more robust way to mitigate the problems you have identified the deal? >> the secondary sanctions are powerful. they would remain under nonproliferation activities. dr. levitt: it is never the case that the bank was not involved in the proliferation of terrorism. it will be a question of political will as mark said, if you have something like the the central bank of iran, will there be the will to put forth sanctions on those types of major entities or even smaller ones if we think that might annoy the iranians. it will deter the major financial institutions and some major corporations from doing

business in iran at least for some time. the banks only for a long period of time. by virtue of being limited to certain types of illicit activities, we are no longer talking about iran is a risky jurisdiction when it is becoming even more risky jurisdiction. that toolkit which was in some ways the most effective, not the formal sanctions of any kind, but the informal sanctions that brought to bear the reputational and business risks, those are going to begin to fade very quickly. >> thank you. [low audio] this list includes -- if we deliver over $100 billion to iran, what do you suspect would happen against iranian terror? speaker: we have a habit of doing this.

could you give us the source of his list? >> this was the u.s. range killed in 1980 -- marines that were killed in 1983. >> thank you. >> it is well-known who of the victims are. there have been multiple lawsuits. and $20 million in outstanding reparations. there is a [inaudible] i think the purpose of that injunction is to prevent future victims of iranian terrorism.

i find it surprising we have not iran, what do you suspect would required the iranians to satisfy the judgment it we are willing to give them billions of dollars to find what everyone agrees would be future acts of terrorism against americans and others. i also note whenever -- one other thing. when we talk about where the money will be spent, people have said it is not a lot of money. low cost and low tech. i looked into the iranian budget for 2015. quds force will get $6 billion. the president is instituting

-- representing over 25% of the defense budget and 10% of the total public legit. the iranians will spend almost 10% of their total public budget supporting their revolutionary guard of the quds force who are the entities primarily responsible for acts of terrorism. it gives you a sense of where the the regime is highlighting its own priorities. dr. levitt: a district me as odd as odd thattrike me we have assumed as a country that the cost of the deal is simply that the money will flow back to iran in an unfettered, uncontrolled way and that we are doing nothing at least in the immediate term to deal with the very real risk that terrorist financing will flow in the international system through the revolutionary guard or the quds force. it strikes me as odd that we have accepted almost as a principal shrugging her shoulders that this is the cost of the deal when i do not think

it should be. it is remarkable that the administration has described the walk away plan here is if we will be the isolated party internationally when in fact the iranians continue to engage in a range of negotiated conduct. -- a listed -- illicit conduct. suddenly we are being told at the moment of fruition that if we do not accept a deal, we are going to be the isolated party internationally. that is a remarkable turn of the tables. i do not think the cost of the deal as described is acceptable and we should be mitigating against that. there are ways of doing that and i have not heard from the administration. >> i said one of the issues is the marines they killed and the

embassy personnel that died in 1983. the president of the american university of beirut gunned down. it is one of the issues. some are in federal court. i would not advise making this conditional on the nuclear deal but i would make it conditional in the future. the president of the american on balance we will be able to contain better this problem of iran if they are nonnuclear. it is another reason why i support the agreement. >> breaking apart proliferation does not exactly work. last year david cohen, then undersecretary of the treasury, now deputy rector of the cia

-- director of the cia touted the collateral counterterrorism benefit of counter proliferation sanctions targeting iran's banking and oil sectors. the success of our unprecedented iran sanctions regime including sanctions on iranian financial institutions and the ability to sell its oil has had the collateral benefit of squeezing to ron's ability to fund terrorism groups such as has blood that will no longer be the case. -- hezbollah that will no longer be the case. >> according to crs, there support is 100 to $200 million a year. support for the assad regime in syria is $16 billion to $15 billion year.

support for the rebels in yemen, tens of millions of dollars. it is between -- the key question to follow up on is should they get $100 billion in sanctions relief, what would become of the situation? >> they would be enriched, they would be emboldened, they would add to the budget that they have allocated for these groups. hearing from them direct the, the secretary-general from hezbollah expects more support from the iranians. we should take the iranians and proxies from -- at their word. we have to do things to mitigate the risk of that if this deal moves forward. i think shrugging our soldier -- shoulders is not good enough. >> the u.s. treasury department

will be lifting sanctions. this is the holding company of the supreme leader of iran. billioni holding company that would be de-designated allowing the supreme leader to move $95 million to the formal -- former financial system. $95 billion in a hold code that the supreme leader has. one point of clarification. the administration is trying to have an argument both ways. that money will be spent on the economy and not on terrorism, than that $56 billion includes 25 ilion dollars that the thencludes $25 billion that chinese will spend on upstream energy investments. it will include another 20

billion dollars secured against nonperforming loans. money spent on iran's economy, it is $100 billion. if the argument is that the iranians will spend that money on terrorism, the administration is right for it 100 dollars is not availablen is or terrorism. only $56 billion is rate -- available. $100 billion is available for iran's economy. $95 billion is sitting in the supreme leader us holding company. and the revolutionary guards will get $6.5 billion, almost 10% of their public budget and they are the entity in control of iran's overseas expansionism and it's terrorism activities.

dr. levitt: let's listen to what the secretary-general of hezbollah said. they have been meeting to see about furthering their dr. levitt: let's listen to what cooperation. even under sanctions, it anticipates a rich and powerful iran would be able to do more. iran will be able to stand by its allies and the people in the region and the resistance in palestine and the palestinian people more than at any time in the past. this is what the others are afraid of. ambassador burns: some of this is going to have to go to contracts as explained in the last channel. -- last panel. some will go to revive the iranian economy given the population's frustration with sanctions and some will go to the irgc and you're right about that. i do think that if there is congressional disapproval and we cannot fulfill the agreement and

it becomes a threshold state, there are more -- they are a more powerful force. if we can freeze them and we can them, just thinking strategically, we have to combat this force and set up a containment regime. but if they are weakened by the nuclear agreement, we will have better success in doing that. strategically, we have to combat this force and set up a >> thank all of you for your patience. the committee is adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] 2015]

>> on c-span this morning, "washington journal" is next. at 10:00 our "newsmakers" interview. later, president obama talking about the iran nuclear agreement in a speech at american university. q&a," then c-span's " former emergency manager of detroit. >> if detroit had taken that $1.5 billion it filed in 2005 in 2006 when the stock market went down to 6700 and it just

invested in index fund, what ever, stock market is now trading at 18,000. they not only would have tripled their money, they would have paid the pensions in full and got back in the business of declaring the 13 check, the practice of giving pensioners a 13th check at the end of the year. it could have fixed itself that there had been some sort of sober management going for just like any organization. if you have some strong leadership and some focus leadership, you can resolve these problems, but it takes a lot of effort. >> tonight on c-span's " q&a." coming up on this morning's "washington journal," a look at the job numbers with chief economics writer ben councilman. the robert daley with wilson center who talks about u.s.-china relations ahead of next month's state visit by the

chinese president. and a discussion on policing and community relations a year after the events in ferguson, missouri, with former new york police officer eugene o'donnell. ♪ host: good morning. it's sunday, august the ninth. welcome to "washington journal." it has been exactly one year since michael brown's death in ferguson, missouri that sparked a nationwide protest movement and debate on race relations in america. this morning, the headlines focusing on this issue, and that is where we begin this morning. your calls and comments on ferguson, one year later. congress remains in recess. the president has begun his two-week vacation