bureaucratic wishes rather than the wishes of the people in electing donald trump for instance and donald trump has turned it swamp which is probably the term most americans immediately understand because washington was the at one point a swamp and the creatures coming out of the swamp our biting and fighting back for the turf. >> watch "after words" sunday night on c-span2's tv. >> at our table michael pregent, senior at bello hudson. michael, you are supposed to be doing this morning by trita parsi and he cannot be o here. he family emergency and he is hoping to reschedule. thank you for joining us at the table this morning for this discussion. what do you think about the

president's decision to withdraw from the iran nuclear deal? >> guest: it was the right decision for a number of reasons. president macron to the best. if there weren't changes made to the existing iran deal iran would beat north korea at some point. iran gave a lot of presiden -- a lot of its budget troubled and we saw this adventures in iraq and syria and they created new militias and their working with the cities to increase the capabilities to target so there

were all these arguments outside of the nuclear deal that gave the president what he needed to go after. these activities were not happened the nuclear deal would still be in place. >> host: are you saying the iranians were abiding by the agreements of the nuclear deal? >> guest: what i say to a lot of people they weren't cheating but i worked in the special access program in the intelligence committee were basically 12 analyst looked at intel and it was compartmentalizednd and it went to the nic in that specifically was on osama bin laden so i know there is intel there and i know it's highly contained and goes to an audience and that is why thank you have cia director pompeo say without a doubt iran is cheating. it's and next one section and that's the reason the president decertified it to begin with and we were not able to verify whether iran was complying with

developing trigger systems. computer models on how to detonate a nuclear weapon which is part of the iran deal but we had no way to verify whether they were in compliance then we saw the activity and outside of the areas protected by the jcb away there were four additional military sites we saw activity that were part of the jcpoa and they refused to investigate when that was presented they do not want to be applicable arm of the president so we do not want to go out and look at the sites to do something that could be looked at as a political. they were cheating another argument i make is if there cheating in the open about existing resolutions and the cheating when these commercial aircraft to land in damascus and they exit iraq he and they have photographs of that with imagery of that white with a be adhering in the shadows with an iran deal

that very weekend you want? >> host: the president of iran excuse me president rohani has said that this will go forward with the existing countries. the united states can leave but we will continue and we hope to continue the iran nuclear deal with the other five countries. >> guest: right, and 48 hours or 72 hours that is already starting to come up and using european nations say is this worth it and germany stands to lose $36 billion because the president canceled the deal. the motive for european countries to stay and is economic. they want to do business with the economy but when they initially started the contract in 2015 the iranian was [inaudible] today is 8021 us dollars was dropped 60% value which makes those contracts with

iran that much weaker and that much less of a profit for these countries. russia and china want to stand because they guaranteed or your rights and they guaranteed military contracts but again iran can now not now afford to buy the military equipment and now with sanctions going back on its oil it will make it more difficult but russia and china to benefit so the argument is from the united statesc perspective we are in the iran deal for security reasons. our partners and again, the argument that is the nitrates if they walk away will lose europe somehow too iran just doesn't ad up. when you have a 20 trillion-dollar economy versus an economy the size of maryland you will pick the united states. >> host: trita parsi who was supposed to be here credits the obama administration that while they were doing and negotiations

initially let out business leaders and they did not want business leaders involved in putting pressure on iran to come to the table because they didn't want it to be seen in those terms. >> right. they were trying to get it put inin place and they were courtig us business and -- >> host: who are you talking about? >> guest: it supported irann del and that stood to benefit from a deal based on the lobbying effort that they were putting on the obama administration. the issue with the iran deal being sold as not only as an arms control deal and also a way to get economic investment the foreign minister madent the argument that the us has been in breach of the iran deal since the beginning because we have

failed to promote or to mencourage european investmentn iran and that is his major complaint is that the us is not following the spirit of the deal because the not asking you to invest in iran. that is the key to the whole radio. now that we are out again europe was hesitant to go in under the protections of the jcpoa because they were afraid of sanctions and now that we are out they are not likely to go back in. the reason that you a second or sanctions are so key here is because the islamic revolutionary guard corps has basically implicated every aspect of the iranian economy and they are everywhere. that's the reason you can't investment the irg c doubt of the -- if the spring later focused on the economic benefits on the domestic front and on the economy again the budget tripled in the iranian protesters will complain that they squandered the regime squandered the economic benefits of the jcpoa and we still have an iran deal.

if there wasn't this strategy to destabilize in the middle east or to prop up new militias and to further destabilize yemen and saudi arabia relationship and we still have iran deal. >> host: the been using this money for proxy wars in yemen against saudi arabia and for a proxy war in syria against israel and without this deal in place is therees a risk that the united states gets dragged into these proxy wars and into an open war like "the new york times" suggested today?? >> guest: i listen to what russia has been saying about this and you have european condemningesterday iran's 20 missile barrage on israel in the golan heights. yes, they are urging besides. there was a message there that d.this will not be tolerated and we cannot back you up if you are doing things like this to prove the president's point that you

are not a trusted actor. the other rhetoric is we can't race to a bomb because you lose as well but you lose europe and russia and china you race to the bomb because uranian economies simply not worth it to these two countries. the messages out of russia were key. israel has conducted strikes on militias and proxies in advisors and they are the only military that get another military. we've had proxies from russia and the wagner group and proxies from iran and israel is hitting iranian military advisers on the ground in russia is sitting on its hands in russia yesterday said we value our relationship with israel and we value our relationship with iran but benjamin that tonya was there with you saying that and that's in a strong message to iran and iran is more isolated and their becoming very broke and look at the protesters are saying and an

egg is $5. the 5-dollar egg on american 6000-dollar year salary and that's how bad the economy is big when they see blissett muscles and adventurism and the us now pulling out of the iran deal it's hurting the people. not blaming the us but the regime. i think it's a moment now where iran is broke and losing front and the two fronts they have are russia and china and both are saying you got to slow this israel stuff down and you can do this and not likely to see russia support them by not taking sides israel will have the advantage in syria but the problem is what is hezbollah doing with the rockets. >> host: good morning to you, in massachusetts. >> caller: good morning. thank youe for taking my calls. i p just want to say that we are proud to be americans but we also have to look at what is

right and what is wrong. we cannot tell me that all the allies that support the steel that we have the more right to just go on and get out of the deal and the minute friends come over and i just think that donald trump when he mentioned he doesn't pay taxes or doesn't do this and he's very reckless and i just think he loves the moral righteousness to try and tell other nations how to read their country because this deal and all our allies are in accord with its the best deal we could do not to get out of it and look at now what will he get in north korea that will be better than

they are in. to me it's just like we are beating a drum of war and we are really acting -- i mean, to me it's crazy. >> host: okay, robert. >> guest: i love to argue that. the other question is this hurts us with north korea. walking away from the iran deal and how n can we trust the unitd states because they won't keep their word. this was a treaty we never would have been able to walk away. it would've been ratified by congress and had 50 votes in the senate and we would not be able to do what were doing. i say we those of us who are [inaudible] -- it helps is not great. he kept up his rocket attacks in his blissett missile launches in

his nuclear program under the last year of the obama administration hoping to get in iran like deal with one heavily laden withth the senate and weak enforcement. he now knows he will not get that in one of the key things that have happened in the last 24 hours undermines that whole argument.cl secretary of state pompeo returned with three americans from north korea before sitting down with kim jung-un and his nuclear program and if you contrast that with secretary carrie and president obama saying that we cannot get jason out of prison because it was not part of a nuclear deal in the nuclear deal was only about arms control to iran it was everything. it reacted their terror and logistical operational networks. it helps us with north korea and again the united states is part of the [inaudible] which was the only country concerned about security. russia is in it for military in europe is an ever economic investment. macron had a very strong language here is that if there were no changes they would become north korea and he wanted to over late posting missile

testing and inspections but that requires russia, china and iran to agree to that and they were going to agree to that. >> host: we see oil prices rising. what is the geopolitics of oil prices rising given what we said about the russians for oil? >> guest: yes, we now know that the iranian oil market will shrink. saudi arabiara plans to flood to compensate and oil is good for the economy included russia and to include other countries that may not be in the us orbit but it's an opportunity to see what the next two weeks as oil starts to go down because saudi arabia is cascading for the loss of iranian experts. also iraq will do the same thing for iraq will push out and talk about iraq one of the major

concerns i have is that if iran uses them as a shell company to offset sanctions because the reason european countries want to business is because of the eye or w gc they have already penetrated the economic sectors, televisions, oil, transportation and one more. >> host: politics according to -- >> guest: yes, i was interviewed in "the new york times" piece. it concerns about the political party in iraq and are active militia members in "the new york times" piece called them former militia members and now they have access to the us training program meaning iran has access to the us training program in their proxies and they threatened to kill americans if they walk away from the jcpoa in the been warned any attack againstar us will be a tradition and there will be consequences for toronto and it's an interesting middle east because iran sees them as one benefield and the united states doesn't.

we compartmentalize our strategy and the strategic practices come across from [inaudible] from mosul to baghdad there are five bithat contradict each other's t let's go back to what you said about saudi arabia flooding the market when they struck a deal in march with russia to cut back on oil production. >> guest: right, right. that change is that. killing iran deal changes that and would -- russia and china will now probably seek to offset the losses and by doing just that and deals again i think iran is becoming less and less important to russia and china is singling everything. china has been pouring money into iran to complete the lack of european investment. it's a sinking hole. it's a bottomless pit where your

point is money into compensate and the president had a strong message which is at any country trying to get iran to nuclear weapon will also be sanctioned. he was talking about russia and china and not talking about european allies. i iran economy simply is an economic pitfalls that will come if they continue to support this regime. >> host: bruce, florida, republican. >> caller: yes, sarah, i agree with you one 100% and you are now part of the problem. obama just wanted to give the money for nothing and somebody has got to stand up to these people that bow to kill us and have no respect for humanity whatsoever and that is about all i have to say. a-uppercase-letter. >> host: thank you, bruce. let's talk the money. the plant brings up 1.8 billion and plaintiff access of the two numbers he gave

150,000,000,001.8 billion the first is dodgy and the second is slightly exaggerated. >> guest: is going 1.7 billion on the second and the first one we will go from 100 billion to 150 billion and the argument is it's their money to begin with so why do we think we gave the money. in the second amount was what was interest on a $400 million military contract prior to the regime falling. we gave them interest on that. the controversy with the second part is that it was used to exchange hostages. it was the c-130 landing with cash and if you want to do is what the president said i would like to know that look like but i said ask bret because he was there. the money has always been an issue but whether it's a hundred billion or 150 billion and never went back to the people. when you hear the protesters

they tell that and say that and the hundred billion dollars never came to us. even someone that we have always worried about as a hard liner death to america guy has said that listen, the supreme leader's it's ei ko or the [inaudible] is the shell company conglomerate with $90 billion that was delisted under annex to the jcpoa. it had nothing to do with the nuclear program yet it was something we gave the regime in order for them to sign it. that fuels this terrorism. he says it's not worth $90 billion but $130 billion and it should go to the iranian people. you have a hard liner criticizing the regime for squandering his opportunity to launch a missile to bring back the imam. you can't make this stuff up. >> host: andrew in chicago, democrat. >> caller: hello. you guys are stealing my questions and answers here. [laughter] the money issue -- you know, if

you are on the right side you are definitely saying that we gave iran $150 billion but if you're -- >> guest: before obama came and everyone was against the regime but anyway, go ahead. [inaudible conversations] >> caller: you are on the left side everyone says iran sold oil to north korea, south korea, china and then the sanctions were imposed. when it was their money and then when the sections were lifted we gave them their money back and then theem cash that was brought there was just to get them started before all the money was freed up back to them but -- i love what you are saying because i've been looking forward to having someone talk about this and i am still a little confused

on it. ... saying why did obama give them $150 billion? i would never give anybody $150 billion. but i believe it was their money and we just give it back to them. it was funding terrorism and it was feeling, it was building ballistic missiles. it was paying for a weapon is nuclear program. so izthere was, the issue with president trump when he was running in the campaign he was against the aramco. but it was something that many feel comfortable. he said this is a bad deal because we did not make any money off of it. i was a former political operative and we didn't add.

the president is not a bad though because were not making money off of it is because iran is not a trusted actor. again, if iran had not detained sailors and head honcho iraq or increase the capabilities of the target reality. will probably transfer the president not able to make comments iran is an actor you cannot trust. >> host: we have a republican from washington. >> caller: i have a question for your guest.pursuant to say i support our present 100 percent other than his ego and some things s where he insults people but from an international strategic player, i support him. i will vote for him again. i need to play devils advocate. as i understand it, our cia, led by an effort by a cia official named donald wilber in 1953, he even wrote an article entitled kent justice service

history overthrow of the premier tracker he was elected by the iranian people. democratic at the time. to straighten up the mess between the e british petroleum companies contract and what, which is only giving iran three percent or less of the oil profits. so that is how, that is a platform he ran on. democratically reelected and our deep state at the time decided that it was more beneficial to the us to put a dictator in place and maybe our industrial complex. while i love my country and i think my country is the freest country in the world, i think that some of these clandestine operations by our intelligence community need to go. and i think i ask americans listening now, think, if we would not have done that as i understand it, iran was our biggest ally from world war one all the way through world war

ii. there was no better ally in the middle east. their culture, it is closest to america's culture other than israel now in the entire region. so i'm asking your guest, what is your opinion on how our cia actually blew it and created this scenario that we are in now? >> guest: okay so, i'm not a big fan of time travel questions. i cannot go back in time and address what happened in 1952. i am not trying to you know, diminish what you are saying. but let's look at the current situation. rest assured, our current clandestine service cannot do that anymore because we put in executive orders under three presidents keeping us from doing things like that. but look at what israel was able to do by getting the intel out of tehran because i do have that network, they do have a clandestine network that actually works with the irg see to get -- irgc.

everything you're asking is right but we just do not do that. we cannot go back 10 years and look at what right looks like in iraq with the surge because we didn't do any of those things in this whole campaign to defeat isis. we don't look at our history unfortunately. recycle things and that is all we have these problems. temporary alliances, temporary solutions resulting in permanent ramifications. >> host: brian in washington, dc.any comments? >> caller: thank you for taking my call. one issue with your guests comments, if we had been in a treaty we would still be in a treaty. we walked away from the abm treaty 17 years ago or whenever without having a set inaction on that. treaties usually have pretty good escape clauses that allow executive action so -- >> and russia was cheating.

that is why we walked away. everybody agreed to it. he did have democrats say they weren't kidding. he did have republican saying they weren't cheating. everyone said they were cheating and it was very easy to do. that is basically that argument.>> caller: second, the simplistic argument that europe is only jcpoa is in for economic reasons. there much closer to the middle east than we are. they are vulnerable to destabilizing activities than we are. we see this is the siri issue with the migration issue. i ask you take a bit more of a new lex view of what european security interests are. and my third point here, my third question. are you at all n,concerned abou the united states giving israel a blank check to basically do as he pleases with iran? maybe we are not there yet but are you willing to go on the record and say that the us should allow itself to be drawn into a broader middle east war

on israel's behalf? >> guest: the us is already being drawn into this war in the refugee problem is a direct result of the war. he saw, guest, events in the militia -- before the event it was signed they were in a certain position. he didn't see what we were seeing in 15, 16 and 17. the refugee flow was a direct result of and embolden iran and syria. and refugees pulled out or pushed into turkey and turkeys of other reasons to push them into europe in order to leverage their position. i absolutely believe that israel should be able to defend itself in the southern syria. especially when iran is increasing its capabilities there. they are not there to defeat isis. or anybody else. they are there to target israel. they are not using precision guided rockets and missiles to hit isis. they are being positioned to hit israel. israel has every right to do it. and again, the president said do not give me my own war in

the middle east. you get one anyway. look at twhat happened to president obama. he said the statement iraq and afghanistan. you are getting more because your enemies are already there. iran believes they are ready at war with israel. israel believes their war with iran. you have this air campaign yesterday that decimated iranian positions in syria. russia sat on its hands. because what israel hit was not there to fight isis. the remaining assets were not get to fight isis. they were there to threaten israel. russia sat on a tent in israel's setback three years of the rgc yesterday. in taking up those missile factories, the missile positions and the leaders. we should absolutely support that. and i do believe if you estimate that in its entirety, you should be able to change the aumf and part of the authorization for military force and allow united states and israel to target the

militia leaders in syria when they threaten us bases and when they launch rockets against israel. >> host: if they do not, if they remain, what is the danger of iran remaining in syria for years to come? if they have a foothold, they propped up assad. >> guest: israel moved into lebanon in 2006 at hundred and 60,000 in iraq preventing logistical support. syria was not in a place where iran could go in and do these type of things. that has all changed. iran can freely move militias through iraq into syria to be able to maintain the logistical support required to threaten israel. so it is a much more, is a less safer place for israel but that changed two days ago when iran deal when away. because again, iran is no longer insulated by the jcpoa. it was going to be allowed to become an economic power. conventional military power.

continuous ballistic missile testing outside of the jcpoa. at the end of the sunset clause, put a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile that they already been perfected. and the conventional force to be able to deter a us or israeli strike on iran's nuclear facilities and now, have european investment entrenched in iran to the point where they wouldn't be much we can do about it. we pretty much had to say iran is the new power broker in the middle east and they are doing it through force and economic leverage. this changes all of that. it makes the middle east a much safer place than it would have if iran was allowed to continue in anthis iran deal. that is my take from former intelligence officer that looks at threats and motives and patterns and you know, metrics and analysis. >> host: georgia. ralph, democrat. >> caller: phgood morning. please allow your guests to answer the following question. i'm sick and tired of guests coming on blaming president obama for everything that has

went wrong and say that he did nothing when he had no support. our president now, donald trump, he is not the only one. [inaudible] i am looking at when we pull out of this agreement, gas prices at the pump are going up. who is going to suffer? the american people, the iranian people. we cannot afford to go on vacation because of -- [inaudible] one other thing i would like to say, we are the ones that have our blood, sweat and tears when these decisions are made. leaving our country, going

somewhere else to go and fight for somebody else. we the people here, are sick and tired reof all these wars a get involved in things we have no reason to get involved in. let me hear what you have to say about that. >> host: okay, got it. >> guest: thank you for your question, sir. i praise president obama when he started sucking isis in iraq and syria. so i tried to stay fact-based. i do not want to be partisan but when i look at the iran bill, i was okay with the nuclear side of it not okay with the nonnuclear concessions. to your point about the wars, i served in three of them. desert storm, iraq and afghanistan. i'm trying to get -- it we tell

our enemy we are going to leave. i was like we had been in afghanistan for 17 years. he did not tell the enemy your playbook.if especially if your enemy is a long-term strategic player. and since we are in washington d.c., we simply use this analogy, we won the campaign in afghanistan like the change the playbook. iran is going to draw us into the next war. it would have done this with the jcpoa and they're trying to now do it outside of that. they are much weaker now. we will not become an economic powerhouse. they will not become a conventional military. they are sitting friends by the hour. this is a better position. there has been no counterstrike from iran against israel. because what happened yesterday in syria, as israel took away office of capabilities from the iranians and the russians sat on their hands. the russians do not want a war. we do not want a war. iran does, they need it in order to remain viable and they

are likely going to continue, unfortunately over the next 10 years. russia is a $1.9 trillion economy also. again, $20 trillion economy, $1.9 trillion economy and iranian economy. russia cannot replace an aircraft if we shoot it down. they cannot replace their men with other men. they have contractors now. but -russia is not in syria to defend iraq. russia is not there to defend other they are there to protect russia.if they launch those rockets to fend off that cruise missile strike, they would deplete all of their rockets and missiles. and leave themselves vulnerable. for 40 minutes. the us deciding whether or not to do something, we won't. we do not want to escalate. and brushes in a very powerful message to iran. we are not going to take sides. not taking sides, they take israel side. >> host: asheville, north carolina. independent.

>> caller: good morning. can you hear me? >> host: we can, you on the air. what is your comment? >> caller: i have a question and a comment. it is pretty much all you have been talking about. before i got on i did want to mention one thing. the 17 years in afghanistan. i grew up during the vietnam war. and back then it was common knowledge, that the cia was smuggling heroin at the golden triangle. i lithink the opium poppies afghanistan had to do with our being there 17 years than anything else. as far as the iran deal, with the arab spring, what that basically does was it was a massacre of the middle class of northern africa. i never heard congress declare war on libya. and anything that was part and parcel of that whole arrangement, which the iran deal was, to perpetrate these

complexes i think the guest is right. that is what the cia does. it perpetrates conflict because they make money off of it. >> guest: i don't remember saying that but i think someone else that. >> host: a viewer. >> guest: yes, i did not say that. >> caller: well, it is, we have been in wars pretty much continuously since world war ii. you go back all that way. and my question is, i never saw the cia listed in the constitution or the fbi or any of these rogue agencies that have their own agenda. which is superseding the congress and the people of the country. i think it is time the -- is kind of what kennedy wanted to do after the bay of pigs. he wanted to disband the cia. and i think the president trump is now depend on this to protect it. >> host: okay, got your point.

>> guest: i think our professionals inside the intelligence community are focused on national security threats. i think we've got away from a lot of things that the viewer mentioned. we are not doing those operations anymore. people learn from their mistakes and congress puts rules in place, executive orders have a lot of things the viewer was talking about and i just think that our intelligence community is a continued focus on isis and nuclear proliferation. >> host: north carolina, our line for democrats. you are next. >> caller: this guy keeps talking about intelligence community. the intelligence community told us that there was restructuring. the intelligence community told a whole lot of things. he kept talking about washington journal continues -- which is untrue. >> host: okay. i'm going to leave it there because we are running out of time.

trust issue. >> guest: yes lesson is really made the intelligence community cautious about making recommendations now. nuance in the intelligence community is that mr. president can do this or that. decide what they're going to do. used to say, slam done. one thing is that the nsa believes everything you hear on the phone. if the president does or does not know they are being listened to, rely on the phone all the time. the other part is we believe government officials when they tell us that nothing is happening in their countries, that is an american talking to a foreign government official. our intelligence community is very cautious about making big predictions. but inside each cell in the intelligence community somebody who knows what is happening and i think leaders need to find out who was crossing her arms in meetings with opinion and ask them what you think? people predicted isis was on the rise and they said in the ica wasn't. people predicted this in the past and there was that descending view. that there is a nuclear program

and maybe it is a deception program. it is a deception program that was meant to stay off and iranian invasion was saddam was hurting this situation. >> host: we appreciate your discussion. thank you for being here. >> guest: i appreciate it. >> this weekend on c-span saturday at 830 eastern the national rifle association leadership forum in dallas. including senator ted cruz and john cornyn and congressman richard hudson. sunday at 6:30 pm starbucks executive chair howard schultz on the responsibility of global companies. on booktv on c-span2 saturday night on nine easter. author sally cohen talks about former cnn correspondent candy crowley about where hate begins. and it ain't pm on sunday, former secretary of state condoleezza rice and amy -- on

american diplomacy. an american history t.v. on c-span3 seven and nine in eastern on the presidency. hillary clinton and linda johnson talk about the white house he is a betty ford. sunday at 2 pm eastern purchased and legal experts guess the supreme court case hustler magazine versus falwell. and the impact on editorial cartoonists 30 years later. watch this weekend on the c-span network. >> is the house is ready to debate the farm bill, catherine boudreau joins us. a reporter for food and agriculture from politico pro. what are the key details of the farm bill and how long is this authorization for federal farm program funding? >> the bulk of this sweeping legislation is geared towards a supplemental nutrition assistance program for food stamps. necessarily the most controversial aspect of getting the farm