that, but be open that we are religious and believe that, too, because it opens a lot of doors for you when you speak about that. >> the other piece is when american religious figures to things that are polarizing in the middle east or seem to be disrespectful. other than toing explain that nobody speaks for the government and we have a big messy democracy? >> we do that a lot. [laughter] there are a couple of well- publicized cases recently in which we need to engage on that and try to explain the first amendment. the first amendment is a tough one, because most countries do not have it. we are it. there are a lot more research and even in western europe and what you can say that in the united states. it is a hard concept get across because those people can use that and can get a lot of press, even though they have a very small following in the united states. while you can talk about the

first amendment, you need to explain that these are not mainstream people, that what they are saying is not something that a lot of americans are people -- picking up more americans feel. certain ones do. the best defense is to be as open as you can about it, try to explain it, and in some ways that the message fall flat for the united states and say what effect does this have on what we do? often the proof is it has very little effect on us. but we are constantly dealing with those guys. it is troublesome. but we have to explain this is our society and how we do it, but look at the results. >> do they throw back at us the same thing of all the people who are nursing terrorism, you throw -- throw us all in the same basket? >> yes, we hear constantly how

varied muslims are, and in the field you appreciate that. muslims are like you and me. they just want a middle-class life, get their kids educated and all that. a lot of them recognize the problem they have got. a senior official i became friends with used to say america, do not abandon us us, you are our best hope. it is not a message you hear back here often, but something that is felt there. when right after we kill bin laden i was there and i was talking to the driver, and he was from a bottom bottom and i said, have you ever seen the house? he said, i have not, but my family is going by now, everybody is looking at it. he said, i am glad you got that i caused last august my brother- in-law was in a market when a bomb went off. he was buying something. he was killed. so my sister and her three daughters, children, do not have a father, and she has moved back

and what thoughts. these guys caused a lot of trouble here, and i'm glad you did what you did. it is a message you do not hear back your as much. on a daily basis when you're out there, you hear that a lot, and these are people who try to distinguish themselves from the stereotypes of what muslims are like and speaking from the heart. you cannot be helped but affected by that. the troublemakers out there -- they do notare, and like it any more than we do. >> thank you. a question all the way in the back. >> thank you. nn, and i have overlapped with walter professionally. days, iuring his last worked with him. now i met the broadcasting board

of governors where the governing board has an opportunity to change the indices and focuses on the agency overtime in the wake of 9/11, for example, creating the middle east broadcasting network and others. i wondered, if he would like to address how personalities and --nging indices of the emphases of the undersecretaries over time may have affected how the muslim majority countries are perched either to the way the united states's accident to public for missing or programs that have been launched or relaunched over time. >> that can be a minefield. i can speak about the one i work and herith mchale, approach was different, and one that i think still lives on today in a way that i very much like. ia merged withs the state in 1999, it was not a

complete merger, and a lot of the function having to do with planning did not follow. she had been hit with discovery and realize the importance of bring that in, and she did a good job of giving ace tool of should you just planning. this was 10 years after the merger. it is invaluable. i think more work needs to be done, but i think this planning -- we have limited resources, and the more you can plan what is important to not spend your money and resources on personnel and all that, on what is unimportant, that that makes a huge difference. one of the most difficult things about that position is how much it has been vacant, and matt armstrong has written about it about how the position has been vacated 1/3 of its existence. that hurts public policy. we would like to have public best people in there and emphasizing what we can do and putting resources and giving some direction to what we do.

>> why do you think it has been at the so long? >> an interesting question. a lot of people who want to do it, i would think, and when i have spoken to that, they enjoyed it. something like james glassman and he had a great time wished he could do more. it is harder -- they have looked out generally at -- they do not use career people there, so to find the right person who is out there who they think can do the job -- meaning the state department -- it takes a little more time perhaps then something else. but probably every case is separate, individual-swise. judith came in quickly when obama came in. they moved quickly to bring her in as fast as the confirmation

process would allow. i am not sure why on an individual basis the others took so long. i wish it were not like that. hi, walter. i wonder if you can describe some of the ways in which your program in saudi arabia tried to foster civil society. >> ok. i was here in 2006, 2007, when we had spent back bitter terrorist attacks earlier. the saturdays had done a lot for it -- the saudi's have done a lot for it. we had a view of what the united states works, that there were some things that they could see that would be worth borrowing. part of that was just exposing people to the united states in a way they never had before. it was everything from using

muslim-americans in mecca to talk about things like how we deal with health problems, to a photo exhibit where we worked geographic," and with that photo exhibit we could go to places where americans traditionally did not go. we partnered with the saudi history of culture judith. hoping when people saw that some of the extremists there would say maybe america is not all that bad and that maybe this this lack of america is not something these extremists would say that would get us the mileage, that there is another side to make them hesitate and say not all americans are bad. i look right in front of you at a person who was with me in saudi arabia who was innovative in going out and working with a lot of these communities where american embassy people have not been before. and she was a wonderful asset to have us. the exposure to an american like that could talk to them about

who they were. there was another project out there that i greatly admired, a breast cancer project, tying up the komen foundation with a foundation with in texas, and breast cancer is a harmful problem there. tying komen with the treatment of the center was a wonderful project, where wonderful came together, fully supported by men, and i thought it was just a brilliant program to sort of show how you can tackle this problem in what you might say civil society in a very fine way, using us as an example, because we do that. we tie the awareness together with the treatment. stuff like that i think had a lot of impact, and judging from southeast you speak to, the attention it got them any attention from the cane tells you are onto something there. >> can you say more about gender?

there is a presumption that form -- foreign policy is a men's game. i know from what i know of your programming that, like with susan koman, you were reaching out to all kinds of audiences, as the united states thinks , and wegaging broadly know that women play roles in takeses, determining who place in boycotts, how should we think about engaging women as the stink complement its best women's toistinct, foreign policy? >> you have to engage women on both levels as professionals, foreign policies -- they fit those opinion leader positions because while there might be fewer, they are out there who have an impact.

watch lebanese tv is to see all those announcers and reporters who are women and realize that nbc has broadcast broadly in the mideast and they are certainly -- you're going to engage -- >> because so many of the presenters are so attractive. >> whatever it takes. they are presenting news and points of view, and you want to work with them on those very serious hard-core political issues. but i think dan in looking at how you engage a larger grouping, you have to find what is important to them, and make sure the things we are talking about are important to them. for example, if you talk about glass ceilings in corporations or something and things like that, that is important for a very small group. it is important, but not a broad-based effort. what you have to do is look at something that perhaps does have a larger impact on women and and neck in the education, gender-

based violence, all these other things that really hit a broader society, and maybe share some of our ideas and really share, not about lecturing ordering anything like that, show what we do and see whether they can borrow something that might fit with their society. you cannot impose this on them. they will work at their own speed and at their own time to do it, but exposing them to some of our better proxies cannot hurt. -- better practices cannot hurt. you might find they are seeing us do some things that are not right, so they might like -- our at some aspects of society, where tv shows show licentiousness in america, and you have to put those in context of what they are. their television shows and not reality, and you have to deal friendly with these issues, because i found sometimes these make a greatest barriers to understanding the united states and anything else, is they see that portrait of america, whether it is accurate or not,

and generally it is not accurate, saying i do not like it, and you say there's more to america than what you see on the shows. >> reality tv is not reality? springer" -- but another program speaks to real women's issues. they should see a little bit less jerry springer. retired from the u.s. council for international business, and i am looking at that paragraph called "the private sector." conversationee with harvard executives might be an inexpensive alternative. if i am a head of the ibm office of move by -- of mumbai and my job is to make ibm grow a

seamless operation, what should i do? do i want to get engaged in this, and it is like walking on egg shells? to what extent can u.s. global companies play a positive role without cracking the egg shells? >> sure. it is interesting because we work with us. if you take something like microsoft, you have every interest in intellectual property rights that we do and they are very vocal about it. they bring people together, send them off of in training programs to the united states. they do a lot of things like that. i love companies that are on monday what we are doing work on limiting what we do for their own reasons, but they happen to hit a lot of our ideas read one thing i was mentioning about that, what i thought was interesting, i saw this and pakistan, we put out with aid a contract to that -- to add

agencies, and i was part of the committee to choose one, and i found that -- and i had been in advertising so i could read to the mumbo-jumbo -- and what was interesting is when you have an ad agency talk about what works, you're not getting the guy to think about you are one thing, this is some guy with 20 five years of experience selling products there, and has a good sense of how this stuff works. one thing that came through in a love these contracts was that do not use sms. that is spam. my time in washington -- use sms. who are you going to believe? these ad agencies returned to move her, have a good sense of what did work and what cannot. we can also learn from the failures -- i mentioned and mcdonald's campaign here that was covered in "the new york times," but the social media backfired on them and it turned out to be something different. we can learn from what these companies do. my final conclusion -- it is funny because i do go back to

talked to a guy at an ad agency -- what are we surprised about how you communicate in india? there's a lot of experience we can tap into that. we tend not to be so good going with the private sector on that, but they have a lot of experience on this and can tell us a lot. >> we have time for one more question right there, sir. >> thank you very much. the british embassy. i feel i need to ask a question to show that we are here and we are listening. [laughter] i wanted to ask about the allen's between -- the balance between efforts in washington and efforts in country, where you are blessed with huge numbers of foreign journalists. what extent can you use them to influence the message that you are receiving an country -- in

country, and what's are the things are the best experiences you have heard of that happening? >> what is the last part? >> good examples of engagement of the foreign media here to influence. >> ok. we regularly engaged in foreign journalists that are there, and we do it with the americans out of courtesy because they are fellow americans because we're there to help out. but also one thing is interesting is how what they write can boomerang back into the society. the fact is when i was in what i covered was covered there, and so it is important to make sure they are giving a perspective for what is going on. they engage with an awful lot of people in whatever host country they are in, and so by the questions they ask, you learn a lot about a country when we have chats with them. one of the difficult things is

they have difficulty getting access to a lot of these places. some countries that the men, some do not, some throw them out, some have minders. it is not something -- you cannot use them everywhere all the time. they are just not around. you will always have a wire reporter because it is often a local, but get a newspaper guy in there is different. in pakistan, we were spoiled because every major media organization had a representative there. in india i can say, although it outside the scope of the report, new delhi is a huge help for international journalists. wherever we are, we like them. we use them. it is important to mitigate them when they ask us questions. they are not our target. they are not the guys we are out there to reach. it is what we do in addition to thehing out to whatever host country is. i think that is always something

to be aware of. for us a real success is when we see a story that appears in the middle east press or al jazeera, something we have worked with them on, more than if something were to appear on bbc. once again i get back to that for an accurate, trust and all that, that certain organizations, we will or wrote deeper and have a broader audience than others. we want to make clear who we are trying to work with the most here. >> walter, i want to thank you for presenting not only a fascinating report, but also a broad-ranging discussion that the ministries how rich the field of public diplomacy is. i want to thank you for coming. we look forward to seeing you again soon. thank you. >> thank you. atnks, john perry >> in about 40 minutes we will have an "q7a."presentation of

>> during the trip to china, mrs. nixon accompanied the president. lai was looking at how the first lady was looking at a package of cigarettes. he said, i am understanding you admired the panda at the zagg said, it was a darling. he said, we will make sure you have panned is to go home with. it was important for her to support her husband. just her being there meant so much goodwill, and it was always obvious at the end of the trip somewhere the news reports would come out, they would talk about the president this way, but they would always say what a wonderful top at nixon did. >> first lady pat nixon live tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span and c-span3, also on c-span

radio and www.c-span.org. >> we heard about the interim deal reached with iran on its nuclear program on this morning plus "washington journal." host: joining us at the table to discuss the nuclear deal is trita parsi. for those were not familiar with your group, who are you and what do you do? guest: it was founded about 10 years ago right after 9/11. it is the largest iranian american grassroots organization. we have been working on this issue for quite some time. we think it needs to be resolved in a peaceful way. we need to also make sure this does not drag into a war. that would be one of the worst obstacles.

host: is this deal the way to do that? guest: i think this is a very, very significant breakthrough. now the hard work begins. i think it is important to realize that the vast majority of concessions in this round actually came from the iranian side. the tougher part is going to come in the second phase because that is when it is going to be required all sanctions to be lifted on iran. sanctions on capitol hill will have to be lifted. that has not happened in 34 years. that will be a tremendously tricky thing to do. so far most of the concessions have come from the iranian side. the sanctions relief has been designed so that it does not have to go through congress. host: this was a tougher deal for iran than for the u.s.? guest: absolutely. in the second phase, it will get balanced out. the u.s. has maximum leverage going into the second phase.

again, this whole thing -- it may not reach the second phase unless they come to the final conclusion. the way it has begun is better designed than in the past. host: a lot of questions right now about whether the u.s. can trust iran to go ahead with this deal. it was a question that secretary of state john kerry was asked on "face the nation." here is a bit of that. [video clip] >> we did arms control with the soviet union, we've done arms control agreement in other parts of the world. you don't trust. it is not based on trust. it is based on verification. it is based on your ability to know what is happening.

you don't have to trust the people you're dealing with. you have to have a mechanism put in place whereby you know exactly what you are getting and you know exactly what they're doing. and we believe we are at the beginning of putting that in place with iran. host: that was john kerry. why should the u.s. trust iran right now? guest: this is not about trusting iran or about iran trusting the u.s. it is about making sure the mechanisms are in place to ensure that if the other side cheats that you will find out as quickly as possible and you can do something about it. that is the critical thing here. there is no trust between the united states and iran. there has been deep enmity for 34 years. to expect that the deal would begin with trust is wholly unrealistic. both sides have good reasons to distrust the other. by having this mechanism in place that makes sure that the other side simply cannot cheat or if they do so you will find out about it at the earliest

possible stage, both sides are putting their trust into that mechanism, not into each other , at least not yet. if these negotiations go well and they actually start resolving this issue, at that point we will see the emergence of a limited amount of trust between the two sides. at this point, that is not where we are. host: if you have questions or comments, our phone lines are open. the numbers are on the screen. what are you seeing in iran? guest: the public overwhelmingly

welcomes it. i think the reason for that is that the iranian public has suffered tremendously from this conflict, primarily because of the sanctions. it is the people, not the government that has suffered the most from the sanctions. they're delighted to see that there has been a solution at least at this stage that on the one hand sets the stage for future sanctions release, while at the same time the iranian's bottom lines are met so they don't feel they are completely a loser in this negotiation. i think washington has not fully embraced yet -- for any deal to work, both sides must feel that they got something. if either side feels that this is not a good deal for them, they're going to walk away from the deal.

you have to find that balance, that equilibrium, in which both sides, in both phases feel that this is good enough for them to continue with iy. host: we talked about how the deal is being looked at in the wrong. it is also being looked at skeptically in israel. here is the twitter page of israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu who sent out a series of tweets yesterday on this deal. i want to run through them and get your reaction to them. host: can you respond to that?

guest: the pressure on iran remains in place because none of the major sanctions have been lifted. the sanctions that have been suspended can easily be put back into place. secondly, the measures that the iranians will take are reversible and the design of the interim deal is as it is and the second phase of the deal will be irreversible. his statements reduce the impact of israel in future steps of the deal.

host: you talked about some of the back channel talks that have been going on. here is "usa today." guest: i have written a book that said that would be better serving for the israelis if they took on a more collaborative approach. that would have a greater impact on the agenda of the talks.

israel missed its chance and is paying dearly for that right now. the bottom line is that this is still a very, very good deal for israel. the sensitive parts of the iranian program have now been frozen. the stockpile of 20% enriched uranium that the prime minister was so worried about when he gave that speech at the u.n. must year is going to be completely illuminated or diluted by the end of the six- month. -- period. xxxxx there's going to be a additional verification mechanisms that are going to be put into place. then there is a final point, which i think is critical. at the end of the day, the iran anza know and understand that this team in iran knows and understands they will not get a doable deal with the united states unless they shifted their

position on israel and what it used to be. the posture on iran is dramatically different than what was. that is just when diplomacy had begun. once you have a deal, you will see more of that. that is going to be very beneficial to israel. >> the diplomacy that is happening overseas versus what is going on in the united states. several members went on the sunday shows to talk about this deal. here is senator bob corker. he is talking on fox news sunday about this deal. >> we are very concerned that is not going to be the case. they are spiking the football in the end zone saying, look, we can consolidate our gains, i want to make sure that we go on to the end zone.

i think they're going to be some people that want to impose additional sanctions. that is another effort that we may take part in. i want to see this all the way through. we have seen what is happening in north korea. i do not want to see that happen and i were on. -- in iran. i think the thing that is interesting, they view this administration as week. from their standpoint, they see this as their window of opportunity to negotiate. it does not have the fortitude that other administrations have had. host: the weakness of the united states that he says was shown here and spiking the football by iranian officials. guest: the bottom line is, some of the objectives are identical

with object those -- objectives of the george bush administration. they were unrealistic. to the extent that the united states has adopted unrealistic objectives, not only has nothing gotten salt, it is able -- enabled -- nothing gotten salt, it has enabled the iranians. they have offered to negotiate and the bush administration rejected it. this team offered to cap the nuclear program and the europeans rejected that offer. today, they have 19,000 centrifuge. if anything has enabled them to move forward, it is the refusal to negotiate by the pursuit of completely unrealistic objectives. what the obama administration

has managed to do is to freeze it where it is and they are hoping to be able to rollback as much of it as possible. that has never been achieved in the past. that is more than the bush administration pursued. i think some republicans in the senate would like to adopt. husband where taking your tweets and phone calls. -- host: we are taking your tweets and phone calls. we will go to janet, jackson, tennessee. janet, you're on with trita parsi. >> my concern is about the young generation in our community that does not have a clue to know what the nuclear deal is. i think in the congress now, it

should be looking towards our young people, which is our future. it is coming away from that. i am stressing the importance of our younger generation in our church. they need to step up into congress, to recruit more young people. with the manna was on before, he talked about they have no clue about the most simple things. we have people, but the younger generation has no clue what you all are talking about. i think the young people should be more involved with what is going on politically. our young generation is our tomorrow. host: thanks for the call this morning. janet brings up congress. what role does congress play now

that the six-month deal has been struck? guest: they got together in agreement that the iran needs are not going to -- the iranians are not going to extend of this program. if congress does that, then the deal falls apart. that is going to have negative repercussions. it is done by the u.s. side, the world will blame the u.s. for the collapse of the deal. that will enable the iranians to cause the regime to fall apart. host: an editorial called on congress to go ahead with some of those sanctions. what you think president obama does if congress goes ahead and approves new sanctions? does he veto it? guest: he has to make it decision. does he want to see the deal fall apart and see the iranians

unravel the entire sanctions regime or is he going to take on congress? this is an example of what exists on the iranians side -- does the iranian president had the authority to negotiate, can he deal with his hawks and hard- line people that do not want to have a deal? they are looking at the u.s. the exact same way. they are asking does the president have the ability to deal with congress and stand firm in case congress were to come in and try to sabotage the deal? host: rouhani celebrates triumph was first hundred days. -- celebrates triumph of his first 100 days. guest: the language in the agreement does not use the word

that there is a -- what appears to have happened is a formulation has been found in which the u.s. and other countries recognizes the program, rather than the right to enrich. it appears to be moving in a situation in which the iranians will enjoy the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as all other states. host: jamie is from indianapolis, indiana for independence. you are on would trita parsi -- you are on with trita parsi. caller: i have been observing this for a while. one conclusion i have reached is that the hawkishness of the israeli leader, netanyahu, it

seems he would not be satisfied unless we invade iran and occupy them to make sure that they don't have the things that he is worried about them having. i do not think the united states has allowed israel to have nukes because of their hawkishness and overzealousness. we are over 10 years in conflict now. if we mess with iran on that level, that strait will be messed up and gas prices will be astronomical. we need to tone down netanyahu and not be overzealous and go to war with another country.

iran is trying to get nuclear things because could dorothy did not have them, saddam did not have them -- kadafi did not have them and saddam did not have them. host: were you reading in papers that members of the israeli government are saying? guest: i do not think it is particularly likely. they have used threats of taking military action in the hope of getting the united states to adopt a tough and hawkish position on iran. united states position -- the united states position was to not use pressure to pave the way for war. if there is not a deal, if diplomacy is not permitted to succeed, the only options the administration will have is down the road -- a military confrontation.

the american public does not want to have a march to war. there is frustration with the overzealousness of the israeli occupation. it doesn't mean that the united states and israel's relationship is going to be damaged, but there is a tactical difference on this issue. the determination on the american side not to have this lead to a war is strong. on the israeli side, there is a preference to see united states take military action. host: twitter comment -- i agree with netanyahu. it was a have most -- a historic mistake, that it was iran that made that mistake. mark is up next on the

republican line from a. good morning, mark. caller: good morning. dr. parsi uses very strong language. he says that -- iran has outwardly stated that it is going to destroy israel, not as recently as a few days ago, the leader called israel a rabid dog. i think a country like that is entitled to take strong positions and we should not forget about saudi arabia. my question about the niac -- is that an objective organization or is it a lobby for iran and if

it is, why don't you have on someone with a different point of view who is objective? from what i have wed -- read on wikipedia and elsewhere, is organization appears to be a lobby for the iranian administration. guest: that is false. there is no such thing as the lobby for the iranian government. that would be illegal. we have been operating in the country for more than 10 years. if there were true than that, it would have been dealt with. there are those who take hawkish positions and spread false rumors because they don't have better arguments and they are to slander the other side. the important thing is that there is a problem with the rhetoric that the iranians are using against israel. from the israeli side, there's

going to be a need to respond to that that is effective. is the response of the israeli government effective? is the approach that the israeli government has taken effective or not? one would expect that over the last 20 years, time passes, and they continue to say that they are two or three years towards a bomb, but there will be progress or a solution. we have seen a deterioration of the situation. for the first time, we have something that can turn the trajectory and make sure that the nuclear program does not advance and that it cannot reach a nuclear weapons stage while reducing iran's hostility towards the united states and other countries in the region. host: does this delegitimize the regime -- does this deal

legitimize the regime? what does this deal do with how iran is seen in the international community? guest: the iranian government human rights abuses are extensive. it is interesting to see human rights defenders in iran and outside have favored this deal for a simple reason -- as long as the deal as long as -- as long as the situation is not dealt with and the nuclear issue overshadows all issues with iran and puts the united states and iran at the risk of war, it will be impossible to make progress on human rights in iran. they need to have an opening up

of the space in iran by taking away the threat of war that exists as a result of this issue. there is expectation and pressure from iranian civil society that as this issue is getting resolved, they want to see the government start changing its behavior on human rights. it was interesting when the foreign minister returned and the crowd was welcoming here. the slogans were calling for the release of political prisoners, of the leader of the green movement, they were using the same slogans that you could hear four years ago during the uprising in the elections back then. it is a very clear sign. those that want the country to move in that direction, resolving the human rights situation, the significant

restrictions on the political freedom, are happy about this deal because they see they have a chance to move forward with their agenda. host: our last caller was concerned about your organization. maybe you can tell us about your background and how you and your family left iran. guest: my father was imprisoned and he had in opportunity -- an opportunity to continue his research in sweden. as soon as he got out of jail, we went to sweden. my father was put on the list of people that would be executed on the spot, having been accused of having been a collaborator, which was false. he went back to clear his name. the fear was that the regime would take revenge against other family members.

he ended up in jail again, but this time in the jail of the new government. he cleared his name because the people who were running the jail were 20-year-old former students of his. they knew he was critical and some of the lectures he had given. he cleared his name, left the country, and has never been back. host: a few tweets coming in. i agree with mr. parsi. both sides must accomplish something. the status quo has left us running in place now moving. both sides must feel that they get something. what has iran and the usa received from this agreement and who verifies compliance? guest: the american side has received a lot.

far more inspections are going to take place, there will be significant reduction in activity. most importantly, 20% of uranium is going to be eliminated or diluted. they will not have the material needed to build a bomb. you cannot build a bomb unless you up to 20% and from there on go up to about 93%. operating a nuclear reactor is five percent. we know the iranians will not be cheating on this issue. they are not going to add new centrifuges. the only thing they can do is replace a broken one. beyond that, the program is frozen. this has not been achieved since 2003. host: had a we know they are not moving these operations to a military base that we are not aware of? guest: because we will have more

inspections. we need to reach the final stage of this. the ryans are going to ratify -- the iranians are going to ratify and give us more inspection capabilities. with they gain at this point is minor sanctions relief, but they also gain the recognition that they have a nuclear program, as well as the fact that they do not have to suspended 20. that has been -- not have to suspend it to zero. part of the reason why we have a success now is because both sides have accepted the other's bottom line. that is how you get it deal. host: kevin, boston, massachusetts, for democrats. you are on with trita parsi.

caller: i agree with the caller earlier who was saying why is netanyahu screaming about orion iran having nuclear weapons? it is necessary for them to have that to have energy throughout their country and it creates jobs for their country. i also think we need to put israel in check. it seems like they are trying to take focus off of what they are doing in their country. they are taking all of the palestinians' land and dividing that country. netanyahu -- he feels pity

because they are treating me palestinian people the same way that germany treated the israeli people. host: do think that is a fair assessment? guest: i would say that because the iranians are -- of the mpt. the and national -- the international community is mindful of the fact -- i don't think they need a nuclear weapons. if they go nuclear and causes a nuclear domino effect in the

middle east, then you have other countries starting nuclear weapons programs. that would eliminate a conventional superiority that iran has. it would eight p.m. -- it would be a mistake for them to -- host: an e-mail that we received on the subject. paul h. writes in what he doesn't see being reported is the difference between weapon grade uranium and what is used for domestic uses for electricity. there are great differences and with inspectors constantly watching, we will know if iran complies.

great effort, secretary kerry. good luck with finishing this in the future. carol is up next, new jersey, independent line. good morning. caller: iran is a signator to the nonproliferation pact and recorded in that pact is their perfect right to supply themselves with nuclear energy. where we get our authority from, muscling in there, is beyond me. we overthrew their government in the past to get our hands around their rocks -- their oil products, their energy. now we are doing the supposedly adding of -- bidding of israel.

if i were iranian, sitting in the position that i am sitting in, knowing how the government of israel is so hot to trot about our criminal facade that they try to paint to the rest of the world, i would be hot to trot about gaining nuclear weaponry. guest: i think it is correct to point out what is to stop the country from building nuclear weapons? making threats and bombing them is probably not the most helpful thing. the more they sense a threat, the greater incentives to

produce a deterrence against that threat. this is what this deal has achieved. it has reduced the tensions and as a result reduced any incentives for the other side. that is exactly how you make sure that you reduce the number of nuclear weapon states in the world. not by adopting overzealous positions and making threats and giving the other side the impression that the only way they can avoid being attacked is by building a nuclear weapons. that is why this deal is a great achievement. i want to emphasize this is the first step of the deal. this whole thing can fall apart unless both sides implement all of the provisions of the first deal and move closer towards implementing the final stage of this. host: a few tweets -- israel is strong by necessity. it is surrounded by enemies bent on our destruction.

jrf write-in this deal will be another obama administration failure. susan, good morning. you on with trita parsi. caller: thank you for educating us on what is happening. since this was a big issue, my question on the heels of the lady before us, how did that treaty and any of the safeguards having to do with compliance of nuclear weapons mixed in with the agreement that was just passed this weekend? are we ignoring what was discussed at the united nations or did the united nation's not include anything to do with nuclear weapons used for mass destruction?

guest: the treaty is the basis of this agreement. it is specifically mentioned in the text as well is on the last page of the deal. that is something the iranians insisted on. their interpretation is that there is such a right to enrich such a thing as the right to enrich. i do not think the united states has had any objections to that. the difference has been the difference of interpretation of article four of the treaty, whether there is a right to enrich or not. using that as a legal framework, the two sides made progress last year and this year, what

happened this past weekend, they managed to make a deal. because both sides are signatories of the mpt, it was a starting point for negotiations. host: i want to show this headline -- on iran, on a diplomatic who, carries -- diplomatic coup bearing kerry's hallmark. what do you think? guest: this is clearly a secretary state that is going to use every second he has a secretary and he is now saying a chance -- seeing a chance to see one or two of them fully resolved. he has the full backing of the president.

i think that is why the united states has had a strong negotiating posture. host: there's a picture of secretary of state john kerry from over the weekend. we want to thank trita parsi for joining us. we appreciate you coming in to talk about the deal. quacks on the next "washington journal" a look at poverty in the u.s. >> jason campbell of the rand corporation discusses afghanistan and whether the u.s. might reach an agreement to keep u.s. troops in with afghanistan past the withdrawal date. "washington