cover your babies. wrap yourself in bacon. [laughter] we marched down and surrounds fox news. [laughter] just to watch bill o'reilly p his pants -- pee his pants. it has been a pleasure and i want to leave you with this, i know you feel like this is the junior table at the white house correspondents table that is probably because it is. i don't want you to fret. there is hope. i want you to remember the words of our president last year when he said, isis was the junior

varsity of al qaeda. look how well they are doing now. i want to leave you with us. remember correspondents, if isis can do it, so can you. good night. thank you. [applause] >> thank you calpine. i'm sorry, that was my old wishful thinking script. thank you, aasif mandvi. that was fantastic. before we leave, i can't leave without exposing my gratitude. my amazing team on capitol hill, kelly o'donnell, luke russert, and alex mo. [applause]

i want to thank kinser glenn, tony kaplan, and the countless others of the peacock who make me proud to be part of the nbc team. thank you to allison jaffe from the d.c. comedy club forgetting our entertainment. thank you to the marriott for hosting. and last but not least, she told me not to do this. i want to think someone who inspires me to be a better person, my beautiful and amazing wife jillian. you are my rock. you are the reason i am here today. i love you. [applause] it really has been an honor. i am deeply humbled to have been able to represent all of you.

it is time to pass the gavel. it is my honor to hand the gavel to the chair for next year's dinner c-span's fred haverstock. take it away. [applause] >> one >> thank you for putting this together. we are going to wrap it up by saying we would like to see you at the after party it is sponsored by comcast. with that, we are adjourned. [applause] [indiscernible]

[inaudible]

[inaudible] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> next, a look at some of the conflicts in the middle east. after that, tom cotton discusses his priorities. the senate confirmation hearing for sally gates. on newsmakers, new hampshire republican party chair jennifer

horn and jeff coffman discussed their roles in vetting presidential candidates. they will also talk about preparations for 2016, the candidate circulating, and which issues and groups to watch in their states. "newsmakers" on c-span. >> this sunday on q&a, eric larson on his new book, "dead wake". >> the story gets complicated when the question arises, what ultimately happened to the lusitania. why was it allowed to enter with out escort, without the kind of detail that could have been provided to captain turner but was not.

this has led to some interesting speculation about was the ship set up for attack by churchill or someone. it is interesting. i found a smoking memo. -- i found no smoking memo. let's let the lusitania go into the sea, nothing like that. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. >> now a discussion on the conflicts going on in the middle east. this is just under an hour. host: our next guest of the morning's michael rubin. he is a resident scholar at the american enterprise institute, talking about all the things going on in the middle east. michael rubin, as we start,

everyone is waiting to see initially what might happen with iran when it comes to its nuclear program. where do we stand as far as negotiations are concerned? guest: right now it looks like there could be a preliminary agreement this week. what is important to remember is when it comes to the joint plan of action, what we are trying to achieve is an agreement about how to have an agreement, so this is not going to be the end of negotiations, rather the end of the beginning, rather the beginning of the end. host: what do you mean? guest: if there comes a resolution tomorrow, what it is supposed to do is create a fame -- framework as to what -- all sides want to see in the final agreement. the number of centrifuges. how long an agreement would last. all of the the basic details but the technicalities would need to be worked out. host: how have the iranians responded? how forthcoming have they been

as far as meeting the requirements the united states wants? guest: well, the iranians have adhered, for the most part, to what has been outlined in the joint plan of action. the criticism in the joint plan of action, however, is it was really only one slice of the entire pie. at the same time, the international atomic energy agency has been complaining that the iranians have not been adhering to the commitments made to them, especially when it comes to possible military dimensions of an iranian nuclear program. host: for the five countries or so that are involved in this bullet point what they want. and the timeframe they want it. how long this agreement might last. guest: ultimately, if you put five countries in a room, you will get five or six different opinions. we need to recognize that all countries, six countries, have radically different opinions. what the americans want is for a

resolution to with concerns with , regard to iran's nuclear breakout ability, their ability to enrich uranium to levels that would be much greater than that needed for an energy program. the russians and the chinese want to see in some extent the iranians one economic relief in all of this -- want economically can all of this. this began in 2005 when the board of governors found iran to be in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards agreement. the question is how you want to bring iran back into compliance, address the concerns in six unanimous, or near-unanimous subsequent united nations resolutions. host: and i suspect if the deal comes through, how do you do oversight to make sure they are holding up their end of the bargain? guest: this is why the so-called sunset clause has become controversial. the sunset clause -- the idea

that after 10 years, for example, the sanctions regime, and so forth, all the additional cinches will be listed -- lifted and iran can become a state again. the iranians are saying we will start with the day of the signature. in 1991, when the south africans in 1991, when the south africans gave up their nuclear program, they provided the international atomic energy agency with 20 years of data with regard to its material so that the iaea could certify that everything is accounted for. the iaea has complained that by not providing this data, it will make declarations of they have given up the military program and possible. host: explain to us -- we have heard the lifting of sanctions which i think iran wants, versus the suspension of sanctions.

talk about what those terms mean and what is important in this discussion. guest: first of all, one of the important things to remember is there are different kinds of sanctions. ironically, because people think as republicans has more hawkish it was under bill clinton where you have the toughest sanctions on iran in 1995 1996, for example, executive orders, which were unilateral, and when oil companies shifted operations to european subsidiaries or partners, we had a controversy with extraterritorial sanctions placed on european firms. on top of that, you have these un security council resolutions that ban aspects of iran's nuclear trade, and iran wants to get this lifted so they can get back to developing their economy. before negotiations began, iran 's economy shrank 5.4%.

on top of which, you have had a rapid decline on the price of oil, which will make it hard for iranians to make payroll. host: michael rubin is our guest. talking about issues in the middle east, iran being one of them. let's hear first from eric in texas. you're on with michael rubin. caller: hello, am i on? host: you are on. caller: ok. the people that killed the most isis fighters make me the most safe. the people that kill the least isis fighters make me least safe. people that do not kill any isis fighters do not make me safe at all. the people that give the speeches in march do not do

anything at all those europeans marching around paris went home and did absolutely nothing because they are a bunch of cowards. i want to see some french, german english, and italian soldiers with their arms and legs blown off, is what i want to see, and i want to see them barred and slaughtering 100,000 anderson people. -- innocent people. thank you. guest: i am not sure what eric's question was about, but he raises the issue of the islamic state, which has been growing in iraq and syria, and is now a problem in libya as well. the president of afghanistan ashraf ghani, when he came to washington, said his biggest fear was the advancement of the islamic state there. one thing to remember is they only impact the nuclear issue --

they do not cover issues related to iran's ambitions iraq with, syria, yemen, and they are not addressing issues that our concerns to others in the region such as iran's ballistic missile program or terrorism. you asked before about sanctions. iran wants an immediate lifting of sanctions, but some of the american sanctions are not tied to the nuclear program, but issues such as terrorism. host: mike is from new york. independent line. go ahead. caller: hi. you are so much for taking my call. i want to keep it simple. it is just very hard for me to fathom that we can trust the current administration of the iranians with the ayatollahs and the mullahs. on the same day secretary john kerry came out and said we're

making progress, there was a gathering with the head ayatollah and chants of "death to america." i just do nothing we can have these talks with the current administration. we will have to wait. anything that gets done will just a waste of time. guest: i certainly share mike's concerns with this. i am much closer to where mike is on this with regard to my skepticism. there are a couple of concerns i have. before he became president, he was a nuclear negotiator and the national security council chairman of iran. he was national security council chairman of iran in 2001 when the former president threaten to develop nuclear weapons and drop them on israel, and he was silent on that. likewise in february 9, 2005 he gave a speech to the assembled iranian hardliners in which he outlined a doctrine of

surprise, where he argued that iran becomes victorious every time they love the americans into, complacency, and then they surprise them, deliver a knockout blow. why verification become so important is is this a repeatable we have seen in the past with deception? host: we have heard about health issues with the supreme leader of iran. if something happens, will it affect negotiations? guest: ultimately it does. the supreme leader is about substance. the president is about style. if you were going to transpose the relative power of the president of iran to the president of the united states, you're are not talking about the president, you are talking about the secretary of agriculture. the supreme leader controls everything. when the supreme leader dies and there are rumors he has cancer now, ultimate, in theory, what happens, is you have

86-member body which convenes to choose the next supreme leader. this is a way happened one time before in 1889 when the ayatollah died. at that -- 1989, when the alcoa died -- when the ayatollah died. the question is what consensus could you have if you do not have consensus readily available, and the other issue with the nuclear program is whether the much more ideological elements of the islamic revolutionary guard force will settle for anything less than a hardliner -- rather -- whether we can have a cycle of radicalization, which is what many political -- rather than what many political scientists assume, which is a modernization. host: go ahead. you are on. caller: i wanted to ask a question on iran vis-a-vis israel.

i am concerned about the verification issues you raise. in verifying iran's dismantlement of existing infrastructure, versus being able to verify or detect any covert nuclear activity -- is there a lot of daylight between the u.s. and israeli positions on these issues that could lead to a major, catastrophic, or misinterpreted kind of outcome? thank you. guest: bob asks a relevant question. there is daylight between where the u.s. and the israelis stand, and more broadly, when the u.s. stands and the international atomic agency stands. when it comes to the international atomic agency, by their own bylaws, they are only able to inspect declared nuclear sites. if there is suspicion, overwhelming evidence that iran has a covert side, the iaea

cannot send inspections there. it is one reason they were not able to inspect the plutonium processing plant that the syrians built in 2008, which israelis ultimately destroyed. if i could add one more point, a lot of people say even if iran develops nuclear weapons, what is the big issue? they are not suicidal. what if they are terminally ill. we always talk about iran's nuclear program, but we never talk about who would have custody of it. it would be the most ideologically pure members of the national guard. if they will have a regime change what will stop them from launching an ideological prerogatives, and that is where the traditional ideal of deterrence breaks down, this is what people in the middle east are so nervous.

host: michael rubin with the american enterprise institute. martin. new kensington, pennsylvania independent line. caller: thank you, c-span. i hope mr. rubin goes further concerning the region. the reconfiguration will take place regardless of the islamic's capabilities. an independent kurdistan is key. the kurdistan regional government does not -- demonstrates self-government. the peshmerga have proved their willingness to sacrifice the independence of their nation. leaders of kurdistan, ranging from [indiscernible] each has contributed -- thousands whose names we will

never hear have second fight for their people, their nation. they live there. they continue to be persecuted, oppressed, occupied by militants, and in search for international recognition. there are many in the region that have been relegated to the status of minorities due to the partitioning of the region after dismantling of the ottoman empire, after its defeat in world war i. guest: martin, -- host: martin thank you for the call. we will let our guests respond. guest: martin brings up a point. it is not about iran and the middle east. before i turn to the kurds, let me say that when people talk about the sunni and the shia regions, you might read that the shia are only 10% or 50% of the muslim world, so what is the big deal? the big deal, and why we're hearing about this now, is between the mediterranean and iran, there is 50/50 parity, so

there is the idea that everything is in play. the kurds are the largest people without a nation, and i have spent a lot of time in iraqi kurdistan, and also last year i spent a lot of time in syrian kurdistan, inside syria, with the same election that was fighting at kobani. what martin brings up, is absolutely right, this is one of those issues at play. this is where, all too often, we do not seem to have a very sophisticated conversation in washington, or more broadly, in europe, and in the west. the case is often presented as an emotional argument, and ultimately if the kurds decide they want to go in dependent that it's going to be their choice. we need to consider is what the second order of impact is, simply so that we can make adjustments, for example. we have water sharing agreements that go back to 1986 between syria, turkey, and iraq, and suddenly you have an independent

kurdistan, which means we consideration of those agreements. we also applauded the new minister who will be coming to washington because when he took office and replaced all mock he his predecessor, who had constraints with the rest -- with the west, he agreed to an oil deal with iraqi kurdistan. the day he did that, folks in southern iraq said we want the same deal, and certainly, if they want federalism, for example, baghdad is bankrupt. when it comes to kurdistan become an independent, you have the issue of precedent -- what will it mean for saudi shia that produce a lot of the oil in the eastern province? what will it mean throughout the region? we talk about a partition of turkey down the road? the leader of the pkk -- his image has gone from that of terrorist, to that of mandela and ultimately will have to deal with that should the peace

process in turkey continue. host: the subject of sunni and shia play out directly in what is happening in yemen. can you explain what is happening currently, what is the difference in the development of the groups, and the role iran plays as well? guest: this is a fascinating case, pedro. i used to live in yemen. there are shia that are completely different from a we see in iran in northern yemen. they did not have a shia identity. over the last three years, and the press, we suddenly see the iranian discovery of the who these -- booties. they -- houthis. they were preaching sectarian hatred, and they were trying to sponsor these schools inside of northern yemen, where the houthi s live.

they have had dissemination mayday march on sanna, and ultimately the question is whether they are under the thumb of the iranians. originally, they were not. one of the things that is quite interesting, and it shows you that we are not always just divorced from what happens in the middle east, the houthis originally did not want to go into the capital of yemen. they waited for a reaction. now they are moving further down. they seized the seat, judicially, of the yemeni monarchy, which is overthrown in the 1960's. here is a thing -- we have a sectarian fault line. the houthis are accused of being like hezbollah, a proxy of the court, and iran. the saudi's have been afraid to

start action because they are for this will impact them, so we have an air campaign against houthis. we might have syria 2.0 going on in yemen, starting right now. host: michael rubin is our guest from the american enterprise institute to talk about conflict in the middle east. democrats line. go ahead. you are on. caller: yes, briefly, incidentally, apparently this individual rubin, has a better command of the middle eastern chaos, or whatever -- melting pot -- whatever you want to call it -- for heaven sakes, he may better serve america as secretary of state than this john kerry individual. beyond that, some years ago, in florida, i worked for persians, as they like to be referred as rather than iranians, but i was given the impression that within tehran, which is the capital of

persia, there is, in fact, a thriving jewish community, and this is so conflicted to the presentation that the media gives to me, as a jew. jew by birth -- my mother was jewish. that is one thing. the other thing i cannot figure is how come they routinely show people purportedly minute -- manipulating radioactive material, and they're were in a fiber-cotton mask to protect themselves -- wearing a fiber-top and -- fiber-cotton mask to protect themselves from nuclear toxins? none of that makes any sense. maybe ruben could elaborate on that. thank you so much. guest: daniel, thank you very much for your question. first of all, as a republican, i should not do this, but in

defense of secretary of state john kerry, one of the things we need to recognize is there is no magic formula in the middle east and not everything that is occurring in the middle east is sickly reaction to what the night -- is simply a reaction to what the united states has done. that said, there are impacts and our policies i wish the obama administration would have done differently. when it comes to the difference, and daniel between iranians and persians connecting 75 they said stop calling us persians, and stuck on us around, and it would be like angela merkel saying stop calling us germany call it deutsche land instead. it would not be a different country. when it comes to iranian nationalism, when people say it is persian, it is not iranian usually that is done in terms of language because we talk about parsi, tarry, and dark. the reason we count them as

three languages is so that some officer can get a triple language bonus because they really are dialects of the same language. different from each other only as british english is from australian english is from new york english. so, we have that issue. when it comes to the nuclear program iner ron, when you see people and facemasks, they are not amateurs. they will not step into a reactor wearing just masks. in any sort of high-tech situation, you just need to be dust-free, so the mother guards or to keep it clean environment. host: the iranians have said the nuclear program is for energy needs. is there validity to that? guest: this is the reason why there are suspicions about iranian claims these are just for energy needs, pedro. first, they say they want a completely indigenous energy supply. they also say they want eight nuclear reactors. if you refine uranium to

enriched uranium to fuel it reactors, you can do that for about 15 years. 41-third of the price -- for one-third of the price, they can fuel their country. that is suspicion number one. number two is expansion -- they had nuclear triggers or with metal trying to shake hemispheres which have no role in energy cycle, but only a role in a nuclear bomb. last, there is the question of additional protocol. multiple focus on iraq after 2000 three when i turned up they did not have a nuclear program but they forget in 1991, it was despite the despite 11 clean bills of health from the international atomic energy agency, the iraqis had hidden a nuclear program. this led the iaea to increment something called the additional protocol, which was meant to tighten up inspections. well, what iranians did was they

sign the additional protocol but they refused to ratify it. the weight of lawyers wrote it is when you sign the additional protocol, you get additional technology sharing. when you ratify it, that is when the inspections kick in. there is always been a great deal of suspicion about why the iranians have done that. host: georgia -- this is john in georgia for our guests. independent line. go ahead, john. caller: good morning, mr. rubin good morning, c-span. a quick question -- what are the differences between netanyahu and obama as far as these talks? what are the big sticking points, especially when the u.s. policy is iran is not about to have a nuclear weapon? guest: ok. caller: why is israel and the u.s. not more together on these talks or negotiations? guest: i hate to say this, but a lot of the difference between

benjamin netanyahu and president obama seems increase make the personal rather than motivated by politics. the question is what the red line should be --iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon, or the ability to become nuclear weapons capable, meaning develop the knowledge, the material, you are just a turn of a screw away. the difference between the two could be as little as a week but what prime minister netanyahu would say is no one has the human intelligence in iran to know when they have made the decision and put the components together to build a nuclear weapon. the other major concern that israeli prime minister bibi netanyahu has, of course, is how limited this nuclear agreement seems to be. number one, it does not address the elastic missiles or the terrorism in which iran has engaged, and there is a lot of concern about the sunset clause, whether you will have symbolic sanctions on iran, a symbolic inspection regime on -- four 10

years or so, and basically you lift them scot-free without cleaning -- coming clean on the past. what the international energy agency wants is iran to come clean about past activities, and pedro, what people forget, is when you look at this antagonism between netanyahu and obama, we saw the same thing in 1994 when the korean agreement was to be signed. the president of south korea gave an interview to "the new york times," raising a great deal of doubt, and the personal animus that resulted between president clinton and the government of south korea was ferocious. a we are seeing now is deja vu all over again. host: michael rubin, the president of afghanistan was in town. he addressed congress on a lot of issues, talk about afghanistan's role on fighting terrorism in the country. here's a little bit of what he had to say. we'll get your respond to it. [video clip]

ashraf ghani: can be an enduring success. your support will not have been in vain. afghanistan will be the graveyard of al qaeda, and their foreign terrorist associates. [applause] president: -- president ghani: never again will our country be host to terrorists, will we give extremists the sanction to plan their plots. host: michael rubin, what do you think? guest: ashraf ghani is very worried. though he has been a breath of

fresh air, the fact of the matter is he is worried the united states will pull the carpet on -- carpet out from underneath him. the money is drying up. when i was in afghanistan, people were concerned that no matter how sincere ashraf ghani could be people would look at international aid as a reason to embezzle money quicker. likewise, if you have international agencies pullout, and this is where ashraf ghani is truly worried, the only other jobs people can go to is the illegal economy, the narcotics trade. that is ceballos is with terrorism can't -- ceballos is with terrorism, and ultimately, ashraf ghani can worry about the spread of the islamic state there. people can say what does the islamic state have to do with afghanistan? the reality is what did al qaeda have to do with afghanistan? this is a major concern. i spent time with the taliban in 2000, and the biggest difference between the taliban and the islamic state is the taliban was

desperate for recognition as a legitimate government of afghanistan. the islamic state does not agree to any of these notions of host: when he says it's going to be the graveyard of terrorism, what's behind the rhetoric? guest: he's trying to convince the americans do not withdraw on any sort of timetable but to make sure there are no uncovered spaces. under the soviet union, afghans had a functioning air force. they really don't now. while the afghans do and can fight, they lack a logistical capability to get to where the fight is. it's one thing to be willing to fight the taliban and or islamic state when you know that if you are wounded, you will get medevac. when nato pulls out, there will be no medevac. there is a real fear that therefore afghanistan army is

going to go to ground. afghans have never lost a war. the simply defect to the winning side. host: jacob from new jersey. democrats line. caller: good morning. i love c-span. guest, great talk. there is a lot of lack of understanding about the role that the shia-sunni divide in the region plays in politics and shaping the players and the conflicting terrorist groups. if you could explain maybe the who was who and who is allied with who and why. that would be really helpful. guest: and very, very good question. the difference between sunni and shia, this goes back to a

succession dispute as to who was going to lead the committee of muslims and islamic empire after the death of mohammed. everyone agreed it should be the most pure, wise muslim but those who became the shia, the partisans of ali said god chose is the property for a reason, therefore it is natural to pass to his family. between the mediterranean -- a 50-50 parity. some of this sectarian discord you are not seeing other where come elsewhere in the islamic world. in central asia, for example. when it comes to the basic differences between the two, it is political. iran is shiite. you have yemen, the houthis

which are a shiite offshoot. you have hezbollah in lebanon. this is a major concern. back in 2005, the king of jordan warned of a shia creep and throughout the region, talking about the scenario we have now where all the shia accused us of being sick colonists. sometimes in america we exaggerate the discord. take was happening with the islamic state in iraq. is that a result of an insensitive shia government? if that were the case, why do you have the islamic state taking root in libya where you don't have a sectarian problem? this has not been in the news much, the holy centers in mecca has been quietly reaching out to our laws are, university in

cairo. one of the most important centers of suny learning. they are quietly learning behind the scenes. -- sunni learning. there is some silver lining but it could be worse before it gets better. host: robert in florida. republican line. caller: hi, mike. correct me if i'm wrong -- all 16 security agencies in the united states and the israeli mossad are in agreement that at this point, iran has not taken any actions to make a nuclear device of any kind. throw in the idea of mutual assured destruction, which has been in effect in the world for 70 years, if no one launches a nuclear miss and at a superior power because they know they will be destroyed. we are supposed to believe that

iran will ramp up their nuclear powers and they don't care whether they live or die, just so they can launch a missile or to add an overpowering israel and we will go to war -- this is what is going to happen here because when this deal is broken up with obama, the end of the day, we will bomb iran and that is what will happen, just like we bombed iraq. we're supposed to believe this is the reason -- please explain this to me. israel is manipulating -- guest: actually, i don't work for an israeli lobby and i would advise you to not look at someone with a jewish last night and assume -- that is anti-somatic and racist. i want to correct you on some of the assumptions you stated as fact. back in 2011, the international atomic agency published and annexed to its board of governor

report -- you can google the board of governor report, november 2011 and there is a whole annex of possible military dimensions. the national intelligence estimate has concluded that iran has been experimenting with nuclear weapons components. the 2003 report concluded that. the 2007 reported that they had ceased work but iran has done this work. they're asking for iran to come clean about its past activities because that is necessary in order to verify that the secession continues. when it comes to this idea of mutually assured destruction where this breaks down is the idea that it works if the iranian states that you had major uprisings in 1999, 2001 and 2009. if this happens again, what is

to stop the revolutionary guard from doing this? the major concern of the united states, if iran develops nuclear weapons, it will feel so secure that it could lash out conventionally. there's concern with regard to a cascade of proliferation and instability in the middle east and north korea playing "look at me." then all bets are off. one of the iranian negotiators had said that north korea is the model to emulate rather than a regime to condemn. today, the intelligence community says north korea possesses nuclear weapons. host: one of the resources they are investigating -- should they get to the point where they're able to inspect and do the job they need to do? guest: this is the concern. the idea whether the rush to have a diplomatic deal is trumping the iaea's ability to

enforce that deal. they have said, as in south africa, they need at least two decades to trace all the material and ex. they are not willing to give that. if you have inspections -- you set of video cameras. in the sensor fusion cascade -- centrifuge cascade. someone is sitting there watching that monitor -- that's not how it works. once every 17 days, they will send someone to that facility and make sure the seal is still sealed, take the videocassette put in another one, fly back to vienna and watch it. in the 17 days before this material is reviewed, whether iran can do anything to break out.

the other issue given iran's past cheating is whether there is any additional mechanism to look after any potential covert nuclear program. they are only allowed to look at facilities -- in the past, the problem we've had with iran is the iranians have try to build covert facilities to bypass inspection. host: omar from indiana. independent line for michael rubin. caller: pedro, i will say what i hopefully need to say in 20 seconds or so. not only 16 agencies have said that iran does not have nuclear weapons. i remember seeing hans blitz on

c-span. why don't you get somebody from the iaea on television and ask them these questions? mr. rubin, it does not make one anti-soemetic to believe that you and others are trying to push our country into fighting israel's enemies. the last one on the list is iran. we love our country unlike some of those names i mentioned, more than we love israel. for you, two quick questions. tell c-span viewers how many nuclear weapons does israel have , the only country in the middle east who has them. any high school student can do a google search to find out what is the second option -- samson option. guest: thank you for your question.

it does make you a purveyor of hate to assume that those who agree with you are the only ones who love their country and those who disagree with you are those that don't. recent polls have shown that 70% of americans feel uncomfortable with the way this deal is going. i hate to think that 70% of americans belong to some secret cabal that you and robert are aware of. the intelligence community has said that iran does not have nuclear weapons right now but it has also said there after nuclear weapons capability. the biggest difference between the iranian nuclear program and israel's nuclear program is that iran signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. if that is the legalistic answer you want, that is why there is so much concern. iran has threatened multiple times to use that. they have threatened to use

nuclear weapons against israel, arguing that one bomb could eradicate israel and israel responded with the samson option or something like that with retaliation, the islamic world was big enough to withstand that. while controversial, the former president of iran said iran is going to wipe israel off the face of the map. some scholars have said this is mistranslated. he meant to say that they will wipe israel off the face of time. when you google that phrase, you will find a number of photographs taken in iran in which this phrase is used on banners and tripped over missiles and that is one of the reasons why there is such great concern. not everything in the middle east he vaults -- revolves around israel. we look at the problems that exist in the middle east and israelis and saudi's and egyptians and kuwaitis are all on the same side of this.

host: there is a front page story in the wall street journal taking a look at israel and palestine. what is the context? guest: that is another sideshow going on in the middle east. you've never seen such an active time. you have a great deal of frustration within the obama administration with netanyahu and the policy of constructing settlements. the palestinians, their current president has decided that the purity of negotiations with the oslo accord has not done what they wanted to get so they will start undertaking unilateral actions at the united nations. the reason the israelis objected this is because they see the

united nations as biased and the oslo accords and everything needs to be addressed between the israel and palestinian authorities and outlawed this unilateral action. with netanyahu last week being reelected, obama was hoping that would not happen. now faced with several more years of not only prime minister netanyahu but a coalition that is more right wing in israel than the previous coalition. obama is starting to raise the possibility that vetoing resolutions -- he might abstain or support. host: michigan city, indiana. democrats line. dave, go ahead. caller: thank you. good morning gentlemen. i wish you both a happy and pleasant saturday morning. i really enjoyed the discussion.

i would like to give a warm welcome to mr. rubin. i enjoyed his presentation. anytime i have seen you on television. my point in calling this morning is to ask about your view of the effectiveness of republicans in the senate writing a letter to undermine the efforts of negotiations with iran. what is your view of the logic of sitting down with iran to begin with? and negotiating to try to prevent the development of nuclear weaponry. i would like to bring your discussion back on shores and ask you to relate to us about the propriety of congress

meddling in diplomacy. i'm 61. i may kennedy democrat. i have never seen anything like this. i would like your viewpoint on this. the logic of dealing with iran and of the political propriety of the separation of powers. thank you both. hope you have a great day. guest: two very good and on the point questions conveyed in michigan city. with regard to negotiations with iran, i'm all for resolving these through diplomacy. they she was whether you only have diplomacy or you have war. the question is what sort of diplomacy you have. the united states simply has not used its leverage. by giving the iranians sanctions

relief just to keep them at the table come the analogy i would make is like giving a five-year-old dessert first and then asking her to come to the table to eat her spinach. it does make me uneasy, what the senders are after is defending the prerogative of the senate. while it might be the first time we've seen a letter like this, you have a situation where bring the bush administration when they wanted to isolate assad in syria against the wishes of the state department and the white house went off and met with assad to break that isolation. you have had the senate and the white house clash on this before. each defending their prerogative . when it came to the letter the senators published, i would rather have it as an op-ed or

addressed to all the p5, these coalition of nations, members of the security council. looming over this idea, how strong is any agreement, how lasting is any agreement going to be when the senate has not signed on -- let me put it this way. i'm comfortable with the letter but uncomfortable with the president of trying to ram through an agreement of such international significance without sharing it with the senate first. host: you think they broke the law of this logan act? guest: only one person has been prosecuted in the history of the united states under the logan act generally, no. i don't think they broke the logan act. they are expressing the will of

47 members of the senate in an open letter. what would have violated the logan act as if they -- is if they tried to negotiate on their own with the iranian strictly. host: jacob in new york. republican line. caller: you sound very knowledgeable in this area. i want to ask what i hope is a simple question and i have not heard it come up before. if the position of iran is it wants these nuclear programs for peaceful use, why shouldn't the deal be as simple to respond to what the claim -- what they are claiming? why not set up a program where whatever the uses are they want for peaceful purposes are controlled by some type of international authority and if it turns out over two years, five years or whatever is agreed

to, that can be turned over to iran and just leave it at that? all this other stuff is just for lack -- flack. it seems to me it can be done through some kind of international commission or international fund and then be turned over to iran to run it. thank you very much for taking my call. i will hang up and listen to the answer. guest: i wish you were the negotiator. one of these issues that has been raised up. why does iran need to enrich uranium on its soil if it can be guaranteed a source of low enriched uranium fuel to its reactors? they have refused that and that is part of the frustration. what you say is a very logical answer to a problem which exists

and would bypass a lot of the distrust with regard to iran. we have made concessions which don't make that possible anymore. host: one more call. illinois appeared go ahead. caller: us telling iran they cannot mine for uranium would be like china telling us we cannot drill for shale oil. i read a book a couple of years ago -- he had been on c-span book tv. it looks like this iran nuclear bomb thing is not going back more than 15 years -- is there any truth to what you brought up back in the late 1990's, the cia program called marilerlin which use the defector from russia to

try to deliver bogus blueprints for a bomb to iran to somehow get them off their path or somehow gain more knowledge of what was going on because they were in the dark with respect to cia -- we knew about iraq and iran going into war in 2003. i would like to note there is any truth to that merlin program where they try to give over blueprints to iran. guest: thank you. excellent questions. with regard to the merlin program, all i know is what i've read in the book. i believe there has been a counterintelligence investigation as to the person who leaked that material to him which would seem to indicate there is some truth to the matter. i have not said that iran should

be able to -- should not be able to mine uranium. if you want a legal basis for why they cannot enrich, that goes back to the international atomic agency board of governors which found them to have violated their nuclear nonproliferation treaty agreement and six subsequent resolutions which have forbidden enrichment inside >> on the next washington journal, investigative reporter talks about security breaches with the nation's power grid. ceo of the wounded warrior project talks about the groups priorities. and charles schmidt of the middle east is it too has the latest on the unrest in yemen. -- middle east has the latest on the unrest in yemen. "washington journal" live every day on c-span.

>> president obama delivers the keynote address monday at the formal dedication ceremony of the edward m. kennedy institute. other speakers include vice president joe biden, massachusetts governor elizabeth warren and governor charlie baker. the institute will chronicle kennedy's time in congress. it includes a full-scale replica of the senate chambers. here is the late senator delivering his speech at harvard about eight months before he died. ted kennedy: 50 years ago, i manage a successful campaign with a john f. kennedy. although i certainly did not anticipate at the time, i had been deeply honored to hold the same seat he had for some 46 years. during my service in the united states senate, i have often been

called a liberal. and it usually was not meant to be a compliment. [laughter] ted: i remember what my brother said about liberalism shortly before he was elected president. he said, "if by a liberal they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people, their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, their civil liberties, somebody who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grips us. if that is what they mean by a liberal, i am proud to be a liberal." [applause]

>> the formal dedication ceremony of the kennedy institute for the u.s. in a tent with president obama and vice president biden at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> arkansas senator tom cotton discusses his national security priorities. doesn't a confirmation hearing for deputy attorney general nominee. and your calls and comments on washington journal. >> on monday, freshman republican senator tom cotton told an audience that national defense should be the first priority. he criticized the current regime in iran and growing threat of terrorism in the world. he recently authored a letter to iran which was signed by 46 republican senators.

it suggested any deal could be overturned by a new u.s. president in 2017. following his remarks, pedal is discussed what congress should do. this is one hour 25 minutes. chris griffin: welcome chris griffin: welcome everybody. good morning. my name is chris griffin. i am the executive director at the foreign-policy initiative. it is my privilege to welcome you to this event jointly hosted by the foreign policy initiative and american action forum, titled, "will congress provide for the common defense?"

this is the second in a series of public briefings on how congress and the president could work to provide armed services with the resources and authority they require to keep our nation safe in a time of growing threats across the world. this morning, we'll hear from senator tom cotton and following his keynote, i will handoff to rachel hoff, who will introduce and moderate a discussion by a panel of experts featuring mackenzie eaglen, david adesnik, and douglas j. holtz-eakin. first, it's my pleasure to welcome the keynote speaker. senator tom cotton was raised on his family's farm in arkansas and he attended harvard and harvard law school. after a clerkship, he entered private practice. like all of us, his life was disrupted by september 11, 2001. in response, he left and joined the army to serve as an infantry