grifters to enrich themselves and create a luxury travel service for themselves. secondarily, donald trump never went bankrupt. he used to bankruptcy laws in atlantic city. companies into bankruptcy, which is a completely legitimate financial technique. in all honesty, he saved himself hundreds of millions of dollars. that is the guy i want running the federal budget. somebody who is tough and smart and knows how to save money. i think it is not dumb. i think it is smart. bill clinton really is the last person in the world that should be commenting on responsibility. host: karen is next on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. nice to talk to you mr. stone.i am a strong supporter of donald trump . what caught my attention was

making america great again. some of us have lived in the america where we could do everything. there was not anything we could not do. unfortunately, either people have forgotten our america or they never lived in the can-do. all they hear is they cannot do this or cannot do that. it is too long or too confusing. everything is a down. we cannot do anything. what i admire about mr. trump and i pray he does get elected is because finally, we have somebody who loves america and wants to make her great again. go to the say we can moon and we went to the moon. we want to integrate and we integrated. we want to win world war i and world war ii and we won. we want to take care of our vets when they came out, and we did it. we built housing in hospitals and everything that we wanted to

do. unfortunately, today people have to come to certain places. they are too used to being told we cannot do anything. we are getting that again from even the republican party when they talk against trump. it is too expensive. how dare he think of a dream. how dare he have a dream to make america great again. this is exactly what the american heart wants. we want america again. we want to be able to be proud. we want to not make excuses for what we do. donald trump embodies everything that the american spirit is. i am so proud to be supporting him. i voted i am ashamed and embarrassed to say that i voted for obama. i do not vote already people. i vote for the person. i vote for the issue. at that time, i was blind and i thought we needed obama to

straighten out the bush problems. host: thank you for the call. we will respond. guest: the sad truth is the policies of the clintons and bushes and obamas are identical. i have come to the conclusion that after many years as a republican and a former republican national chairman, i had the privilege of working for three republican presidents, but the truth is the two parties have morphed into one party. it is a big government party. it is a big war party. it is the erosion of civil liberties party. it is the big debt party. it is the big spending party. , they try to rhetorically sound different, but they are jointly responsible for the decline of america. personally, i always wanted donald trump to run as an independent candidate so he can criticize both parties. i am happy he is running now as a republican, although he is

running against the republican establishment. he is still the outsider in this race.he puts his finger on it when he says our leaders are weak. we are in the position we are in because our leaders have been weak. they have made bad deals for the united states. they bought into the idea that we are a country in decline and things can only get worse. things cannot get better. no president has disagreed with that since the ronald reagan. i appreciate the caller's sentiments. i think she is typical of americans who are fed up and want this country to be great again. host: do think he has staying power moving into the fall and winter? caller: i do -- guest: i do. i think that is up to him. that it's been for the discussion of his economic plan. i am very optimistic about that. he will have to ultimately talk about his worldview. he has only laid out one set of policy and that is on

immigration, and that has dominated the political debate so far. the great thing about trump is he is always interesting. you never know what he is going to say. he is not scripted. as long as he is interesting to the voters, as long as he is engaging the voters in a way otherf the candidates can, he has staying power. this is a $100 million endeavor at a minimum in my opinion. when he files his financial disclosure form with the federal election commission, he shows he had a net worth south of $10 billion. more importantly, he had very little debt and $358 million worth of cash or cash equivalents. he has the money to do what is necessary. it is money with no strings on it. jeb bush has $100 million, but

that is wall street money. every dollar in that account as a string on it. donald trump is exactly right about that. host: as you might imagine, a lot of political junkies watch this network and work here. one of the questions everybody asked before we sat down to talk with you this morning is your tattoo. i want to ask you because you tweeted it out. is it real. if so, when did you get it? i actually have a tattoo of richard nixon on my back about the size of a pineapple. is equal distance between my shoulders. here is why i did it. is not an ideological statement. they said was a pragmatist. it is a dealer might or that in life when you have setbacks, when you get knocked down, when you face disappointment, when bleak, youhings are have to get back in the game.

he was an introvert and and at an extrovert's business. he opened the door to china and segregated public schools, reached arms-control agreements with the soviets, put money into the african-american community to develop black capitalism, the first real environmental protection that we needed. he was in many ways a great president despite his many problems and failures. it is a personal reminder. i got the tattoo, which is a good likeness of him, in california from a tattoo artist there at the ink monkey. i did a lot of research before i chose somebody to do the work. i saw a tattoo this particular artist had done for someone else.it was a tattoo of general patton .

it was a great likeness. i knew i found my man. it was very painful. it is a daily reminder that you need to have the same kind of resilience, the same kind of indestructibility as richard nixon. philosophically, i am more of a reagan republican. what i admire about nixon is his tenacity. to a very different and long career, he got knocked down repeatedly but he got back up. host: was richard nixon alive when you had the tattoo put on your back? it?o, did he see guest: unfortunately, he had already passed by the time i got the tattoo. i did it in remembrance of him. he was a good friend and mentor of mine. it was president nixon who introduced me to the reagan people and got me my job with president reagan. i worked on governor reagan's andpaigns in 1976, 1980,

1984. richard nixon gave me my start in politics, for which i will always be grateful. host: mr. >> and a gallon will de role of progressiveness in the 2016 presidential campaign. we will talk to adam the city, trade reporter with politico about the status of the transpacific trade deal. "washington journal," live each morning on c-span. >> the sudden death of president harding, vice president calvin coolidge takes office. grace coolidge was enormously popular as first lady and influence the taste of american

women by becoming a style icon. she never spoke to the press, but used her office to bring attention to issues she cared about. grace coolidge, this sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's original series "first ladies, influence and image." from martha washington to michelle obama, sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. this sunday night on "q&a," we talk about the book "the trouble with lawyers." it talks about the high cost of law schools and the like of diversity in the profession. >> we need a different model of legal education that includes one-year programs for people doing routine work, to your programs for those who want to

do something specialized, and three full years for people who want the full, general legal education that we have. it's crazy to train in the same way, number you was doing routine divorces in a small town in the midwest and somebody who was doing murders and -- doing mergers and acquisitions on wall street. we have a one-size-fits-all style that is extensive. the average debt for a law student is $100,000. it assumes that you can train everybody to do everything in the same way. i am licensed to practice in two states and i would not trust myself to do a routine divorce. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific. former british defense secretary

liam fox spoke the washington, d.c. about why he opposes the iran nuclear agreement. this is one hour. >> liam has been a frequent visitor for the past two decades, during which time he has worked hard to advance the relationship between the great -- between the united states and great britain. throughout his political career, dr. fox has been a conservative, dedicated to the principles of limited government, a strong national defense, and a robust transatlantic alliance.

he has been a member of parliament since 1992 and served as a defense secretary of the united kingdom from 2010-2011. he served as shadow health secretary, and cochairman of the conservative party. his most recent book discusses rising tides facing the challenges of a new era. today, he will address the greatest threat posed to the united states and its allies by the nuclear ambitions of iran. it is the largest exporter of state-sponsored terrorism. he will discuss the implication for the free world, following the agreement between the p5 plus 1 and iran indiana. please woke me -- please help me

in welcoming liam fox. liam fox: does a pleasure to be back here at heritage and particularly, to be talking about a subject that is dominant in the american idiot, but is most -- in the american media, but is almost absent in the u.k. media. for the sake of clarity, let me say on the outset that i think any deal that genuinely put the acquisitions beyond the reach of iran would be a good thing. it would be good for the region, global security. if iran were ever to achieve a objective it would start a destabilizing arms race in the region. before i turned to the deal itself, let me briefly talk about the background. the election of the iranian

president in june of 2013, was heralded by certain sections of a landmark moment. there was a government who we would be able to do business with, a government that would bring iran in from the cold. it called for caution from season iran observers were lost. wishful thinking prevails over political analysis. fast-forward to 2015. this become clear that the country has not changed direction. it was never going to and those who expect to change, fundamentally misunderstood the structure of iranian power. rouhani was destined to only ever have a limited influence in a state tom and aided by the supreme leader and revolutionary guard.

we've seen an amazing ability for consistency that western politicians can only dream of. he has never wavered in his contempt for the existence of the state of israel, for the united states, or his belief of the parity of the islamic revolution. critics are only half joking with they say he is more afraid of mcdonald's . nor has his administration brought any relief for the iranian people. in 2014, i read was the world leader in executions per capita. persecution of those who supported the green movement and their families continues relentlessly. the western media is curiously detached from, or even indifferent to, the plight of their repressed iranian colleagues.

iran remains a sponsor of state terrorism, providing financial, logistical, and material support to islamic terrorist groups across the region, including those who targeted british and american forces while they were in afghanistan. it is just not possible, nor is it responsible, to see the nuclear ambitions outside the context of its support for terror proxies. arguably, the defining element of its foreign policy. and, anxieties over the nuclear intentions are not in the realms of paranoia or fantasy. they are well-placed. iran's extensive nuclear program features many of the key components required to facilitate a domestic production of a nuclear weapon. possession of large quantities of enrich materials, knowledge to convert enriched materials into a weaponize to form, and

the plans to develop a delivery mechanism in the form of ballistic missiles. i hear many voices in washington say iran should be given the benefit of the doubt. let me say this. the country has a long history of clandestine nuclear work. two of the nuclear facilities, which are the center of the international community's concerns, were constructed secretly in a clear breach of the spirit and letter of their obligations under the npt. for years, they have used facilities to enrich uranium levels and quantities beyond those required for a legitimate and peaceful civil nuclear program. iran routinely neglects its obligations to cooperate with the iaea, including repeatedly denying inspectors access to

contentious nuclear related facilities. this facility is suspected of having undertaking tests related to triggers of nuclear weapons. it is logical to assume their intentions have been to develop nuclear weapons capability and some point in the future. anyone who claims the intentions are peaceful should not be regarded as credible. let's turn to the deal that has been agreed upon. in particular, let's measure it against the timescale set, the issue of sanctions and assets, and perhaps, their vacation. -- and verification. the original aim of the international community was to make sure they never have the ability to possess a nuclear

weapon. these original aims have morphed into a agreement with iran that merely puts the nuclear ambitions on hold in suspended ambitions on hold in suspended animation for 10 years. this all seems to be predicated on the belief that in this timeframe, internal change in iran will produce a government that will ultimately, laid the nation's nuclear ambitions to rest. with me give you two reasons why believe this is a dangerous gamble. the first is that there is no guarantee that there will be a change in their internal political position that produces a government more aligned with western, liberal values for politics. the second is that even amongst reformers, there is a belief that iran is not entitled to just a civil nuclear program, but to a nuclear deterrent. they will argue.

the reality of the arguments is not going to change. let's look at some of the other issues. on verification, anything other than totally unrestricted and unfettered access is unacceptable. we all know in the light of the iranian behavior of the past how they will manipulate any weakness in the terms of the iae a's access. yet, instead of a clear and unambiguous commitment to unfettered access, we have in this agreement, a bizarre committee structure. you can only get access to the committee when the iaea declares this as i -- declares a site as suspicious. this seems to me, the greatest surrender by the international community and the one we will

play a -- pay a very high price for. then we come to the listing of sanctions and the unfreezing of iranian assets. rather than a graduated lifting of sanctions as a reward for full cooperation on the implementation of the agreement, the p5 plus one has caved in completely to the supreme leader's demand that sanctions be lifted completely and immediately. likewise, the unfreezing of iranian assets seems to be a surrender to the demands of the regime. one of the more ridiculous arguments i have heard is that the money will not necessarily be available to iran because a substantial portion will be used to pay off the debts it already has. in other words, it is not real money. if someone paid off my bank overdraft, i would think it was real money.

i would be able to spend other money on something other than the debt repayment. the same holds i am afraid, for iran. we have also been told the money will not exacerbate the problem of hezbollah and their other proxies because they are alrea dy able to fund them with sanctions in place. my interpretation would be the exact opposite. if we regard them as a priority for funding one they are already tightly squeezed by financial sanctions, then they are likely to see them as prime candidates for extra funding when the synonymy of unfrozen assets -- when the tsunami of unfrozen assets hits them in the future. then, we go to the lifting of the arms embargo and the is to of -- and the issue of arms technology. the iranian supplied arms have been used against our armed forces directly in afghanistan and against our allies in the violent proxies supported by

iran. to make such a concession without any guarantees about any change of behavior by the region seems extraordinary to the point of being incomprehensible. likewise, the change in policy towards ballistic missile development in terms of ballistic missile technology, why would you want to develop a capability when you claim you have nothing to wish to deliver by such a system in the first place? all of these, taken together, seem to be the fulfillment of the iranian wishlist, rather than a negotiation to improve regional and global security. that does beg the question, why did such a deal take so long to negotiate? what congressional is given for this approach? we are told these measures will help iran become embedded in the international and economic order in a well they -- in a way that

will encourage reform. i would just like to point out that bringing russia into the g8 did not exactly make it less aggressive or expansionist. if anything, it said putin's pretensions. there is no guarantee that economic independence with the state will produce the desired promoter. -- desired behavior. after 1945, europe became much more economically interdependent and look how it has led to a prolonged. -- a prolonged time of peace.

>> russia has taught us an example of that. iran is another. the supreme leader has already said that while he supports the deal, he reiterates that the iranian government, is 180 degrees different. we are told that this deal had to be accepted because there was no other approach available. i simply do not believe this to be true. iran came to the table because sanctions were becoming an enormous burden economically to the extent that it was beginning to threaten political stability. maintaining sections until such time as i ran was willing to accept a tougher deal, more suitable to the p5 plus one, was certainly an option. it was not the option that was chosen. likewise, we are told that the snap back sanction is a solution to any flaws that might be contained within the agreement. this merits at the least,

extreme skepticism. once iranian assets are unfrozen and ancient lifted, iran will be able to make very rapid progress in seeking the partners needed to repair and update their infrastructure in both the civil and military fields. not only will the effectiveness be 10 chile of any subsequent sanctions be diminished with time, but western governments will faced increased pressure from their own interests once contracts have been signed, projects have been started and profits have been put at risk. we know that and the iranians know that. perhaps those of us who do not believe all of this are just being cynical. maybe there will be genuine logical change in iran by the time the 10 year envelope has passed. maybe any change will make them into a constructive partner in

the region and beyond. maybe iran will offer free and open access to international inspectors. maybe, they will be completely honest and transparent with us. maybe, they will follow their own religious scriptures that say developing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable. maybe they will not use the unfrozen assets to fund the proxies in the region in the way they have in the past. maybe, they will not try to manipulate the terms in the treaty. maybe they want some -- they won't utilize for breakouts. it is a lot of navies. -- it is a lot of mabye's. wishful thinking has prevailed over political analysis. we need to make the assessments

based upon how the world really is, not how they wanted to be. wishful thinking is a dangerous foreign policy and a potentially catastrophic security policy. let us hope that those of us who have these reservations and belief this is simply pushing a difficult problem down the line in order to gain political promise today, let us hope that we are wrong. i would not put much money on it. thank you. [applause] nigel: thank you very much for your terrific remarks. i would like to open the floor for questions. i would like to take the liberty of asking the first question. it is regarding the perception of the iran deal and the united kingdom. the obama administration has given the impression that outside of washington and

outside of israel that their is opposition to the deal. what is the situation on the ground in london at the moment? will the british government back the deal. i understand there are a number of mp's who are opposed to the deal. is there a prospect of a parliamentary debate taking place in the house of commons on the iran agreement? liam fox: it is rather extraordinary. i was aching to the excellence qqq it last night -- the excellence hewitt last night. there is a great deal of anxiety in the united kingdom and other european countries about the deal. it is quite wrong to portray it as having the full support across the political spectrum. before the deal was announced,

there was a debate in parliament. a very large number of my colleagues attended and spoke forcibly about the potential problems that it might create. we have had, because of the -- we have had little opportunity to discuss it. i would find it unlikely that there would be no parliamentary debate on the subject. it could also have been during our back benches time. our parliamentary timetable is not entirely determined by the executive. again, i just made the point that i am open with that it is extremely disappointing that this issue has had so little coverage in the british media. arriving in the united states, it is on every political

program. it is virtually absent from the political debate in the u.k.. that is something i intend to help put right. nigel: first question from the audience. >> i am a doctor of geography. my question is, if you compare this issue in the usa and the european union, do you find any difference? number one, number two. in this negotiation, do you think iran singularly outsmarted all of the other five layers? -- five players? what for the other options?

liam fox: i think there is this court over the agreement politically and europe. i think it has left more partisan that it has in the united states. that brings greater focus of it here as an issue. i think that the iranians, let's put it this way. look at the agreement itself and compare it to the initial demands and the iranian initial demand. look at who it ends up closer to. that to me, since the iranians managed to get a great deal of what they wanted. i am not sure we got what we wanted. i go back to the point that our original name was that iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. there is nothing to ensure that at the end of the 10 years, with the money they will have gained from the sale of oil and gas,

getting back into the global economy with the unfreezing of their assets and breakout capabilities, that they will not turn around and say, we have done the 10 year suspension. now we will build the weapon. at that point, we have left our self with nothing, except the reimplementation of sanctions. at that point, that will be much less of a threat to them than a is today. i think they have got more than we have, frankly. >> the third point is. what is the other option? liam fox: the other option is to continue with sanctions until i ran was willing to accept an agreement that is more foolproof. this idea that we had to somehow, in the summer of 2015

accept an agreement that we thought was at best, below expectations, let's put it that way, that we had to accept it right now, rather than can can you sanctions and seek we can get a deal from then later on the top why did have to be right now? why did we accept a deal well below what we initially asked for? i think the answer is that this was about politics more than it was about security. that is generally, in the longer term, not a good way to set priorities. liam fox: -- >> yes, hi. i want to complement you on saying it is about politics. i was at an unclassified briefing about the iran deal. we were talking about how the mainstream media has cap

information away from the general public and even more so, in the u.k. it was declassified a few years ago. that they did play a role in the bombing. if people knew that, they might be against the deal. i have heard that the mainstream media reviewed the report and are embarrassed. i don't know if what i heard was correct, but i would like to know, especially in the u.k., they are not having the dialogue. at least in america we are having the dialogue. i have heard that the deal is going to be pushed through. the issue is, it was monitoring the enrichment? people need to be educated and they cannot understand it because of the complexity. any comment you have, and i believe like you said, it is the mainstream media not reporting it and not educating the people. it is politics. thank you. liam fox: the book i wrote, which contains a large section on iran, and part of the problem

is that contemporary politics and political discussion as you rightly say, often has very little historical context around it. you would be hard-pressed to hear anyone talking about iran, pre-1979, it did not have any history. not a political circles. iran has a very sophisticated diplomatic capability. it always has. it has been very well known for running rings around over time. it has a very long record of involvement in all sorts of terror groups. and proxies in the region and beyond. you could get a copy of it. i do think that we need to educate our public much more.

i kind of liked it when i was practicing medicine, i was with say, when i had a real job. you do not simply come in and look at the blood, and make a diagnosis. you want to ask the patient about past history and family history. you want to know context. too much of our politics is discussed in two dimensions, rather than three. we need to put that right is one of the duties of politicians to educate, as well as make policy. >> thank you so much. thank you for the excellent talk. here, in the united states, some promote its of the deal have making -- have been making a lot of the 24 snapback. . it is no gradual way to address the potential cheating.

what is your take on, could you take, flesh out a little more how the provision is not particularly effective in bringing iran back to compliance with the terms of the agreement? liam fox: i think you put it very well because what happened in the agreement is, iran gets all of the rewards immediately. we are left with fewer and fewer potential sanctions. sure they not stick by the agreement. they get the unfreezing of the assets and sanctions very early on in the process. after that, when they have access to money, when they have access to western contracts and capabilities, to be able to bring their economy back up to shape and to repair their damaged infrastructure, what a sanctions are we going to be able to apply? if we are able to apply them , how effective will they be.

then we have the second problem that i mentioned. once the sanctions are lifted, once you have got western companies going into iran and doing business, it will be more and more difficult for democratic governments in the west to reapply sanctions, even if they are justified. i think we are making this very difficult for ourselves. we are loading this deal very heavily. on the iranian side, that is. we are leading -- leaving ourselves with too few options should iran go back to its old behavior of trying to manipulate the agreement and behaving in what i can most accurately described as an utterly un-transparent way. i think we should have done something quite different. iran against rewarded for maintaining clear if limitation of the deal and unfettered access.

they have to have a graduated process of having assets unfrozen and sanctions lifted. that, seems to me, to have been a much more sensible approach. it seems we have given everything away at the outset and it is all predicated on hope. we hope they will change. >> the gentleman here in the front. if you can identify your affiliation, that would be incredible. >> [inaudible]

iran has to answer to the iaea, but there is no deadline for that. in other words, all they have to do is to track of the time about an undeclared facilities. the 24 days will turn into years. [indiscernible] liam fox: yes, and this as you

say in the news, a developing story. the news becomes more substantial about the picture and the details. there will be greater public anxiety about this deal. that is why i think we need to start a genuine public debate, not about how iran is bad and the west is good, but focus on what it says and what the implications of it will be. and how we will operate under the most adverse circumstances, not the most optimal circumstances. that is the debate we need to get into. the points you have made are extremely valid in that. >> thank you for a excellent speech. i am an associate of the middle east forum. i have a very personal interest.

if we do not have america, i would have perished. i am looking at the situation from the perspective of the iranians and the islamic people i had to study for years. i am not muslim, i do not adhere to it in any way. this treaty satisfies every single role, and according to the jurisprudence of treaties, this treaty is a temporary truce. limitations of it in 10 years. after the 10 years, a muslim ruler is obligated, and limited to, a violent attack and raging war against the nation. either the nation they have the

treaty with, or its allies, that is what it explicit the says -- it explicitly says. otherwise, the ruler would not be legitimate anymore. i don't think it satisfies every law --i don't think they would sacrifice their will to satisfy the united states or the west. my question is, is this taken into consideration of the political discourse in europe, or in the united states of america, how the iranians are looking at it and the implications of it if iran does in fact, act upon his promise of "death to america and, just to israel?" liam fox: i will not even

attempt to get into issues of iranian politics. i think what is very clear is that the mindset from the west, and coming to the agreement is, chances are with a young population it will become much more liberal. the regime we we know -- the region we know will be fundamentally altered. the whole agreement is predicated on the fact that at the 10 year mark, iran will not be the same threat regionally or globally that we see it as being today. i can see, circumstances in which the successor is actually more fundamentalist than he is.

i don't think there is anything at all that suggest that any change will necessarily be more liberal and more pro-western. i think this is a dangerous gamble. i think, to try to guess what the world will look like, what any country will look like in a decade's time, and base a security policy on it is really, placing too much value on hope over experience. >> what about israel? what about the threat to israel? because of the deal. liam fox: clearly, iran as a nuclear state poses an existential threat to israel. i think we need to understand the implications for regional

security as a whole and global implications as well. it is extremely important, it is of great importance to see the threat it poses to israel in particular, we should understand the implications for more widely of iran the able to get a nuclear weapon capability. it is not simply iran getting a nuclear weapon capability and the threat it poses to israel. it is what it would trigger. in no time at all you can bet he will be in an arms race. saudi will want a nuclear weapon, egypt will want a nuclear weapon, turkey would want to get a nuclear weapon will sto. all that we did at the end of the cold war to prevent proliferation, we don't want to leave to the next generation a new nuclear arms race in the

most unstable region of the world. we want something more than that. i am the first to say, any agreements that stops iran from getting a nuclear we been, -- nuclear weapon, generally stops them, i am for. i don't think this agreement gives us the guarantees that we need. i am almost sent to not be supporting it. i think, you have to be realistic and policy. as i said, which will thinking is not a good basis for national security, or the security of our allies. >> hello, andrew overton. i work at the british embassy, i know i do not sound like it. i appreciate your comments greatly. i wanted to push back a bit on a couple points you made about sanctions full u.

the deal says they will only be lifted after the iaea have verified certain restrictions. the british secretary is very clear that he will snap back pensions -- snap back sanctions. the alternative would be more sanctions to presumably get iran back to the negotiating table. do you really think china, russia, and the other p5, will sign up for more sanctions? do you think they would return to the negotiating table? liam fox: my point was that we did not have to have an agreement now. iran was becoming more complaint because of the sanctions we were already having. weeden option to continue with the sanctions until such time iran was willing to accept an agreement to our liking. we decided not to do that will

stop it will leave that open for debate. i think that, if you look at the difficulty that there often is, when sanctions are being applied, in the timescale ahead, i think i made the point. will sanctions have equal impact once iran has had a lifting of the restrictions to the present time and the everything of the financial assets? will sanctions be as effective in the future? and secondly, will western, and other governments, be willing to reapply sanctions when we have large financial investments that we do not have at the present time? democratic governments come under pressure so that the chinese government comes under. when you have large industrial interests, able to make profits

from an open top iran, there will be a will not to close it down again. that is a reality of what happens in western politics. we need to accept that. the snap back argument, that it will happen very quickly or easily, we have to question that will stop i do not believe it to be true. >> it is hard to imagine the russians and chinese supporting the real position of the un security council sanctions. at least with the russians supplying weapons. in a very close relationship between moscow and them. liam fox: i think it has been overplayed because i do think there is a real danger that some of the players that are required to make sanctions, would be a lot more unwilling in the future

than they have been in the past. added to that, the point i made to the gentleman from the british embassy is that the democratic western government will have different pressures of life to them because of their industrial and commercial interest. it is not as clear, as it is being portrayed. liam fox: at the moment, i do not think it's likely. you can never will anything out.

if you at instability into an already unstable region, who knows what the final outcome and implication will be. it is impossible to say, but i think it would be unwise for anyone to rule out that there might be a potential military response at some point in the future by israel due to what they perceive as an increasing risk to their national security. >> thank you for your speech. recent polls show that americans do not approve of the treaty. another recent poll shows that british people have been more enthusiastic towards the treaty. what is it that this disapproval towards the treaty on these polls is not out in the media? liam fox: one of the things i am never answering for is the behavior of the media.

i am internally grateful for that. it is interesting however, first of all there is the death -- the discrepancy between the two. the american population are less inclined to support the deal that the british population. i've not seen these polls, but i have no reason to doubt what to say. what is the difference between the two? there has been more debate about it in the united states. that to me, sounds a great deal like, the more people know about it, the less they like it. the answer to the conundrum in the united kingdom is to open up the debate. try to get articles into the british press on this is extremely difficult. the of session in europe is very different. the of session in the middle east is the migrant crisis, and not iran. it is part of a continuum and does need to be debated in greater detail. one of the reasons i am here

today is to try and get the debate opened up in the united kingdom. it is extremely department -- it is extremely important that we do so. just because people do not want to hear something, does not mean politicians should not say it. >> could you comment on the migrant crisis in europe? the number one political issue across the mid-atlantic. how is that related to the current situation in the middle east with syria? could you address how europe is responding to this crisis, and what needs to be done for the big picture? liam fox: first of all, i would differentiate between economic migrants coming from all over the region to try and get work and better living conditions by

being in europe. that is understandable, but we are not simply there to be the recipient for everybody who was a better life. i draw distinctions between those people and those poor souls who are fleeing one of the most cruel and vicious organizations, isis, that we have seen in a long time. it is pitiful to watch them trying to bring their children, not just to a place where they can get for money, but to a place where they can be safe will stop our failure to act in syria is coming home to roost. we need to set up a safe zone. the needs to be secure zone in syria where people can live without fear of beheadings and crucifixions and cruelty and gang rape and the other things we have seen from isis. that'll require, at some point,

if you want to stem the flow of these poor people trying to escape this, we will need to have military action, a no-fly zone, and a protected element inside syria will stop otherwise, the flow will continue. there is no point in simply saying we will not allow people to cross the borders. we need to deal with the cause of the problem, and not simply the symptoms. the longer we wait, the longer the cost, in terms of human suffering, will rise. >> let me add this one thought. not acting is a policy. not acting is a choice. not acting brings its own consequences. you have do with the cost of action -- you have to weigh the cost of action against the cost of inaction. her many people across the political spectrum, the cost of

inaction is rising too high. >> could you comment on how you see the debate moving about british military action in syria. what needs to be done exactly, with regards to military action, against isis? liam fox: there is been confusion between the response to the use of chemical weapons by syria and military action against isis. it seems absurd to me that we accept that it is ok to carry out military strikes against isis in iran, but not in syria. they are either a threat to your national security or not. and if they are, you have to deal with it.

a nonexistent border in the sand should be an extraction -- should be an obstruction. it just leaves me speechless. what we require to do is something else.

discussion i had in the palace. why was it -- during the cold war, that we were willing to use the word better. that democracy was better. that freedom was better. i happen to believe that religious tolerance is better than forced orthodoxy. i believe treating women as equal citizens is better than second-class. i believe that the values we hold our better than the alternatives put forward by the islamists. when i made the argument, the answer was this -- i don't think we can say better. just a different. if we only believe that what we stand for is different, and not better than the alternatives, we ourselves will not have the moral courage to do what we believe is right, and we will

not have the moral authority internationally to do so. it is time in the west, that we stop using different, and started using better. we can start seeing the information revolution not as a threat, but as an opportunity to propagate those values that made us what we are. it is time to say that countries like the united states, the united kingdom, australia, canada -- we are not who we are by accident, we are by design. it is time to get back to the values argument. that values argument is just as important in the long term in al-shabaab,is, or or whatever the subsequent threat might be. over the all too easy military response.

this requires a fight by our whole society and not just the military. for youryou very much excellent speech, and for bringing us up to date. my big concern is that this document is just peace at any price. the peace we get is a piece of blank paper, and the price we pay is our future. it seems to me that, what we really need is to go back to peace through strength. we need a lesson in history, that in 1979, the hostages were released when the political side was going along and going along. will move when they think they have the best deal. when did they let them go? right at the inaugural. when the former president took off, and ronald reagan, with

whom they were not sure what he would do as the cowboy. that is when we got peace through strength. that is what we need today. peace through strength. in addition, i have another concern. is this going to get full diplomatic authority? or are we going to have limitations? re: getting back there and the sea here -- are we going to give back there embassy here too? it is a very crucial location. 1979, been vacant since except when it was used by the state department. bridgeust across the from the italians, resilience and all of the other embassies brazilians, and all

of the other embassies. that would be a perfect center for mischief. i don't know if anyone has brought that up. >> i guess the aim is to see greater and greater normalization in relations with iran. that is not a bad thing, but it has to be earned. to give all of these things, at the beginning of the process, before they have been earned, before they have shown they are willing to implement the agreement themselves, seems a touch naive. >> [inaudible] mr. fox: as i described it, the west have a policy where wishful thinking trumps political analysis. russia launched a cyber attack

on estonia, we didn't do anything. the invaded georgia. they are still there. and our response was minimal. the last time i was here in washington, one of the u.s. senators, i will not name them, said i am worried that putin is misreading the signals from the west. i said -- putin is perfectly reading the signals from the west. he acts, we don't respond. what is difficult to read about that? >> thank you again for your remarks, dr. fox. it seems like the democrats and the u.s. are going to filibuster, and the deal will be implanted. what are the steps -- will be

implemented. what are the steps going forward ? fox: it looks like the agreement will go ahead. with its termsck and all of the risks that are inherent in it. what we will have to do is to ensure that the rights of access by the iaea are fully upheld, and that these stalling techniques that we have seen in the past, are not allowed to buy them extra time. is not anreakout accurate figure. i think it is more like 7-8 months. there are so many risks in this process, that i generally find

it hard to be optimistic. i think we will be sadly limited with what levers we have to pull, if our anxieties grow over the years ahead. this was brought out in the house of commons. -- hereign secretary said thought it had the potential to be a historic agreement. but he said, with all due respect, history will determine if it is an historic agreement. a generic lesson for all politicians in that moment. >> on the if you -- issue of refugees, the vast majority in syria were not caused by isis, assad. shouldn't thes,

kind of action you propose be brought against isis and syria? fox: i'm not going to get into the complexities of syria, except to say this -- it has been the movement of isis, that has caused in recent times, this mass movement of refugees. you are quite right that the civil war was already causing instability, and this is instability upon instability. it is not just the refugees coming to europe, i was recently in turkey. no one seems to be mentioning that the turks have seen potentially 2 million people crossing the reporter as refugees. that is a huge problem for any country. we know what isis are capable

of. we have seen what they have been doing. we have seen their animal behavior toward fellow human beings in the name of so-called religion. at some point we have to raise our game. isis is notikes on going to be enough. it is not giving the civilian population the safety that they require. i go back to my early point. achieve we were able to no-fly zones, zones of safety so that people could live without fear in their own country. we will have to do something similar again. i know that we do not want to do it, and i know that public opinion may not be in favor of doing it, but if we only want to have the policies that are already accepted by the public, what we give up and let the

pollsters run the country. politics is about leading, not just reflecting public opinion. >> the last two questions. from this gentleman here. you touched the base a little bit, where can we go from here? what can we do about it? be approved byo the senate. a 34th senator has agreed to the deal. not much the senate can do. deal, i the iranian think it is going through. that's it. this deal is going to be a reality, and we are going to have to work out what maneuver we have within the terms of this

agreement. we have to hope that people like me are wrong, and very wrong. if we are right, even half right, we have not got a lot of levers to pull should iran change its behavior. in a direction that does not shoot -- suit security interests. thank you very much. , [indiscernible] if they were allowed to continue still, they were getting close to developing a nuclear weapon. -- better to stall

the process. what is your view? fox: i understand the desire to get an agreement. as i said at the beginning, any agreement that stopped iran getting access to a nuclear weapon capability, would have to be welcomed the cause it would reduce the threats to the region and beyond. to go back to, your earlier question, who got the most of what they wanted? is it closer to the iranians starting position or our starting position? one,is, one -- in the this the winner is pretty clear. >> i would like to thank liam fox for a terrific presentation

today. a very engaging q&a session. been a huge number of questions remaining with regard to the a ran nuclear deal -- iran nuclear deal. think it is an extremely dangerous deal that will undercut the security of america, britain and its allies across the world. we hope that you will join us in the coming months, and we wish you all the best as well with the reconvening of the house of commons next week. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> we will have more on the iran nuclear agreement friday with a panel of analysts and diplomats.

you can watch that life at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> this labor day weekend, a full day of special programs on c-span. here are a few of the features beginning at 10:00 a.m. et. seattleall event in discusses the pros and cons of big data and civil liberties. later, a debate on how to reduce poverty between president obama and the president of the american enterprise institute. later, former president bill clinton and george w bush on leadership skills. tv, we ares book live with the 15th annual national book festival. tor opportunity to talk

david mccullough, buzz aldrin and others. sunday at noon, a live conversation on " in-depth." lynne cheney will take your phone calls, e-mails and tweets. later on on "after words," catherine eden -- kathryn edin talks about -- on monday, erik loomis and others share their thoughts on social and political issues. saturday evening at 8:00 on "lectures in history," lisa brady explains how the chemical agents used in the korean and vietnam wars created permanent damage to people and the environment. americat 4:00, on "reel

," the 1958 film "crowded out." and on labor day monday, our interview with david rubenstein. get our complete schedule on c-span.org. ambassador to's the u.s. took part in a panel discussion about the future of his country. they discussed efforts to fight isis and other extremists. he took questions from the audience at the center or strategic and international study in washington, d.c.. this is one hour 20 minutes. good afternoon, welcome. when i was talking to the ambassador a few weeks ago i

said -- it is before labor day i don't know if we can get an audience but we will try. i'm glad that you are all here. welcome look month faily -- lukman faily. prior to that he was the iraq's ambassador to japan. he spent many years in the u.k. as a technology consultant he has a bachelor of science and math and computer science from the metropolitan university. you -- give

i give you ambassador look month faily -- ambassador look month faily -- ambassador lukman fai ly. [applause] ambsdr. faily: thank you for the kind introduction and allowing an opportunity at such an important time to talk a lot the country and to have an honest and fruitful discussion. me -- also asked me to talk about where iraq is headed. i will discuss where it is headed on the political front,

military front and regional and international damage. refute ay to defeat -- few false ideas that are distorting america's understanding of iraq. i want to make one important point. the only way we can defeat isis, isil, i.s. -- whatever name you like, is to strengthen ties and along thentry federal arrangements in line with our constitution which all communities in iraq voted for.

other courses of action lead to division, and defeat. future, that this divide and conquer strategy was for iraq. evereighbors must never, accept the division for iraqi. iraq, and must never accept a three-state solution for iraq. recent events have demonstrated that, iraq is not irrevocably divided along ethnic or sectarian lines. this is the first myth that i will refute this afternoon. , for all of the discontent and differences, iraqizs want to succeed.

this was apparent during what could have been polarizing the summer. theset the images from events. you will see a sea of iraqi flags. no other flags. revolution.t want a the unity oform, iraq, the inclusiveness of our effectiveness the of our government that is not hamstrung by corruption or sectarianism. understanding that is all too rare in the middle east, the protesters and our government both want to unite our country and uphold the rule

of law. security forces were deployed to protect the protesters, rather than suppress them. police weresions, seen distributing bottles of water to protesters, and even sometimes joining them in their chance. -- chants. this dynamic represents a paradigm shift that is representative of the new iraq. question whether life was better under saddam hussein, should think back to how this man would have responded to even suspicions of dissent. let me address the third issue. development on our democratic a lyrical front.

political front. after three elections and the peaceful transition of power. with the support of protesters, the initial approval of parliament, and the backing of others. the primus to has a democratic and popular mandate -- the prime minister has a democratic and popular mandate. is streamlining itself, eliminating costly positions and divisive sectarian quarters. we are centralizing decision-making to the provisional level so that local communities can determine their losses as they are most needed. worsened by the

--eaucratic we are investing in all our agricultural, industrial and housing sectors. last week, the capital approved a capital injection in the sectors worth $4.3 billion. i need to dispel another myth, that abolishing the sectarian quota systems will underline the rights of minorities. this is a coalition government. representing every major sector, and area in iraq. we do not yet have an opposition party within the parliament. all parties are represented in the capital. national unity requires an

effective as well as inclusive government. whatever their religious honest, iraqis want an effective and law-abiding government. restoration is unifying and not divisive. iraq, ouro unify government has stepped forward from a framework of national reconciliation. andeek a comprehensive historic settlement between tory segment of our society, save our country from the prospect of civil war. our national reconciliation framework is built upon three pillars. the constitution. political agreements through the major political blocs that support the prime minister, and

the government program approved by parliament. these are the basic principles. our societyolder in must be committed to national unity, and rule of law. must accept the results of democratic process. everyone must reject dictatorship, sectarianism and the use of boms to extract political confession. everyone must respect each other and each other's basic human rights. iraqis also deserve security forces that can protect our people from the barbarism of -- our security forces must be clenched -- cleansed of corruption while respecting the populations they respect -- protect.

working on improving our soldiers on the military payroll. the government seeks to create a national guard, mandated by local -- manned by local citizens, protecting their communities. draftsent is working on of this as we speak. tremulous, but we have to go through the democratic process if we are to stand the test of time. we are determined to train and equip more local people to protect themselves and their neighborhood. this will make our society more democratic, stable and secure.

democracy enhances stability. stability enhances security. say we mustose who choose between democracy on one hand, and stability and security on the other. that wea false choice must move way beyond. this brings me to my second topic, the development on the military and security front. they committed to taking back every inch on our territory, and liberating every segment of our society from dash. we are dependent not to coexist one extra second with dash. that is the determination of the people, not to cope or will exist. -- coexist.

coordination with airstrikes and all other support we have in getting from our coalition partners. we're working with our security forces and the kurdish on a number of fronts. it is becoming increasingly difficult.

they're the most effective means of responding. we are in short supply and at byes our troops are over one the counterattacks. ahead,e have a long road we can be encouraged that towns are being liberated. many local residents feel safe. from tikrit have returned to their home since we liberated it back in march. individuals have been able to return to their homes. however, this only represents 10% of individuals who have been displaced.

the scale of this humanity tragedy should remind us of the daunting dimensions of the challenges that will come from the iraqi government included the kurdish region. my third point. iraq it on the forefront of the struggle. , resolutionsions recognize that it is a global network with global finances and global recruitment. these transnational terrorists threaten every country in the middle east and around the world. therefore, all the countries under binding commitment chapter seven of the charter to

do their part to defeat them. developmenttive that the united states and founded the center in abu dhabi. they can mitigate on digital media and other areas. we need to counter their messages with truth. it speaks to the soul of the potential recruiters. this will better communicate messaging between the military and civilian components of the coalition. itself, wefinances also need to work together to stop these resources from

financial transfers to sexual slavery. as we look toward reconstruction, the u.s. can continue to help us stabilize iraq. it can provide us with technical assistance and improve our public services. together, we can address these challenges on the home front, and the regional fronts. together, we can build a stable iraq in the middle east. review thee can sacrifices that iraqis have made over the past twelve years.

you for the up dirty of letting me share my thoughts with you. -- the opportunity of letting me share my thoughts with you. [applause] >> thank you very much for those comments. expertsow joined by two who i will introduce. he is the director of the middle east for north africa. her several years he is, to my mind, one of the shrewdest rising stars and middle east analysis. say if you want to hear that you have to pay. this is a teaser. you were just in iraq, what is

the political environment? we heard about a changed mode of protesting. people having a different relationship to authority, how would you characterize where the politics are right now? >> the little green light needs to be on. from the top. >> i think, john, we're in the a failede it is either or successful entity. iraqis feel very much like an experiment. feeling i got thought the country is that there is no

discussion about what this represents or what it should be. there was an idea that we in washington sometimes are a divided nation. iraq is trying to figure out in itself but the relationship should be and how it should treat its neighbors and how to redefine its identity. thing that i think we should islooking at every clearly the usb encouraging the process forward. we moment we encourage, begin to risk discovering a new process that needs reconciliation. fight around that requires that process to move

forward. that is really my broader viewpoint. you just brought a perfect segue. fellow at the washington institute. if you are looking for someone that really understands isis. how the organization exhibit governance, it's a goals, erin is your guy. i'm delighted you could join us. where does this stand in the goals within iraq members. way non >> for the islamic state they

don't really care what is going on in baghdad right now. they aren't worried about what the kurds are doing. their focus primarily on their is inojects whether it terms of suppressing anyone coming against them or trying to turn industries back to working again. this is one of the things we are seeing in terms of what they want to show to the world. of course it is more complicated than that, for example, if you look at their health tryingtration they are to put up this message that they can provide services for people, but if you look at the , they aretive backing looking for doctors to be able to work there and telling doctors leaving that if they leave they will shoot in their

homes. there was a different picture depending on what you are looking at. the propaganda and the ministry of documents showing different picture. while they definitely have a control it is really through terror and authoritarian methods and not necessarily the local peoples will to want them to stay there. sunii population is winnable? the there is a segment of the population that would be willing to go on board with it, but at the same time, i think they need to feel dislodged that they have high in in baghdad -- assuaged they have buy in. there was discussion about how these sunni would he brought into the government.

once the u.s. last, a lot of these things did not actually occur and it left to grievances which led then to the protest movement in the summer 2012 which then eventually led to the islamic state piggybacking off of this issue in december 2013 when the protest camp in ramadi was destroyed. chain reactionf in the community. if they can get the assurances that they can be part of this broader project, i think they would be willing, but i think there is still some skepticism even if they do not really necessary like the islamist state. you referred to the u.s. and certainly one of the things we continue to hear about is the role of outside parties stirring , whatt, iranian influence

are the constructive things you think foreign parties can do to try to promote internal reconciliation? pointsdor: there are two to that question. you have the political process internally which is to do the project in the making. that depends between the politics and the internal and you have to fight against isis. we certainly nature mende support in controlling the border, so our neighbors should project in, for example, stopping the jihadists coming from north africa, going straight to syria and iraq. coming from some of the gulf countries. they have to deal with that also. stabilizingt issue, from a security perspective and the fight against them.

for the i reckon syrians say, this is some ring we ask everybody. problem. global then you have the political stability and iraq. how do this order? specifically after the fall of mosul, they have more or less supported each other in that discussion. we now have a much clearer understanding of what turkey can do for internal politics, what jordan has been able to do and others as well. to that effect, i think we are understandingter with less involvement of our internal affairs and more toward stability of the country. that's a good sign. also also mature --

have also matured. your neighbors are there regardless of who can support you from outside. developing in the right direction, but in the fight against isis, i still think we need a lot of some work. >> are you finding that some parties think that isis can be iranianressure against influence in iraq and can help pursue the kind of political the left her words? ambassador: when you say isis is similar to the taliban in afghanistan we can see what it has led to which is a glass -- a lack of aggression against the to be a we do not want copycat of that situation. we want the fight against isis for their sake and our sake, the

stability of their region and the globe. i think we are looking for a more responsive, mature reflection of what has taken place and we do not want our neighbors hands to be burned by the lack of engagement in the fight against isis. >> when you hear in the middle east when you travel we don't want isis to win but we also iranians to win iraq completely. is that something you hear? >> to a certain extent isis is viewed as a useful tool in checking iranian influence especially in this environment. viewed as an extension of an iranian sphere of influence. that is definitely far from true, but it is still treated as such area that goes for the

iraqi theater and the syrian one. wantsunate way, neither iraq to emerge as a strong state. iran still views iraq as a week meant to be attached to it or aligned to it as favorable to a stronger iran. saudi arabia definitely does not the iraqi democratic experience to fully prosper. i do not think the saudis have ever made a strategic decision to reach some form of a deal iraq as an arab state with a new system. that has not been done before and i do not know if it will be done in the future. >> can i had a small point here? it's important to look at isis as a global problem. contributed to their

strengths, however when you have a problem in north africa or chechnya and's, chinese, north americans joining isis that is nothing to do with internal politics but the global issues which needs a global solution like global warming. i think that's what's important for our audience to appreciate also. iraqi politics internal you can help as much as you can regardless how much you help, you have a global phenomenon which you need to get control of area in that is something i think we are may be missing. >> when people report on foreign fighters, we hear a lot about foreign fighters in syria but we do not hear a lot about them in iraq. the we keep hearing is that

loyalists are growing beards and putting on different uniforms. s your beard at all. [laughter] is there something different and iraq aseration it operates in syria? the vast majority of foreign fighters are based in syria. we do see foreign fighters and iraq as well but they are not really involved in the administration of the areas they are controlling. the foreign fighters are primarily used as an aside iraqi context. they are more used in terms of the administration. just yesterday there was a and others involved in a suicide bombing in iraq. at least that's what it was about. there's a difference in that

context. to think about, also, is this organization while many people began to pay attention to it again after the l, they have had a presence nonstop since 2002 or 2003 windsor cowley -- when z arkawi came. they have a lot more history as well as connections. there's a lot of local ties in the iraqi context. in syria, the organization of self really did not start to get a foothold until april 2013 when out that daddy put out his statement saying they were going inside syria -- when al-baghdadi his s it is at larger challenge very of thosea are some oft the basice elements in terms of the differences. ment. of the differences.

you constrained against everything the government of iraq is trying to do including being inclusive of groups who feel they do not have a share of the pie. if the highest ranking, it's hard to get about more shares of a shrinking pie. how does that affect all of the things you are talking about including the problem of national unity as we have seen more and more the kurdish region --iraq is going it's more going more its own way? use money: we try to as an attachment of the politics. that also increases corruption and other types of mismanagement or bad governance of our institutions. osul, now wef mus

have said that this is not sustainable and we cannot proceed with such a strategy of only enticing people with financial ways. by the way, the majority of enticement is important for all of the communities. from that effect, i think we have learned and now the prime minister has said he has a mandate to reform and also to start new areas of looking for revenue such as government ons, investments, and others. to that effect, iraq has done to policies change in its in relation to funds and external financial support with the world bank and others as well. i take your point and i agree with it that we need to be very careful so as to not alienate

people because we're saying to them we have not got the money to restructure schools and others. allies areect, the working on what they call post-destabilization projects. from theeat support gulf state countries. putting your money wherever you have been talking about marginalization. >> how's it going? ambassador: not exactly how we wanted. this is an area of frustration, by the way. who is supporting you at the them with thed shotgun of isis next year head? that neighbors are saying they are conditional and their support. what you have to do then, would you want conditional support or

open-ended? that's the problem we have. what is the mood there? how is the situation on the ground far away from baghdad? different from the strategy in baghdad? >> on the isis front, things are going well. we have coherent operations by the peshmerga. we're seeing clearer signs of the kurdish entity about what to and what relationship it has with turkey, iran, and officials in baghdad. extension of the the term for the next two years, or potential extension, is it is.shows where they have disagreements and there is a real political debate

around how to function either within iraq or otherwise. theink that it this stage u.s. can actually help in creating more unity between the --dish parties and currying encouraging reform because it does need reform. uniting the peshmerga and toouraging kurdish parties have a broader dialogue internally and with officials in baghdad. the solution thus far as been to mostly blame the central government for problems they face. as we begin to have a broader discussion of what needs to be done, kurdistan will probably move forward as a democratic process moves forward there. >> given what we've seen opinion itls in the kurdish areas suggests overwhelming support for independence from iraq.

live this sort of reform democratic process make it harder to keep iraq as a whole together? >> i think it's difficult for anyone to say they are against independence for but there are the opinions of when you get there, in what form, and what sort of relationship do you have with the rest of iraq? there are disagreements when it comes to that. some favor an incremental process that keeps baghdad closer. eventually these are their neighbors and you need to deal them in this story. what needs to be done is i think encouraging that debate between angora, tehran, and kurdish officials. certainly reforming these institutions is key. reforming the government housing

a process that is much more representative is key to having a more stable kurdistan be that an entity formerly within iraq or independent. >> the peshmerga have been some of the most effective fighters that it seems principally focused on iranian influence. wayhere a change in the they are talking about kurdish fighters, battling kurds as this battle unfolds? just like the iranians or any other entity, they view them as an enemy. they are using different types of derogatory terms for kurds as they do with other groups of i think they realize that they are not going to be able to push any further north at least in the iraqi context where the kurds have been able

to hold the line since the u.s. coalition started doing things one year ago. therefore, they are focused more on the broader sectarian issue as it is in more play as a result, you see more fighting in that regard instead of them trying to push back into northern iraq. the same time, that does not mean there is not an opportunity . every once in a while there will be a suicide bombing that peeks through in kurdistan. for the islamic states, expand this, imperialists, nothing is out of town for them. >> you mentioned the reliable who was also door thought to have a whole series forces to the popular

that is accused of being a sectarian militia attacking sunnis. what is the strategy for a genuine, capable iraq in national army that does not rely on foreign training, foreign funding, sectarian education, those kinds of things? how to get from where we are today to where you'd like to be? ambassador: we talk about the restructuring. that includes after the fall of mosul, there has been and will continue to be significant restructuring. this moment, the endgame is still not complete. we need to understand what we need to protect and therefore how should our army structuring be? we are looking at that whether it is order, internal, so on. we also have national legislation that are important

project. it's very careful handling politically and structurally as to who they report to. we do not want to create and fund local politicians to have their own forces and national guard. we know thatime, the majority of those people who have joined the cause are doing this just because of the call for the protection of their country. they are less ideological and more nationalistic. they are also not looking to be permanent members of these military setups about want to do it just for the sake of liberating their towns and then going back to their jobs are us to create opportunities. theret context, i think is a fear in washington and overselling of this issue of

ideologically attaching people. the numbers do not represent all of them. that is who we named, but at the same time they are iraqis who wanted when there country and they may have some ideological differences. not take away from their protection. blocs in aolitical power that do represent them as well so we are talking about a democratic process taking shape there. >> when we talk about the making, i do not think anyone has an idea of what the endgame should be like. this and others but to that effect to the main objective is making sure that he is commander in chief. into crypt -- in