issues and security the foreign policy initiatives of the trump administration. at 8:00 eastern on c-span3, pedro morenes about spain and the catalan movement.ce ♪ >> c-span's "washington journal" live every day. coming up tuesday morning we're live in missouri for the next the c-span capitals tour with the missouri secretary of state jay ashcroft talking about his decision to turn over state voter information to the president's voter commission, as state's new voter i. d. law. and then the future of the affordable care act with former york lieutenant governor and president trump supporter betsy mccoy. the policy counsel for demand progress to talk about his group's efforts to government surveillance under the foreign intelligence

act.illance watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern morning. join the discussion. >> next, a discussion on the nuclearf the iranian agreement. this comes a few days after president trump's announcement that he will not certify for iran's compliance with the deal, calling into question its future. iranian-he national american council, this is an hour and 15 minutes. >> hi, everybody. ok. such a fantastic crowd. and you are all so young. .t is freaking me out seriously. like you're so young. it's terrifying. hi. the -- i am holly. i cover foreign policy for politico. i'm really pleased to welcome everyone here today for what i hope will be a fruitful .iscussion first let me introduce our panel

ists. i can possibly do justice to all of their accomplishments. rob malli, vice president for policy at the international crisis group. served in the obama administration as special assistant to the president, advisor to the president 's campaign and the white house coordinator for the africa and, north the gulf region. when i first got this beat cover ing foreign policy, i obtain rob's private e-mail address very early on but longest time for some reason i was too shy to reach out to him. and then when i finally did it turns outhim, he's actually a really nice guy. so i don't know why i didn't do it before. sorry. going to the other end, john of foreignrector policy studies at the cato institute, which we in the press just say the libertarian think-tank, the cato institute. interests include grants strategy, u.s. foreign

policy, middle east, the rise of china, and the role and status andhe role of status prestige motivations in inter national politics. that sounds like everything. [laughter] i never talked to john before so bit of research. found out there's a john glasier who is an actor and comedian but you're not that guy , right? john: that guy has no h in his name. holly: oh. ok. and the founder of the national iranian american council. severalis the author of books including most recently " losing an enemy: obama, iran, and the triumph of diplomacy". start thewe discussion, the national iranian american council has asked me to

thank representative david price office for helping secure this venue today. thank its partners. ok. to sit down. ok. you can hear me? everything ok? all right. the table a little bit. last week president trump going to beat he's decertify the iran nuclear deal remains in the u.s. the deal unless or until congress reimposes sanctions on iran. the president also has requested the congress look at passing that basically states that if iran takes certain action, including non- nuclear action, that that a re automatically trigger imposition of sanctions at the same time, the president wants congress to pass legislation states that the united states considers some parts of the iran nuclear deal that are

limited to be time actually be permanent. the goal is to get the inter and irancommunity back to the table to negotiate additional agreements that the trumpat administration says are flaws in the nuclear deal. at the same time, the administration is looking at other ways to counter what it activitiess malign in the middle east, which it can be argue ready many from human to backinges terrorist organizations. so i'm going to ask these guys, rounds ofuple of questions and depending on the factorou know, that will how many questions i have for them and then we'll open it up for audience questions. the free to get into minutia. i know a lot of you are congressional staffers and you specifics. so feel free to do that. .k so john, let's start with you. let's talk about the merits of administration's argument

here. doesn't the administration have that thehen it says way that the iran deal is structured it will make iran economically and that once certain limits are lifted able tothat it will be return to some sort of nuclear ?rogram while being stronger so why or why not ask congress to step in and address this and pressure the international community to devise a new approach to a ran? why not? john: it's certainly true that the sanctions that were lifted under the deal will allow iran build its economy and improve things for itself. this motion that -- i think i thinka bias among both sides in american politics that there's this picture of iran of being implacably in a nuclear weapon. and i don't think that's actual ly the case. i think they've actually kind of decision here which is that they go the route of great er engagement with the

world, they can develop more europe, both east and west actually, they can improve forgs domestically themselves, and, you know, get sanctions lifted and this kind of stuff by not pursuing a nuclear weapon. or, they could go another route doggedly pursue a nuclear weapon and be isolated from the world, sanctioned by way north world the korea is, and sure they would have their security guaranteed by a nuclear deterrent but i they've kind of made a decision that the former route serves their interests more than .he latter that doesn't mean we should give up. a robust still have sanctions -- i mean inspections regime and so on. trust that that will always be their determination. but i actually disagree with the notion that we need to constant have the assumption and the presumption that iran is

doggedly in pursuit of a nuclear weapon and it's only a matter of time and a matter of youyou delay it or how prevent it. i think we have to kind of recognize their choice. holly: to that i kind of want to ask you the same question. and i guess i'll, you know, add it. to why should we trust the iranian government? i mean, this is the government imprisoned americans, you know, executes ridiculous people, is backing militias and terrorist groups across middle east. i could go on. why should we trust anything that they say? john: so if this deal was built on trust, it would never have to begin with because the united states -- because it doesn't have trust for the iranian government for some of the reasons you just .entioned [inaudible] they don't have much government,e u.s. and rest assured that mistrust has been significantly deepened

over the course of the last week . try ta: this was never built on trust. anything, we're trusting the inspections regime that the united states itself helped design to ensure that the iranians are not cheating. and we have to remind ourselves particularly because we are within the narrative in which we say we can never trust the iran ians. well, part of the test here was for the iranians to prove that they can be trusted. up toat's why they lived the end of the bargain. a row now, issued reports saying that the iranians are actually honoring the agreement. entire premise was that over the course of the next 15 years iranians would-- prove that they actually can be a responsible player within the international agreement by liv ends of -- end of the bargain. and as a result then they would come out of the position that in before in which they had been in violation of

the n.p.t. and they needed to be be in goodthem to standing again. and that period ended up staggered atears, some point. but the test was, can they actually live up to their end of the bargain while we are verify ing and inspecting their toacity to do so and be able catch them if they're not? and i have to remind everyone, particularly mindful of the fact that we have this narrative in which we always think they are untrustworthy. i'm not saying that narrative is wrong. but look who it is right now violating 9 deal and talking talk killing the deal and ing about walking out of this deal. we have to face the fact that unfortunately if there's going violation right now it's far more likely that that vie tation would be first committed by the united states the iranians. holly: so those are interesting hi points. but if i was a member of congress and i was skeptical of this deal, one of the arguments make isprobably something that nikki haley has said -- and i'm directing this rob. that apparently there are like

of sites that the i.e. a. has not been able to get access to in iran and that, you know, there's all sorts of things that we don't know about doing andranians are to i.e.a. can't get access them. so what would you tell that member of congress? that's a key piece. them, ok,hing to tell you can access these 10 sites but not these five military sites. why should we trust them? rob: so, thanks. thankful for you coming out. i want to comment on a few of the other questions you asked but i will come to the point you the made because it is at core of what this debate is about. one of the questions you asked is, well, why should we do this deal the iranians will benefit with, the economy will get great er? of course. the whole point of the sanctions was to pressure iran to get to the point where they would agree at least put real constraints on the nuclear program. that was why we imposed sanction so, of course, once they agree to those concessions, the only reason they would do it

is because they're going to lift the sanctions. so if we're not prepared to give them any economic benefit, we should -- what was the whole argument about imposing the sanctions first place? i think that's number one. yes, they're going to get some benefit but that's because this was an agreement negotiated, compromised on all sides. iranians got out of it was some economic benefits, of been i think so far have vast exaggerated. they got some benefit but claimed.ear that's point one. point two, you mentioned the audience is very young and that noticeable. holly, can horrifying. rob: so maybe too young to days in 2013, 2014 when the entire western world and israel were focused on the issue of iran's nuclear program existence shall issue, war and peace. maybe there was hype but that was the issue. thethat's the issue that obama administration was determined to shut down so that we would not -- were not faced with that binary option of iran acquiring a nuclear bomb or us

iran to prevent them from getting it. that was the focus. yes, there was a price to be paid, lifting some of the sanctions imposed to get iran to make the concession. now, you ask about are there flaws in the deal about inspection of sites. this is one of those can yards. because there are so many to fight back. when i was there, this is one of most robustly negotiated. there are no military sites that i. i.e.ite -- that the a. cannot inspect. if there's some evidence that the united states or somebody i.e.a. andes to the says we suspect -- and it's not kind of whim but we have some information that there's some activity that's given militarya site, the i.e.a. has a means of requiring that iran open it up to them. and there's a whole process for that to happen, much tighter, by than what exists with virtually any other country. so this notion that there are hundreds of sites that the i.e. a. can't inspect, it is true that what the iranians were

goistent upon was you can't on a wild goose chase and say we think there's a nuclear device supreme leader's bathroom so we're going to inspect it. that was something they said they were worried about. didn't want the i.e.a. to go on a fishing expect decision. provide some evidence, which nikki haley was unable to i.e.d by her admission and a.'s admission, was unable to do. iranians refuse access and compromises, then that could be a mature breach and then we're in a different world. we're not there yet. there's not been a single instance of request of a i.e.a. thate by the has been -- that iran has refus ed. those mythsne of that are hard to combat because there are so many of them but of them that we're hearing every day. .olly being: thank you for that john: i wanted to make a quick point.

kind of assume there's a calculus behind trump decision and there isn't of the part of the reason we know that is because virtually the nationalof his security team urged him to certify. behindas no strategy decertification. all the strategizing that went was by his national security team to try to figure out a way irrationaltrump's distaste for the deal but not back out entirely. it's notable, for example, that trump did not impose sanctions himself which he has to do.ht it's notable that he didn't announce a formal withdrawal asm the deal which, again, the executive he has the right to do. and that's because virtually the , thee world, the i.a.e.a. europeans, the russians, the intelligenceu.s. community, the chairman of joint chiefs of staff, the head of u.s. strategic command, james mattis, rex tillerson, h.r. mc master, again, this was

everybody agreed that not only working and iran is complying but that it's in the it. interest to stay in he's put us in a position where we have less leverage than we negotiated initially the deal which means we can't arrangementstive or more concessions out of iran. they've've signaled, made clear to congress that they are not asking him to reimpose nuclear-related sanctions which the thing that actually constitutes a formal violation or withdrawal from us, not the itself.ication so that's making explicit that decertification is non- instrumental. to achievepposed anything other than to broadcast deal.s distaste for the and his babysitters in the white to make it ased easy a landing as possible. holly: that actual actually leads into my next question. but i do want to make something very clear. i think a lot of people don't realize this. public and frankly around

the hill, the united states still has numerous sanctions on iran. the only sanctions that were nuclear-related sanctions so we still have sanctions related to their ballistic missiles, their human violations, and their support for terrorism which means that it's actually very, if not impossible for most businesses in this country to do business with iran that's an important clarification because i think a lot of people think the u.s. lifted all of its sanctions on not.and it has i do want to point that out for people to know. question, john, stick the president has thrown this into the lap of congress. play out?s going to what would you predict will happen? john: well, it's interesting when he made the announcement and there were about aloating around proposal from tom cotton and bob removethat essentially the goal post on the deal itself

and try to basically unilateral alter the multi- lateral agreement which is not going to happen and which would constitute a violation of itself. but before that the main was, will congress reim pose nuclear-related sanction as they had the opportunity to do within a 60-day window of the deal if it's decertified or will they ignore trump? and it looked like there was momentum in favor of not reimposing nuclear-related sanctions senator jeff flake out and said it would be un wise to unburden iran from the restrictions now that they've benefited from economic saidions senator rand paul something similar. representative royce, foreign affairs committee, said weething similar, that should enforce the deal. so there seems to be, even among that occurredg during the deal's signing and afterwards, a recognition that in this deal, it is working so long as iran is

complying we should not unilaterally back out and isolate ourselves from the world so it might very well be the case that congress, you know, doesn't reimpose nuclear-related be aions but it's going it close fight. it's going to be difficult. holly: rob? rob: just a little nuance on that answer. i never thought the president, administration, or congress reim impose nuclear sanctions because that would be such a blatant violation of the deal, isolate the u.s., i thought, the administration, and those in congress who want to be tougher on this issue, would not go down that road. i thought and i think that's what's playing out is a different -- which i doo think is dangerous. i wouldn't minimize the risk, exactly what the president announced, which is he wants congress to pass tie theion that would reimposition of some sanctions, nuclear-related sanctions to action that iran would take that are consistent with the deal. so for example, as you mentioned , under the deal some lifted afterget year 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15.

the legislation that the pushing, andn is that some in congress are iranrting work say if engages in activity after those constraints had been lifted, theh are consistent with deal, because the constraints would have been lifted, we would consider that unacceptable and sanctions. that's a violation of the deal. i think the real test for congress is to make that distinction clear. yes, we could -- legislation that says if iran violates the deal we're going to impose that shouldf course be the case because that's what the deal itself says. congress to say we're going to impose sanctions that eithern lifted, if iran, engages in activities outside the deal like ballistic missiles or support for terrorism or if it takes actions in the nuclear field but are permit the by the j cfo a, that would be a violation of the deal and give every excuse for iran to say you're violating the deal, we same.do the and all the benefits of the deal as we just heard every expert, including the u.s. government working in block ing iran's pathway that

gone because we're play ing with the deal. this argument it's not a violation of the deal because i mean happens today, what would he would say if tomorrow iran announced we're going to abide by the nuclear but if in two years the u.s. has not withdrawn from iraq, all bets off, we're going program. our i think we would say that's a violation of the deal. i think we would say that's un acceptable because our deal had nothing to do with our presence in iraq. if theys to now say engage in activity permit, sanctions are coming back, that violation of the deal , would isolate us from europe, would strengthen the thatiners in iran, and would put news violation of the deal. trita? trita: very clearly, what trump onworking with the senate right now is a measure that would be a violation of the deal for specifically looking things that absolutely ensures that the iranian will say no to it. the idea that you could have permanent punishment of iran and

sign itecting iran to while you're giving them no sanctions is prepositive truss. so the path that he's suggesting there is one that will ensure the deal will be violated, will fall apart. said, very clearly, if congress does not do this, then i will terminate the deal myself. so here you have it. both paths that trump is proposing will lead to the deal being killed. say he hasn't killed it because he didn't do it on friday, is essentially saying kyle it is ifto he does in one move. he's doing in t in two moves but still killing it. so what john said, listen to what rex tillerson said over the weekend in one of the interviews said the real end game is regime change. ok. now we're starting to -- holly: don't think that was his exact words. the goal iny, like, the long run -- to get the iran ian government -- people to get their government back. right?

that's different. i want to be clear about that. trita: if you're throwing these things out there, expect a negotiation with the same party looke saying, well, we're ing to see that regime gone. this is starting to look like iraq again in which we have a of diplomacy while we're pursuing regime change a policy that quite likely will statesgetting the united into a military confrontation with iran. you combine that with the fact that as john said, his own opposition to the deal is everyone elseause inside his own administration disagrees with the decertification and walking out deal. and with the fact that he's presenting congress not with an option to actually have any to do but to ensure that congress becomes complicit in the decision of killing the deal. seconds.en 10 basically what the president is telling congress is let's together, i'lll violate it alone. i don't think that's a deal that take.ss should holly: i think you can probably

tell this panel is a little stacked on one side. right? so let me -- [laughter] let me play devil's advocate, my favorite role. trump isn't the only one that doesn't like this deal. all right? saudis don'tthe like this deal. our friends, the [indiscernible] andt like this deal will i'm looking at you, rob, because you used to deal with these guys all the time. the israelis do not like this deal and they are thrilled with what the president doing. shouldn't we care about what our friends think? rob: sure, though it's a little overstatement. when you say our friends the they're -- holly can, not our friends? rob: no. we have security intelligence deal --s who say this you have the former prime minister who used to be the defense minister who said it be a big mistake for united states to decertify. yes, he doesn't like it now i think he speaks for israel

is that what you're saying. said theoint has alternative to this deal is [inaudible]. prime minister netanyahu who had the famous cartoon where he showed that increasing its enrich ment capacity and said this is a threat we have to stop what. president obama stopped it. you're right this is a stacked --el but there's a reason many others have supported this deal who are not suspected of .ny sympathy i can say in terms of our other allies, correct, the saudis have agenda against iran which we understand and we have supported them militarily so they could iran's activities. it doesn't mean we have to securityct national decisions that involve the u.s., matters of war and peace, to preference. the ones fighting are not saudi arabia. it's the united states. are there things not perfect with the deal?

absolutely. it's a compromise. it's not an act of surrender by iran. it was a compromise. number two, if there are things we want to still talk about, as are, terrorism, ballistic missiles, the sunset clause, the not toaddress those is tell the iranians today by the way the deal is no good if you accept these things because then iran may walk a wayne all of those problems will exist, plus we'll have an iranian nuclear program that will start accelerating today not 15 years but today. to do it is let's implement this deal in good faith for a number of years. then you want to talk to the iranians when there's mutual trust. what?y, you know there are things we still want to address. your ballistic missile program, your support for certain organizations around the world. some of the limitation that expire. you mentioned the embargo. they still want that lifted. so have that negotiation but you can't have it when the ink on the deal that has just been sign ed is not even dry and when you're sending the message to the iranians our word is not

worth the paper it's written on the nexthe next day or administration we're going to walk away from it. the deal that exists, make sure iran doesn't move forward on its nuclear program beyond what the jcpoa couldn't plates, and, then, yes, there deal with.we will to we know it. we have a pretty hostile relationship with them. ok.y: i'm sure you'll get your point in, trita. here's the thing, though. i just have a difficult time surviving. this deal my question is this. going i go ahead -- i'm to address this to john but you can all jump in. should i go ahead and write the deal? for this here's the thing. let's say it holds up, you know, years orext 10 whatever, and then, you know, you guys are thinking, all right , maybe now we need to come with some additional agreements, think in the long term. but the iranians have seen that is willing totes

elect someone who is willing to completely overthrow the previous administration's decision. you're iran, wouldn't you right now be making the calculus that, look, i don't care if this apart today or 10 years from now, we are going rely onbecause we can't the stability or consistency of system.ican john? john: they would be justified in coming to that conclusion. however, we shouldn't under estimate the extent to which trump has done iowa ran a favor -- iran a huge favor. wedge between us and our european allies, on road from the world. and iran is still at this moment continue toe to trade with these countries and diplomacy witht them and improve relations so iran in a certain sense, i'm they're nervous about the extent to which they can trust

we'll abide by the deal but they also in a very -- in an interesting strategic position that we've kind of given to them on a silver platter. talked you said you're going to enforce long answers to cut you i'm going off. john: throw something sharp at me if if i go on too long. i'm going to say something controversial and doesn't win me jconds even among my fellow pa supporters. there's this bipartisan consensus that iran's other regional activities are a major threat to the united states. and this is actually one favor of the jcpoa. we have a nuclear issue over here in a box. ably lian more be confront iran on other activities whether it's support for terrorism or ballistic missiles or what have you. the reality is, none of iran's regional behaviors pose a serious threat to the united states. let me say that again for emphasis. iran's regional behaviors pose a serious threat

to the united states. holly: hold on. john: no. holly: hold on. we have troops in iraq, troops syria. i'm sorry. i don't buy that. john: i will explain and then you will buy it. john: only under the most expansive definition of you national interests can even pausebly frame these issues as a threat to put it slightly slightly differently to address your objection, iran's are only ahaviors threat to the united states to the extent that we continue to nose in asticking our region whose strategic importance has been massively for generations. there are essentially three strategic justifications for our excessive over involvement in this region: israel, terrorism, and oil. holly: those are really important things. john: no, they're not. listen. israel, first of all, is power ful and strong enough to doesn't needednd united states. and, from our perspective, they are more of a liability than an asset, to be blunt about it. secondly, terrorism.

it turns out other than being the most egregiously inflated threat in the history of u.s. foreign policy, it turned out the of military force is not all that effective a tool in addressing the problem. done more to exacerbate the terrorism problem through our approach in the region post than to mitigate it and it hasn't diminished the already probability threat of an american being killed by a terrorist here in this country. third, oil. many of our four deployed bases in the persian gulf are purposed deter iran from attempting to close the strait. unlike unlikely scenario. first of all, the export most of their oil through the straightso they would be damaging themselves economically by doing this and all of iran's regional farls, many of whom have superior conventional military capabilities than iran does, think it's a interest the s trait stays open and on top of have rapid deployment capabilities that can respond to

fromunlikely contingencies offshore. so we can easily take a step back from this region and not damage our interests seriously. so when you hear about how iran 's support for hezbollah and hamas threatens the united states, how? these groups have local concerns thate could easily make none of our business tomorrow if we wanted to. holly can that's definitely the speaking.n in you >> i got to jump? here. holly: fine two minutes. trita: i am on the panel. to ourtioned listen friends. you're right. that means we should listen to the brits. we should listen to the germans. listen to the french. we should listen to the south of our, indians, oven allies who support this deal. you managed to exhaust the list of opponents and there's three of them. holly: but they support the deal because of business interests. making money. trita: oh, my god. if you think that the europeans sacrifice the american market for the tiny

iranian market in comparison and not about security, that they were never actually genuine about trying to prevent proliferation, i think that's an insult to our friends. you're not listening to them. you're insulting them bring saying this. more over, those three nations that arementioned opposed to it -- and rob is it quite right. in the case of israel, it is the prime minister and part 69 political elite. it is not the security establish .ent there also happen to be three countryies in either their governments or parts of their government have been on record, inadvertently at times, support ing military action .gainst iran i think it is a bit of a correlation. if you are killing this deal, a both iranprevented from getting a nuclear weapon and prevented war between the iran, tookes and those two options off the table, if if you kill the deal, you put backen opt thens table. holly: here's something that and rob canf you touch on. you made the point that, oh, my

gosh, why would the europeans marketck the iranian over the american market? but if i was trump, you know, or one of the people who supports he's doing right now, i would say the same thing. i would be like, look, you know, can decertify, we can impose the sanctions back on, and the europeans in the end will come with us because they care about our market more than they care about that market. trita: if it was just economics, perhaps that would work. holly: what do you think? rob: it might work. know.t that's why i am worried about this deal. you asked should you write the eulogy? not.e i hope congress will stand up to the self- ininflicted wound by administration. i hope others will stand up. is it possible that if the threat -- if the administration goes through with this and tells the europeans you choose our market or the iran happens.knows what but that's not a good scenario and shouldn't be for the administration because that means at that point, and i think iranians made that as clear as can be -- if they have to live under the constraints of nuclear deal where they're not getting the economic

benefits which are the only benefits of getting out of this now, why would they stick to it? we would be in a position where iran will say thank you very much, inspectors are going home, constraints are forgotten, and we'll resume the nuclear program a few years ago we were saying and prime minister net net was saying was a threat. it might work but that's the worst outcome which would be the end of deal. -- ifs is where, you know, the administration's calculation is we are going to try to pressure iran to change the terms of the deal and we could do it through the europeans, guarantee you it won't work. it will not work. the deal will not be changed this way. ae only way you could have supplemental deal is by implementing this one in good faith. so i'm not contradicting you. think that many businesses are going to say, you know, we have this american market, we cannot matter what our leaders may say about how we need to stand firm. but that for me is a nightmare scenario where you will see iran say goodbye to this deal. and i don't see where we have a better alternative on offer right now.

holly: one more question before open it up to the floor for a while. i guess i want you all to jump in quickly. yourself in the mind of someone who opposes this deal. ok? advising a member of congress about what to do. what strategy would you give follow? you oppose the deal. witz.d you're rebound -- rebound witz. -- >> you want us give advice? holly -- can i do. trita: i was actually quite surprised that during this debate in 2015 and still today i think one of the arguments that could be used against the deal i don't happen to agree with it but unlike many of the other arguments actually have a basis whereas many of the other oh, we don't have access to these sites and things like that frankly are factually incorrect. at the end of the day, this deal ended, -- if it ended decades

long policies pursuing an all- isolation and contain ment of iran, it's a deal that the united states recogniz ed for better for worse iran is a major player in the region and that we're going to strategyre effective if we actually recognize that and try to talk to them and make deals with them rather than all-out outt an containment strategy could work. from the perspective of the united states, even if you don't take the position john took right now of saying, look, the region carries no strategic value, i would have a variation of that of say willing that i value of theategic region has plummeted for a variety of reasons, not to say was never important, combined with the fact that the cost of getting involved in this has skyrocketed. because it's one thing to be the [indiscernible] of the region when it is a relatively function ing region of function ing states. it's a completely different be the hedgemon of a region with three failed states and potentially two additional ones in the next couple of years. you're responsible for security

region. why would anyone want to be that compliant that with the super power, united states global be to make sure that there are no global peer competitors emerging that can challenge the united states. not a country like iran that might challenge the u.s. region that someone actually can challenge the u.s. on a global scale. the united states gets bogged down in what is essentially strategically margin conflict, the less of a capacity it will have to be able to address these challenges that will be coming in the next decade or two. but from the perspective of some region, whether you're saudi arabia or one of the of doesn'tuntries that figure in because you are faced with an iranian rival.

you cannot balance iran on your so you want the united states to do the job for you. if you're saudi arabia, perhaps i'm notes sense but seeing the answer being -- the question being answered in washington. what's in it for the united states? to especially become a proxy of saudi arabia in its own rivalr ies? bad for the u.s. and if it is good for the u.s., it is bad for world, that is not how the world works. there are win-win solutions, prime example of that.

why we have allies, we capacity to bring about positive, not just for ourselves, but others, as well. essentially saying i'm for america, i'm against the capaci positive, world and that doesn't work. holly: you didn't really answer my question. i will jump over, there are who advise congressmen and some congressmen want to of thew can they get out deal, you know and what strategy justify it. >> i want to piggyback off trita said, i can try to shoehorn it into your question, which is impossible deal is working and effective. touched upon something crucial, which is, in a way, the not value of this deal is what it literally accomplishes, hat it literally accomplishes is rollback of iran's nuclear and prevention of

foreseeable future and maybe forever of weaponization. the actual value to the united states, it erects psychological arrier to the united states going to war with iran for reasons.imaginary and conflicts of interest. trita is right to point out, art of our position in the regi region, has been to subordinate the sake terests for of other people's interests. in private israel meetings with u.s. officials, urged a more hawkish and perhaps militaristic approach to iran, it is true. it is true saudi arabia cut the the snake, or what have you, if they want to take that approach, they can, we should about our own interest. it is a pity that trump has with sort of ters different ideas about foreign

policy, first of all, to have foreign policy, you have to know something about the world and he doesn't. what n terms of conservatives, who don't like the deal, should be argues, i hink they should take the approach that the extreme right-wing hawks that support taken rice, mcmaster, who fought in iraq on the ground, this isn't ode pink in the trump administration, they are arguing that we stay in this deal, effectively rolls back iran's nuclear program and fight on other issues that i unfortunately isolated myself on, that aren't actually a threat. i'm sure congress people would like to get your are hts on it, because you rob. robert malley: i'll be candid, i spoke to critics of the deal, i the strategy employing now were the right one, in other words, say we're not against the deal, not getting out of the

deal, trying to improve on the could like the unset clause or we don't like iranian terrorism. they suffer from one major flaw, which come from the president outside, the cat is out of the bag, they made it clear as can be that they want the deal. resident trump has said it, others have said it, as trita said, they have hints run into it. hard not to play the game, we don't want out of the deal, we're trying to improve it, when is clear, including what the president said when he said, if way, we're my leaving the deal, it makes it very hard for a member of would like to get out of the deal, but doesn't want to be viewed -- want the viewed as responsible to play that game anymore. it is in plainview, the clear to has made it everyone, this is the objective, ind a way to get out of the

deal or take away all the benefits iran get so they walk away. nowing that, you can't unknow that anymore. so, i don't know that it could make a clever argument anymore. it was the right approach, but it was polluted the the beginning by admissi admission, honest admission that the goal was we want the deal to we got to findnd a way out of it. olly: okay, anyone with questions? gentleman right there. go ahead. mic?e have a please. and please tell us your name and you're with. question: sonny christopher with senator's office. i want to know, in lookingats picture, if the deal is killed what effect would that have on the negotiating in terms the next administration? would that make iran more or with ikely to cooperate the next administration if the trump administration does kill it? holly: how about john, can you

take that? john glaser: it would make them likely to negotiate because it is less, they see the united states as less trustworthy. is also something i have to rereference something i said in he beginning, if we're trying to renegotiate aspects of the the and when the rest of world thinks it is working and we should stay in it, we have ess leverage than we had, the obama administration did a lot of work and rob knows a lot bout this, to bring the world along in the sanction regime to pressure against iran and they ended up making significant concessions f. we're alone, and we don't have everage overoir allies or over iran that we used to, no way to get more out of iran with less doesn't work like that. so yes, very challenging bstacle for the next administration, how to fix what trump is in the midst of destroying. if i could add

something. someone in tehran with a huge smile on his face. that the united states cannot be trusted, has in sector of the ge iranian politics been vindicated. go ahead, negotiate, we don't trust it, the united states deal, lly will kill this they will not be true to their word. in the view of many people in right now, even those that of the he paranoia united states, that has been vindicated and that has come at of the moderate lements in iran to made the argument, let's strike a deal and work this out, perhaps it will be additional changes in sides.icies of both it was tweeted in the last weeks f the negotiation that this could be the floor instead of beginning of additional changes rather than

making sure this is it and nothing else can happen. will be s happen, it very difficult for anyone in the ranion political elite to in private, decisive meetings make the argument for negotiations with the united states. dramatic needs to change on this side before i see their over there risking political career by making that argument. >> i agree with everything my colleague said, during the negotiations what is ironic, when the iranions complained tough ome of the requirements we put in the deal, to tie them down, they would would argue that we don't know what is going to happen to iran, could be a we have to guarantee against future change. hey say the same to us and our argument was, we have a system by tradition presidents respect of predecessors, so you don't need to worry about that. us at our hey took

word n. truth, we didn't suspect would t administration come around and tear this up. as we said earlier, the points colleagues made. number one, why would iran trust us? iran who those in don't want to trust us, trust us now? how can we get a better leverage andh less less coalition, that doesn't compute. lady right question, there. she gave me her business card and i appreciate it. guys, that admission, i need your business cards before you leave. question: erica with congressman williams' office. unfair to discount concerns by israel, when during he deal there was rhetoric calling for israel to be wiped america ap and calling the great satan and i just like you all to speak a little bit about that rhetoric and we know are sites like partian, i you say it, how

that were, we didn't know about just address those few things, i guess. holly: rob, can you take that one? robert malley: sure. think it is clear from the obama administration that of israel and i know john expressed controversial iew, i think it is worth articulating and hearing it, but let's take your question at its face. israel feels iran is a threat to their security. the question is and this is a that i think president obama tried to answer, is israel moving ure with iran toward a nuclear bomb or one that is not. a conversation, so many i get your s about, concerns, let's agree if we have a deal that at a minimum for the 10 to 15 years, ensure iran can't move toward a nuclear bomb knowing right away and we will stop it. that is better than the is on that that point.

i'm parsing. not only did we know about it, sticking point to make sure the iaea would have find issuesey could ast military dimension of the iran program would be addressed. it was addressed, we were able deal.e forward with the if there is evidence today, and when as surfaced, but vienna, she ent to said, it is true, we didn't rovide evidence of suspicious activity f. the evidence is put forward and the iaea demands says no, no, no, we face a problem if not the conflict gh resolution, we have right to say the way, we have allies with us, let's listen to they . they agree, which would if iran were to bar access in illegitimate way to military sites. hat is not what we have today,

there is no evidence. there are echos of iraq, we have o be careful of an administration manipulating and we have s down a path seen before. comments get more attention than the expert community and military israel.hment in the vast majority of whom have said this is a good deal, it off iranian nuclear weapon. to have iran, that doesn't have nuclear weapons han a break-out time of a few months. holly: question from this side. lady right there. hi.stion: shoeshon, debra director of policy and government relations at americans for peace now. piece, pro organization, if any of you are interested in talking about organization, they

organization is pro-iran deal, working to preserve it. my question, i want to flip the the ion on its head, question being how would you opponents of the deal to kill it. my question is, as someone with working to save this deal, what advice might you in which ways organizations like mine and like yours, of course, trita, as can push congress people who are perhaps on the fence on say corker and cotton legislation to give them backbone, such that they might save this deal? what advice do you have? trita, that is all you. trita parsi: thank you. thank you so much, thank you for doing on thisbeen issue and many other issues. i would say the first thing is to actually be able to not only save the deal, make sure portantly there isn't a war and isn't a

nuclear weapon program in iran, critical thing to make sure this deal is protected, that engage in any type of conversation or negotiation say okay, how to can we get some form of sanctions in place in the hope violation of the deal. that would end up being death of by thousand paper, paper cuts. instead, if you strengthen this deal, do the one thing that has worked in years, there is plenty of concerns on the american side about iran, many legitimate. of the past 37 years, there is only one example in which the nited states actually successfully has managed to change or amend iranian core any significant way and that is through multi lateral negotiation with closest allies, that is the only time. verything else has only tended to atrack, make the conflicts

more difficult, in fact if we adamantly optimistic about the sanctions, why is it problems today after 38 years of sanctions? houldn't all sanctions have produced some sort of result in iran -- could say etcetera. it has. iranians are in a stronger position than they ever have been. bring them ions did to the negotiating table. trita parsi: i strongly disagree with that narrative and you will that in my book about what appened in the secret negotiations. march 2013, the united states for the first time in secret talks held by the government enrichment card and conveyed to iranians the u.s. is form of o accept some based oment iranian soil on limitations and conditions. that is really what truly opened up the negotiations. into that in greater detail.

but the point being, we have one example that work. plenty of examples did not work. why are we, if we want to deal, if we want to make sure that israel's security, the issue of hezbollah things are effectively addressed and we get to a better place, why are we choosing the in the last 37 years has not produced any results? question.t yes, right here. question: hi. mariano, congressman steven lynch. ne of the arguments that the opponents of the deal have been making is that while we are continue to do ballistic missile testing, and arguments that folks in favor of the deal were can get as, well fwe the nuclear issue off the table, we can focus on other things. do you think there may have been something that we could have done right after this deal went working on tart these other issues because then

maybe we could have done with them and al wouldn't have this excuse that the opponents are using to find ways to kill it. was there an opportunity missed to start doing something on the issue? holly: that's an excellent question. rob. robert malley: not only did we not deal with them, we did it during the deal. summits president obama held with gcc colleagues, go back and cil, look at how much was discussed countering iran, whether cyber, ballistic gulf, s, whether in the so -- question: iran, though -- to that lley: i'll get in a second. we were trying to make sure our would be comforted, they were worried about the deal. that.n't wait for talking about iran and other issues, it is a long story. ite argue why didn't you put on the table during the talks?

ongoingks would still be and we would not have addressed all the issues because some of iran's to the heart of regime and security doctrine, it will be very tough. clear to me if -- were here, he would probably don't think iran is ready for that kind of discussion. said, first we want to see if this works, we don't works, ericans, if is maybe we can have other conversations. secretary kerry tried many times talk about other issues, he could only go so far, i don't minister had ign that authority. i wish that had happened, we ever banked on it, i think president obama was realistic and clear-eyed, he didn't expect t by the end of his administration there would be transformation of the relationship. hoping we could have discussions on the issues, missiles, listic hezbollah, i don't think the

appetite existed in tehran. those will be difficult conversations because of how big the gap is. to make the need iranian argument for them, they theystrong views about why need to predict power forward. i think that will be a very to h discussion that needs be had. we're not off to a good start, trita and john said, we don't set the stage for more difficult discussion when you the deal that -- easier issue to tackle. on y: if i could follow-up her question there is another issue of the prisoners held in iran. particular, i know, deal of members of congress, either american citizens, the iranian government is holding, i believe four, more, some held for several years now. few w we managed to get a of them freed, the iranians get ew people or hanging on to one or two, i mean, this is just --

contradict anything you said, i can't, i'm in full some ent tis an outrage, of them are people trita and i have known for many years. fact we don't know the people doesn't make it better or orse, these people were unjustifiably detained and being held. as so all that is true and there is ourself, still many sanctions that are being imposed and -- embargo wants a ist, if iran better relationship with us, they will have to live up to what our international standards detainees. the that doesn't mean we sacrifice the nuclear deal, i don't know will help get our american citizens back home. holly: here is the thing driving this discussion, is that, you know, you guys keep iran, iran. the iranian government is make various factions, i mean,

who is really in charge? guess i'm just -- >> this is exactly the point. iran has dynamic domestic so if al situation, you're trying to think to yourself, how do we improve behavior or get them to make concessions on our interests, the question is how do you do it. here are people who believe browbeating, hostile rhetoric, threats of war are likely to get they are response, conpitulate, either or continue to be pains in the bult. minded people understand inside domestic hard linershere are and moderates and if you do things that concede certain the other side when you make compromises, it tends who can do oderates the compromises. wisely trump, as trita said, the hard liners in iran

are olstered because they proving right, these guys warned against trusting the united beginning and their ust satisfying priors cht holly: but maybe, let me run this by you, one of the arguments that some people on the conservative side of this should right is we now empower the hard liners. the idea would their priors cht if you ut be that make them really in charge, make lined, then itard will anger the iranian people enough they will take their government back. this is, i've seen white papers. > this flies in the face of every bit of scholarship known about this kind of situation. you encourage a rally around the flag effect. when, you know, sanctions and of things that try to do this, what you are talking rally ofly create this around the flag effect and not ions on th own are

actually all that, they don't have a lot of utility as foreign have to offer u people a way out in exchange for behavior.action and holly: trita. trita parsi: i'm glad you raised that point. is not a hypothetical, theoretical conversation about what wouldhappen and the iranian people want, it is very clear. they have gone in several elections, however flawed those elections are in iran, they have they have every time that they have been given a hance voted for the least bad, the least hard-lined option on the ballot. precisely because they don't go there, they want to see a gradual change, an opening in the united states western world and they believe they are in a better position to about what they and want they think would work that with the opening up of iran, it will strengthen the voices inside the country that with ly want interaction the outside world and

marginalize hard-line elements. liner necessary iran strongly agree with us, that is part of the reason they that this deal would have led to a broader -- been u.s. have businesses coming in, they started arresting people right before the deal was struck in people who were thinking okay, now iran is open get in usiness, let's that market and interact with the iranians. let me tell you something to in mind. just recently, apple and google out all of the produced by store iranian engineer necessary iran. appre is an it sector, every you can find there, they have uber and different things, that hould become a very important part of their economy. now not because of any changes n the law, but because of interpretation of the political context of the sanctions law, google decided they will kick out the apps from

pretty ore, which gave much death nail to many of the companies that have become quite successful. now who do you think we're hurting here? 20 to s are produced by 25-year-old kids in iran iscovering new frontiers, empowering themselves in many different ways. f you go to their offices, you will not see pictures of -- you will see pictures of steve jobs, by this tough policy that is hurting them and not at all hurting the hard liners. look at the head of cahon newspaper. cahon is one of the most hard-line newspapers in iran, pedalling in a lot of fake news. he said trump just gave us a big gift because this hard-line approach is undercutting the moderate, embarrassing the moderates because their gamble did not work out, while causing rally around the

phenomena that john just mentioned. they are certainly -- quite happy. on that?put a bow eight seconds. we have a little bit of -- some promoting hard-liner leader necessary iran. awesome.ork out that is the regime we're dealing with now, the reaction to the excessive our medaling in this country. bad route and it is hard to tell innocent iranians. civilians, we n are looking out for your interest, why don't you suffer dictatorship than you are now for a little while so we can get our bones in. right? holly: yes. question. hang on. question: full circle here, we will about what the u.s. do, what -- will do, so to take what would stion of you recommend to conservatives,

what would you recommend to leadership? if you are iran and this is do?urring, what steps do you do you -- stick to the deal and ay you will stay with your -- excuse me, with your european partners who you have an stake in your country? do you -- what do you do? advising iran, what would you advise them to do? rob, why don't you start with that one and then trita. robert malley: not advising iran, i think wise to stick to the deal and put the onus on the and make sure they draw the words between the u.s. and we're n allys and say, the good guys, living by the deal, the u.s. is not. think they will do that, that is my suspicion, they will hold until the point economic benefits of the deal start drying up because then favor n iran who are in of this approach have no

argument left. ot only is the u.s. not making a deal, it is having an effect on the economy. iranian leader, i the stick to it, get europeanos my side, convince them to do business despite the threat of secondary sanctions. t some point, may not be attainable, that is what i suspect they should and will continue to do. if trita agrees. holly: correct me if i'm wrong, understand.rtant to a lot of u.s. sanctions that themimposed on iran to get to come and which were listed were secondary sanctions which imposed on companies in other countries or threatened to countries on other that would do business with iran. the whole idea with secondary is not to punish iran, it is punish firms outside of do that might want to business with iran. so if congress reimposes those anctions, that is the stick they hold over companies in

europe, the idea they will get kept out of the u.s. system if they do business with iran. that is a big, significant point. i want to make sure people understand that. treta, please go ahead. giving rsi: not about recommendation, i want to share what i think they are likely to do. think is perhaps good in the sense of making sure that the deal doesn't get killed, i think that would be bad if it was. right now, notice they are relatively low profile, i think that is because of their calculation that trump is shooting himself in the foot, the united states and as a result, they have no nterest in interfering while he's doing that. the area i really worry about, articularly when combined with the suggestions, some of them quite explicit about regime hange, that will lead to much, much tougher position of iran in the region, rather than seeing contrary, we he will see them become more aggressive in the region as a result of this. is my big worry.

holly: rob, can i ask you one thing. lot of your concern is like, you know, about preventing of ear war and those types things. what is it like on a personal that you ee something worked on so hard in the previous administration, like things you helped of beinge under threat thrown out, like how is it personally to watch this play the white house? robert malley: my wife works on health care, you can imagine our conversations. i try not to personalize it, lthough i admit i probably get more passionate about this than other issues. bviously, not great, but i do think there are issues on which legacy issues i'm ambivalent. told me a policy about this or that, well, may not have entirely, i feel personally vested. rare this is a no-brainer, it -- i don't

understand other than those who shouldn't deal with iran, we should try to squeeze regime will change, but those who think we can get a better deal this way, that t understand argument. it is not i don't think it is a matter of personal feeling, even you said never good to see several years of work, but i ers will suffer more than would if there is confrontation in the region if in fact the trita said hard liners use this to crack down, a if the iranians retaliate in iraq or syria, women in uniform will suffer, my personal feelings, i won't deny exist, are not the primary thing. is a case, i try to have an open mind, i work at group, we al crisis put ourselves in other people's shoes, that is what we do for a living. hard to understand the argument, not of those who think bad actor and we

should never make concessions with them, for those who think improve the deal. every bone in my body tells me, that will not work. put yourself in the shoes of iranian, why would they accept you a gun to their head, if don't agree to more concessions, then you agree to so far, we deal, now way the come to the negotiating table. no sense, iranian, chinese, that is not the way you do business. alarmed, we are presenting his choice to the iranians, which basically they could only say no to, an offer they can refuse. holly: i think time for one more question. media. still confused with all this. there are nuclear related sanctions, the secondary sanctions. there are nonnuclear related sanctions. rita, you said if -- that either of those would be bad.

but yet, if there is nothing, says he is going to undo the deal through nuclear sanctions. isn't it better to have nonnuclear related sanctions or congress do nothing in the next 60 days and how do we does nothing?s i've heard we should push ccarthy and mcconnell nothing goes to the floor. could you be specific about 60 days. olly: this is fascinating, someone urging congress to do nothing. go ahead. trita parsi: i think it is keep in mind, it is not just so if you have nuclear nothing bad ns, impose, that would be violation. if you have sanctions, even if of any on the basis other issue, terrorism, human targeting it is iran's trait, rather than being argeted, that is violation of the deal. essentially we have broad-based -- and immediately

after they are done, we reimpose sanctions in a different form with a different basis, that obviously will not work. violation. that is where i think there might be difficulty because everything u.s. congress is at is going to really be difficult to find new areas of already that haven't been sanctioned, aren't already sanctioned. have more sanctions on iraq than any other country. said have beenwe lifted, they have not been lifted, they have been waved. to be ve to continue waved every 100 to 180 days. approach, in the sense of no action in the sense of adopting new sanctions, but other things can be done. a, making sure we live up to the faith andr it in good reengage in diplomacy to address that very same issues people say in many ways legitimately are concerns. holly: we're almost out of time, i want to end this on somewhat

light note. if i remember correctly, referred to it s arabian gulf, right? and i can just say one thing, like there is no way to make iranians united against you than to refer to the persian gulf as the and i think, is it fair to say he might have lost that?ans with >> he lost iranians with the muslim ban in january already, majority of people who were affected by this were iranians no there were really security basis for that whatsoever, no case of iranians engaging in nd lethal terror. on the contrary, it's been productive thing for the united states. already there and in the third iteration of the muslim ban, he he no cred iblt, claiming wants the best for the iranian people and he's reaching out to him. they are laughing at holly: he has nothing to lose. thank you all so much, really appreciate this. [applause]

holly: remember to give me your business cards. thank you. >> tonight on the communicators, we interviewed four cyber researchers teaching the latest techniques and artificial intelligence at the hat conference in las vegas. >> internet of things of thing is unique from other embedded devices like phones because they autonomously, used no human interaction with the thermostat or industrial and we've seen some attacks where they are able to for it like web cams, example. traditionally hacking was more around building and making stuff recently, i think, society has seen it as people breaking into systems, you know, attacking systems in an

offensive manner, but approaching problems and solving problems in various different ways. >> i think now is probably the exciting time to start hacking, wealth of information unbelievable. it take very little to hack today, you have youtube, 20 years ago there just wasn't much, it was a true wild, wild west, just nothing out there. now this is really exciting time. artificial intelligence, this is taking it even one step don't even as humans have to intervene anymore with people uter, just give call it raw data, think of any ype of data, just pass it over to the machine and the machine learns to n its own make useful predictions. >> watch the communicators on c-span 2.tern >> here is a look at our

prime-time schedule on c-span networks. eastern, live here on c-span, a discussion on how trump views freedom of the press. look at. on c-span 2, a national security issues and foreign policy initiatives of administration. and 8 eastern on c-span 3, the spanish pedro, ambassador to the u.s. about catalan d the independence movement. >> c-span's "washington journal," live everyday with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday morning, we're live in jefferson city, issouri, for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals tour with missouri secretary of state talking about his decisions to turn over state border information to the president's voter commission and state's new voter id law and the future of the affordable are act with former new york

lieutenant governor and president trump supporter betsy mccaughey. us, sean vitka, demand his ess to talk about group's efforts to limit surveillance under the surveillance act. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7 tuesday morning, join the discussion. >> attorney general jeff sessions testifies wednesday at hearing of the senate judiciary committee, live beginning at 10 a.m. eastern here on c-span. you can also watch online at c-span.org, or listen on the radio app. >> earlier today, president trump and senate majority leader held a press l conference in the white house rose garden, answered questions reform, health care, the opioid crisis and u.s. soldiers