coverage continues sunday at 3:00 eastern with senator michael bennet in bedford, new hampshire. watch live on c-span, on demand at c-span.org or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> live friday on the c-span returns at the house 9:00 eastern for work on epa regulations that would require a designation of a certain group of chemicals as hazardous. , armypan2 at 9:00 secretary ryan mccarthy will speak at the brookings institution about how a modernized army will operate in the indo pacific. on cease -- on c-span3 at 9:30 a.m., analysts from the u.s. and china will talk about the emerging economic challenges for china as it sets out each its centennial goals in the next three decades. isjoining us from california our guest, the iranian studies director at stanford university.

and codirector of the iran america project. the country that was friendly to the united states. the leadership in around feels rather strengthened by the show even though some of it was clearly orchestrated either regime. it was fueled and fanned by the shown but people have remarkable grief in favor of this general. people in syria and lebanon

-- he may have been the institute grade or of a lot of -- instigator of a lot of mayhem. the regime feels strengthened. the iranian opponents of this regime , it's probably the biggest demonstration against this regime ever in 40 years. the regime had to kill upwards of 1000 people, 10,000 people. they felt very threatened. now i think they feel strengthened by this show of the now that the democrats have pulled their punch. my sense is that the demonstrations will come back, they are the results of rather remarkably bad economic situations, corruption, and cronyism.

but so far right now, the regime is more powerful than it was 10 days ago. that mean, then, for the united states? guest: it means i don't think that the decision to kill soleimani was not thought through. ramifications,al killing the official of another government -- i know the united states declared him to be a terrorist, but the parliament of iran just announced that the entire pentagon is a terrorist organization. they declared the entire u.s. military to be a terrorist organization. it clearly doesn't give them the right to do any of this. the iranian parliament is a tool , othersupreme leader

countries have serious parliaments. but i'm saying that if the rule hold, we going to can't make these kinds of judgments. clearly had a lot of blood on his hand, i have no doubt. a lot of evidence of that. and he made it abundantly clear that his basic job in the world is to organize religious fervor in the middle east against the united states and, secondarily, against israel. he made no qualms about this. the question isn't was he a good guy and the united states shouldn't have taken him out. the question is, first of all, how do you go after somebody, what are the costs and consequences. look at what has happened in iraq and their relationship with the united states. the united states has spent $2 trillion on this government to replace saddam hussein.

a shiite majority in the government that voted to ask the that weretes forces essentially substantially responsible for this government staying power in the face of isis to leave iraq. these would have been i think protectable consequences if someone had asked me to go after soleimani in iraq, what would happen. i would have said many of these things would have happened. what happens now to the force in the arms that they supported in light of the new guest: the soleimani deputy was appointed almost 24 hours after his death. he has been involved in many of the shenanigans. he was actually the person who

helped organize the tens of thousands of afghan shiites and sent them to the area. i just saw tate of a very brave afghan woman, member of parliament, who said that soleimani since shiites into battle, 5500 have been killed. he was the commander, the person that organized it, might as well have been him who was defeated. i think they are going to go about their business, the thesess of creating proxies and using them against israel in the united states. thate lacks the charisma soleimani had. he had a unique relationship with the supreme leader. directly reporting to him.

it was a very clear and affectionate relationship. go back and look at the pictures . nobody else i think in the leadership with whom he felt as close. whose judgment he trusted. they are going to continue their work but it won't be as effective, i think, as it was, because of the personal aspect. again, the parliament just yesterday increased the budget for the brigade to the tune of 200 million euros. but increased budget isn't going to mean that is all it takes. they have crossed some of their ability because of the personal contacts and personal relationships. is viewed asimani a martyr, the set increase the potential for intensified attacks? -- does that increase the

potential for intensified attacks? guest: i would be surprised if it does anything other than what the supreme leader suggested. was the executor of this policy, the architect of the policy was and still is khamenei. he has been the personal, direct .ink, long before soleimani the head of has below in lebanon, saying that the dearest contact there was ayatollah khomeini. .e is still in place while the effectiveness of the

execution might have been diminished, the person in charge of this policy is in place. he has now decided, i think, that making that symbolic gesture of an attack on u.s. bases, allowing the u.s. to know about it, intelligence picking up throughout it and evacuating as the decision to make symbolic gesture of revenge and then pulled out. wisely, mr. trump has decided to do the same. to begin to move on a process of de-escalation. our guest is the stanford university codirector of the iran america project. if you want to ask them questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 four republicans.

for independents, (202) 748-8002 . before we take calls, you were in iran until 1986. what happened to bring you to the united states? guest: the atmosphere at the used -- university where i used to teach. the iranian leadership is almost all men, these gentlemen, women were deprived of top positions though they are 65% of college graduates. they decided to actually purge the university. they purged 40 of us from the faculty of 45. they brought me back after a year of throwing me out. eventually they said you can't teach. i love teaching, i love my work. i realized i can't stay there anymore. things were becoming increasingly fraught for my son, who was beginning to realize

that this is a country in war. remember, that was the time when saddam hussein in his brutality was attacking to run every night with missiles. i began to sense that my son was no recognizing the terror raining from the skies overnight. i decided to leave and have been here since. our first call for you comes from the line for democrats. terry, go ahead. good morning. my question has to do with iran's response to the assassination of soleimani. it appears that they were not goaded into doing something more than what they did. i say that as a naive person, but someone who does set common sense.

we, the united states, the president of the united states is undergoing impeachment. his more would boost position to his base and to perhaps others than a war? the fact that they did respond in kind in a way that i think the president wanted kind of deterred the whole process of the united states taking another , thathat would be more would be more. i'll do respect to the president, he does seem to be somewhat narcissistic and megalomaniacal. he is somewhat of a dilettante. the fact that iran did not do made the more kind of president have to pivot. take that andill let our guest respond. first of all, i'm not

sure that the assumption in your question is right. i don't think that if the united states engages in a full regional war in the middle east, which is going to be a major human military and economic disaster for everyone, i don't think that's going to help him with his base. part of what got him elected is the fact that he has been consistent on one thing. he wants the u.s. out of these middle eastern wars, which he thinks are futile. he says we have spent $3 billion. i'm not sure that that is correct. it is an old adage that foreign wars always keep the busy minds busy. certainly, american politics right now is giddy with impeachment, polarization. one of your callers referred to it. iranou are right, i think did show restraint in the reaction that it had.

but you have to realize, the iranian economy, the iranian society, as i indicated, is very fragile. the iranian economy is very much ailing from corruption, incompetence, and added to that are one of the most remarkable and difficult set of sanctions that the trump administration has put on them. it has exacerbated an already exacerbated economy. khamenei made the gesture, his base have been clamoring for revenge. on the other hand, he knew that if he attacked and killed u.s. , for example if you attacked a u.s. base -- remember, he attacked and iraqi

base that have u.s. personnel. they could have hit one in bahrain. it is almost as close to them geographically as the space was. then he would have awful war on his hands. he knew. all of the bombast, as some of you might have heard, if you attack us again we will take out , all of that i think is bombast. they knew that if they hit a u.s. base, there would be full war. they didn't want a full war and i still don't believe that president trump wants a full war. host: pittsburgh, kansas. good morning. caller: good morning. we are not all ignoramuses here in the u.s. 26 years of the rule of the shot, enforced by some rock, trained by the cia and mossad in

torture techniques. you know, a country like that, of course they only us but that's the only escape from that was in the mosques. you end up with a movement that is largely islamic. and when khamenei emerged, he was a deft politician who made sure that all the secular resistance was destroyed and we ended up with the islamic state. u.s. is notw, the all powerful, either. the u.s. has hollowed itself out in the last 40 years. we don't make hardly anything anymore. china is clearly the rising power. the israelis have an undue amount of influence over what goes on in the u.s. and trump is a tool of the israelis. host: on the topic of iran? that iran cannk

come out of this positively? to say that iran is not democratic, clearly. the united states may not be democratic, it's only barely democratic with similar pressures put against it. host: thank you, color. guest: you are absolutely right. the relationship doesn't actually begin and 53, though for 53 it is -- for many iranians is a pivotal moment. the u.s., along with england, in the overthrow of the democratically elected and popular prime minister. of course, recent declassified documents that have come from the united states detail the making it much., more complicated, the situation, then it just being a cia coup. the caller is absolutely right.

think that the majority of the iranian people today are driven by that animus. that is what the iranian regime wants the world to think. in the shoeourself of an american, for example, who doesn't have a priority position , the average american would say that iranians responded by taking american diplomats hostage for 444 days. iranians responded by helping soleimani organize iraqi shiites against u.s. forces in iraq. that the majority of iranians are not driven by this kind of calculus. they, too, like the great majority of americans, aren't ignorant. they know. and i think the way out of this mess is for iran to have a democratic government.

people want to have a democratic government. the poll that was done inside of her run, not the kind of pull that you get from americans who ask iranians what they think. that every iranian knows that the phones and ron are all caps. but the phones -- the polls that were done inside of her run, less than 10% of the people are happy with the status quo. those demonstrations came a year and a half after another round of demonstrations. the people in iran want change. the people in iran want to make the change themselves. they want to be the masters of their own sovereign domain. if the united states has a policy, i think, that helps the democratic process without interfering, without deciding who the next successor is supposed to be, it can help.

to me the only way we will have peace in the middle east, the leeway we will have an iran that is law-abiding is for the iranian people to take over. i think that you were right to say the 1979 revolution was not supposed to create theocratic despotism. it was supposed to be a democratic movement. i have written about this. i have written a book on the shaw that describes this process in detail. because of the strength of the religious network in iran, deafness, khamenei's as suggested, he eliminated it all. people still want that democratic secular society, where man and woman are equal. where a jew, a christian, and iranian, an infidel, they have the rights of citizenship. for iran doesn't engage in terrorism. i think that is what the

majority of the iranian people want. to me that is the hope. anything that delays the process is to the detriment of the region and the united states. host: we have a viewer on twitter saying that this guarantees iran develops a nuclear weapon. is that a reality? guest: they have made two moves in the stretching. they are no longer abiding by the deal signed by the obama administration, the trump called the worst deal in history, it had flaws but i had critical support for it. i said that this is better than anything else out there. iran withdrew from that and said that we are going to enrich uranium. iran also is in the process of

making a decision, maybe, to withdraw from nonproliferation treaties. introduced to the parliament yesterday. to give you, again, a sense of shiftedian politics has , the person that introduced the bill had been seen as a moderate critic of the regime. he was the person that had most , ton criticized policies the extent that criticism is allowed in the parliament. he has now introduced a bill to have iran withdraw from mpt. is it likely that they will go running towards the bomb? i don't think that's impossible to predict. i think they might be very well tempted. there were people in a run long before this, long before the hit on soleimani, from within the regime who said that if we had

to bomb, the united states would be treating us the way it is treating north korea. remember, north korea had several bombs. in the last few years, the last three or four years of the trump administration north korea has behaved at times very aggressively. they have not stopped their nuclear program. i am almost verbatim quoting papers in iran. they said that if we, too, had developed a bomb, they wouldn't be making these threats to us, treating us the way they treat north korea. so, any discrepancy that exists, and there are discrepancies that exist between the u.s. treatment of north korea and the u.s. treatment of iran is being used in a run by radical elements to say we should go the north korea away. there is evidence in the past to suggest that khamenei, the supreme leader, who has traveled to north korea, one of the few

places he has traveled to, said that this is not a bad way to run a country. there is a proclivity to become a north korea when these demonstrations happened. of theut down 95% internet. in other words they became almost as close to an isolated country behind the digital iron curtain as north korea was. so, these problems, i think, need to be considered when any decision is made about iran. host: missouri, democratic line. high.: thank you for taking my call. i can't hear anything. host: you are on with our guest. go ahead with the question or comment. caller: the comment is that we are giving the president too much credit for having a strategy for what he's doing. ,very country, iranian also

they want democracy. everybody wants freedom of speech. freedom to go and come as they please. people who say they voted for the president, his constituents, who think that he is the leader of the free world when his previous administration, eq's referring to, tried to bring world peace by helping other countries. he tried to make our allies stronger and tried to show our adversaries that he could be fair and we would have a world of peace now. the people who still say, which i don't think the majority of americans are for trump. i don't even think it's 20%. but what's coming on the air, and i'm listening to this man speak of a democracy in iran and america, all over the world, which we want world peace. we don't want a war. leave it there. to the idea of potential

democracy in iran, what was that around the religious hold in the country? >> i think it would take a to aition from this regime more democratic iran. this transition is not easy. because, i think, of three factors. this is a brutal regime that still has the power to do violence against its people, as they showed. killing upwards of 1000 people, that's not a joke. 10 days, 10,000 people would live bullets. people that were just demonstrating for economic grievances. the second is that they still have some base of support. this regime i think has only 10% that are satisfied with the status quo. that's a very dedicated 10%. a 10% that is gaining economically anonymously from this regime.

this is the 10% living lives of luxury beyond their wildest dreams. they are not quite a give up easily. third, the reason the transition to democracy is going to be a little more difficult is iran is not in a vacuum. iran is now befriending china. iran is befriending russia. iran just organized a joint naval operation for the first time ever in history in the persian gulf with china and with russia. iran has just released a naval base in the persian gulf to russia. navyinvited the chinese into the persian gulf. very soon you are going to have chinese naval ships, russian naval ships, u.s. naval ships, british naval ships, japanese naval ships, all in the persian gulf. what is common between china,

russia, and iran is that these authoritarian regimes that despise their leadership, despise democracy, the communist party of china, mr. putin, mr. khamenei have. tried to create a digital iron curtain. iran is ray much moving that direction. the people have difficult mountains to climb -- very much moving in that direction. they keep having people go to prison. they keep having people that leave the country in desperation. iran is the number one country in the brain drain. the number one country whose best and brightest leave the country. was ans ago there unfortunate crash of a ukrainian

airliner. 71 iranians died in it. whoe were several people were the top mathematicians, top computer scientists in the country that were going to , or had that in canada. -- embedded in canada. had been in canada. host: linda, king of prussia. caller: hello, can you hear me? host: we can hear you, go ahead. caller: very good. professor, i have respect for you. i'm a little bit worried about your safety. verymy relatives, you are brave, leaving your country of origin, i support you. i support and am learning so much today from your perspective. you give this topic credibility

because of your living in a run ran. is it true that president trump, and sense, accused president obama of giving iran billions of dollars? i think you may have twisted the truth of it. is it true that the u.s. did go iran billions of dollars? what is your opinion on president obama put paying the money back? there is some discrepancy on how much money was given to a run. president trump talking about $150 billion. there is some discrepancy on how much money was given to iran. is talking about $150 billion. but there was a large sum that was owed to iran.

it was owed and was a part of the agreement. the president also talks about $1.4 billion in cash transferred to iran. it was a precondition for the signing of the agreement. iran demanded that some of its debt should be repaid. it was interest that the united states owed. to have that money in cash on a plane was bad optics, i think. but it was money that was owed. i think that in that sense, to say that they shouldn't have given the money, that's a difficult question. they say, and i think again the trump administration is right, iran used most of that money not to alleviate the suffering of the iranian people.

they used most of the money, the parts that they didn't steal, they used it to strengthen has below. they use it to fight in syria. where i have a problem with that narrative, the trump administration, they keep pointing to that and isolating that from the more serious problem. the obama administration came centrifugesd 19,000 churning. they had 10,000 kilos of enriched uranium. had a heavy water reactor in a rack that was working. by all accounts, iran was between six months 12 months away from having the bomb. the obama administration decided that that was the most urgent problem. they had to stop the bomb. if they didn't, i would not be surprised if israel would have decided to take on iran and

tried to destroy the nuclear sites, which would have gotten us into a very serious confrontation. made the decision, they decided to put all of the pressure, all of the possibilities and trying to reach that deal. in my view, trying to reach the deal on the issue. in my view having the deal was a good decision, but i think it was wrong to leave some things out. wrong to have no discussion of the iranian missile program. you could absolutely predict that this was going to become a problem. it was wrong not to have the issue of human rights on the table. it was wrong not to have the role of iran in the region on the table. those who negotiated the deal, i have heard from them repeatedly. some of them have come to stanford.

i have had the pleasure of conversing with them at stanford. they said they thought they couldn't do all of this. that the most important thing was no deal and they wanted to have it done. so, the notion that they gave money to go back to your question, i think that's true. the amount of money is subject to question. was it tens of billions? >> absolutely. 1.1 4 billion? i figure was. think it was. but it was part of a deal that all the whole was pushing back the iranian nuclear deal to a far, far more difficult place for them to break out. host: for our guest, abbas milani of stanford university, we will hear from jason, independent line. go ahead. caller: first, i'm grateful to speak with you, professor.

iran know people of that north korea is the most militarized border in the world before they go rushing to a bomb. some people like to think that -- 4dplays for d chess chess. from hisot advice military commanders. what do you think the conclusion or result would be if that's u.s. withdrew from iraq? do you think that iran would create a proxy state, not just militias? or do you think that the region might settle down? guest: i think that if u.s. forces withdraw, we have to conclude that united states gave iraq to iran twice. first when the u.s. attacked a rock and didn't have enough planning for what would happen afterwards.

iran very easily filled in the vacuum. almost every prime minister that has ruled it a rack -- iraq since the death of saddam hussein has been a close ally of iran. many of them have lived in iran as political exiles. to 1988ined from 1980 on the case, the 10,000 shiite radicals immediately went back. they have created an enormous network of influence. it's an interesting set of documents that they found about how intensive the iranian influence was and is on the iraqi government. but iran overplayed its hand. overplayedleimani the shiite sectarianism. just weeks before the attack on soleimani, iraqi politics was

being absolutely turned topsy-turvy because of in shiite beliefs against iran. this is one of the most respected ayatollahs in iraq who issued these statements that iranclearly meant to tell to stay out of iraqi politics. there are reports that at one point he demanded that soleimani leave iraq. iranian diplomatic posts were burned by demonstrators. many of them shiite demonstrators. all of that changed. , and if influence now rack is left to its own devices -- iraq is left to its own

devices, it will be a furthering of influence. first and foremost by iran, which already has a deep and existing network of influence. and then the defeated but not read isis. i would not be surprised if u.s. military leaves, and the military as we know has already isis infighting against order to brace for what they thought might be an iranian counterattack, isis would be the beneficiary. the narrative has changed. the parliament voted not to ask iran to leave, but asked in a nonbinding resolution. symbolically, it's important. host: mike, california, go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. quote a former american president, john quincy adams, who said that america

does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. she is the well of freedom and independence of all, a champion and a vindicator only of her own. president reagan actually implemented this regarding apartheid in south africa. the most popular television program in apartheid south africa at the time, almost all tv sets were owned by white south africans, was the cosby show. what happened there i think was something very subversive. the cosby show, with the extraordinary humanity of the players and that got through the heads of the white south african majority that these are human beings. host: we are running out of time. can you make your point or question or comment for the guest, please? sure, do you think this is applicable to iran? guest: absolutely, i think it is

very applicable. what i said, the united states should help the democratic process, one thing i have always suggested is precisely that. the united states has a lot of appeal to iran. u.s. culture has, universities have. ironically, many of the children of iran's rulers are now living in the united states, going to school in the united states. the united states has a great deal to precisely do in that sense. to offer in that sense. the persian voice in america has not been as effective as other channels, like iran international, which took over that audience share. but that was part of it. travel of iranians to the united states is i think

counterproductive. when the u.s. was fighting a larger war with the soviet union, or even castro, dissidents could easily come to the united states. it's one of the only ways to get permanent records in the united states. getting a visa was a foregone conclusion. at stanford, they have not been able to get a dissident give a talk since the ban was put in place. people that the united states says it's your favorite, but is not giving .ranians the chance to enter there were reports over the last two or three days that there might have been some iranian american citizens, people with american passports, held at some points of entry and kept for hours. that doesn't play well in iran. the regime uses this to say that american support for iranian

democracy is hypocritical. look at what they're doing to other citizens. look at what they are doing to you. student from stamford, university, but getting accepted right now is extremely difficult . he worked in the got the visa come.s told that he can't this is the opposite of the kind of campaign that the u.s. ran against apartheid south africa, stalinist russia, castro cuba. to opened states has its doors, in my view, to iranian dissidents and those who are not agents of the regime. that part of the culture war will be detrimental to the regime. insistent regime so on creating this digital iron

curtain? they know that the iranian people want to have the news, watch american television. host: got you. this was professor -- this is professor abbas milani joining us this morning. >>washington journal, live every day. coming up this morning, john lawrence, former chief of staff to nancy pelosi discusses the impeachment strategy. michael walt talks about yesterday's house vote on a war powers resolution. washingtonn's journal, live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. live friday on the c-span networks, the house returns at

9:00 a.m. for work on epa regulation to require the designation of chemicals as hazardous. army secretary ryan mccarthy will speak at the brookings institution about how a modernized army will operate in the indo pacific. analyst for the u.s. and china talk about the emerging economic challenges for china as it sets out to achieve its centennial goal over the next three decades. at her weekly news conference nancy pelosi reiterated she would not send over articles of impeachment to the senate until she sees the arena in which house managers would proceed. she talked about a resolution on the house floor to limit president trump's use of force against iran.