energy secretary of the obama administration, earnest money is coming out of a chair and ceo of the nuclear press initiative. secretary moniz, thank you for

being with us this morning. you are a man who lived through the nuclear threat of the cold war. can you compare what that was like to the potential threats that we are aware of today in the world iran, north korea, other areas? >> well, at the end of the cold war in the early 90s, a lot of people were hoping that the whole issue, the specter of nuclear weapons was behind this. today i have to say that the possibility of a nuclear weapon beingty used is probably higher than any time since the human missile crisis and are concerned is less on inactive miscalculation that provides a faulty information for the united states and russia. >> younu are feeling while you e energy secretary.

>> yes, indeed. although i think it's gotten worse in the intervening period. for example, with russia, let's face it our relationship is very, very poor at the moment. much less communication that was going on and that is what adds to this idea that miscalculation is that could lead us to a very, very bad outcome. >> you are leading the nuclear threat initiative. what is the organization doing to mitigate nuclear threats? what's your role? >> first of all, it's been in place since early 2001 established by ted turner and sam nunn. with distinguished and led me to be excited to be able to move into that ceo role is that the organization is a think tank to a certain extent, but more cannot operationalize his programs. for example, going to the early part of the organization that helped move very dangerous material out of serbia during

the hostilities there. more recently, just last year we cut the ribbon on what is called the low enriched uranium bank that provides security or supply to discourage countries from having enrichment technology. the organization gets stuff done on the ground as well as do policies geared >> you back at the end of the cold war is long with their opportunities to really cut back the threat now further developing andhaur countries. >> first of all in the 90s come and they very coming very strong efforts done to control and eliminate nuclear materials for nuclear weapons. then, it is not nuclear directly, but indirectly, issues with russia began to build. for example, nato expansion is something russia have a lot of problems with. these things have been building

up, but clearly the issues around ukraine in 2014 exacerbated the relationship and now we are in a situation that is very dangerous to not having sufficient communications between our military leaders so that we know what we're doing. we understand what each is doing and we don't wonder into a nuclear confrontation. poster for joining us in the wake of the current administration's release of iran nuclear posture review and your participation in the munich security conference recently. what is that combines alll about? >> the security conference is a legendary annual event that brings together leaders, literally presidents, prime ministers, defense ministers, foreign ministers and of course others from the private sector once a year to discuss a whole range of security issues. you mentioned the nuclear posture review.

it certainly has a lot of attention at munich. and to be honest a lot of concern. if i mayn. say, the first thing about the nuclear posture review the administration t put out ift does have a lot of continuity with the past. it does endorse a continuing moratorium. for example, it maintains the posture of nuclear weapons and the like. the two areas of concern that has been raised is somewhat tanned it seems to expand the field of use of nuclear weapons come including nonnuclear attacks, and secondly, it does talk about putting a new class of weapons on submarines that most of us think will move us in the wrong direction in terms of miscalculation as opposed to the right direction. poster you raise concerns along with sam nunn, arms and nuclear

concerns right in the forward to this munich security conference writing the negative political dynamic to nato in the russian federation is the frame for a discussion of the nato defense policy including they must be resolute to the defensive nato that has been bearing today, given the uncertainty that has engulfed the company administration's relationships with nato and with russia. there is some specificity. before nuclear deployed weapons increased the risk of accidents, blenders or catastrophic terrorism and by preemption. it is past time to revisit whether these forward base weapons are essentially for military deterrence and political reassurance. the tribe administration's national security strategy of december 2017 commits to discontinue employment without presenting the analysis that would emerge from a hard look. so do you think is forward

deployed weapons should not be there? >> basically yes. what we are calling for is a re-examination. let's get it on the table. i have to say there is a consensus among our military that these weapons do not satisfy military object is. secondly, we have a flexible deterrence without them. third, it is difficult to imagine a u.s. president thinking that the first use of a nuclear weapon would calm by our other a pilot from some country be the delivery vehicle. fourth, let's face it. we have a new world of terrorism. we have some instability on the flank of nato. turkey and syria, for example. at a minimum, a very serious analysis about what are the risks matched up against again

no military benefit that we can see as they are. we recognize that at a time of difficult relationships with russia, it would be difficult to address the political or the geopolitical reasons for that deployment. we say look, it's time to start doing serious analysis and balance the risks. in the end frankly i think we should be pulling those weapons back, but making it very clear again our absolute commitment to nato and our absolute nuclear commitment to nato. >> was this an issue you ever raised in a bomb administration and development of the nuclear review, the posture of the administration and secondly, whatat is the role of the energy department and overall nuclear strategy when it concerns the military. >> first of all, the obama administration nuclear posture in 2010 was before i was in the administration.

but president obama certainly had a very comprehensive and i think forward-looking view on the nuclear deterrent. let me make it very clear. the president always said as long as we have nuclear weapons, they have to be safe, secure, reliable. secondly, the president did in fact put forward the modernization program in terms of stable, we are relying on a nuclear enterprise that has facilities. fifth d., 60, 700 years old. we have to reinvest to have a deterrent. the president was for that, but same time put forward the absolutely correct approach saying we have to keep working to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their military strategy while never losing ourr absolute deterrent to prevent use. the second part of the question the department of energy and especially to our national

laboratories is responsible for the design and maintenance of a nuclear arsenal. policy rolea technically, but of course the secretary of energy is on the national security council and the nuclear issues are discussed in the secretary has a seat at the table as i did in my predecessors in my successor. >> let's open up our phone lines for your calls and comments for former secretary ernest bunnies. 2,427,488,000. republicans don't trust you 7,488,000. for others, robert on the republican line of brooklyn. first caller. robert, go ahead with your comment. >> good morning. chairman tom explained the government for a nuclear sub for them. at the same time i'd like to ask

the head hollywood producer -- [inaudible] >> host: the relationship of israel in germany in terms of nuclear weapons. can you comment on that? >> guest: first of all, germany does not have nuclear weapons, although they are a member of nato, they are a part of our integrated defense of europe. to my knowledge, there's no specificto relationship in germy and israel with regard to the nuclear deterrent that the united states, and i should also add comments united kingdom and france supplied for european defense in the middle east obviously we are working.

i worked in the administration and i continueue to work on tryg toto enforce non-proliferation norms. we don't want to see nuclear weapons spreading any more than a half over the last couple decades. >> travis on the democrat finding colchester, vermont. >> hi, good morning. first of all, mr. moniz, i want to thank you and commend you for your work in negotiating and securing the iran nuclear deal. secondly, my question has to do with your former role as deputy secretary. i was wondering if you could speak to the risk to the electrical grid. i'm sure you are familiar if you could talk a little bit about that and do you feel that hardening our electrical grid to solar events should be a

priority? >> guest: let me say more broadly i think hardening the grid if you like i would say,ha making it more resilient against a number of threats, you mentioned solar flares in extreme circumstances. those certainly are an issue. i would like to say that frankly, i would say cyberthreat are probably a greater present danger. but in general, what we need to do is we need to get a much more resilient system. we need to continue the deployment that was started nearly 10 yearse ar ago now in s of much more able sensors, for example, that can detect disturbances, lead to waysur of isolating parts of the grid that have problems. and i might say as well, it's not only the high-voltage systems, but also when you get

to the distribution system, d te line to go into people's houses and the like and start hooking up all of your internet addressable appliances at home to the internet. we are creating the possibility of tremendous new services for consumers, but at the same time we are elevating things like sabre. it is an integrated view to looking at the whole spectrum of issues. we could never forget, and the electric grid is kind of the lifeline of all lifelines. every other infrastructure, financial and more dependent upon reliable high-quality electricity delivery. so this is an area that is absolutely critical. and i might add, the administration put forward a couple weeks ago a framework for addressing american

infrastructure. i think the program, first of all, many of us would agree we see it every day how we need new infrastructure. but i would really elevate very much the energy infrastructure and most especially probably the electricity infrastructure again as our key lifeline network. .. no one in congress, the fbi or justice called for an investigation. wanted to get your opinion on what you think the trump administration is trying to do in terms of its view of the area deal with you i don't want to go into detail but that issue of that payment that was payment of a court ordered settlement of

resources that were appropriated by the united states back in the iranian revolution time but let's go on to the agreement. i think that is more relevant today clearly. first of all, i think that there has been a misconception from the very beginning of 2015 in terms of the agreement. the principal criticism was not of the agreement but of what the agreement is not. it was never intended to address missiles and to address yemen and to address hezbollah and to address human rights. these are all very serious issues and we have a lot of problems with iran, obviously in the region and now syria in there as well. i think all of us believe that we should be pushing back hard with our allies and friends on

these issues and very concerned about the security of israel, for example, with hezbollah and iran support of hezbollah. let's push hard on those and i might add in the obama administration after they are radial additional sanctions were placed on iran for reasons that were not nuclear. the deal takes the nuclear weapons part of the table and it does not relieve us of the need to address all those other issues. the second issue is that now we hear a lot about the sunset of the agreement and i want to make it very, very clear this agreement does not sunset. there are restraints on iran's nuclear activity that do go aw away. some in ten years or 15 years and the like. however, the core of the agreement, the most important thing, are the verification measures put in place in the agreement. after all, let's face it, what are the most c concerned about? in the end it's not about what

iran is telling us about what they're doing but corporate activity. c transparency in the ability to go anywhere in the country with a short timeframe to look at anything suspicious that is what is critical. that never sunset. this is a permanent unique verification measure that is the strength of the agreement. if you were to break the agreement while iran is acknowledged to be in compliance we would never get that back and that would be ad terrible blow o our in our allies national security needs. >> host: independent line, bob, massachusetts. >> caller: good morning. thank you the spirit. you do a great job over there. for this gentleman i would like to say in this is all i'd like to say is you were part of the very worst of administration ever governed our country.

history will record that. even though right now all the democrats are in denial of what you people did to our country you are the worst administration ever. now, everyone that died in iraq in that war after the obama pulled everyone out so he could create isis while he didn't create them but they were created because of his actions now all those people that are dead that blood is on his hands. he could have stepped in and stop the syrians from being slaughtered but he did nothing. then the russians landed and you people have the r very worst international things going on that i have ever seen in my life. >> host: bob, any follow-up speed to this would take a long time to answer these assertions and if you like to talk about foreign policy issues i would like to go backa to 2003 and tk about what a great year that was

for us policy. >> host: john in louisiana on the reportpu in line to go ahea, john. >> caller: yes, sir, i spent 20 years in the united states air force and that was as a pilot in the strategic air command which i'm sure you're aware of so i was on the pointed end of the spear that was going to wait nuclear war with the soviet baunion. >> you can see the rest of this washington journal statement on our website c-span .org andio jt type earnest monies into the search bar. right now we take you to the hudson institute in washington with iraq's ambassador to the us on the future of this country. this is my coverage on c-span2. >> welcome to this panel on reconstructing iraq with challenges ahead. i'm a senior fellow here and the moderator for the event. i'm excited to share this panel want to buy