press briefing this afternoon and i will be up at the take questions to provide a more detailed information of all of the elements of the president's plan. thank you very much. [applause] >> wrapping up with the president and hhs secretary azar. joining today's white house press briefing sarah huckabee sanders. the sick agile -- that is scheduled for 2:32. -- 2:30. until then, a segment from washington journal. at our table this morning, michael, you were supposed to be joined by the president of the

iranian-american council. he cannot be here today. but thank you for joining us at the table for this discussion. what do you think about the president's decision to withdraw from the iran aerial? guest: i personally think it was the right decision for a number of britain's. just.ent macron said it if there were no changes to today's iran deal, there would korea,clear armed north because of the sunset clauses and the ballistic missiles. we had iran violating existing agreements.ncil iran gave the president a lot of arguments outside of the nuclear deal to make the argument that the nuclear donated to go away because it was fueling --

nuclear deal to go away because it was fueling all of this other activity. they created new militias, working with the who tease -- the huthies. it gave the president the ammunition to go after it. without them, the iranian deal would still be in place. host: are you saying that the iranians were still complying with the nuclear deal? guest: i worked in the special access program where analysts looked at intel and it was highly compartmentalize. know there's intel there. i know it is highly contained. it goes to an audience. that's why you have pompeo say that iran is cheating.

we were not able to verify whether iran was complying with developing trigger systems, computer models on headed detonate a nuclear weapon. we had no way of verifying if they were income science than waste -- in compliance. then we see this other activity. there were four additional military sites that were not part of the jcpoa. they did not want to go out and investigate. they did not want to be a political arm of the president. they were cheating. if they are cheating out in the open on ballistic missiles, and they are cheating when these commercial aircraft to debt -- --iland in damascus

commercial aircraft to land in damascus, why would they be in the shadows? host: the supreme leader of iran -- sydney, present or honey -- theident rouhani said united states can leave. we hope to continue the iran new year deal at the other countries. guest: literally two hours later, you see that certain to crumble. lose $36tands to billion if the president canceled the iran deal, in contracts. the motive for european countries to stay in his economic. they want to do business with this economy. but when they initially started these contracts, the iranian

3000 to one u.s. dollar. it is now 8000 to one u.s. dollar. it makes the contracts with iran that much weaker. russia and china want to stay in because they are guaranteed oil and military contracts. but again, iran cannot now afford to buy the military equipment. and now it's sanctions going back on its oil, it will make it more difficult for russia and china to benefit. the argument, from the united are we inspective, the a deal for security reasons or economic reasons? again, the argument, if the united states walks away, we lose europe, this does not add up. this is the economy the size of maryland. they will pick the united states.

guest: they guess -- host: they guess that was supposed to be here credits the obama administration. leaders. of business they did not want business leaders to put pressure on iran to come to the table because they did not wanted seen in those terms. were behind the scenes trying to put the boeing deal in place. a pack that supported the iran deal had a lot of money coming into it that stood to benefit from a boeing deal based on the putting at --t putting pressure on the obama administration. the iran deal being sold as a great -- not only in arms control deal, but also a way to get economic investment in, the

theign minister zarif makes argument that the u.s. has been in breach of the iran deal since

the regime squandered -- we would still have a written -- have an iran deal if they had the strategy in the northeast to yemen, thetabilize mn-saudi arabia relationship. host: they have been using this yemen,or proxy wars in for proxy wars in israel. without this iran deal in place, is there a risk dm states will be -- risk the united states will drive into these proxy wars? guest:ou have -- jus

there was a message there, this cannot be tolerated. we cannot back you up, iran, if you are doing things like this. you're proving the president's point you cannot be trusted. you cap raced to a bomb because you lose us as well. you lose europe if iran races to a bomb. the iranian economy is not worth it to these countries. wereessages out of russia key. israel has conducted strikes on militias and proxies and advisers. we had proxies from russia. from iraq. israel is hitting military advisers on the ground. russian -- russia yesterday, the foreign minister said we value our relationship with israel.

but then netanyahu is sending a strong message to iran. it is a little isolated. an egg is five dollars. the equivalent of a five dollar egg, that's how bad their economy is. i think it's a moment to now where iran is broke. the two friends they had was russia and china. they say hey, you have to focus this israel stuff down. we are not likely to see russia's support. >> good morning to you, go ahead.

>> we are proud to be american, we are proud to look at what's right and what's wrong. you cannot tell me that all the -- the president's friends come over. i think donald trump, when he mentioned that he doesn't pay taxes to -- lost the moral rights to tell the other nation how to lead their country.

all our allies are in accord -- it is the best deal we could do to not get out of it. what is he going to get in north ?orea that's going to be better to me it's like we are beating a and really acting out of -- to me it's crazy. >> the other argument is how can we trust united states because they won't keep their word? this sick treaty, we would never would have been able to walk , we -- this is a treaty never would have been able to walk away. it helps us with north korea. stepped up his rocket attacks come his ballistic missile launches, and his nuclear program.

when heavily laden with incentives, with weakened forces, he now knows he's not going to get there. the key things that just happened in the last 24 hours ,ndermines that whole argument free americans from north korea before sitting down with kim kim jong-un.- with the nuclear deal was only about arms control. terroractivated their and logistical operational networks. the united states is one of the only countries concerned about security.

hesaid there were no changes wanted to lay on top of the nuclear deal. that requires russia, china and iran. >> what is the geopolitics of oil prices rising? given that russia is in oil?for a while? -- for >> oil will go down. oil is good for a lot of economies. to include other countries that may not be in the u.s.. it's an opportunity here to see what the next two weeks in 30 days looks like as oil starts to go down because saudi arabia is compensating for the loss.

one of the major concerns i have is iran's -- iran starts using iraq as an office shell company. has penetrated iraq to the sectors. -- economic sectors. i was interviewed in the new york times piece. really concerned having a political party in iraq. active militia members, are new york times piece called them formal militia members and have meaningo the program, iran has access to the training program, and they threatened to kill americans if you walk away from the jcp away. there will be retributions, there will be consequences for

tell ron -- for tehran and baghdad. isis. iraq and syria was one battlefield and the united states doesn't. we compartmentalize our strategy .ast of euphrates there's five different ones that all contradictory teacher. i want to contradict what he said about saudi arabia flooding the market when they stuck a deal -- struck a deal to cut back on oil production. >> russia and china will sign up to seek an offset. i think iran is becoming less and less important to russia.

it's a sinking hole. where you point this money to compensate. the president sent a very strong message. any country will also be sanction. he wasn't talking about our european allies. the economy since he wasn't worth of the political and economic pitfalls that will come if they continue to support this regime. >> from florida, republican. quirks i agree with you 100% in your analysis of the problem. obama just wanted to give them money for nothing. . somebody has got to stand up to these people that vowed to kill us and have no respect for humanity whatsoever.

that's about all i have to say. host: the president brings up , put a fax says of the two numbers he's -- politifacts says of the two numbers he gave, one is exaggerated. it wasthe argument was their money to begin with. the second amount was was interest on a $400 million contract to the regime falling. we gave an interest on that. the controversy for the second part was it was used to exchange -- the president said i really want to know what that looks like. the money has always been an

issue. $100 million, $150 billion. when you hear the protesters, they say the $100 billion never came back to us. even -- has said the supreme isder's assets, the eiko this shell company that was the listed under the annex. nothing to do with the nuclear program. yet it gave the regime in order to sign it. is not worth $90 billion, it's worth $130 billion. you have a hardliner criticizing the regime for squandering how his opportunity to launch a mission -- you can't make this

stuff up. quirks andrew from chicago. -- >> andrew from chicago. >> you guys are stealing my questions and answers. issue, if you're on the right side you are definitely saying we gave iran $150 billion. >> before obama came and never but he was against regime, but go ahead. >> if your summer on the left side, everyone says that iran to north korea, south korea, china, and then the sanctions were imposed. it was their money in the sanctions were lifted we gave them the money back and then the cash that was brought act there and was just to get them started before the money was freed up to them.

i love what you are saying because i look forward to having summary talk about this. i'm still a little confused on it. " and what are you confused about? others may be confused as well. quirks i'm confused the was in iowa,en he why did obama give him $150 i believe it was their money and we gave it up to them. >> the reason we see that to begin with is it was funding terrorism. it was paying for a weapon eyes nuclear program. when he was running in the campaign, he was against the iran deal.

bad dealhis is a because we didn't make any money off of it. i was a former political officer. it's not a bad deal because we aren't making any money off of it, he said it's a bad deal because iran is an aggressive actor. had an increased his ballistic missile launch and wouldn with his militia probably have an iran deal with the president not cable of giving an argument that iran is an actor you can't trust. clicks in washington, a republican. -- >> in washington, a republican. >> i support our president 100%, except maybe his ego. but he is a strategic player. i'm going to play devil's

advocate. caa --derstand it, our article.wrote an was elected by their rainy and people democratically at the time to string up the mess between the british ,etroleum company contract which was only giving iran 3% or less of the oil profits. he was democratically elected and our deep state decided it was more beneficial to the u.s. to put a dictator in place to help our industrial complex. while i love my country and i think our country is the freest country in the world. i think some of these clandestine operations by our

intelligence community needs to go. i think we need to ask americans listening now, think if we would not have done that, as i understand it, iran was our biggest ally from world war i through world war ii. there was no better ally in the middle east. their culture is actually closest to america's culture other than israel now in the entire region. so i'm asking your guest, what is your opinion on how our cia actually blew it and created this scenario we are in now? guest: i am not a big fan of time travel questions. i cannot go back in time and address what happened in 1952. i am not try to diminish what you are saying, but let's look at the current situation. rest assured that our current

clandestine service cannot do that anymore because we put it executive orders under three presidents take you from doing that. a look at what israel was able to do because they do have that network, they do have a clandestine network that works with the irgc to get that stuff out. so there are schisms within the iranian revolution -- revolutionary guard corps. everything you are asking is right. but we just don't do that. we can't go back 10 years and look what right looked like in iraq with the surge because we did not do those things in that campaign to defeat isis. we don't look at our history. we recycle things. that is why we have these problems. temporary solutions with permanent ramifications. caller: thank you for taking my call. one issue with your guests's comments, if this had been a treaty, we would still be in a treaty. we walked away from the abm treaty 17 years ago, whenever,

without having an action on that. treaties usually have pretty good escape clauses that allow executive action. guest: and russia was cheating. that's why we walked away. and everybody agreed to it. you didn't have america -- democrats saying they weren't cheating. you did not have republicans saying they want cheating. so the -- they were not cheating. caller: the simplistic argument that europe is only in the jcpoa is in for economic reasons, they are much closer to the middle east than we are. they are vulnerable to destabilizing activities than we are. we see this in syria with the migration issue. i ask that you take a bit more of a nuanced view of what european security interests are. and my third point here, my third question, are you at all concerned about the united states giving israel a blank

check to basically do as it pleases with iran? maybe we are not there yet, but are you willing to go on the record that the u.s. should allow itself to be drawn into a middle east war on israel's behalf? caller: the united states -- guest: the united states already is. you did not see the refugee exodus that we saw in 2015, 2016, 2017. the refugee flow is a direct result of an emboldened iran. turkey used it to leverage their position. i absolutely believe that israel exodus that we saw in 2015, should be able to defend itself in southern syria, especially when iran is increasing its capabilities there. they are not there to fight isis or anybody else.

they are there to target israel. they are not using rockets and missiles to hit isis. they are being his vision to hit israel. israel has every right to do it -- they are being positioned to hit israel. israel has every right to do it. you get one because your enemies are already there. iran already believes they are at war with israel. israel believes it is already at war with iran. there are definitely iranian positions in syria. russia sat on its hands because what israel hit was not there to fight isis. they were there to threaten israel. russia sat on its hands and israel's set back three years of work in the rgc yesterday in taking out those missile factories, those missile positions, and those leaders. we support that. if you designate the rgc as a terrorist organization, you

should be able to change the a umf -- the aumf and allow the united states and israel to target militia leaders in syria when they threaten u.s. bases and when they launch rockets against israel. host: if they do not, if they remain, what is the danger of iran remaining in syria for years to come? they have a foothold. they have propped up assad. guest: you had americans preventing in the logistical support. syria was not in a place where iran could go any do these things. that has changed.

it is a much safer place in israel. iran is no longer insulated by the jcpoa. it was going to be allowed to become a conventional military power. at the end of the sunset clause, a nuclear weapon on top of a ballistic missile that had already been perfected, had the conventional force to deter a u.s. or israeli strike on iran's nuclear facilities, and now have european investment entrenched in iran to the point where there would be not much we could do about it and we would have to say iran is the new power broker in the middle east and they are doing it through force and economic leverage. this changes all of that. it makes the middle east a much safer place then it would have if iran was allowed to continue in this iran deal. it might take a former intelligence officer that looks at threats and motives and patterns and metrics and

analysis. host: ralph, democrat. caller: good morning. please allow your guest to answer the following question. i'm sick and tired of guests coming on blaming president obama for everything and saying he did nothing and he had no support. our president now, drop, -- trump, he is the only one [indiscernible] we pull out of this agreement, gas prices at the pump are going up. who are going to suffer? the american people. the iranian people. we can't afford to go because [indiscernible] one other thing i would like to say, we are the ones that will have our lead, -- our blood, sweat, and tears, going somewhere else to fight for somebody else. we, the people here, are sick

and tired of all of these wars and we get involved in things and we have no reason to get involved in. let me hear what you have to say about that. guest: thank you for your question, sir. i praised president obama when he started attacking isis in iraq and syria. i try to stay fact-based. i don't want to be partisan. on the iran go, i was ok with the nuclear side of it. i was not ok with the nonnuclear concessions. by three wars, desert storm, i served in iraq for four or five years.

i'm trying to keep 10-year-old americans from fighting in iraq again as 20 euros because that is what is going to have -- 20-year-olds because that is what is going to happen. we tell our enemy when we are going to leave. that's why we have been in afghanistan for 17 euros. -- 17 years. since we are in washington dc, we use this analysis -- analogy. you cannot tell your enemy what you are going to do. iran will draw us into the next war. they would have done it with the jcpoa. they are try to do it now outside of the jcpoa. they are weaker now. they will that become a conventional military. they are shedding friends by the hour. this -- this is a better

position. there has been no counter strike from iran against israel. what happened yesterday in syria is israel took away offensive capabilities from the iranians and the russians sat on their hands. the russians don't want a war. we don't want a war. iran does. they needed to remain viable. they are likely going to continue, unfortunately. economy,.9 join dollar once again. -- $1.9 trillion economy. russia can't replace an aircraft if we shoot it down, they can't replace their men with other men . but russia is not in syria to defend iran. they are there to protect russia. rockets tonch those fend off the missile strike, it would deplete all their rockets and missiles. leaving themselves vulnerable for 40 minutes. we don't want to escalate.

russia sends a very powerful message to iran, we not going to take sides. by not taking sides, they took israel's side. caller: good morning. host: question or a comment? caller: i have a question and a comment. you have all been talking about what i was going to talk about. i did want to mention one thing about the 17 years in afghanistan. i grew up during the vietnam war. back then, it was common law -- common knowledge that the cia was smuggling heroin out of the golden triangle. copies in afghanistan had more to do with our 17 years there. as far as the iran deal, with the arab spring, what that brought us was a massacre of the middle class of northern africa. i never heard congress declare

war on libya. and anything that was part and parcel of that whole arrangement, which the iran deal was, to perpetrate these complexes, i think the guest is right. that is what the cia does. the perpetrate conflicts because they make money on that. guest: i don't remember saying that. host: the viewer. guest: yeah, the viewer said that. i never said that. caller: we have in in wars continuously since world war ii. you go back all that way. good afternoon. the president just finished rolling on new actions and proposals to jot down trump prices for all americans. the current situation is unacceptable and fixing jump prices is a top irony for the president. the bluepri