confront the iraqi government, including the kurdish region as we defeat dayish -- da' ish, and that leads me to my third point, the challenge under the regional and international front. iraq is on the forefront of the struggle in the fight against da' ish but as u.n. security council resolutions 2170 and 2199 recognize they are a global network with global finances and global recruitment. . these terrorists threaten every country in the middle east, around the world and therefore all the countries in the region have a binding commitment and the chapter seven of the united nations charter to do their part to defeat da'ish. it's a very positive development that the united states and u.a.e. and other

coalition countries have founded a center in abu dhabi on digital media and other platforms. we need more nations to participate in this communication effort and better coordinate messages between the military and civilian components of the coalition. because da'ish finances itself by laundering money and human traffering and other methods of -- trafficking and other methods of income. we also need to work together to stop these resources of support from financial transfers to sexual slavery.

as we look towards national reconciliation and reconstruction, the united states and other coalition countries can continue to help us stabilize iraq. we can provide -- you can provide us with technical assistance in streamlining our government, rooting out corruption including our public services and restoring our infrastructure. together, we can address these challenges on the home front and battle front and the regional and international fronts. together we can build a secure and stable iraq in the middle east where the transnational terrorists have been defeated nce and for all and forever. together we can renew the sacrifices that iraqis, americans and others have made over the past 12 years. thank you, again, for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts with you. thank you. [applause]

>> mr. ambassador, thank you very much for those comments. we're now joined with -- by two experts who i will introduce as i asked them to speak. director for middle east and north africa. i have been speaking for is in years now, ayham my mind the shrewdest person in the middle east business. i don't think he gets out a lot because often his bosses say if you want to hear ayham, you have to pay. this is a teaser. ayham has gone back and forth in the middle east. was just in iraq. what is the political environment? we heard the ambassador describe the perspective

environment. we heard about a changed mode of protest. people -- people have different relationship to authority. how would you characterize where the politics are right now? yham: so i think, jon -- jon: the little green light needs to be on. travis, i need -- ayham: jon, we're still in an area we're treating iraq as either a failed process or a failed entity or successful entity. and iraq is still very much an environment. -- experiment. one, i think the feeling i got throughout the country is that there is discussion about what the state represents, what it should be. and the idea that we in washington sometimes see as a

divided nation that wants and should be split into three entities is in fact not there. in many respects. iraq is still trying to figure out in itself what the relationship should be between the communities, how it should treat its neighbors, how to redefine its identity, both in terms of its relationship with iran, the u.s. and its arab partners. one thing that i think we should be looking at very clearly is the u.s. should be encouraging that process forward. the more that we encourage reform, encourage the iraqis to begin to risk discover a new process that reaps reconciliation as thed a bam doss war mentions, i -- ambassador mentioned, i think iraq would be stable. that's my -- really my broad viewpoint on where iraq is today. jon: thank you. and you just mentioned da'ish

which is a perfect segue to aaron. the bar fellow at the washington institute. if you're looking for somebody in washington who really understands isis and isn't just going on what they read other people saying about isis but reads the propaganda that comes out, understands the organization, how the organization thinks about governance, how it thinks about its goals and articulates them, aaron is your guy. i'm delighted you could join us. where does this stand in the process both of da'ish's goals within iraq and the way non-da'ish members of the sunni community in iraq see both the da'ish project and the project the ambassador was just describing? aaron: yeah, for the islamic state, they don't really care what's going on in baghdad right now in terms of their discussions, what's going on. they are not worried about what the kurds are doing.

they're focused primarily on their own safe building project, whether it's in terms of suppressing anyone going against them, whether it's trying to return industries back to work again. this is one of the things that i'm seeing now, at least in terms of what they're trying to show to the world right now. is that life is going on in the areas they're controlling. of course it's a lot more complicated than that. for example, if you look at their health administration, they're trying to put out this message that they're able to provide services for people in medical facilities and hospitals, but then if you look at the administrative documents that have been leaked online and other official propaganda, they're actually looking for doctors to be able to work there and telling doctors that are learning as i.d.p.'s if they leave they'll seize their homes and things like that. there is a different picture depending on if you look at the official propaganda they're putting out versus what the administrative documents locally they're giving to the

local population. and while they have control, it's entrepreneurial through terror and authoritarian methods and not in terms of the local people wanting them to stay there. jon: your sense that sunni population is significantly winnable if the kind of inclusive government the ambassador was talking about begins to show itself? aaron: i definitely think there is a segment of the be population within the sunni community that would be willing to go onboard with it. at the same time i think they also need to feel as you waged assuauged ave -- they would have in baghdad. there are a lot of agreements about how the sunni community would be brought into the government, whether it's politically, security, military, but then once the u.s. left, a lot of these things didn't actually then occur and that led to many agreements within the sunni

community which led then moved to the protest movements in december of 2012 which led to the islamic state piggybacking off of this issue in december, 2013, when the protest camp in ramadi was destroyed by the maliki government. there is a chain of reactions between the sunni community if they can get these assurances, though, they can be part of this broader iraqi project, i think they would be willing. but i do think there is still some skepticism even if they don't necessarily like the islamic state. to the on just referred u.s. and certainly one of the things we continue to hear about iraq is the role outside parties stirring the pot. irony intervention, irony intervenks. what are the constructive things that you think foreign -- es can do to provide promote internal

reconciliation? ambassador faily: you have two fronts to that question. you have the political process internally, which ayham talked about the project within the making. the interdependence between the politics and the terrorists. and you have the fight against isis or da'ish. with da'ish we need tremendous support in controlling the borders so our neighbors should have a real project in, for example, stopping jihadist, tourist jihadist that come from north africa going through neighboring countries and going to syria or iraq so they have to do that. or coming from some of the gulf countries, they have to stop that. so you have that issue to do with stabilizing the country from a security perspective and the fight against da'ish. for their sake as much as for the iraqis sake and sunnis sake, this is a global problem. then you have the political

stability within iraq, how do they support it? iraq is with the last election and specifically after the fall of mosul have realized what a role our neighbors should play and they have more or less pported each other in that discussion. we are now having a much clearer understanding what turkey can do for our internal politics. what jordan has been able to do and others as well. to that effect, i think we are doing -- getting much better, understanding and less involvement of our neighbors in our internal affairs and more toward the stability of the country. that's a good sign. so we think that our neighbors have matured up to that challenge. iraqis in turn have matured not to overdepend on external parents. kurdish or shiia are there.

so i think we are project in the making and we are developing in the right direction. but on the fight against isis, i still think we need a lot of support. jon: are you finding that some rties think that isis can be useful, pressure against irony influence in iraq and can help sue for the kind of deal -- political deal afterwards? ambassador faily: jon, we see isis similar to the taliban situation in afghanistan and we can see what afghanistan has led to with this lack of aggressiveness against the taliban at the time and allowing it. we don't want to immolate that. we don't want to be a copy cat to that situation. we want the fight against isis for their sake and for our sake, for the stability of the both and the globe. so i think we are looking for a

more responsive, mature reflection of what has taken place. and we don't want our neighbors' hand to be burned by the lack of engagement in the fight against isis. jon: are you hearing when you travel in the middle east, people say, well, we don't want isis to win but we also don't want the ironies to win iraq completely, is that something you hear? ayham: i think to a certain extent, isis is used for a useful tool in checking iranian influence. as in iraq, it's still viewed at least in saudi arabia and riyadh as an extension or an iranian influence. as a matter of fact, it's definitely far from the truth but it's still treated as that. that goes for both the iraqi theater and the syrian one. unfortunately no one regionally

wants iraq to emerge as a trunk state. iran still views iraq as the weak entity attached to it or aligned with it as favorable to a stronger iraq. i would say that saudi arabia definitely does not want the iraqi democratic experience to fully prosper. in fact, i don't think the saudis have ever made a strategic decision to reach some form of a deal with a new iraqi system, to embrace iraq as an arab state with a new system. i think that hasn't been done before and i'm not sure it will be done in the future. ambassador faily: can i add a small point here? it's -- we need to look at isis as a global problem. we have our faults. however, when you have a problem in north africa or when you have the chechnyas or

chinese or americans join isis, that has nothing do with the internal iraqi politics. it has to due with the global phenomenal which global warming is a problem we have to work with. i think it's important for people to appreciate. at least. iraqi politics can happen. regardless you have -- you have a global phenomenon which you need to get control of. that's something which may be missing. jon: aaron, one of the things that seems to me when people report on foreign fighters, we hear a lot about foreign fighters in syria we don't hear a lot about foreign fighters in iraq. in fact, what we keep hearing about da'ish in iraq is that its former regime, bathists who are growing beards and putting on different uniforms, not to is your beard at all --

there something different about da'ish as it operates in iraq versus da'ish as it operates in syria in aaron: yeah, at least on the first part i would say it's true. the vast majority of foreign fighters are based in syria but you do see foreign fighters in iraq as well, but they're not really involved with the administration of the areas they're controlling. the foreign fighters are primarily used as suicide bombers in the iraqi context. in the syrian context it's used more in the administration. just yesterday there was a report syrian as well as another who was involved in a suicide bombing yesterday. that's when it was announced. there is a difference in that context. another thing to think about oo, is that this organization,

while many people repay attention to it in june of 2010 after the fall of mosul, this is an organization that's had a presence nonstop since 2002, twee, when zarqawi came to iraq after the fall of tora bora in afghanistan. so they have a lot more history as well as connections. there's a lot more local ties within the iraqi context. whereas in syria, the organization itself really didn't start to put out a foot hold until april, 2013, when baghdadi put out a statement saying they're going inside syria on an official level. therefore, they don't have the same ties to society as they do necessarily in iraq which is basically a larger challenge. so i think those are some of the basic elements in terms of the differences. jon: thank you. you mentioned oil prices being a constraint on the military operations against da'ish but there must be a constraint on

everything iraq is trying to do, including being inclusive of groups who feel they don't have a share of the pie. but if the pie is shrinking, it's harder to give out more shares of a shrinking pie. how does that affect all the things you are talking about, including the problem of national unity as we see more and more that -- the kurdish region of iraq is -- going its own way? ambassador faily: more so when 2004 the oil boomed. we are trying to entice with politics. that increased corruption and other types of mismanagement of bad governance of our institutions. in the fall of mosul, changing the political process in iraq as well, there is nonsustainable and we cannot

proceed with such attacking people through some financial way. and by the way, majority of the attacks was for the -- we have learned the [inaudible] and now the prime minister has the mandate to reform and also to start new areas of looking for revenues such as government bonds, investments and others. to that effect, iraq has done tremendous change, a big change in his policies for reform in relation to funds and financial -- extended support with the world bank and others as well. that's taking place, but i give -- i take your point and i agree with it. we need to be very careful as not to alienate people because we're saying to them we haven't got moneys to restructure your schools and others. to that effect, the allies have

worked on what they call postdestabilization projects. to that we have seeked support from other countries. these areas have been liberated. tikrit, others as well. put your money what you have been talking about. jon: how is that going? ambassador faily: not to the extent we wanted, to be honest. this is an area of frustration, by the way, and this is an area that says to the iraqi, who is supporting you at the moment you need with the shotgun of isis next to your head? you have a neighbor that says, ok. you have neighbors saying we are conditioning our support. when your houses are burnt up, would you want to have a conditional support or an offensive support in that's the problem we have. that's the regional problem. jon: we'll get to your neighbors. what is the mood there, how

does the situation on the ground far away from baghdad relate to the strategy in approximate baghdad? im apple: on the ice -- ayham: -- by the herent peshm, rga. what relationship does it have with turkey, iran and officials in baghdad? that point i think and the extent of the term for the next two years or potential extension, it really exposes where it is. they have disagreements. there is a real political debate around how to function, whether in iraq or otherwise. i think that at this stage

there is -- the u.s. can actually help in creating more unity between the kurdish parties. encouraging reform within the k.r.g. because the k.r.g. does need reform. renighting the peshmerga and having them have a broader dialogue internally and with officials in baghdad. the solution thus far has been mostly wlame the central government for the problems kurdistan faces. i think as we begin to have a broader discussion of what needs to be done, kurdistan would probably move forward even as a democratic process. jon: given what we've seen of opinion polls in the kurdish areas suggests overwhelming support for independence from iraq. the sort of reform, democratic

process, would it make it harder to keep iraq as a whole together? aim apple: well, i think -- ayham: there are the opinions of when do you get there and what form and what sort of a relationship do you have with the rest of iraq? i think there are disagreements when it comes to that. some favor incremental process that keeps baghdad closer. eventually these are kurdistan's neighbors. you need to deal with them at the end of the story. what needs to be done i think is just encouraging that sort of debate between tehran and baghdad and kurdish officials. certainly reforming these institutions i think in kurdistan is key. reforming the government, having a process that is much more representative. i think that's key to having a more stable kurdistan. be it an entity within iraq or

an independent entity. jon: now, aaron, the peshmerga have been the most effective fighters against da'ish but da'ish seems to be principally focused on iranian influence. is there a changing way they re talking about kurdish fighters as this battles unfolds? aaron: well, just like the iranians a or any other entity, they view them as an enemy. obviously they're using different types of derogatory terms for kurds as they do with other groups of people. but i they realize they are not -- g to be able to push any they started doing things a year ago. therefore, they're focused on issue ader sectarian

because it gets more play as a result, you see more fighting in that regard instead of them trying to push back into northern iraq. but at the same time, that doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity they would not be willing to do. we would see a suicide bombing that sneaks into kurdistan. for the i had lambic state, -- islamic state, as a result, nothing is out of bounds for them. jon: mr. ambassador, you mentioned the reliable neighbor next door and the reliable neighbor next door, iran, is also thought to have a whole series of ties to the popular bilization forces, that is accused of a sectarian militia attacking sunnis. what is the strategy for

creating a genuine, capable iraqi national army that doesn't rely on foreign training, foreign funding, sectarian notifications, those kinds of things, how do we get from where we are today to where you want to be? ambassador faily: we talked about reconstruction. after the fall of mosul, there has been and will continue significant restructure. at this momente the end game -- at this moment of the end game, it is not complete. we need to understand what we need to protect and how should our army structuring should be mirroring there whether it's at the border, internal, so on. we also know that important prosects such as national guard legislation requires very careful handling politically and very careful handling structurally as to who they report to. we don't want to create and

fund local politicians to have their own forces and -- so we are careful to that effect. at the same time we know that the majority of those people who joined are doing it based on the [indiscernible] for the protection of their country and they are less -- more nationalistic and they are also not looking forward to being permanent members of the military setups but want to do it for the sake of liberating their towns and then going back to their jobs, for us to create opportunities for them, at least. in that context, i think there is here in washington an overselling of this issue of ideologically [indiscernible] to iran. if you look at the numbers they don't represent less than 30% of the three main blocks.

but at the same time these are iraqis, want to defend their country. they may have some ideological -- belonging to iran but that doesn't take away from their protection and they have political blocks in parliament which represent them as well. so we are talking about a national political process, democratic process taking shape. when we talked about a project in the making, i don't think anybody has a clarity as to what the end game should be back. decentralization, we talked about it. to that effect, the prime minister's main objective is making sure that his commander in chief, everybody adheres to his command. in tikrit, when some of those idea loolly military setup wanted not to participate, the prime minister said you're ok. you're free not to participate but you don't have the veto. i have the veto. as when you can participate.

and the extent of your participation. the same goes in anbar and so on. to that effect the key issues we want to cement at this moment is that the prime minister has the initiative to manage these components to the better end, whatever the political process leads us to. so that's the long answer because i don't think there is a short answer. jon: but it's interesting because in part about centralizing and regularizing, stoolizing and the part about decentralizing, given your local control, it seems to be pursuing two -- ambassador faily: let's be honest among freendsfrends. americans, when they talk to bus the national guard, they have the current concept of the national guard in the current u.s. setup. you have the process anyway through -- from the revolution to this stage.

we can't need time. we need time. we need to do it free from the shotgun to our head. whether it's isis or militia or anybody else. that's what we're trying to work on. jon: when the prime minister was here in april in this room, he -- i asked him if there are any limits, any red lines for decentralization for iraq and he said there are no red lines. how do you see that process unfolding what the prime minister was talking about? spinning, devolving work, control to different places? ayham: the conversation is to let the -- very beginning. it's very difficult to ask iraqis to do reform on every level and figure out the political system while they're fighting isis.

especially for supporters of the government at this stage. this is not the sort of discussion that is either popular or they even want to have. i think in many respects an effort to push the iraqis closer to our concept of decentralization could backfire. this actually needs time. you also need part of the current areas held by isis to be liberated, to actually gather more traction behind the government. one point that i would mention here, though, is the discussion over the national guard. that's a key part of an equation that unites iraq. not necessarily by iraq. for a body to move forward with a series of reforms on different fronts, scrapping the presidential roles, the prime minister roles, to do that and leave the key component of the

reform process to the end i think is part of what builds some form of confidence crisis between iraq's community. that's one area we can actually move forward with. jon: aaron, do you see sort of sunni leadership that is fighting against isis or isis is fighting against as it looks to the future? aaron: i haven't seen similar to what we started to see in 2005 or 2006 in terms of tribal awakening. part of this is, though, the result of the islamic state learning from the lessons of what occurred in the mid to late 2000's in that when they started to go back in and restart their military campaign, in 2012, 2013, is they started to reach out to smaller chance within tribes to try and corrupt them, whether it was with money or weapons or something like that and therefore divide ranged conquering these tribes --

dividing and conquering these tribes. on the other hand, if there has been a group of people that has tried to go against them they would massacre them. we saw this in the iraqi context but the tribe in syria and just a couple weeks ago the tribe in libya when they were trying to do something. so part of the issue is that the islamic state has a monopoly and violence in the territories they control so it's a very difficult for anybody to go against them unless there is some type of outside assistance at this juncture at least because they have been able to, you know, really institutionalize them locally in some respects. jon: it sounds like what you're saying it's been extraordinarily hard to have anything that looks like bottom up? aaron: yeah, i do think at this juncture at lease the areas me control firmly. there are areas that is sort of in between that could eventually be peeled off but in terms of the core areas that they're in, especially in the

western part of iraq, where they are the strongest because they have a corridor into syria and back which allows them to strengthen that control, it's very difficult. the way they rule is very totalitarian. jon: ayham: do you see bottom up politics as you look at different things and different places in iraq? ayham: not in the sunni areas, not yet for sure. that's part of why you need to ove forward with a political process to re-emerge. you can't have that process while isis controls these areas. issue. key part of the the process is one example what the ambassador mentioned. this is very much a vibrant society, a political system that is even pushing back against entrenched politicses

of the same sectarian affiliation. so actually we need to give the iraqis some credit that they are trying to form some -- something new even at the grassroots. i think in that respect has been very positive. that's the way forward to embrace the protessors rather than dmp protesters rather than clamp down. jon: you would see the protests as a positive sign and not as a arning sign? ayham: the fact there is organized opposition, that it is peaceful and constructive and more coherent is part of the creative -- creative process of building up iraq's democracy. i don't necessarily see it as something dangerous. now, the response i think is part of something much more positive. f the political -- then reform

efforts become more serious. i think more real and that's what we've seen in the last few weeks. ambassador faily: we don't have what you might call the eastern europe situation where you have local specific entities fighting against the central government. you have across the whole country people who are from civil society movements protesting against political leaders and saying we want to stop corruption, we want jobs opportunities and others. this is in a way what we want to focus on. in the sense of what you talked out whether destabilizing if we don't react to it and appreciate it and embrace it and work with it, then the system could be destabilizing. we don't have what you might call a strong state. we realize that. and the reform by the prime

minister is the reflection of that effort. jon: i'll go to the audience in just a second. in terms what have you said, what would be the warning signs at this protest movement is no longer constructive and it's actually threatening? ambassador faily: we have at this moment -- if you ask me the risk management -- well, one of them is the -- jon: well ambassador faily: one is the diversity of the requests they are making. another is they don't have local leaders. who do you talk to? who is representative of that? demand for change requires decades. it's not because -- you are talking about, for example, a bureaucratic system which is

based on the ottoman empire democratic system than on the british, than on the republicans republican systems of iraq. you talk about a 100-year democratic systems you have to reform. nd then you have a destabilizing region who doesn't promote democracy. and then you have isis next to you. so it's multilayers. jon: and there are people who talk about the iranian influence as well. ambassador faily: of course. of course. by the way, we are much worried as anybody else like any external -- who doesn't have destableized country. to that effect we need to keep an eye -- an alert and be on our toes who's getting involved and what is the end game. communication is important. jon: thank you. i'd like to turn to you. i would ask three things. yourself. u identify

second that you only ask one question because i've already seen five hands. and third is that given the experience and wisdom of our guests, i ask you ask a genuine question and not make a statement and then with what do you think of my statement. first person i see is over here. please wait for the microphone, if you would. coming right behind you. >> dr. morogi, command surgeon out of the civil affair out of -- i served as command sergeant for the office of security cooperation. and my question to you, given the extent of all these demonstrations -- and i know you are a friend of mine. i know you. you tried to restore iraqi-american relations. there is a limit to what you can probably say in public. given the degree of level of these demonstrations, does the prime minister understand the need for reform and if so, who

does he have to in his administration rely to execute some of these reforms? my experience, as many iraqi officials, are flat out incompetent. who is he going to rely on to address these reform issues? especially in the service sector? ambassador faily: thank you, colonel. at we have discovered over the last year primarily that the change of reform requires substantial amount of change of culture, change of strategic shift in government direction and most importantly the ability of the people to cooperate with him. second, he has the political capital to utilize at this point. and he has made clear and he will continue doing that. extend support and streamlining. he has reached out, for

example, to others. workshops are already taking place. he has highlighted the key areas who would be initiating reform on such as i.t. systems, paperless systems and others so it can be more transparent and streamlining those institutions. at this moment, because the scale of the reform can only be managed based on people understanding the challenge ahead. for example, when you are talking about taxation system, people have to pay taxes. they have to pay their electricity bill for the resolved.ture to be demonstrations need to understand they have an active role to play in the reform movement. it's not just a demand. there is an obligation on them as well. that's one of the other challenges we have, colonel.

to who can help us, we have reached out and we will continue to reach out and we don't have the capabilities for the reform. we are working hard on that. and we are continuing working on that. we don't know we will say we don't know. we are under no illusion as to the scale of the challenge. --: well ayham: this is a massive project. the administration is up to the task. from now on given the current revenues, this is what we're going to do, x, y and z and you begin a process. there is no other alternative. you cannot destroy the entire system and build something new. we already have something and it's difficult enough to manage the iraqi political process. so i think it is a big challenge, as the ambassador said. at least we should encourage

that reform. we don't necessarily need to move through a cycle where each and every official is put in jail. i think the signal has been sent that enough is enough. there needs to be some accountability, for sure, but the importance of starting this process i think is key and that's what iraq has taken. at least initiated. jon: all the way in the back. yes, sir. all the way in the back. >> thank you. founder of social development. senior health advisor. my question is to mr. ambassador. i am iraqi-kurdish originally and came to the united states in 1996. one of the things that has been bothering me over the past year or so ago how we have neglected as an international community

the real aspects and issues going into preventing the violent extremism and going into the human -- my question is in regard to specifically the challenges facing youth engagement in iraq and i mean that from both the state perspective as well as the economy. and your excellency mentioned how stability becomes a foundation for security. but another cornerstone is really the economic growth of iraq which has taken a huge hit because of the instability. and the lack of opportunities, especially for youth becomes a driver of despair, of migration, of unrest and further instability and even joining propaganda of violent extremism. so i know there is two other big elephants in the room in terms of the threat to stability of iraq and the humanitarian situation that iraq definitely needs support with. one being the internally

displaced populations, absolutely, and certainly and the other one being the democratic process and making sure that people have the social services so that they feel the state is doing something for them and just becomes a specific engagement and responsibility rather than just a question of taxation. but i would love to hear your thoughts of what could be done to perhaps target and what the iraqi government is planning to do in creating and burgeoning the private sector, targeting youth opportunities and perhaps showcasing some of these stable areas as your excellency also mentioned, areas that are being liberated but also areas that are already stable like the kurdish north and the south of iraq for creating greater economic investment, bringing in multinational companies again or even creating a burgeoning entrepreneurship and private sector from the iraqi community that could lead to further stability. ambassador faily: to what i was talking about, we need to

substantially reform our banking, insurance, make up-to-date legislation, regulation to investment. these are all steps which is supposed to be in the pipeline and here we need a strong political will by parliament to reamline and to focus on updating our legislation accordingly. another aspect of it is we need to change the culture of overdependence on the state as a main and other breadwinner and focus on entrepreneurships and others. and that's initially taking place. i don't think it's at an acceptable level. third point to your -- that is talk about the elephants. you have the third elephant. i.d.p. who is young. iraqis is one of the least sort of -- 60% of the population are under 35.

median age is just about 19. population goes about 3%. jon: in the south -- qusay more about the i.d.p., the internally displaced persons? there are a lot of neighborhoods that used to be mixed neighborhoods that are now -- move on to one sect or other another. ambassador faily: we still have a lot of i.d.p.'s in the kurdish region who are from anbar or others. -- from ave a lot of north. -- ill a lot of sunnis in who are being supported as well. areas are moment the mixed. i.d.p., by the nature, if you don't address them in a year or two then they feel thehave more demand than when they

first came in. they say i need health care, education, stability and so on. they don't think of themselves as intransigent any longer. jon: and the people who moved into their houses have decided that's their house? ambassador faily: to that extent, the majority of people in dicrete, the government worked with local -- tikrit, the government worked with local authorities. and religious decrees, it would be shameful to take someone else's house. and certainly by given the support and rule of law in that aspect as well. it's still in the making. however, going back to the youth aspect, it's one of those challenges which the arab spring has manifested to the whole region, i'm told, that without youth managing, the youth through growth, without

job opportunities, then all they have is a mess because of the globalization. they have very good awareness of what's taking place in the rest of the other countries and they have frustration. how do you sort of use that frustration? isis becomes a channel which we want to keep away as much as we can. >> thank you, jon. -- al jazeera correspondent and i was a tudent of professor jon. one who is the deputy chief of the popular mobilization gave lengthy interview to a newspaper in lebanon and he made two statements.

two universal statements, i would say. one asserting that hezbollah trainers are acting in iraq to rovide training and advisory in a capacity to the popular mobilization forces. but working under the -- what he called the command of the armed forces. which is under the command of the prime minister. that was the first thing. the second one, he stressed that the mobilization -- popular mobilization forces will move into syria after finishing the battle against isis in iraq. and it will support syrian regime in fighting isis. so, first, could you maybe address these two issues? first, is hezbollah operating under the command of the prime minister? and second, will the government

support or oppose any such move into syria by the popular mobilization, noting that i think one was accused of taking part in orchestrating the attacks against the american embassy and french embassy in kuwait in 198 ? thank you very much. -- kuwait in 1983? thank you very much. ambassador faily: i am not aware to that allegation. as to hezbollah as to are they operating in iraq, no. who has control -- we have nos a ast pictureation, desire, will to be involved in the syrian theater in any way, shape or form. we have kept away from it in 2011 when everybody else asked us to get engaged. and we say we don't get involved in neighbor issues. let alone in a volatile area in

syria. to that effect, i can assure you whoever tells you that, whatever report you are talking about, i have not read it, i can't talk about it specifically. we are not going to be involved in any military act on the syrian side. maybe some isis aspects. command operations, whatever. i am not aware of that even. but what i will say we have certainly no aspiration, desire, will to be engaged in the syrian theater. so that -- you need to go back to whomever made those statements and challenge them. >> i have two very short questions. jon: you are only allowed one. >> my question is for the two

distinguished scholars. all of you talked about the roll that iran and neighboring countries play in iraq and specifically in the fight against isis. but i haven't heard anything of the role of saudi arabia is playing. to put it shortly, is saudi arabia a better u.s. ally than turkey in the fight against isis? think it's very relevant. ayham: we're lacking very good allies in the region. neither have been very good in dealing with the isis situation for different reasons. turkey has prioritized containing the kurds in leveraging isis as a tool to weaken assad, the kurds, both in iraq and syria. and saudi arabia has preferred to keep the isis problem in iraq and syria and not confront it. now, obviously that comes with the risk that terrorism at some

point comes back home. we've seen a few bombings in saudi arabia, but bu, no, neither states have actually helped confront the isis problem effectively. and even after we've seen i think the turkish turn, their focus remains on containing kurdish aspirations along the southern borders, not necessarily in confronting the isis problem. aaron: i fully agree. saudi arabia seems to be -- been primarily focused with what's going going on in the southern front of the syrian conflict, helping jordan in making sure those rebel groups in the south do not radicalize or become as extreme as the feeder in the northern parts of syria. but beyond that, they really haven't done too much. the turks are problematic in so far as they have allowed them get to their southern border

without bog much of the -- doing much of the border control. and when they talk about the anti-isis zone in northern syria, the reality is that they just don't want the camps to get linged up to another camp. if you actually look what happened when the turks got involved in the anti-isis zone, the islamic state has taken over instead of ejecting them. i'm not sure the competition of who did worse, but none have done great thus far. jon: right here in the front row. >> good afternoon. the kurdistan regional government representative to the united states. ambassador, thank you very much for a very interesting and optimistic outlook on iraq

which we all need. i want to go back to the humanitarian situation because this really affects where iraq is heading. i know it's been touched on very briefly but we really need to understand the depth of the problem and the problem that we'll face after generations unless we iraqis and our friends in the international community do much, much more to help. i think all of us today are haunted by a picture, a little boy who washed up on the shore in turkey. he symbolizes every displaced person in iraq and syria. and the horror that we face with europe acting like a fortress is shameful. kurdistan region has taken in 1.8 million displaced people. europe has accepted about 600,000 asylum seekers, 28 countries, 600,000 asylum

seekers. one part of iraq taking in 1.8 million people. 60% of the displaced in kurdistan region, i'm afraid i don't know about the rest of iraq, 60% of the children in the kurdistan region among the displaced community haven't been to school. that's despite all of our efforts. he u.n., usaid, that's a ticking time bomb for all of us in iraq. the u.n. is saying that it can't raise enough money to help the displaced in iraq. the u.n. launched an appeal for $500 million in june to see the displaced and the refugees through the six months from june to december. they have raised less than half of that amount. this is a ticking time bomb. i know you said you didn't want us to make statements and then to invite the panel to give their view. but i am going to do that because this is a disaster.

i think everybody thinks that the disaster happened in june, 2014. no. the disaster awaits us. those going to be -- there's going to be des tution and disease among the displaced. i do invite the panel to talk about how does a humanitarian crisis affect radicalization. how does it affect another lost generation? how can we ask people to pay taxes when today we can't even ffer their children education? ambassador faily: i totally agree with our esteemed sister and also say that the challenges we face in iraq and yria is in the i.d.p. alone is destabilizing our neighbors. it's destabilizing jordan, turkey, at least part of turkey and destabilizing lebanon. at in itself, it should be

crisis bells ringing across the whole globe because it's an area where it's next door to europe. it's also people who have no alternatives but to go through -- the alternatives is always legal. the legality of racketeering other any means of earning for their income and paying for clothes and food and so on. to that effect i think i agree th you that the humanitarian issue alone in iraq and syria and isis disruption, it needs an urgent focus. for so have areas, example, enslavement and destructions of heritage. that farce i can see is a distinction -- sorry -- a world ssue because it has to do with

irreversible destruction of human history. i think that in itself -- if that k at the region, unfortunately people will be switched off. if you look at it, effectively, they can do a lot. and not enough is being done at this point. . >> i also argue that the gulf states have been even worse. they haven't taken anybody in. zero. in terms of the question regarding the issue of recruitment or radicalization, however you want to describe it, the reality is children are very vulnerable to these messages, and they are putting up this content online but also locally as well. there is a lot of focus on the islamic state putting out content on twitter, but if you look at what they are doing in cities in iraq and syria, they

are also having these local kiosks called media points where they provide u.s.b.'s, sim cards and giving it to people and communities and individuals they focus on most is children and youth because they know that they are the future. they don't care about anybody over the age of 35. that's one of the biggest dangers about the islamic state is they are socially engineering society right now. the longer they stay in control of areas, the worst it's going to likely get. because of that it's a major problem. it's not just arabic language, but they are putting out content in kurdish language as well as others. that's an issue for iraq and syria as well as anybody else in the region. >> i think this is it an example of politics trumping humanitarian concerns. it happens but there has to be

ownership. that the region, the participants, parties to the conflict have contributed toward that form of destabilization. yet europe hasn't done enough. es, the u.s. hasn't done much. mentioned some numbers on that. we have fed the conflicts in raq and syria. jon: one more question. this gentleman has been very atient right here. >> voice of america. my question to mr. faily, you mentioned many times to the reconciliation, what do you mean by reconciliation? with the courts can can or reconciliation with the sunnis,

which part of the sunnis? sunni who is sitting in baghdad sunni s in jordan or tribes leader from anbar? mbassador faily: in iraq meeting generic term the issues are generic. i don't think it's one community feeling they have been singled out. i can assure you go to bern in basra and talk to them about how does he think of the central government, i'm paying 90% of the oil for the whole country and getting less than 1% of the income. i think there is a significant social contract has to be redrawn in iraq among all the components as to the responsibility toward the state. and towards each other. when they talk about

centralization, they need to talk about good governance. you cannot decentralize, allocate power without having the structure for that otherwise you create chaos. same in relation to political plecksibility of the government and so on. -- flexibility of the government and so on. you also have the issue of at what stoig of your people do you want authority be disseminated to. provisional levels, government levels, so on. also talking about election systems, how to elect the president of the people. these are all areas which we talk about reconciliation in the sense of let's agree on how do we manage this country moving forward in a civil way, civilized way, away from the gun, away from repression, respecting human rights, respect rule of law. respect the constitution which we all go for. this is the key issue. this is where i talk about projects in the making. and i do mean that. i can assure you no single person can tell you this is a

picture we want to be in and we will be in in five years. that's not the case because we cannot control this parameters which is surrounding us which is talking about the r.d.p. for one example. the problems within the communities as to the leaderships. how effective are the leaderships, how local are the leaderships? the shiite parliamentarian, how much affected are they? seven provinces where they say we have lack of services, yet we have all the oil. the kurdish questions as to how much decentralization and obligations on the center -- so these are all areas where i would say project making. we need to progress making whether things are drawn together. we are still not clear what we gain unless we have a substantial amount of dialogue. as far as i can see it that real

dialogue hasn't taken shape. people demonstrating is a sign that dialogue with reform has to take shape, political reform, economic reform, social reform. jon: mr. ambassador, you have to agree you'll come back and update us on this. thank you very much for coming. thank you for joining us. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> we have more on iran and the nuclear agreement coming up on the c-span networks. congress will begin debate on the nuclear deal this week. the senate today and the house later in the week. later today we'll bring you discussion on the technical and political aspects of the negotiations that led up to the deal hosted by the international crisis group and the plowshares fund. among those taking part ambassador thomas pickering, former undersecretary of state for political affairs, and former national security advisor, samuel burger. you can watch that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network, c-span3. here on c-span we'll be live at 1:00 eastern with republican presidential candidate lindsey graham, south carolina senator's a luncheon speaker at the national press club. he's expected to talk about the iran nuclear deal and you can see his remarks here on c. again that starts in about 55 minutes or so, at 1:00 eastern.

as we get closer to the congressional debate on the deal, today's senate democrats have rallied enough votes to filibuster a resolution disapproving the iran deal. senators blumenthal, peters, and widen announce their support bringing the total to 41, which essentially makes any republican opposition to the deal null and void. earlier today west virginia democrat senator joe manchin announced his opposition, but still out there are decisions from democrat senators collins of maine and washington state senator maria cantwell. we'll likely hear more about all of this in the house and senate tafmente they are back for the first session after their summer break. earlier today we spoke with a capitol hill reporter about what we expect to see in congress this week. of blooerg. she is there congressional reporter. it morning. -- good morning. let's start with the iran deal. can you tell us where we are? the main thing here is

that it seems as if president obama has the votes he is going to need in order to get that deal approved. but it's going to be a very contentious process. with the house only being in basically 10 days this month, it's going to consume a lot of airtime. and also the senate will consume a lot of time on the iran deal. i'm reading that the opponents of the iran deal are likely to max out the debate, especially some of the republican presidential candidates in the senate. what they are all saying is that in all contributes to a tosening outlook for bill extend government funding at the end of the month also. because it consumes a lot of time, and some people want to use the iran deal to attach language to try to block this agreement. host: there is something being discussed call resolution of disapproval. what is that? guest: best to prevent

disagreement from going through. to try and prevent the white house from getting this thing through the house and the senate. that activity will take place in congress. when it comes to the iran deal on the senate side, he talked about the support the president has. does he have enough support as far as preventing a veto or supporting a veto should it come to that? guest: i don't believe that the concern at this point. come sinces that they went out for break, it just seems like he has solidified enough support to get that deal. host: on the side of the shutdown of congress, we talked about how the iran deal could pick up a lot of oxygen. where are we as far as a potential shutdown? morning, we this are not very far seems. it doesn't seem as though there has been very much progress during this break to resolve

issues related to appropriations like the breakdown of defense spending versus nondefense spending. the white house and republicans in congress have a different opinion on that. republicans want to increase some funding for defense. beyond what's allowed by the budget control act. the white house isn't opposed, otherey also want to have programs as well. that hasn't been resolved. the goes to appropriations. when you go beyond that, they haven't resolved what's going to be attached to the money bill, the so-called anomalies that would be attached to it. but also, there are those contentious writers that are still out there like the one we saw before the break, to defund planned parenthood. republicans in the house and senate want to try and use the cr for that. addition to that, there are some republicans who might want writer -- cr for a

rider to block the iran deal. at the lot to deal with between now and september 30 when the government's funding runs out, especially when the house is only going to be in session for about 10 days. what's the expected showdown between republicans and the house and senate, and what leadership wants to see as far as a government shutdown? both leaders on both sides of said they don't want to shut down to happen. all year long, senate majority leader mcconnell has been very clear he doesn't want to government shutdown. he says there will be a government shutdown. he says the government is not going to default on its debt. when the united states gets to the point may be in late november or we've exhausted are borrowing authority. boehner is basically in the same camp. they have to deal with conservatives in their caucuses who have said that a government shutdown is really good politics

for us. our base likes government shutdown. in the end, when it happened two gettingo, wind that reelected and not only that, we got majorities in both houses. so they have to deal with that factor. and try and convince others in the party to come along with them and get the short term build on. year, a stillthe going to have to try to get through a full year appropriations bill to wrap up fiscal 16 appropriations. that's going to be really difficult. and that will be a cliff in december. have a cliff september 30, you have a cliff in november. onbetween you have a cliff transportation spending. at the end of the year you have a cliff on total appropriations provisionsg tax known as tax extenders. host: that's nancy ognanovich

from bloomberg talking about what's going on in the senate. your publication puts out something called the hill watch. what is that. guest: we do this throughout the year, especially after congress has been in recess, and they are coming back for a new work perio d. we give an overview of what the main issues are, and we also have very detailed descriptions of some of the bills that are moving, and whether prospects are. host: you can find out online. nancy ognanovich >> he was a nazi, he was a concentration camp commandant, and he was responsible for the murder of thousands of jews. >> this sunday night on "q&a," jennifer teege on her life

altering discovery that her grandfather was the nazi concentration camp commandant, ahman girk, also known as the butcher of pla sow. >> he was a tremendously cruel person. catchableho -- he was of -- capable of -- he had two dogs, and he trained them to tear humans apart. think he was a person who -- there was a pleasure he felt killed people. and this is something that when you're normal if you don't have that aspect in your personality, it is very, very difficult to grasp. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> reminder that coming up in about 45 minutes, at 1:00 p.m.,

remarks from south carolina republican senator and 2016 presidential candidate, lindsey graham. he's the luncheon speaker at the national press club tafmente until then a more detailed look at the congressional agenda with a capitol hill reporter from today's "washington journal." "" continues. host: talking about congress 's" steven dennis . where does the house stand -- guest: he has basically assure the deal will go forward as he has more than enough support in the senate to sustain a veto. the real question is whether democrats can actually muster 41 votes in the senate to block the bill from getting to his task. that it's something he has been successful at in his presidency. basically, the only time something he really did not want at his desk to appear with the keystone pipeline earlier this year. it looks like it is dicey what they will get down and if they

get that 41st vote. more importantly, there is also an effort by the white house to show support going into next year. they want to have as much political support for this deal heading into the next election as possible. they are trying to get all the democrats lined up so they can vetoactually kill any overwriting the house. they have been pretty successful over the august break. there have been very few defections. there has only been three defections in the senate among democrats. there have been more defections in the house and people like w washington schwartz who was on the fence, democratic national chairwoman, she was very much on andfence for all of august she has come not to support the deal. that is a big boost and it could avoid an ugly fight at the top of the democratic party. host: who are they looking at now to get that 41 number? guest: there is a small universe

of people. the names do not really pop to the top of my head right now, but there are people like joe manchin, who has said he will not filibuster but he sort of sounds like he is leading toward the deal. they're going to probably need somebody like a joe manchin to change their mind to get to that 41. say, ok, well, we will filibuster as well. are down to about four votes or five votes to determine that. host: on the house sat, there is something called the resolution of disapproval. could you expect what that is? guest: this is a procedure that allows people to vote against something and it ends up happening still. you have a divided government, republicans want to vote against something and the white house is fine with them doing that because they can be tailored. it is a resolution of disapproval and it needs a simple majority that goes over to the senate, you need 60 votes

to get the president's desk and he can veto it. a lot of republicans and scholars on the right are upset with this procedure. they think it is basically about politicians avoiding playing and a look at the constitutions that say treaties need to be approved by two thirds of the senate. well, this deal will would get close to 67. what ends up happening is the white house says it is not a treaty even though it kind of looks and talks like a duck, it kind of its and talks like a treaty in many respects. this is everybody who gets the cast the way they want and the president gets the policy he wants an end of being an issue for the presidential election. host: we are talking about congress back this weekend and issues they have to take up. (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. (202)-748-8002 for independence. iran deal, walk us through a timeline of what to expect in the next the weeks. guest: the house will vote this

week on iran deal and the senate is keen up their debate this well -- as well. debate asup their well. they want to get that done as soon as possible because they'll have a few weeks to keep the government open. they have a lot they want to do and there are a lot of deadlines coming up in the next few weeks, next few months. understands that this is not going to be successful. they want to have their show, they want to make their case to the public, and it is really a political arguments now for the presidential election more than anything else. everybody knows that this is going to ultimately still be going forward, so it is about politics right now. you have your one week show or maybe a little bit more than that and then you move on quickly to other things. the main thing being keeping the government open, the lights on. host: what happens then? guest: i think you will see a -- about a we have seen

many times in the past which is leadership in both chambers. they do not want to shut down. mitch mcconnell has pledged no shutdowns on his watch, and that means you cannot have writers that the president would veto. that means planned parenthood, there are a lot of conservatives who want to be funded in the president said he would veto it if you attach that to a bill keeping the government open. the government would shut down. there are other writers, epa writers, climate change writers, there are a lot of things that republicans would like to get signed into law and the president is not going to sign them. he has threatened to veto. that is the debate where the leadership says, let's have as clean as possible and they should to keep the government open for the next two months while we negotiate with the president, maybe three months, and that is another issue. how long this cr is going to be. is it going to be just until halloween, which is what some

democrats might want. is it going to be and so thanks giving? oracle it had -- is it going to be into thanksgiving or head into december? you have obvious other things that expire, a highway bill that expires at the end of october. the highway bill is very interesting because you need tens of billions of dollars to keep the highway construction gaset funded because the tax brings in less and less money every year and people have better mile per gallon cars and they need to find some money for that. money find for that is money cannot find for the rest of the budget that is over here, the domestic spending, in particular, where the president wants to spend international $37 billion this year and the republican budget says zero, so that is what the big battle is over. billion dollars for domestic spending. the president has threatened that he will not sign a bill that does not provide more

spending. i could also shut the government down. insaid, look, whether it be october, november, december, i am vetoing this bill that will cap for my budget. he is not facing reelection, he could potentially do that and that would be a gut check for democrats. are they prepared to shut down the government for more spending? can they really make that political argument? host: the republican leaders in the house and senate did not want a shutdown. what do they face as far as republicans in their bodies? will havehink you tense meetings in hc five, the big room and the basement of the capital for house republicans meet, where they discuss and hatch out, in private, what their strategy is going to be. i would not be surprised if their first attempt to keep the government open actually does you a lot of things that conservatives want, things like the funding -- defunding planned parenthood, defunding the immigration orders, maybe something on obamacare?

if it gets over to the senate, mitch mcconnell can strip all of that out, send it back to the -- youand then you have have bipartisan support in the house. that is what has happened a number of times in the past several years, where nancy pelosi and house democrats have opened -- have openly provided the votes to keep the government enough republican support on top of that. i would not be surprised to see something like that happen. you will have people like ted cruz, who was running for in the fulloing ok color people like rand paul who was not doing so well in the polls, marco rubio, etc. to get their chance spotlight. people -- this is their chance to maybe make an impact and move in the polls and they are competing against donald trump who will supposedly be here at arow with ted cruz rally. this is maybe there one big chance to have some spotlight

returned to them, return to washington. if you look at the polls, the senators running for president, other than bernie sanders, are not doing so hot. combined, they are about 50%, 70% of the vote which is not great. this is a chance to show core conservative voters, hey, i am a man of principle and i will not fund planned parenthood. i will take on the president on immigration, etc. but the qb leaders do not want any part of that, so that will be interesting to see if there will be more fights on the floor between ted cruz and mitch mcconnell. host: (202)-784-8000 for democrats. (202)-784-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202)-748-8002 . steven dennis. i have marianne from new york. you are first. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. -- inow, i have always think actually mr. reagan, i

think that was the last one i ever voted for because i just cannot see anything within the republican party or the democrat party. anyway, what i cannot understand is why the republicans keep saying that they are being the president. i do not back the president, i have not backed the president in .nything he has said but the fact is, if they would try to defend themselves in court and they played the same role as a are playing now in , if they were being charged with something, they sure would be locked up because they not defending themselves. they have no recourse to the american people on what is going on or demanding that the president follow protocol as far

as the constitution. host: we will let our guest respond. guest: i think what you are goneg is the president has alone. faced time and time again the republican congress that did not pass anything on immigration. a republican congress that was not going to give him what he wanted on the environment or on whole hostsions or a of things. he cannot get a paid sick leave to congress, so yesterday, he mandates paid sick leave for federal contractors. you are seeing that much more aggressively this second term. much more aggressively, and the reason that he is not facing and -- and the reason is he is not facing reelection. he does not have to worry about, ok, will this affect my votes in iowa or virginia?

he is just do it and doing it much more this year than any other year. whether it be the immigration orders, whether it be the epa, whether it be a whole host of things, a lot of social issues, transgender, soldiers in the .ilitary you are seeing it again and again and again. the republicans, their recourse is the budget, but if you will not risk a shutdown, you cannot fight these things on the budget, so there are other recourse is to go to court and that is what is happening. you are seeing a lawsuit over the immigration order. that is currently moving its way through the courts and could end up in the supreme court. you are seeing a similar fight about to happen over at the epa carbon emission role. that will go to court. as soon as the white house of thees regulations

federal register. people cannot wait to get to the courthouse. there are a number of other things going to court, including theobamacare changes that president has made to his own legislation without going to congress. that is going to be something that is probably going to be front and center, already has been in some of the republican debate with republicans calling will be on -- that the ballot next year. do you want all these executive orders to continue? do you want carbon emissions? some of the republicans would not -- how do you want immigration law enforced? these will be huge issues. it's also placed into the whole supreme court fight. a lot of these executive actions are going to go to the supreme court, they will have 5-4 decisions one way or the other part of a lot of old supreme court justices -- that is also

on the ballot. from long beach, california. bob on the republican line. all this iran deal of a nuclear deal -- i will put a quote in. israel wanted to knock out those nuclear facilities a couple years back. obama stopped it. the reason he said was the middle east would hate israel for it. he has hated israel since they won. -- day one. obama said he will not negotiate with terrorists. what is he doing right now? negotiating with a terrorist country. the last three presidents we've had our boldfaced liars. donald trump says he walks the walk, he does the talk -- he

will straighten this country out. he may not be a politician, but that is our problem, having politicians in office. they say one thing and then do another. we did a smart man, a businessman like trump to get this united states great again. i would love to talk about both of those issues. a lot of people across the country have similar thoughts about donald trump. in person whenr i talk to people outside of the washington bubble come a lot about donald trump is that he is not a politician. that's having a huge appeal in the polls. the iowa polls, the leading candidates are not politicians. there is a huge thirst for people who are not part of the washington establishment.

that is definitely resonating. it will be interesting to see if that carries through. through the primaries, through all these debates, through the nominating convention, etc. as far as the iran deal, the president was clear when he was running for president that he would negotiate with iran's leaders and with her enemies. -- our enemies. that was part of his platform. as far as whether it is a good deal or not, that is what the debate is about. the president's argument against a military strike against iran right now, one of the arguments is you could go in and destroy some of these nuclear facilities very easily. that is not a long-term solution. .ou can rebuild you cannot take the knowledge out of the brains of the

thousands of iranians working on these facilities. you can build the next facility deeper and maybe not have inspectors on the ground. which the deal does provide access to all these facilities. that is part of the debate here. if you go in militarily, you wipe out the facilities, they can come back again. it's not like previous facilities have not been bob. bombing ofs been previous facilities. it doesn't mean you can't go back and rebuild. oil, money,lot of they have been able to build on these facilities even with sanctions. what is a long-term solution? that is one of the big arguments -- it is not a permanent reduction. they have to reduce their

material by 90% to the point where it cannot create one ball. that does not last 15 years now. they can potentially build as much as they want. there will be an incentive not to. they will have all this economic openings, they potentially risk that if they go back to creating the steps for having nuclear weapons. host: a viewer from twitter -- guest: this shutdown could be different from the last one. house,ts and the white for the first time are growing the gauntlet down on spending. they filibustered all the republican spending bills this year. the argument was we will have to have a budget deal, we have to

agree to more spending on the domestic side. that is something republicans could have highlighted immediately controversy, but they had gone in these other directions. the republican problem is they have not been willing to sit down with democrats and have a discussion. democrats have press availability saying sit down and talk with us, let's hash it out. the republicans don't show up for that negotiation. at some point, that negotiation will have to happen. mitch mcconnell has knowledge it will happen. we still don't know who will be in the room. when it will happen. october,appen now, thanksgiving, over christmas? all the things have the complications for the rest of , when soldiers will

get a pay raise, what benefits will look like for federal workers. they all come down to that appropriations bill. there's a lot of other things hitchhiking -- if you care about marijuana policy, that will show up in the appropriations bill. are we going to keep a ban on raiding medical marijuana facilities? that will be in this years on the this bill. mnibus bill. you read up about it and watch c-span, you will catch up on these. host: from north dakota, this is john. caller: thank you for c-span. goes, is this iran deal

don't know what the republicans are thinking trying to block this. stop now, it's going to them from building a nuclear bomb for at least 10 years. 15 -- after that, we will have to negotiate. i don't know why we keep wanting to go to war and bomb these middle eastern countries. that's how we came up with isis. once we bomb somebody and killed their people, they will have a resentment towards us. every time we kill somebody, we make three new terrorists. as far as the president obama, i think he is doing a good a job as he possibly can with this republican congress. the congress -- the republicans

have no plans, no idea what to do. they are just locking everything obama wants. deal, i dohe iran think the argument against this argument thet republicans keep putting forward is that iran is going to get a lot of money. with money comes power and influence. money you can give to other enemies of the united states and israel, terrorist groups, etc. they can also be up their own internal defenses. the white house argument is that , with inspectors on the ground it in 10 years iran decides to build a nuclear weapon, we decide to go in militarily and taken out, we will have a roadmap. able to take out these facilities. , whatgument against that

is iran doing right now? going to russia and buying air defense systems. top-of-the-line as 300 antiaircraft missiles. they will have 10 or 15 years to build up their air defenses. essentially a more difficult target. there are arguments to make against this deal and say we could have had a better deal, we could have had a 25 or 35 year deal. is,white house argument look who we are negotiating with. the fact that people who chant death to america all the time actually reached a deal that will have interest of inspections and other wasrictions on them, that not clear that that was ever going to happen. outead of trying to break

and build a nuclear weapon. but they did. even that piece of the deal is still kind of up in the air. iran might end up voting on this deal -- if the deal falls apart, it might fall apart in iran. host: there are two stories thinking you look at this is taking a look at this. politico writes this -- could you add onto that? guest: mark meadows filed this ended that would have speaker boehner's speakership. againe talked to meadows

and other conservative house beenlicans who have chafing at john boehner's willingness to deal with the white house for years. there is some expectation that there will be some kind of vote at some point. is, boehner might need some democratic modes to keep his speakership. democrats would rather have speaker boehner then some alternatives. at least with speaker boehner, they know that he will probably cut a deal that keeps the government open, etc. you can see something like that happen, whether planned parenthood is the thing that gets him in more hot water or if it ends up being this kabuki like i mentioned where the house -- mitch mcconnell ends up being the bogeyman and boehner says i

did what i could. we will see of that ends up happening. the thing with boehner, we still don't know for sure if you sticking around for another term. if this is his last -- if he is looking at this as his last term in office, maybe he feels a little bit more leeway to be more aggressive. he probably looks at the politics of a long shutdown, not a short shutdown, but a long shutdown as damaging to his party. the lastt like shutdown. wherecould be a situation he has to fall on his sword, save the party from itself and clear the decks for the

presidential election host:. stephen dennis joining us, talking about congress. david in cincinnati, ohio. thank you for waiting. what happens to social security at the government shuts down? guest: i have an answer for you. your checks will still show up. as an security is funded entitlement program. social affected are security offices. you have a question, you want to sign up, that will be with more difficult. -- much more difficult. it will not be an issue if you have a check, the check will still show up. that doesn't mean if you are having an issue, you are kind to go to an office, try to have some complicated thing sorted out -- that is where it bumps

into problems. the good thing about a government shutdown is they don't tend to last that long. usually lawmakers are getting phone calls -- last time, 18 days. that is not going to affect a lot of things. a lot of checks can be cut. it is more of an issue for things like national parks. suddenly, they are closed. your vacation just got ruined. if you need a visa or something that only the government can provide, you are out of luck. if it lasted a long time, you could start seeing states with delayed funding. there would be shortfalls come all kinds of problems if it lasted for month after month. host: dawn from west virginia. republican line. dennis, i'm sitting

here thinking about this iran deal with congress and the obama administration. i have family members involved in the testing of nuclear weapons, my father being one of them in 1950. when they hear of this regime in , they had chanted death to america for years. they proclaim to be children of god but see this death call it -- where does the trust come from in congress to deal with ?hese people the long-range effectiveness is a serious situation. that is the question that needs to be asked. guest: that is a good question.

that is what members of congress are wrestling with. i have not heard a single member of congress or anybody at the white house raise their hand and say i trust iran. notpresident says this is an agreement about trust, it's about verification. deal, theport the argument is you want a situation built all these centrifuges, they've built -- do youd facilities want a situation where we have no inspectors there? you want a situation where they could break out and build a weapon in a matter of months because they already have the material? upy would just need to ramp to build a bomb. or, do you want to have thousands of inspectors heading with a commitment to

reduce their material by 98%? , when there is of thet again -- one things the white house has been successful when it comes to members of congress, people like the energy secretary and a nuclear scientist that has written papers on nuclear , he helpedon negotiate the deal and he points to all the different pathways they would have to a weapon, orther it be plutonium uranium mines, there would be inspectors there. reprocessing facility, inspectors there. to the extent that there is a trust, that gap is filled.

people come in and say trust me, don't trust them. i don't trust them, that's why i negotiated this deal the way i did. i pointed to another argument i have seen, the north korea agreement. there is an agreement with north korea, we give the money and oil and they agreed not to build a new nuclear weapons and they violated the agreement and they have nuclear weapons today. the white house says that agreement was terrible, it was five or six pages long, only don't with plutonium -- dealt with plutonium. we learn from it. , 100 pages, lots more inspections. you trust we will catch them. it is more likely we will catch them now with inspectors on the ground. host: steven dennis is with cq

roll call. someone off twitter asks -- is that on the agenda? guest: the transpacific partnership, they still have to get the deal with all the other countries. we wrote about a fascinating issue this past week, tobacco. mitch mcconnell is the senate majority leader, supports the transpacific partnership. he has lots of tobacco farms in kentucky. he wrote a letter saying it's -- settle for this deal essential for the still come essential for my farmers to have the same access to exports and protections that all the other exports have. there is an effort by opponents regulate tobacco.

that is a tough decision here for the white house. if they go against anti-cigarette exploiting constituencies and mitch go against- if they mitch mcconnell, it's not clear they can pass it in congress. that is one issue of many issues. every member of congress has their own export industry. they want to have some protection for these exports to asia. it did not pass by a huge number of votes. you lose one wing or another wing and suddenly, it is december and you are try to present this thing and you are having a hard time passing it. it is far from being a slamdunk. they did pass the fast-track authority. 50 votes and the vice president and the senate. , you canse some people

still pass this thing. it is something the democratic party is up in arms about. sanders fanning the flames of that. now that he is up a lot, his poll numbers have exploded and hillary clinton's have been imploding, i think that could cause democrats wavering on this to waiver even more. do they really want to capsize the boat in december? host: joe in new orleans on the democrat line. caller: good morning. is aalling because there statement about population in the united states. they always say the president does not cooperate with -- or does not try to get along with republicans in congress.

this is not true. i can remember when he first came in office, he went and had a meeting with republicans, most of which were in that first meeting with republicans who said they would not cooperate with anything the president did. that is a falsehood that he has not tried to cooperate or reach out to the republicans. this from the beginning, even before he took the oath of office, that they were not going to cooperate with him. after he got in office and some of the programs that he was for, of course, they were against. that made them angry. you know what the problem is with congress now, in my opinion? they are just angry that a big done man is getting things

and has outsmarted them in so many areas of government. doing things for the people of the united states. courtack to the supreme that allowed money to be interjected into our political system in our elections. do you remember at the state of the union when the president said that was going to be a problem? money influencing the candidates and their platforms? that has come true. whether younk believe it is race or not, there has been a tendency in for when you have divided government for the past

decade or so -- i remember nancy ,elosi leading the caucus leading her party to line up against any changes in social security. that was a political winner. made a political decision in those first days when there was a stimulus package not negotiate on it. to line up against it. could they have sat down and something? may be. there were some republicans in the senate who did not negotiate. when you are the party out of power at that point and you are deep in the minority, there is political advantage to being a party of no. you end up with a reaction to something majority party does. whether you think it is race or not, there are other reasons.

plenty of other reasons that have to do with philosophical differences. the role of government, whether government should regulate coal plants. mitch mcconnell says no. you would expect someone from where a lot of jobs are associated with coal to oppose that. it would be more of his prize if he wanted a cap and trade bill. -- more of a surprise. host: scott in richmond, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just have a statement. congress is coming back this week. that is nothing to cheer about at all. bbed aave already been du do-nothing congress.

you look at the people in congress running to be president , why would we want them? president? in to be that are one of the president's, that is no different. they are being bought by the rich and powerful. democrat, but i am thinking more and more about donald trump. is.ays it like it my friends used to call that tough love instead of the meeting it. it is tough love that he is giving us. you might not like all the things he says, but at least he is not being bought and paid for . we mentioned trumps appealable for it does cross party lines. appeal before.

you can find it in congressional approval ratings, which are in the low teens, sometimes below that. you are seeing that in the presidential candidates -- there is a lot of grassroots anger. they were promised if you vote for us and we get the majority, we will change all these things and rollback obamacare and rain in the president and those things have happened. nowe's a lot of anger right in the republican base. polls were at the the one who is doing the best --

ted cruz is the one who has stood on the floor of the senate sin sing the majority leader lied to him. he has been against everything mitch mcconnell has been doing this year. if ted cruz was the majority leader, we would have already had a few shutouts this year on nominations.rity, ted cruz can say i'm not part of that. i've been calling these people out for years. anotherstep into me as politician, but he is a percent in the polls. -- 8% in the polls. he doesn't have that name recognition of donald trump.

it donald trump implodes at some , ted cruz could potentially be somebody who benefits from that. people like rand paul, he has been hammered in the polls. 0%-1% andaham with has not been doing so hot, either. it's not like he is breaking out. it will be interesting to see how all these people react to the trump phenomenon. we have seen it on the campaign trail. now, we get to see congress adjust to it. donald trump has been calling them out. does that affect the planned parenthood debate mother shut -- debate, the shutdown?

jeff sessions showed up at an alabama rally and donald trump took his immigration plan and his plan. it will be interesting to see if other members of congress start -- the members tend to reflect the public at some point. we have seen a huge moment this movement to trump -- that would hurt his broad appeal. he is not a politician. bought and paid for issue is something that is helping bernie sanders. bernie sanders is not somebody who left the administration and started m