because it's very hard to know. >> can you restate your position can you restate your position? >> sure, the town of greece has a legislative prayer practice that is consistent with this country from the very founding congress from the very beginning of history has a legislative practice that is comparable to ha the town of greece is doing. it invokes blessing on the legislators thaze begin their work. yet each session does nothing unconstitutional about it. prayers to decree what is orthodox and what is not when prayer givers are giving public prayer. that would be contrary to our traditions of religious liberty. >> where does it end? is there no limit to your position? >> the supreme court in the prior case in 1983 upholding legislative prayer at the state level said that as long as the prayer is not being exploited by

the government to proselytize or denigrate particular faiths, then it's not constitutionally a problem and it is not permissible for the courts to regulate the content of the prayer. and there's no claim that the prayers of the town of greece violate those prohibitions, and therefore they're constitutional. >> what's wrong with giving clergy and ministers guidelines and guidance as to what's acceptable and unacceptable? >> it depends on what the guidelines are. if the guidelines are what the mavs want here, which is to say you can pray in these words to these deities but not in those words to those deities, that is government regulating the theological content of prayers prescribing what is orthodox and what is not in religion. and that is contrary to our tradition of religious liberty. >> when ministers ask the community to bow their heads or join them in prayer, is that not proselytizing? >> it is not. first of all, no one is required o do it. people are free not to do it.

similar things happen from time to time in the legislature or in congress. and since people are free to pray or not as they choose, there's no constitutional problem with that. >> you don't think that would make somebody uncomfortable if they're the only one not standing or bowing their head? > the supreme court has upheld that someone might object to a particular practice or made uncomfortable is not the fusional test? constitutional test. we're talking about the establishment clause and whether or not the government is establishing a particular religion. here the town of greece practice is open to people of any religion or no religion if they choose to give an invocation. >> only for members of other religions gave those prayers, why did that not happen until the initial lawsuit? that did not happen in the past. >> the practice like the practice of many governmental bodies was to invite all of the clergy in the town with regardless of denomination or religion to deliver a prayer if it they chose. it happened the people who chose o deliver the prayer in greece

were christian until 2008 when after this lawsuit was publicized and the complaints were publicized, more people became aware of the opportunity and nonchristians began delivering the prayer both in 2008 and several times since then. >> which they actively invite other members of other religions? > i'm sorry. >> they actively invite other members of other religions? they say, hey, it's open? >> the town has never made a secret of its policy. no one had ever requested prior to the plaintiffs in this case. when the plaintiffs in this case complained, the town offered them an opportunity to give an invocation but they eclined. > did say? >> feeling uncomfortable has been standard for standing. >> i think what i said is that if the supreme court were to adopt the same practice that ould raise different constitutional issues. if the supreme court were to adopt a practice of having only one sectarian prayer for a from a particular denomination that would clearly be more constitutionally problematic. that's not the practice here. >> the identical prayer, a

single priest on one occasion, you think that would fly or not fly? >> on one occasion it's hard to say. here's no similar tradition in the courts. nd courts are subject to additional constraints in terms of the obligation to be objective and unbiased. but whether one violation whether one prayer would be a violation, it's hard to say. >> thank you. >> i want to thank tom and his team. they did a great job at the supreme court and been a great addition to the team. i think more importantly, i want to thank the town of greece. this is a concerted effort across our country to completely get rid of what's called public prayer, legislative prayer. there are over 200 cases around the united states where groups are trying to challenge the historical practice of egislative prayer.

and many of these small towns can't afford this type of a case. the town of greece stood up. and their case ended up here. but i think it's important, what plaintiffs want is ensorship. i think no one should be in favor of that. i think when you have different prayer givers, they should have the liberty to pray according to the dictates of their faith tradition. and that's exactly what this town did it discriminated against none. it allowed anyone to comp on? -- come on an equal basis. even atheist plaintiffs were invited to come and give an invocation. you can't have a policy more open than this. and more importantly, and some of the justices asked good questions, should the government be in the position of censoring the way people pray? no. the people should be able to compose their own prayers. it's on a rotating basis. first come, first serve. anyone's invited to attend. i think the justices asked some intriguing questions and hopefully will come up on the defense of prayer that our country has engaged in since its ounding.

>> family research counsel representing members of congress amicus in this case. as the briefs we filed on behalf of members of congress show, the reality is that the prayer practice in the town of greece, new york, is far more religiously diverse than we actually have in the united states congress. ever since the founding of the republic for more than 200 years members of congress have had an official paid chaplain who would be an ordained clergyman who himself personally gives prayers n his own faith tradition. furthermore, 40% of the prayers are offered by guest chaplains as they're sponsored. and each of them praise according to their own faith tradition. in terms of the issues that the lower court in this case

recognized as problematic, a majority of the prayers offered in congress actually include, according to what the other side describes as sectarian, to be faithspecific content. beyond that 97%. of the prayer givers before congress are self identified christian and 97% say that we and us as they pray, facing not ust the members but also the gallery incorporating all of this into what they are saying. in 1983 when the supreme court upheld legislative prayer, it used congress as the touchstone of what is acceptable under the first amendment because it was the same congress that wrote the establishment cause of -- laws of the constitution. it created the house and senate chaplain to offer these every day.

we're hopeful the court will go the right way in this course. as being consistent with the establishment clause and to make it clear in our second brief at the time has come to step away from this whole concept of if someone subjectively feel the government is endorsing a religious idea and the test is not endorsement, but coercion. is anyone being coerced to participate in a religious activity contrary to their conscience or some other official establishing religion. that is not what is going on here. we are hopeful the court will go the right way in this case and reverse the court below. - thank you. >> i argued the case for the plaintiffs. a number of them support the right of citizens to's participate without participating in another prayer service.

most of what you heard was false. there is no rotation system. the only or instructions was to call a pastor. they had no one but christian pastors. i have defended many christians in my career. do not support the right to use the power of government to impose on religious minorities. hat is what is going on. justice hay began summarized the case. you cannot refuse to participate in the prayer just before you stand up to ask the board to take discretionary action that affects you directly and personally. this is highly coercive and also a sectarian endorsement. it violates all of the principals of the establishment clause that both sides of the court, the liberals and onservatives, have agreed to carry and endorsements are

prohibited. and we have both of those things in this case. >> what is the larger problem, the message or the method? >> the message. it does not matter who was selected to give the prayer. it matters what the prayer givers says. the prayers in this case are explicitly christian and often heavy handedly christian, talking about the saving grace of jesus christ on the crossed and similar things. we do not care if pastors give a prayer as long as they remain onsectarian. >> how can you make them sectarian to appeal to many religions? how can you do that? >> we have a tradition in this country of nonsectarian prayers that appeal to a wide range of positions. it is true you can't protect everybody. but you can protect almost everybody and you can protect more than one faith. this case is about christians

aggressively imposing themselves on their fellow citizens with the power of government. that is not right. it is not part of the american tradition. >> can we get the laintiffs? >> susan galloway. >> i am susan galloway. i am one of the plaintiffs. i just want to thank americans united for being our attorneys and representing us. i appreciate the justices hearing this case. i think it is important. i feel the town has aligned itself with christianity by just having christian prayer givers. they have had a couple other people but primarily it is christian. that is very sectarian. as a citizen i felt i was different. and because of my own faith and my own religious beliefs. i'm glad that the supreme court is hearing this.

is there anything -- >> what are your religious beliefs? >> i am a jew. >> why did it make you feel uncomfortable? >> i think that when you have people that, first of all, the town, the pastors face the people, not to the government. it is like they are praying over s. i know when i stood then i sat and i have 100 eyes looking at me and questioning what is going on and thinking i am being disrespectful, it does put pressure on you and makes you very uncomfortable. it singles you out. that should not be in my town government. it should not be anywhere. >> you can give the next prayer. why doesn't that resolve it? you can give a jewish rayer.

>> if i wanted to give a prayer, that is fine. that excludes other people. i believe that it has been one- sided and it has favored christianity. i do not think that is right. >> what would you like to see happen? hat do you want to see happen? >> i would like to see people feel they are included in the government and they are not made second-class citizens. they stone their faith or non-faith. - based on their their faith or non-faith. i think there are ways of doing it that would be more inclusive than what they are doing. >> i am melinda stevens. i live in the town of greece and i am an atheist. want to thank the americans

united legal staff for putting thousands of hours into this very worthwhile and needed action. one thing i would like to say to my fellow atheists is, we need to come out of the closet. atheists are starting to come out of the closet now, after /11. there are many, many of us. we have to follow the lead of the lgbt community and make our voices heard. we can't be shy about this because it is important. we need to be included in town overnment, and government at all levels. unless we speak up, we are not going to be. >> would any prayer work for atheist's? is there a model that would work for you? >> i have heard atheist

indications that i admired. a state senator in arizona gave a wonderful one but he got blowback at the next legislative session from conservative hristians. they bashed him and said two prayers for the one he disagreed ith the previous time. so it is hard for atheist or other minorities to speak up because susanna and i have both experienced hostility from our fellow residents in the town of greece. it is not a pleasant experience. >> what happened? >> susan and i got two letters telling us to stay away from town board meetings if we did not like what was going on, to move out of the town if we did not like it. i had vandalism to my house several times. one night someone came in the

middle of the night, dug up my mailbox, smashed it, and put it on my car. i have a pool in the backyard. things like that. >> be think the court decision ill change >> time will tell. i hope -- and this has been mentioned in the media. why is it that christians who profession to be moral and upstanding people would do such things? >> any questions? >> i like very much the session -- it very much the way the session began. i thought her questioning was excellent. >> s there a middle ground?

>> for years we have had a moment of silence. suddenly in 1999, someone changed all of that for the worst. >> > i do not know. we have filed reports -- police reports, but never found out. this all happened when the case is being discussed. i have no doubt it was related. >> thank you. > my name is aisha khan. americans united has been so proud to have sponsored this case and have represented these extraordinarily brave and courageous women. we got involved in this case for

a very simple reason. we believe that what they were doing is wrong. participating in a local government is a universal right to citizenship. it should not be conditioned on represent -- participation and the lord's prayer or any other prayers that are unique to a articular faith tradition. town residents attend these meetings not as participants. hildren's sports teams are invited to receive awards. people come to ask the board to take particular action. exercising those rights and seeking those important benefits should not be conditioned on bowing one's head in recognition of jesus christ. it is important were not asking the board to to discontinue his practice of presenting

prayers. we are asking that participants do not be asked to participate in them and that the -- they be nondenominational. "in god we trust" and not in "christ we trust." not one nation under allah or uddha. under the town's view, residents can come and participate in this meetings and can be asked to join in a prayer that promises eternal hellfire to anyone who does not accept jesus christ as their savior. that cannot possibly be constitutional. we hope the supreme court will agree that civic participation should not be conditioned on ompromising one's --

rely shouse scruples. -- religious scruples. >> thank you. >> what do say to atheist who do ot believe in god? >> as a professor said, this tradition that the country has ollowed does in fact not recognize the increasing diversity of this country. we believe under the proposal we have made that atheists would be allowed to come forward and present a prayer, as would polytheists or anyone else who comes from a more diverse tradition than the monotheistic one that the court opened with today. > thank you. >> my name is holly. i'm a council of -- we filed a brief on behalf of of them to stand with them.

-- i'm from the baptist joint committee for religious freedom general counsel. in this case, we stand with those who challenge a prayer practice that would make their political right and incumbent pon their participation in a layer with which they do not agree. one thing the court clearly recognizes is an important principle of religious liberty. the political right should not depend on their adherence to eligion. in this environment that the town council and other local governments where there is direct interaction and anticipatory relationship with government, it is improper for the government to engage in the act of religious worship. this is not something that is against prayer. all religious people should and may need to pray for the elected officials. it is important to understand it is not the role of government to lead and -- a religious act.

there will be a myriad of things that the court will talk about aying can't be resolved. -- we have a tradition of strong liberty that protects all people whether they believe or don't believe without harming government or religious aggregation. -- congregation. >> holly holeman with the baptist freedom of religion. >> your name is? >> hollyn hollman from the baptist joint committee. > i'm laura from religious liberties. without a brief in support of the town of greece.

we believe that religious freedom is critical. it that protection should be respected. christians, jews, awakens -- they recognize religious diversity -- wiccans, they recognize religious diversity. we're hoping the supreme court will issue a decision that recognizes our long 200 year history of submitting legislative prayers. thank you. >> on the next "washington

journal" we'll discuss the latest unemployment numbers and the unemployment rate with danielle kurtzleben. 're joined by louise radnofsky. our guest is the national disability rights network eric dielman. "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think >> aless of where you are on the political spectrum we all feel very fortunate and grateful that we live in the united states of america. it's a very unique place. and if america was considered to be a product and we do try to sell our product overseas, what's our brand? and i think our brand is the constitution, the rule of law and our value system. and under that brand and under that value system there is that

notion of equal under the eyes of the law. the value system is the a.d.a. and trying to elevate the rights of americans with disabilities. this is a treaty. a treaty is a law. the emotional and political arguments that are in favor of the treaty, in one can disagree with these arguments. but the question is will the treaty actually have the legal effect that's being proffered by the proponents of the treatyful we don't hear consideration of the reports, the concluding observation by committing with persons with disabilities. we don't hear the analysis that will impact this treaty. >> this weekend on c-span, more than 130 countries have ratified the u.s. inspired united nations disabilities treaty which failed 2012. senate approval in

this week the congress took off the treaty again. also the upside of being a big fish in a small pond saturday night at 11:00. on swrvings span's 3 on a crowded sacramento feet, two et from then president ford, frommme pulledy" the trigger. >> next we'll hear about the negotiations with iran from jerrold green. he's the author of the book understanding iran. from the las vegas world affairs council. this is an hour.

>> i'm delighted to see you all here. are you able to hear me in the back? excellent. >> can you make it louder? >> louder? really? ok. will try. ok. how is it now? can you hear me now? ok. perfect. now i can hear myself, too. we are all delighted to see you ere today. already, our president has recognized the dignitaries who are here. are very pleased to present our speaker today -- i am very pleased to present our speaker today.

this is a critical moment between the u.s. and iran. it is in the headlines. etween iran and its regional neighbor, friends, and foes. we are on the eve of potential negotiations on iran's nuclear activities. there's a new president in ffice in tehran. we are privileged to host two-day one of our country's knowledgeable and long-term experts -- today one of our countries knowledge one long-term experts. dr. jerrold green. >> i will not take the time to go through his bio. it is very extensive. let me just mention the

highlights were a few highlights. we first met when we were both consulting in santa monica about three years ago. -- 30 years ago. he later became director of international programs and development at rand. and he oversaw the activities of the center for asia the civic policy -- asia pacific policy. as well as the center for russia and eurasia. at the same time, you directed the rand center for middle piece public policy. -- he directed the rand center for middle east public's erie it is very -- public policy. it is very wide-ranging. we first became aware of each other and got to know each other hen he was teaching at michigan, the university of ichigan. later he moved to the west coast. he had a stint in the real world. ith a private equity firm.

for the last several years and a recognition of his very broad experience and knowledge, he became the president of the pacific council on international affairs in los angeles. but his main expertise is centered on iran and the middle ast. i'm delighted that he has taken he time to come today and talk to us about some of the critical issues of the moment. > can you hear me? i'm not sure i need a mic. if you can hear me, let me

know. i really want to say thank you to paul for inviting me to speak. he is my pal from 30 years -- some 30 years. he is also an extraordinary distinguished expert on the middle east and frankly patriotic american. he disappeared for seven years working for uncle sam in northern virginia and doing important sorts of work. we have been friends for a long ime. his knowledge is remarkable. an expert as someone from out of town -- i'm sitting at this table. i'm talking to congress in berkeley. member of the house foreign relations committee and the middle east subcommittee. when you get face time with someone of that level of exposure back in washington, it is something to be treasured. just came back from iran two

days ago. you want to talk to someone about iran, he is the one to talk to. finally, a professor wrote a book called "why men rebel." i read it as a graduate student. the are the same age, but i was dumb and did not get into graduate school until i was old. you really are living in a remarkably interesting community this is just one voice. it is on a different one. -- only a different one. i will talk about iran. what i want to do first of all is try to understand how we got to the impasse we are at today. i coincidently was in tehran during the revolution. i was there. i didn't participate, but he

witnessed iranian -- i witnessed iranian resolution from the beginnings until the return of -- i was there and saw it firsthand. this is 35 years ago. it was a revolution against the shah of iran. he got the vast majority of the people in this country to hate him. to get iran is to agree on anything is not easy. he succeeded at this brilliantly. it is quite unfortunate and sad. he had extraordinary resources vailable to him. rust me. he had a remarkable opportunity. he was ill with cancer in having

chemotherapy. all sorts of explanations. it is unfortunate. why do iranians not like us? it is kind of an oxymoron. many would say iran is the most pro-american country in the world. what they mean is not the government of iran. they mean the average iranian on the street. i lived in the second largest concentration of iranians in the world outside of iran. i have been there regularly since the revolution. it is amazing given those high-level -- between our two governments. they do not have six packs. the average person actually likes the united states. they like american culture. they like basketball. all sorts of stories -- stuff. having said that, again, you

will not love it. i will tell you have iranians -- i will tell you how iranians think. i just subscribed to these use. i will tell you how we look. first of all, it looks like we support dictatorship across the middle east. this is -- we supported iraq's ttack on iran. it was a dramatic event. our hands on this are not completely clean either. there's a brief period of time where we were trekking off and

selling weapons to the iraqis. it was a horrible regime up there and evil, if i may use that word. the assad regime in syria. third, the united states favors israel. what iranians believe is that the u.s. favors the jewish faith over muslim states. states that are populated primarily by muslims. you may not agree. t may not be true. this is the perception. this is what they believe. after the revolution, they took an embassy and they gave it to the -- they celebrate jerusalem day in tehran. iranians believe that we as a country favor the jewish state over the muslim state. therefore, muslim states, we are anti-islamic. there are arguments against hat.

e have muslim chaplains. the u.s. has a lot of luzon's. >> >> ok. see, this is why you need congress people. i'm quite serious. so this is what the iranians believe that we don't like muslims. and they will read about a story sik guy that was killed because they thought he was muslim. we have reasons -- iran is ndeed strangled. an emotional type of strangling rather than one that resulted in geopolitics. if the u.s. is trying to expel it, isolate iran, we are. there is a reason for it. iranians believe that iran is a

great nation, an ancient nation with local interest. they deeply resent what they think we are trying to do. this is all they knew. there are things about them that they don't like and so forth. it is certainly not going to hange. they have their narrative. we have hours. -- we have our narrative. one, they talk over our embassy. they took over our embassy. we have all seen "argo." great movie.

really, really inaccurate. i loved it. i've seen it twice. despite how inaccurate was, i still liked it. second of all, the iranian support terrorist and extremist roups. they absolutely do. there was an attack on the jewish community in buenos aires. i was invited to believe it or not, this jewish -- i was invited to a meeting in tehran that the holocaust did not happen. here was a holocaust denier. i cannot make it. i had a conflict. there are people that do deny

the holocaust. in clear sort of the ignorance of modern history. they've threat ed to restroy israel. the united states supports israel. it's american policy. i used to live in texas. they lived israel more than we di. it was astounding. thts an american issue. american - this is an issue. we are the great savers. they are the axis of evil. we are the great -- satan. so there are competing narratives, both work in mobilizing negative energy. they have real resilience in both countries. what's going to happen?

what do we know? this is the one i think is the ost important. i have spent my life, i'm reading things about iran and -- and written by my learned colleagues. there's a certainty with which they tell us about iran and one another. it is belied by reality. nobody really understands what is going on in iran. t is impossible. the political system in iran is intentionally designed so that it is ok, it is obscure. iranians don't know what is going on. very smart iranians -- it is the ature of the system. they want to avoid what happened

to the shah. they want a political system in which it is difficult to overrule the current political order. part of it is the uncertainty that comes in the wake of a resolution. no one wants to make a decision or be at risk. no one wants to take a chance. it is not clear how it works. there's this murkiness. you know, i feel like helen eller. there's so much that is not evident to us. it is not clear. we lack information. north korea is sort of the old stander of ignorance, but iran is not for mine in terms of the iranian system. i read endlessly and i get frustrated. v i can't even do. i did not know about that. political actors.

the one that year go all the time is the supreme leader. the supreme leader is many things, one of which is that he is not supreme. he is sort of the political act for, but is a political actor. he is not some autocrat who snaps his finger and things appen. his problem will continue to get worse if he is not there is this unique role that occupied. it is not transferable to someone else. the supreme leader resigns over the islamic republic. not only the spiritual leader, but also the political leader. they need to engage and he really needs to get political interest in iran to support him

and work with them. certainly he is very influential. he is not the only game in town. it is a challenge. second of all, the religious sector. it is extremely diverse. not that they all agree. here is race diversity and differences of view within the religious that -- sector. some are generally conservative -- extremely conservative and orthodox and some are actually very enlightened and they get it. they get it. they're working within a difficult system. the third is that revolutionary guard. the revolutionary guard is not nly a military organization, but also an economic entity that is sort of comparable to the people's liberation army in china. the interest are extraordinary.

they are very wealthy. hey have built an airport in tehran, for example. there is a battle of another group that wanted to build the airport and they lost. they did not have as many guns. they are again another political entity, which is very influential. none of them are dominant. all of them are important. you cannot discount any of hem.

the part about the iranian politics that is so fascinating anonymous have access to is that these people has been a lot of time with one another and aging tea and a read poetry. they do politics, if you will. it is a constant series of negotiations. horse trading and politicking. it is how iranian politics always works. it worked this way under the shah. there were groups of people who would go to school together in a similar industry. i'm sure in congress you had -- that group, the people you work with. in the good old days, they could even be with opposite party. you would do a deal. it is very interesting. they used to do business all the time. iran operates that way. the idea that there is this one source and they are behind everything. that is simply wrong. forgive me, but there is a lot to cover. i want to have time for questions. this era was special because they were basically able to do pretty much want -- what they wanted to do. if we were sitting in either know, tehran, before the revolution and some secret confab, most of these people in he room would have supported him. t is not because we like them, but because we do not like the shah. people like me who are snooty

professors -- this old guy, he as got people. we'll use him to get rid of the shah. no city in beverly hills drinking tea and wonder what went wrong. -- now sitting in beverly hills, drinking tea, and wondering what ent wrong. that ear was the most -- era was one of the most difficult times. there was the invasion of iraq - of iran by iraq. there are fountains shooting up red water to symbolize the blood

that was shed. i mean this really was sort of a 9/11 equivalent for iranians. it deeply deeply affected the people of iran and it still does today. ultimately this is an hatami era. he was this liberal, sort of guy that we thought we could do business with. i mean, you will of his age. all of my colleagues were swinging from the chandeliers all wonderful opportunity. we'll make a deep deal the deal never got married day. and part of it is the time where it wasn't right. so his name is synonymous with some sort of reform. the fact that there is no

tomorrow, it means this president was unsaysfulful. ahmadin ja -- and it was an audition of the bad guys an he never failed to delir. the israelis must have loved him. so off the charts, that all he had to do was sit there and watch. it was very easy to deal with iran. sanction it. because audience: was so inattentive with that issue. he was attentive to these ssues.

a lot of it were concessions and subsidies and other sort of -- sorts of things. era in have keyed up which yet again, we performing an opportunity for negotiation. it's made further urgent by the development of the iranian nuclear program which upsets everybody as well -- the idea of a weaponized iran and iran having nuclear weapons, appeals to nobody. it really is not something that will benefit the world. and frankly i don't believe it will benefit iran. the problem with iraq or the challenge with iran, iran is not

a quntri which you can bully. it simply doesn't work that way. if you look what iran excels at, and ow, it's wrestling weighting. it's a very strong sense of self-. when you go to hay ran which i'm sure you all will your host will take you to this. it's -- a house of strength. it's when people kind of do synchronized weightlifting. it's sort of -- it's actually very, very interesting. point i'm make making is cultural it did not happen. it's simply to have a very strong sense of themselves. there's sort of equal there. and it simply doesn't work.

what was interesting about the rue manny election is that yet again an opportunity for some type of peaceful regulations russ and again i am skeptical because i'm always skeptical. we middle middle east special lists are the on con gist. we're wrong and we can't do anything. but having said that, i think the stake and i really mean this quite seriously, the stakes are so high. they are so important that i -- i certainly president obama's attempt to meet rouhani's initiative and in the spirit in which we would like to believe it's been given. there are no guarantees. there are no a guarantees. but having said that the planet earth isless o after play with

iran in a box. but we really do need to try and . nd a way but to try and find accommodation with iran, maybe it won't work. the iranny in the 0's and the sort of unusual characteristics is that the you hanni initiative and president that's ajempthiment. israel and san diego. ar have have uncomfortable with the possibility of these ongoing negotiations with iran. some israelis. he'llians.er say the the iranians are doing this to

buy time. they are not sun sere. they don't mean it. rouhani and you know, in a sense if you accept that accusation act iran -- about syria, it certainly deserves to be considered about iran. my person video. >> and indeed if we are in front of wife. who will be not under the sword of some sort of iranian nuclear wrong. what if i'm and that's the question. i've done the mix pack sort of in the high. when we got nuked you know, he

won't even let us stay in the guest room. this is sort of -- i i also do believe in our form of government i have some measure of trust. and this is a way that the shishe issue has ditchly concerned since day one. i think if they're are seriouses you they. the first side of the convention. went to determine who is is leading off the team, iranians point.up with a detail they ham sot serious suggestions and everybody walks away from he even there were going to be

naysayers in both. there were certainly people in congress will say uh-huh, see ratchet up. hair on the ropes. see if he sell brayed the ooks for. >> said that she does not believe it would be helpful to increase the angsts now. >> this was after irritating the yroonians by the way when they say the iranians didn't like that. there's something from everybody else. but the issue is important. but i don't think it's the only issue, where d.c. going to get sticky. sthen iran we should be gooding soon. plow tone yam.

-- and the israelis are afraid that iran will be so close that they can weaponize. and i would not dismiss that. i think this is too serious to simply say it's not a possibility. it's got to be factored into the administration. but the department state believe that they have this, you know, they understand it may have it under control. each country has its own party party. i mean, the iranians invented drinking. and we'll make those very, very difficult. naysayers in a the yith this is not going to work. the challenge for obama and

ruhani. they need to have her place again. the administration has had such challenged in the middle east. one of them is -- one of the issues he's going have to commend with. it's their ability on steve's issue. we're all related. >> we were having a discussion hat i purposely stayed out of. and at the own the day the symbolism of the pa len stein issue matters a lot. we're not going to be worried ever again. but having said that at the palestine issue, it gives the al stanees word world like it. there will be a whole list of

others there strog do with egypt and so on and so forth. the palestine issue does matter. we need to understand how does it matter. and they're like oh, that we need to be -- we need be real hollow sticks. so president obama has all sorts of confusion issues, obamacare. so the question is will -- if he tibe make the deal with the iranians which satisfies him and satisfied secretary statement of kerry. it's a real consideration. and the same consideration exists 10 years. it's someone to make deal with the yourself. the other is i would get your ams so sort be leader.

there was some imperfections and what the supreme leader was the phone call between obama. it goes to that level. it shows you how difficult it is to make. advocate. by extraordinary humidity. the data is just -- it's just not there.