c-span or at our free video app, c-span out. -- c-span now. >> see spanish or unfiltered view of government. -- c-span is your unfiltered view of government, funded by these visuals chemically media come. >> media, was ready. we were never slowing down. we went virtual, and powered a new reality. because we are built to keep you ahead. >> media, support c-span, along with these other providers. giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up on "washington journal," richard fontaine, ceo of the center for a new american security, discusses how the russian invasion of ukraine has changed the post-cold war order.

then come the foundation for the defense of democracies, behnam ben taleblu, discusses the latest development on an agreement to restore the 2015 iran nuclear deal and u.s.-iran relations. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: this is the "washington journal." march 11. president biden will have an announcement this morning, stay close to c-span.org and our free c-span now app for more information. some members of congress are calling for the biden administration to do more to assist a crane, including as sent -- sending jets. we want to hear from you about your message to congress about the russia-ukraine conflict. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can communicate by text, (202) 748-8003. post on facebook and twitter. you can follow the show on instagram. yahoo! news following up on a bloomberg story about the announcement regarding trade status, reuters writing that the united states, with the group of seven nations and the european union will move on friday to revoke russia's most favored nation status over the invasion in the ukraine. the president is expected to announce these plans at the white house at 10:15, according to sources the white house as mr. biden will announce actions to continue to hold russia accountable are the unprovoked and unjustified war in ukraine. russia calls the actions a special operation. about 10:15 is when we expect that.

stay close to our website and our c-span now app for more information on that. when it comes to members of congress, it is the utah newspaper reporting on republican senator mitt romney from utah. at a hearing yesterday, talking about the message that the united states should be sending to russia, particularly when it comes to use of jets there in the provision of jets there. here is a portion from that senate hearing. [video clip] >> i simply do not understand the logic for not getting the migs to the ukrainians immediately. there is no logic which has been provided to this committee or to the nation for the lack of rapidity in making this decision and getting them the migs. it makes no sense. and if there are people in the administration that know the answer, i suggest we have the occasion to meet with them, perhaps in a classified setting, but we need to know the reason why that has not happened already.

i believe there is a sentiment that we are fearful about what putin might do and what he might consider as an escalation. it is time for him to be fearful of what we might do. the only way to get putin to act in a way that may be able to save lives of ukrainians is if he fears us more than we fear him. and the truth that the matter is his military is exposed in ukraine, bogged down, unfed, without fuel. they are in a very precarious position. he has got to think about what happens if he provokes us, because they could be obliterated by the forces of nato. so i would suggest -- we have had this discussion now day after day after day, people in the state department like yourselves, saying we are talking and considering paired this is war, people are dying. we need to get this are kept immediately to the people of ukraine. that is what they are asking for.

by the way, the idea that somehow we are calculating what is effective for them to run their war and that our javelins are better than our aircraft, it makes no sense at all. they are better at running their own war, they know the conditions on the ground. they are there, we are not. further, our a10's would help, and we need to give them. that is the aircraft design for this kind of warfare. why are we did the ring on that, as well? this makes no sense to me at all. i respectfully request that you indicate that this committee deserve a response. because as it has been said, our caucuses on both sides of the aisle are united on this. get them the aircraft. host: that was before the senate foreign affairs committee. the website and the app is where you can find that hearing if you want to hear more statements from senators. the topic of your message to congress and what it would be

about russia's invasion of ukraine, again, democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the topic of jets was also the topic, in part, yesterday at the white house during the daily press briefing with press secretary jen psaki, who talked about the weapons and the possibility of biological and chemical weapons. here is part of that exchange from yesterday. [video clip] >> given the potential that you have indicated that russia could use a bio or chemical weapons strike there, what does the u.s. communicate to them, something that is not an answer but preemptive to communicate the consequence if this would develop? ms. psaki: the most important objective is the national security of the united states and being clear and direct with the american people. the president has been clear and direct to the american people. he is not intending to send u.s.

troops to fight in russia to start another war, that would be an escalatory step, not in the interest of nato. we have conveyed russia's capabilities and capacities and their patterns of using chemical and biological weapons. >> what would you say is the message to the american people, and what would you say to vladimir putin if those in the head of the russian government are considering that? ms. psaki: we have been clear that there will be significant consequences for every escalatory step taken by putin and the russian government. >> you have said you have close the door for flying aircraft to ukraine, the transfer of migs. mitt romney today said there is a sentiment that we are fearful about what putin might do and what he might consider escalation, it is time for him to be fearful of what we might do.

why is it not a higher risk to wage? ms. psaki: to wait to what? >> not providing migs, you said that is a high risk. why is that a higher risk than not providing them? ms. psaki: what our assessment is based on is how to prevent a world war here, which is a significant weight that the intelligence community, the defense department, and the president of the united states weighs at every moment. host: your message to congress on the invasion in ukraine. cindy, your first up. caller: good morning. i really do not know what the answer is. i feel like we should have shown strength before this happened. and i feel like the horse is out of the barn now. i do think we have to be careful

about the aid, because even my own kids, who do not really follow politics, not especially religious, they are really fearful, and my heart breaks for the younger generation. they are getting slammed here. they are losing hope for our country and our future. and it is very sad. i think really, they already know we are weak. so i feel like what we should really do, and i am going to go back to the oil, let's pump our own oil and cut off the way he makes money. i really think that is the best solution without us getting more entangled in this. my heart bleeds for what we see going on in ukraine, and i believe that emotional feeling that we have is going to really drag us into something much bigger. host: that was cindy in

connecticut. jay in baltimore, maryland, democrats line. your message to congress over russia's invasion in ukraine? caller: what i would say is i think, as much as there are hawks out there, we are on the right path. we are talking about strengths, but restraint and poise is important. this is not world war ii, in the sense that they did not have nuclear weapons in world war ii. there is no telling what putin may decide to do if backed into a corner. also, we do not want to go in there alone as simply an american force. i think the president is doing a heck of a job eating the entire world to act on this -- job getting the entire world to act on this, to keep putin and his people in the corner alone.

getting them to go back to where they came and giving him an out that saves lives. we do not want to get into a war that we win simply because they lost more than we did. host: this is from john in salem, oregon, independent line, and message to congress. hello. caller: yes, let's take our children first and put them on the line and go to war, all these warmongers. spend all the money. what a legacy. all fools. host: ok, randy from our facebook page, facebook.com/ c-span, he says stop arming ukraine, the message he would send. maryann on twitter, pass humanitarian bills now, and

another message on facebook saying stop chemical weapons programs. a message on twitter saying congress can unite around ukrainians but not around americans, make it make sense. those are some of the messages on our facebook and twitter feeds you can text us at (202) 748-8003. the wall street journal this morning talks about a possible sending of war equipment when it comes to -- defense equipment to ukraine. you can find this story. they write this, saying that the u.s. is looking at transferring air defense systems from former eastern bloc countries, and it could be more useful than the effort to prevent russian warplanes from flying over ukraine. it is more sophisticated than the heatseeking missiles that have been provided to ukraine. they include what nato refers to as the sa-8 and sa-10 which can

target planes at higher altitudes, as well as what russia calls the s-300, an air defense system first produced by the soviet union and later russia, capable of shooting down aircraft. more on that in the the wall street journal this morning. from our republican line, from california, this is rory. good morning. your message? caller: well, they are going to have to fight that war one way or another, by proxies probably. the migs will come from somewhere, israel, and they will get it to the ukrainians, and yes, they may well bomb russian areas because russia invaded them. the most economical way to win this war against russia is to pump oil for another 100 years, forget the environment, forget

your electric vehicles for a while. it is not going to happen. and here in california, if they had us sitting side-by-side, they would kill each other. it is not new york. time to give up the environment, live with the results. that is it. host: john and illinois, difficult -- john in illinois, democrats line. caller: it is amazing how courageous people can be in their language. i would like to know if anybody out there knows how many children or grandchildren mitt romney has in the military. it is easy to talk about strengths, fellows and ladies, but pony up your children or grandchildren when you talk like that. i agree with the fellow from baltimore. he had some very good points. and the fellow from california,

well, putin's is back in the tar sand -- host: what would you say directly to congress? caller: loose lips sink's ships, pedro. host: what do you mean about that? caller: you ask too many questions of callers who repeat each other. host: what would your message to congress be? caller: i just said, pedro, loose lips sinks ships. did you hear how courageous mitt romney talked? he never served. none of his children or grandchildren have served in the service. host: you made that point, so we will go to chris in new york, independent line. caller: good morning. the best way to do it, you kill the economy, the whole country collapses. they went through it before

during the cold war. they kept building weapons, big, bad, and they cannot feed their army. just destroy the economy, and the country falls apart. that is my message to congress. host: when it comes to the message, you talked about the economy. what do you mean specifically about that? caller: just what he is doing, cut down the credit cards. whatever it is to survive, cut it all off. just like on the front lines, the military folks, they're dead in the water. just cut off the economy, the country gives up. that simple. if you cannot eat, there is no food, where do you go? host: ok. that was chris in new york. victor off of our facebook page, the message he sent, three words, no-fly zone. this one says, do not bring

refugees to the u.s., we have many financial issues already, u.s. taxpayers are already tapped out. stephanie on facebook adding that all of our soldiers who have fought and died for our democracy, i am asking congress to stand together with a unified message that they do not allow putin to win. you can communicate your thoughts, specifically this message to congress. republican line, dublin, ohio, james is next. caller: good morning, pedro. your first caller this morning was at a loss to know what to do. she was from connecticut. pedro, you have the capabilities of putting up with the senator from connecticut had to say we should be doing. that was senator murphy. he had a wonderful idea yesterday at about 6:00 on the

senate floor, and i think his comments show what the democrats really intend to do. why don't you give us the opportunity, the people in the united states of america who cannot see what all these goings-on are in the senate, so just give us what murphy -- host: since we cannot do that on the fly, how would you characterize those statements? what did he say? caller: oh, he was talking about how much oil goes out in the states. he was talking about other things. in fact, while he was on the senate floor, i think he got a message from home, maybe from

somebody trying to tell him that he did not know what he was talking about. but everybody does not have the opportunity to sit around all day and watch these senators on the senate floor. host: right, we give them the opportunity on the website and the app. that said, what would be your message to congress as far as the message involving russia and ukraine? caller: my message is i am getting to be about 90 years old , and i have been through it all before, but these people in washington are not getting the idea that we are in a war already. host: ok, that is james in ohio. the washington post reporting this morning that the united nations security council will meet on friday, today, at russia's request to discuss moscow's claims of u.s.-supported chemical and biological weapons labs in ukraine. it is vehemently denied. the representative to the u.n.

of russia announced the request in a tweet and said russia has been asking for the meeting, the allegation of the u.s. biological activities in the ukraine, the president has been dismissed by the biden administration as gas lighting and disinformation. they say this is exactly the kind of false flag effort we have warned russia might initiate to justify a biological or chemical weapons task, says the spokesperson for the u.s. mission on the united nations. c-span.org for more information about that u.n. meeting expected to take place sometime today. following along -- follow along there. if you miss things, like the senate, go to our website at c-span.org, and you can take it vantage of our free c-span now app, which archived video for a short time of various activities in and around washington -- you can take advantage of our free

c-span now app. ed in illinois, independent line. hi. ed in illinois, hello? go ahead. what would be your message to congress on russia and ukraine? caller: i do not have a message, but i just want to say one thing about everything that is happening. thank god trump lost, and god bless joe biden. host: we're asking people about messages to congress, so what do you think about what is going on, and what would you tell your representative? caller: stop letting everybody know what we are sending to ukraine. stop putting it all over the news, the senators talking all over the news and everything about all the weapons and stuff that we are sending to ukraine. i would hope they would be quiet and shut up. host: why do you think that is important? caller: because russia knows everything that is coming.

and they know everything that is coming to ukraine, what kind of weapons they are getting. these guys are bad actors, and i just do not think they should let everybody know what is coming to ukraine. host: ok. let's hear from william in oregon, democrats line. caller: hi, this is bill russell. i am really upset about this whole thing. what we really need is a good coup d'etat in russia. we have to get putin's finger off the nuclear button. if we could just sink him within russia, we would not have any trouble in ukraine. we could go in there -- we do not need to kill all of them, we just need to stop them. host: what makes you think we could do that? caller: that is what i am saying, we need to have a coup

d'etat that gets them out of there. i am having trouble with words, but it is really important, we need to get a person in charge in russia who is rational, and get putin's finger off the nuclear button. if he did not have the nuclear power, we would not hesitate to do what is required to liberate the ukrainian people. host: on our independent line, steve is in st. louis. hello. caller: hello, pedro. i am 100% disabled vet, served a year in vietnam. if i had one thing to say to congress, it would be, i beg you, i do not want to see any more men or women die in this conflict. i see a lot of parallels with vietnam. they wanted to be free and independent.

and everyone who remembers saw how that turns out. i don't want to see anymore deaths. i don't want to see anymore injured. that may be very difficult, but that would be the word i would have to give. host: how do you think that would be achieved? caller: i guess i am tired of the word the plumber see, but i guess that is the way -- i guess i am tired of the word diplomacy, but i guess that would be the way, to have real innovators in the pentagon that can somehow get through to all party's concerns. but people say diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy. it is all we hear. i am really on edge with this, because i guess i have been through it and i do not want to see another man or woman in our country go through death and

injury. that is all i got to say, pedro. host: steve in st. louis, missouri, on our independent line, offering thoughts, a message you would send to congress about russia's invasion of ukraine. you can call us or post on our social media sites per you can text us, too. that is what ash in kentucky did, saying president biden boxed putin into a corner. another message to congress, william in connecticut, saying get equipment to ukraine. this weak administration, no wonder there is no real way to stop putin. he writes, no deal with iran or venezuela for oil. pump and refine american crude oil again. these issues came out to play at the senate intelligence hearing yesterday that featured officials from the biden administration talking about the

various aspects of russia and ukraine, the decision not to send combat jets there was part of the discussion here is part of that exchange. [video clip] >> general, could you explain, as an intelligence officer, how vladimir putin might be a-ok with us transferring missiles that turn tanks into rubbish or shoot jets out of the sky, yet transferring tactical aircraft is unacceptable. why is the latter escalatory and the former not escalatory? >> senator, thank you. i will take a stab at that in open session here. i think when you look at the tank weapons and air defense, there is a range of escalation. i think in our view, that escalation ladder does not reach up higher with those weapons versus something like common aircraft. >> i do not think there is a lot of common sense between the distinction, and a lot of

farmers in arkansas would not understand it either. it was said that russia does not want a direct conflict with the united states, and that was from january 21. do you think they are more likely to want to conflict now, after vladimir putin has seen the performance of his army? not just against the ukrainian army but with moms with molotov cocktails and grandmas with ak-47's. >> i do not think it is an issue of whether or not they are more likely to want a conflict, it is whether or not they perceive us as being in the conflict with them. i think we are in a very challenging position where we are obviously provide -- providing enormous amounts of support to the ukrainians, which we should and need to do, but at the same time trying not to escalate the conflict and to full-on nato or u.s. war with russia. and that is a challenging phase

to manage. we're trying to provide the best assessment of what is likely to be perceived as that kind of escalation. >> it seems to me that vladimir putin simply deterred the u.s. government from providing these aircraft by saying they would view this as escalatory. we might as well call the commanding general at fort lewis outside seattle and tell him to take the flag down. not stopping ukraine, not stopping your. it can go all the way to the west coast if every time we raise a threat, we immediately back off. host: you can see more of that at the website and our app. stories coming up yesterday, the passage of the $1.5 trillion spending bill to keep the government open, you remember that about $14 billion in aid to ukraine was part of that package. and new investments in our

defense department, providing $145 billion to invest in new aircraft and vehicles, including navy vessels and super hornets and joint strike fighters, providing a 2.7% pay raise for all 2.1 million uniformed service members and 750,000 civilian employees at the defense department. a call from pennsylvania, democrats line. billy in pennsylvania, hello. -- sorry, this is kelly, apologize. caller: that is ok. that is why i waited. i cannot understand how we could not see what putin was going to do from the beginning. since he started setting up troops and tanks -- he did not want to go back to ukraine or come back without a full win. they could have saved so many lives if they had just said it

is likely that he is going to do this, get the people out, prepare, stockpile water and food. i just do not understand why we constantly, in the u.s., are not looking at, well, what is the devils advocate on this? same thing with afghanistan. how was they're not already a plan in place months and months before? i just do not understand -- we know putin does not want to lose. we believed people who said, oh, yeah, nothing will happen, he will not act. host: in light of that, what would you tell congress know? caller: i would tell congress to make sure you have your backup plans. what is the worst case scenario? make sure you plan ahead of time. right now he is in full force he doesn't want to same weak.

once he gets ukraine, he will not stop there. he does not want ukraine to be with nato. i think nato has to get involved . host: let's hear from frank in california, republican line. caller: good morning. i have a few points to make. first of all, i do not think there is a difference between sending stingers, javelins, or sending jets. what i would like the american people to think about is if we do not want to go get in a war with putin, you have these ukrainian people that are fighting like crazy. we should be strategizing and having them fight the war that we would have to fight if they attacked a nato country. why aren't we giving them every single weapon, every defensive plan we would use to defeat putin. the only thing that will stop

putin is if he is defeated by the ukrainians with our weaponry. that would send a message to him. as far as people worried about a third world war because we are sending jets? i think there is no more chance of that because if they go broke, what do we have to lose? that is what we should worry about more. we need to stop putin right where he is and teach him a lesson that he can never think about attacking a nato country. host: a viewer off of twitter saying do not send our kids to die for ukrainians' freedom, do not let the boomers talk you into it again. we do not want to visit walter reed or cemetery later. on twitter, send ukraine the biggest bombs and planes but do not announce it on tv. this one -- you can take advantage of twitter, @cspanwj. this is david on the

independence line. go ahead. caller: first, i would like to tell the people who are calling in and asking you what your opinion is, what would you do, you're the moderator of this thing. i wish they would just go by what the whole thing is all about. my message, i would say get in there and do something. come on. i look at the map, we have troops all surrounding ukraine from nato, and we are not going in and doing anything. that is what happened during world war ii. until millions of people were killed, now we will go in. we have the ability to do it now with the jets and all our equipment. world war iii will happen either way, but why wait for more and more people to die. host: when you say go in, do you mean just hardware or do you

mean direct involvement of troops? caller: direct involvement. if you try to do the thing with the airplanes through poland -- oh, no, america, you cannot do that at what are we waiting for? putin will not give up. host: we are getting your messages to congress. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can communicate by text, (202) 748-8003. this is judith from austin, texas, democrats line. caller: i could never tell anyone what to do about ukraine,

that is why we elect these congressmen. anyway, i do want to say that, you know, trump was saying, and several other people in the right wing, were saying this would have never happened if trump were still president. so my suggestion would be, why doesn't he just call him and tell him to knock it off? host: as far as your message to congress, because they are the ones who ultimately make the decisions, what would you tell them or advise them to do? caller: you are right. i loved it when that guy said loose lips sinks the ship. these two parties are fighting so much that they cannot get anything done, and they will not work together. so please act like the elected officials we think you are and start working together. host: do you think this has become a partisan issue on capitol hill? caller: oh, my gosh -- sorry, oh, my goodness. they passed one build together, and you would think that they

were saving to me from the well or something. but yes, everything is partisan. host: ok, we will hear from ron in massachusetts, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. what i cannot understand is why joe biden is blaming putin for my high gas prices. they had been going up way before. host: ok, but to the message for congress when it comes to these issues of russia and ukraine, what would you say? caller: we have got to go in and stop putin. if people are scared of a nuclear war, so be it. that is the way it will happen. but if he keeps doing what he is doing, it is going to happen either way. host: a sidebar story from the issues of russia and ukraine

also center around north korea and concerns from the u.s. about the launching of some muscles there. this was reported this morning, sing two recent ballistic missile test by north korea were apparently intended to try a part of a new missile system ahead of a full lunch, which north korea may use for a reconnaissance satellite, according to officials. north korea has displayed a military parade but has not yet launched. experts think north korea is seeking to build and test a warhead that could sit atop such a missile. let's hear from sheridan, colorado, springs, -- colorado springs, colorado. caller: yeah, i have been watching this whole thing play out. shouldn't we take any value with

this whole thing and understand -- it talks about the end of times in the bible, and why don't we change our war machine and try to do something better for the environment? you know, do something better to let society get a better example of what humanity can become. i do not believe in war. i am in 100% service-connected veteran. i have died. i have been a pow.

i got out of the military after dying about eight times. and i am part of the v.a. system now. host: ok. let's go to eugene, waterbury, connecticut, democrats line. caller: yes, i think this is a big smokescreen. it is terrible that these republicans and these democrats could come together and rally around a little war. it is not a little war. i feel for these people, but the whole thing is that we -- our whole country is going down, because we are falling behind and giving money to ukraine, giving money to the saudis.

food prices, everything, gas prices, everything is going up. host: so what would be the message to congress than? caller: the message to congress is, what about the build back better? what about our country? what about the gas prices? they are letting ukraine and putin, let them figure those things out. we do not need to get involved in another war. we have been in plenty of wars, and nothing has been accomplished, nothing. host: why do you think it is important for the u.s. and other nations to stay out of it? caller: they shouldn't stay out of it -- i mean, a collective effort together with the european countries, they can do something. all of them can be united. let them handle that. host: dave is in las vegas, independent line. you are next. caller: hello, can you hear me? host: i can. go ahead.

caller: has anyone considered the fact that the russians have developed super weapons, like a laser beam? that is why they are bating everybody into war. host: what do you mean by that? can you explain? caller: they are bating everybody into war. they do not seem to be afraid. so i am thinking he has something up his sleeve, like a new super weapon no one has ever heard of. host: with that in mind, what would be your message to congress than? caller: prepare for that, you know, prepare for that eventuality. i really do not know how to respond. but like what they had in world war ii, had the atom bomb first,

so the russians possibly could have this kind of weapon in their arsenal. host: what convinces you have that? caller: well, just my gut feeling on that one. host: ok. ed is next from connecticut, independent line. caller: good morning. i will give you the same message i gave my two connecticut senators. give ukraine what they need. host: and you reached out to both of those offices with that message? caller: [inaudible] host: i am sorry, you are becoming muted. can you get closer to your phone and try again? caller: excuse me, i will give you the same message i gave my two senators from connecticut. give ukraine what they need.

also, give them long-range missiles. host: did you get any response from you senators? caller: no, i am waiting for a response. as i was saying, send them long-range missiles and let them dispatch the missiles to moscow and give putin a nice present. and also, if we just keep on packing up, we are going to get -- if we just keep on backing up, we are going to get into another war. remember at the end of world war ii, a general wanted to go to russia, said let's clean them up while we got them on the run -- host: apologies, that was a call

from connecticut, giving thoughts on a message to congress you can do the same for the remainder of the time, about 18 minutes left in the segment. phone lines are (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. a side story emerging includes the north carolina representative telling supporters, at least overheard doing so, that they thought that the ukrainian president was "a thug," a comment that runs counter to the overwhelming view of republicans. wral in north carolina captured this video with medicine halter and. -- madison hawthorne. a short bit of video. [video clip] >> remember that zelensky is a thug. remember that the ukrainian government is incredibly evil.

he has been pushing what really is the new world war -- host: that was from wral. when it comes to responses to this, one of the people who responded to these statements was joni ernst, the senator holding a press conference, the iowa republican. here is part of her response when asked about the comments. [video clip] >> earlier today, it was reported that a congressman called volodymyr zelensky a thug , sang the ukrainian army is incredibly evil and corrupt. he later said the ukrainian government is spreading misinformation about the war. [indiscernible] given what he is saying, do you think republican voters are not in the same place that you are on this issue? >> well, i can tell you what i

think, because i spent time in ukraine in 1989, while it was part of this former soviet union. and those that i visited with in ukraine at that time, the first question -- it was an agricultural exchange, and the first question that they asked of those of us from iowa that were there on that collective farm, on that agricultural exchange, the first question they asked us was, what is it like to be an american? and what is it like to be free? they wanted to be free at that time. they were a fledgling democracy. they became a free nation in 1991, and they have been fighting ever since. you know, if we think that any country is free of corruption, then we are kidding ourselves. but let me tell you what, the ukrainians want to be free. they have been fighting for the past 30 years, and to just hand them over to an actual murderous

thug in vladimir putin is the wrong thing to do. it is absolutely the wrong thing to do. so my colleague in the house, i would push back and say it is not ukraine invading russia, it is russia invading ukraine. and they are going to have russia, they are going to have a world of hurt on their hands, but we have to be able to provide them the means to do it. host: this is from a viewer off of twitter, saying that the u.s. and nato should continue to secure the nato eastern flank, and include uab's with antitank and antiaircraft missiles. lee from twitter says let's try to negotiate with putin to make ukraine neutral, and we need to give putin and offramp. when putin is no longer in charge, ukraine can negotiate a

different agreement regarding neutrality. tony off to addressing the message to congress is to hold more closed session meetings with the administration and provide a unified off-camera sponsor leading to a lot -- leading to a high level summit with the russians. those are some of the responses from you all off our twitter speech, your message to congress when it comes to issues regarding russia and ukraine. dallas, texas, democrats line. glenda, good morning. caller: good morning, pedro, and good morning, america. i do agree with nato and washington about supporting ukraine. very proud to say that ukraine is standing up for freedom for themselves, where i am going to say afghanistan threw down their weapons. but the thing of it is that the president have ideas, and about a week ago, about sending in supplies for ukraine to fight

with, and then everything is exposed in the media to where it is debatable, to where they cannot do what they are needing to do because everything has been exposed to the enemy. so therefore, we should keep the media -- certain things you cannot expose, you cannot expose what you're going to do to the enemy. so we need to the -- keep things in secret to provide for ukraine , so there is no debate about what is going to happen or what the president is going to do for ukraine. that is just like having enemies within. so i support nato and the president. i am proud of ukraine. and i pray that the american people will come together and think about what is actually going on, because what goes on somewhere else could easily come to america. and we could all suffer the same thing. putin is who he is and always has been. i appreciate you listening to me this morning.

but the congress and the senate need to come together with the president and quit fighting. they do not ever talk about what they are going to do. what is the senate -- what are the republicans going to do to help the president succeed? host: let's go to matthew in birmingham, alabama, independent line. caller: thank you, pedro. three things. the woman from iowa, she giggled at the question. yesterday, the vice president, a woman of color, harris, she made a statement after a question was asked, with america except immigrants, and -- would america accept emigrants, and she laughed it off, like, what? and there was a message that was

deleted from the former press secretary. one of the things we cannot do is lose a democracy trying to establish a democracy. a $6 billion budget passed on wednesday. a baffling calf yacht, $120 million -- there was a caveat that baffled me, $120 million for journalists. there were 55 members invited to the constitution creation, and 39 showed up. but 17 voted against the other most powerful body -- host: what is your message to congress on russia and ukraine? caller: this is where i was going. $120 million for the journalists , and the government cannot pay

journalists. that goes against everything. host: ok, that is matthew in alabama. mike in wisconsin, democrats line. caller: putin is a thug. [indiscernible] ussr boundary. i believe if we do not take a stand, even going as far as sending troops, he will keep on going and try to take over as much land as he can. host: your message to congress is? caller: send in troops. a story you have probably seen over the last couple of days is the pull out of various western businesses from russia. vladimir putin coming up with a plan to take control of some of

those businesses in the short term. it was written that he plans to nationalize western businesses, saying the nationalization proposal would allow the government to request a court order to impose external management on the factories, shops, and other facilities that departing companies leave behind to prevent bankruptcy and preserve jobs. russia said external management will last for three months, after which the government would put the business up for auction. it would apply to companies and which unfriendly nations owe more than 25% and stop operations in russia. let's go to mary in virginia. host: they need to provide the

-- this is carolyn in albany, new york, democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i think that a lot of people look at military advancements as a form of attack, and i think we are not back in the early 1900's. we need to focus on taking them down in different ways. i think we need to focus on lowering the casualties and taking different routes. i think we need to continue to focus more on that. host: why do you think that is a better approach? caller: well, we have seen the

russians already do cyber attacks against us in multiple different ways. i think we need to be prepared for them doing that again. they have shown the capabilities, and if they did a cyber attack on us, it would cripple the entire nation. most of the entire country runs off of the internet and many forms of electronic communication. if they attacked us in that way, we would not be able to communicate with our troops. i think we need to focus on an attack on that end, and i think that that would be the best way to prevent casualties. host: ok, here is bob in ohio, republican line. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i am retired lieutenant colonel from the air force. i have a message for congress, for lindsey graham, tom cotton,

and joni ernst. they need to take control of foreign-policy and speak directly to putin. it should be the president's job -- he is not doing it. mr. putin only understands when he is talked to in strong terms. secretly, we need to have our navy following their boomer submarines, their nuclear-capable submarines, with two or three attack subs ready to take out the part of the triad. then our message to mr. putin is picked five russian cities that are roughly the same size as mariupol or kyiv come and say, mr. putin, look how poorly your army has done so far. all these five cities are roughly the same size, and they are reachable by nato. think about it. and that would be the message. host: bob in ohio on our line

for republicans, calling in with his message for congress. we mentioned earlier that about 10:15, we expect to hear from the president today regarding trade with russia. look to our website for more information. later on, the u.n. meeting, keep to the website for that. a couple other events, president biden will be the keynote address at the house democratic retreat today in philadelphia. our coverage of that will start at 12:15 this afternoon. you can see that on c-span.org. look for full coverage at c-span now here the house democratic caucus will talk about a variety of things, midterm election stuff, things of that nature. that will start at 9:00 this morning. if you want to follow along with that, c-span2 is how you do that. you can do that at c-span.org or on our c-span now app. mike in indiana, independent

line. your message to congress concerning russia and ukraine? caller: yes, my message would be to start stripping russian diplomats, their social media accounts that they apparently still have access to and are only allowing them to continue their misinformation campaign. they just need to start clamping down on what russia is allowed to put out over there airwaves to the rest of the world with the misinformation. the other thing is, as far as the green energy initiative and the type of energy we are currently faced with, the shortage, we need to address the here and now and start dealing with the situation that is currently affecting us in the here and now and not be so concerned about 20, 25 years down the road type green energy.

we need to deal with what is on the table in front of us right now. host: virginia beach on our line for democrats, this is steve. caller: hey, how you doing. host: fine, thanks. caller: my suggestion to congress is to go back and consult with our former president trump. he was already in negotiations with putin, and at this point we need all the negotiations we can to settle this. host: one more call, bruce in alabama, republican line. caller: yeah, my message to congress would be they need to get a backbone. we are a nuclear country. russia is just using his nukes as leverage. he is not going to shoot them nukes off, same as we don't want to. but he don't want to go to work. i tell him to get out of the

country. 1994, there was a treaty that bill clinton signed, to defend the people if they get the nuclear weapons. now the united states want a front row seat, watching people die. it is wrong. putin needs to get his butt out or we coming in. host: appreciate all of you called in to participate. two guests joining us this morning. first, this interfirm new american security's richard fontaine to discuss the russia-ukraine crisis, what it means for the post cold war order. and then later on, dbt from the foundation for defense of democracies, talking about the latest developments in iran nuclear talks. those conversations coming up on "washington journal." ♪ ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2.

at noonday stern, the host of the history as it happens podcast talks with a georgetown university professor about the history of the democratic party and how the democratic party's politics, ideas led to larger themes in american history. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, part 2, first lady in their own words. the role of the first lady and issues important to them. we will feature betty ford. >> when ratified it will not be an instant solution to women's problems. it will not alter the fabric of the constitution. or force women away from their families. it will help against the restrictions that have locked women in to the old stereotypes of behavior and opportunity. >> exploring the american story,

watch american history tv, saturday on c-span2, and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span2, features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at 1:00, live coverage of the 2022 festival of books, including a retired u.s. army lt. col. with his book. carol anderson with her book. an author with "left behind, the democrats' failed attempt."

the chair of the george w. bush council of economic advisers talks about his book, "the wall and the bridge." he argues government and business need to invest more in workers to offset job loss. he is interviewed by a harvard university economics professor. watch book tv every sunday on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: richard fontaine is the chief executive officer for the center for a new american security. he is joining us to talk about ukraine. thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: how would you explain your organization to people at home and how was it funded? guest: it is a think tank in

washington, d.c. and we develop policies across the range of national security, foreign policy and challenges that face the country. we have funding from a variety of donors, including individuals, corporations, foundations that support us and some government funding, as well. all of the funders are available on the website for those who are curious. host: you wrote a recent piece for the atlantic that was published in early march. it is called the long weekend that changed history. you wrote the world is not the same as it was last week. i it supposed things have changed since then. what did you mean by that? guest: a profound geopolitical shift that began with vladimir putin's invasion of ukraine. you can see this in multiple areas. the first and foremost is in europe and the weather european salve responded. germany, for example, announced

a huge increase of 100 million euros and immediate spending on defense. e.u. has decided to provide funding for lethal weapons to assist ukrainians. the joining of the sanctions by the g7 countries, including japan to really bring much of the russian economy to its knees. even in japan, you can see already there has been the beginning of a new debate about whether japan should have nuclear weapons capability. you look around the world at the way countries and regions have responded and the shifts that have been involved are significant and the speed with which they have made the shifts is really stunning. host: what do you think the last few weeks have done for dado itself as far as an organization and the way it approaches things

-- nato itself as far as an organization on the weight approaches things? guest: it is a military alliance designed to deal with external threats. when you have an external threat like vladimir putin's russia is today, it also helps the current administration has tried to force that unity. what you have now in nato is a group of allies working together in a common cause much more closely than they were even a few weeks ago, and each individual member of that coalition is more willing itself to do more at its own defense and spend more in its own defense that it was a few weeks ago. you end up having a more strong and unified nato that you had a few weeks before. host: the alliances, have new threats emerged, even aside from what vladimir putin might present? guest: you have putin as the

major threat everyone is focused on today but it is also worth noting that the chinese and russians have been working more closely together and nato and other countries around the world have been focused more on the china challenge until quite recently, just before the invasion, a few weeks before the invasion, vladimir putin was meeting with xi jinping. there was a manifesto about what they would like to see the world obtain in the future. that is a more closed version of the world than many of the countries in nato and otherwise would like to see. that will remain an ongoing challenge that includes part of the russia threat what goes beyond. host: richard fontaine is our guest. if you want to ask him questions, you can do so at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans.

for independents, (202) 748-8002. you can present your question via text at (202) 748-8003. the president talked about the idea between democracy and a talk received and democracy's influence on the world. [video clip] pres. biden: the history of this era is written. putin's were on ukraine will have left russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger. [applause] pres. biden: while it should not -- [applause] pres. biden: while it should not have taken something so terrible for people around the world to see what is at stake, everyone sees it clearly. we see the unity among leaders of nations, a more unified europe, a more unified west. we see unity among the people gathering in cities, in large

crowds around the world, even in russia to demonstrate their support for the people of ukraine. in the battle between democracy and a talker see, democracies are rising to the moment in the world is choosing the side of peace and security. this is the real test. it will take time. host: that is the president from the state of the union. guest: i think that is broadly right what i would not necessarily put the dividing line as has between autocracies and democracies. the countries that voted to condemn russia's actions at the united nation, its invasion of ukraine, you see autocracies among those who are opposed to what russia has done, and you see democracies, india, for example, not joining the sanctions against russia. largely speaking, the countries

that have gathered together to defend what we might call an international order, the rules that vladimir putin is bridging, those have generally been the strong democracies. on the others, you see autocracies, but it is not quite as strict a definition as the president's remarks suggest. host: one of the bodies that stem from the cold war and the united nations, even today, russia calling for a meeting over concerns. what do you think about the influence and still has over some world bodies? guest: russia is a great power. it has a u.n. security council veto which it exercised to veto the resolution condemning it at the u.n. security council. it is unable to do that in the general assembly. it was very isolated. it only had countries like north korea and syria voting along with it.

in universal bodies like the united nations, russia continues to play an important role. there is an ongoing question about russia's continued membership and other bodies. for example, the wto. we might see an announcement about rescinding normal trading status with russia. over time and effort, they might try to bar russia from the wto and other international organizations, as well. while russia might maintain its membership and some of these key bodies, its overall diplomatic isolation is growing more profound by the day. host: as far as specific events for these calls with the sending of jets, how do you think that comes into the negotiations that not only the united states makes, but other nato countries

and alliances consider? guest: the most meaningful negotiations that are taking place right now are between ukraine and russia. i say meaningful, if they will have any chance of success, so far they have not, as recently as yesterday, when the foreign ministers of russian and ukraine met in turkey and came to know agreement whatsoever appeared negotiations reflect the shape of the battlefield and the strength of the sides on the battlefield. that is when issues like providing fighter jets to the ukrainian side, or air defense systems or weapons so that ukrainians can best defend themselves against the russian invaders, that will play into any leverage that may or may not have with the russians. the same is true on the russian side. we see a military effort trying to push back there he hard and brutally against ukrainian

cities but it has not been by any stretch of the imagination a military operation that vladimir putin thought he would have, a quick strike against the cities. so far, negotiations have not gone anywhere. host: richard fontaine with the center for a new american security is with us. dan, independent line, you are on with our guest. caller: thank you for having me on. i guess i am wondering, with our recent history and our adventures overseas, i am talking about afghanistan, iraq, libya, you know, there was a lot of propaganda that was dealt out to us americans to sell us on why we need to invade these countries. and now, that is a recent track

record we have, we have just dealt with covid and the response we got from our own government, cdc and other government agencies were wise. people should be in jail and prosecuted for manslaughter. here we are. with decades of lies from our government, going on these adventures, things happening at home and the government seizing more power for ourselves and taking power from its citizens. now we are looking at ukraine. under the obama administration, there was a coup in ukraine and the power shifted. victoria nuland was taught on the phone talking about who we wanted to install as the leader after this coup happened. this is a fact. it is recorded. i guess my question is, we are saying that putin and the

russians are using all this propaganda. how much propaganda are we using here at home to the american people based on our recent history? host: that is dan in massachusetts. go ahead. guest: my recollection of history is not quite the same as the caller's. what i would say right now is if you would like to see propaganda, the russian side is giving the world, and unfortunately the russian people, a pretty good example of what propaganda looks like. the russian foreign minister said that not only would russia not attack another country, but that russia had not actually attacked ukraine. that would be news to people ukraine. they said the war is not a war. they said the reason by they had to go to war in ukraine is because it is run by drug addicted nazis and they needed to de-nazify the country.

we are seeing a strong attempt to mask and even denied the cause of the war that putin has unleashed in ukraine. what you see on the american side is a free-for-all that allows for the kind of exchange of ideas we are having right now. the difference is about as stark as one might get. host: republican line, scott, tampa, florida. caller: good morning. host: you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: i could not hear you. my question is, where does the u.n. fit in this picture? with all the talk that is cheap, where does the u.n. -- how can they not put in u.n. peacekeeping forces in parts of

the ukraine? host: scott in tampa, florida. guest: the u.n. has a role in passing resolutions and taking action if they can be passed at the -- russia has a veto. with any country says let's put in peacekeeping forces, russia would immediately veto the effort. that is a nonstarter. even to censure russia, to disapprove of its action at the u.n. was vetoed by the russians. the chinese abstained and the russians vetoed. what it has done, however, i mentioned this earlier, to demonstrate the depth of isolation that russia has in its position, 141 countries voted at the general assembly to condemn russian actions and just a small handful voted along with the

russian position. north korea, syria, countries like that. not exactly the coalition one would build if you were trying to prove your credentials as a great power. the u.n.'s role is quite limited around diplomacy. 41 countries, or thereabouts, made the world's largest referral of russia to the international criminal court it has begun an investigation looking into potential russian war crimes in ukraine. host: our guest richard fontaine is joining us for the conversation. you can call the lines, post on our feeds and text us if you wish at (202) 748-8003. you talked about the strength of the alliances. what does history tell us about keeping that alliance together, particularly if we do not know

how far this will go? guest: history shows it can be hard. the easiest time to keep an alliance together is when the external threat against which an alliance is directed is most acute. certainly, the nato countries are feeling that with a land war on their borders for the first time since 1945. there are two phenomenon we will see going forward. one is whether the threat is felt as acutely in the future as it is now. if it is, you could have a solid net on the unity of the nato allies. if it ebbs, it will become tougher to maintain the unity. as long as vladimir putin is in charge of russia, it will be felt profoundly. the second is on the cost. we spoke earlier of the

sanctions of which countries are putting on russia, but the cost of the sanctions fall on the countries putting the sanctions in place. those costs are uneven depending on who is doing the sanctioning. germany is different than britain, different than the united states, different than candida. host: just to use the example of gas prices, public sentiment weighs into this. guest: public sentiment has pushed governments to take measures toward russia that it otherwise might not have taken. i will give you a perfect example of this. switzerland, which has been famously neutral for 500 years, came out and froze russian assets in switzerland and adopted the e.u. sanction as providing mentoring assistance to ukraine. one reason it is doing that because when the war broke out,

20,000 people showed up and began protesting and calling on their government to do something. that is one example of how popular sentiment has pushed governments toward a more full some response to russia. on the other hand, you will have the cost and gas prices is the perfect example of how something that happens in ukraine between the russians and the ukrainians will translate into everyday life for millions of americans and others. host: this is a caller from tennessee on our independent line. caller: good morning. i just would like to talk about this war. there are a lot of callers opposing war. i also oppose war. host: caller, keep going. if you are listening for

yourself, you are pausing. caller: good morning. i oppose this war like all of the previous callers. an agreement was reached earlier in the year 1990 or 1992. ukraine separated from russia. the only way it can be part of russia again is with another set of dialogue, not war. this is like india going against pakistan after 75 years, although pakistan was part of india, so we go with war to take pakistan. it cannot be like that. it seems like this war is because of the mind of one person, president putin. there were previous callers who mentioned putin is not crazy. they may be right or wrong, but

it seems like he can act crazy and that is what putin has shown. guest: i think president putin went into this with three broad beliefs. one was ukrainians and russians really are one people and that ukrainians would greet russian troops as liberators and forge the unity that these artificial boundaries have divided and this would be welcomed broadly by the ukrainian people. that of course was wrong. he believed the russian military, especially after the war in 2008, had been watered iced and advanced and was capable -- had been modernized and was capable. that turned out to be wrong. he believed broadly that the international response would be something akin to his

seizure of crimea, his poisoning of various people. even alexi navalny. of course, that was wrong because the international response has been far broader and more coerce than any of those put together. one can debate the rationality of president putin. but given those beliefs, perhaps it was rational for him to decide it was worth doing this. but it turned out those beliefs were utterly wrong and we are seeing the results of that right now. host: richard fontaine is our guest from the center for a new american security. we have about 20 minutes left with them. if you want to ask him questions or comments involving russia's invasion of ukraine. south carolina, democrats line, you are next up. caller: i am concerned that ukrainians are hurting right

now. if we put a fighter jet in their hands, they might fly them directly into moscow, which would cause an escalation. we do not want that to happen. i think we need to help them in other ways. guest: the ukrainians have fighter jets and some of those fighter jets are still flying. it is astonishing that the russians have not been able to dominate completely the airspace over ukraine even with all this time having up lapsed. they have not flown to moscow yet and i think that is extremely unlikely. really, in addition to the ability to have more aircraft in the skies to contest russian aircraft, increase air defenses against that russian aircraft is really important. what we will see in the near term is an effort to provide the ukrainians with additional air defenses because the russians

have moved into a new stage where they are using aircraft, missiles and artillery almost without reservation in order to bombard ukrainian cities in an attempt to essentially force the population at large, rather than the government specifically, to lose its will and surrender. air defenses is becoming very important. host: you wrote a recent piece that people can find on the website about the ukraine war, you say it could slow but not stop the u.s. pivot to asia. guest: a few weeks ago, there was a broad consensus in washington and among foreign policy thinkers and other governments that china, not russia, was the number one long-term challenge for the united states and its foreign policy and that asia, not europe, was the region in which

so much of the century's fortunes would be decided. a lot of that remains true. it is not the case that because let america rudin has launched -- because vladimir putin has launched this brutal war that it has not diminished the challenge. it has added complexity and greater challenges to the conduct of american foreign policy. the task before the administration, congress and those involved in the making of foreign policy is to remain focused on the long-term challenge of china and the need to step up american presence and engagement with asia while simultaneously dealing with russia and europe. that is not an easy task. we previously focused on china and now we can exclusively or primarily focus on russia or europe. host: before the house armed

services committee, they heard from the assistant secretary of defense for that area. they talked about some challenges, i want to play a portion of that for you and get you to comment on that. [video clip] >> as you know, the indo pacific is the priority theater for the department of defense and we look to hold a free regional order. the region faces mounting security challenges, specifically from the people's republic of china which has adopted a more assertive approach to advancing its authoritarian interests. weapons of mass destruction and missile programs constitute a serious threat to the u.s. and our allies and partners. secretary austen has described the prc as the top challenge. this will be reflected in the forthcoming national defense strategy and fy 2023 budget as we update our concepts and capabilities to defend the

homeland, deter aggression and prepare to prevail in conflict. we are prioritizing capabilities relative to the china challenge to enable a joint force that is lethal and able to strike adversary forces at range, resilient and able to gain information advantage and maintain command-and-control through adversary disruptions, survivable and agile in the face of attacks to reduce combat power and mobilization speed and able to provide the logistics and sustainment needed for operations in a highly contested environment. host: that was the department of defense. guest: the secretary is a former colleague of mine, a very wise man. i think he is right in the sense that the department of defense needs to focus on the capability that it is bringing aboard and able to deal with the competition with china and the

threat that china poses in the indo pacific. that said, there is a timing aspect of this, much of what assistant secretary ratner was speaking about was the budget, capabilities and how to spend money and allocate resources. some of the resources will turn into real defense capabilities and a number of years, which is entirely appropriate to focus on china. the russia threat is today. i think the administration has taken the right steps in bolstering nato's eastern flank by sending additional troops to countries there. there will be an ongoing question about what the american military presence looks like in europe after this invasion. over time, there will need to be this allocation of resources across europe and indo pacific. certainly fielding and spending money to field new capabilities

that can be useful in balancing against china in the indo pacific over the long run will be absolutely critical to the american approach. host: let's hear from paul in missouri, republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for the opportunity to speak to mr. fontaine. i tried to get on during the previous segment, what is it that you would tell congress given this current conflict? my text said, the real issue with escalation and nato engagement is china. we have heard little about their stance due to all the smoke of a 24/7 new cycle. congress spends too much time looking in the rearview mirror, i.e. january 6 and critical race theory, and should look forward to being blindsided by russia and china. lo and behold, this segment comes up next.

i am absolutely thrilled to hear what your thoughts would be. we heard a little bit about it a second ago. you guys are spit balling in your think tank, when you hit the whiteboard, what are your top five critical threats based on the current situation and your best case-worst-case-most likely case scenario one year from now? host: thank you. guest: in terms of the threats, obviously, we are seeing one today with the russian threat in europe. that would be the most acute one we see anywhere. there is the china challenge over the long run that we were just describing a few minutes ago. there are other things, too. iran has not yet reentered into the iran nuclear deal, neither has the united states. nuclear iran remains a big

question mark. forces have attacked saudi arabia, uae fairly recently. the regime in north korea is developing a new intercontinental ballistic missile, it has become active once again in firing off missiles as provocation. there are enough challenges in the world to keep that whiteboard moving for a while. host: new york, independent line, we will hear from ken. caller: good morning. thank you. i want to note i am 74 years old and have seen similar situations over the last 50 years. my real reason for calling is i am curious about the post-cold war impact. i think we are in a cold war, not post-cold war. i will hang up. thank you. guest: i think the caller is

getting at something interesting. what we are seeing is the end of the post-cold war era that began in 1991 and is ending, or has ended very recently. that era was one in which there were great attempts to forge a relationship with russia, integrate it to some degree in global and transatlantic institutions as we saw russia became very involved in the global economy with western companies engaged in doing business in russia and russian individuals investing and spending time and having their kids educated outside of russia. we are quickly seeing all of that unwind as russia is

disconnected and disconnects itself from what we might otherwise call globalization -- the travel, trade, finance, connections with the rest of the world. it its place, the west is looking at, not just sullen and revisionist regime in moscow, but a clear and present danger, one that invades its neighbors, tries to tickets territory and maintains a threat to the alliance that has maintain the peace for some time. that is why i think of it as likely the end of the post-cold war era and the entrance to something else. hopefully, the cold war, if that is what it is, with emphasis on cold, rather than war. host: one of the aspects we see today was highlighted by a writer from the new york times. he said for at least a decade,

democracies have been disappearing. numbers peaked in 2012, 42 countries. now there are 34. this is according to a nonprofit that studies governments. the united states' toxic polarization is on the rise. what does that mean in terms of democracies fighting against autocracies? guest: that is right. there has been a decline in the number of democracies in the world and the quality of the democracies that remain over the last 15 years. it is quite alarming in some ways. i think here, and the response to russian aggression, one sees the democracies in the western world but i would define not just at the geographic west, but countries that have the economic and political institutions that are similar to ours -- japan, south korea, new zealand and so

forth. they are refined in their underlying strength. there has been much talk about a post-western world, a world where the autocracies run roughshod over any collective action that the democracies are able to muster. but look at what has happened so far. after the invasion, countries that represent 50% of global gdp got together and found the strength, essentially, to bring the russian economy to its knees in days. russia had the third-largest foreign reserves in the world. the ruble is at an all-time low. russia is isolated in so many ways. it is true and disturbing that there has been such a decline in democracy. but when you add these countries together, their common weight is extraordinary, and far more

weight and power than the combined powers of china and russia, or a few other countries you might want to add. what we are seeing now is collective action. if that can remain the case, then you have a lot you could work with going into the future. there is in this horrible tragedy, this brutal affair that is affecting so tragically the lives of ukrainians and bringing disaster at the hands of vladimir putin on the russian people themselves, at least economically, an immense opportunity for those who would like to see a better world to work together. host: new york, democrats line, you are next. caller: how are you doing this morning? i am a former military contractor. i have been where we build missiles. the crosshairs are on putin's

desk and the kremlin with our capabilities. we have defensive batteries such as the patriot missile system. that is a nonaggressive system. it is defensive. is that something the u.s. could consider helping ukrainians with? guest: as we discussed before, i think providing defense capabilities, air defense especially, but potentially missile, as well, is going to be in the cards in the near term for assistance for the ukrainians. that said, the russians have a lot of capability when it comes to artillery, missiles, including missiles now being shot from russian territory and aircraft coming in from belarus. those kind of defenses i believe are under discussion right now

in trying to provide additional air and missile defenses. host: congress just passed a bill to keep the government funded. as part of that, money when it comes to the defense department, $782 billion, to you think events involving putin will change the way the u.s. looks at its own defense budget? guest: i do. i think you will see the defense budget go up. it probably would have gone up anyway because inflation is running at 7%. what you can get for the defense dollars shrinks if you keep it steady. you would have seen that. this requirement to pay the ukrainians to reinforce america's position in europe and deal simultaneously with events in asia and deal with a long-term china challenge, when

you add all of that together, you will see a defense budget in this next year that will be higher that it would have been given putin had not invaded ukraine. host: do you think those discussions will still be as partisan in nature as we have seen? guest: less so. we have seen democrats including some who have normally not been entirely thrilled with bigger defense budgets say it is a statement of reality that we will need to see an increase in the defense budget. i think there will be less partisan rancor around the overall size of the defense budget. how that money is spent is more important than the total number of dollars. that tends not to break down along party lines but other policy inclinations. how to deal with the array of national security threats and

challenges the united states faces and how to allocate defense resources and over what time frame is a very lively area of debate. i think that will be engaged with for over a year as the defense budget itself grows overall. host: let's hear from troy in pittsburgh, pennsylvania, republican line, last call. go ahead. caller: i was calling to say i think the war in ukraine is awful, but political powers in the world have played a chess game and ukraine got caught up in it. it was not like iraq and afghanistan because they have 40 million people.

they got stocked up on supplies. us in grenada or panama, the places we have been going, they were ready for a war. i am just hoping that he does not run up into poland and start world war iii after this because the allies have went into -- i guess it was supposed to be an open corridor when they had other leaders before they got putin, and they were weak, and now they are back on their feet. i hope us using the reserves and stuff like that, that j.p. morgan and all those people back then got started to keep neutral and we will go back into what we were before world war i. host: thank you. guest: the caller i think made a point about putin's claim to

russian greatness. certainly when he took over around 1999, boris yeltsin was in declining health, the russian economy had been in shambles during the 1990's, economic shock therapy did not work well. one of putin's driving impulses was to restore this notion of russian greatness, to strengthen russia, build back its military, make its economy stronger, show russians and the world this was a great power worth dealing with and to be listened to and respected in the world. for many russians, that succeeded to at least a large degree. before this war, many would have said putin succeeded at some level in doing precisely that. he is now in the process of unwinding everything he has done

for russia. even if one accepts -- i would not but many russians would -- the premise that he effectively tried to restore russian greatness. the russian economy may retract as much as 1/3 in this quarter. it could be as small if not smaller or isolated then it was when he took over in 1999. you have russia not being seen as respected, rather isolated and distrusted. you see russians being cut off from the good things of the world for which they have tried to have access to for so many years. one of the many tragedies in what putin has done with this war of aggression is to bring about in quick order precisely the opposite kind of russia that he has aimed and promised for

all of these years. it is a real tragedy, quite obviously for ukrainians who are literally fighting for their lives and our country, but also for russians, as well. host: richard fontaine with the center for a new american security. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will have a conversation about the iran nuclear deal. behnam ben taleblu will join us when "washington journal" continues. ♪ pres. biden: the russian military has started a brutal assault on the people of ukraine without provocation, justification, necessity. this is a premeditated attack. >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine. read the ledges from the

president and other white house officials, the pentagon and the state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders on the c-span networks, online at c-span.org or the free c-span now mobile video app. ♪ >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington, live and on-demand. keep up with the events with live streams and earrings from u.s. congress, white house events and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of "washington journal" and scheduling information for c-span's tv network and c-span radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today.

c-span now, your front row seat in washington anytime, anywhere. ♪ >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. hear many of those conversations on c-span's new podcast, presidential recordings. >> season 1 focuses on the presidential time of lyndon johnson. you will hear about the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly, johnson's secretaries knew because they were tasked with transcribing many of the conversations. they were the ones who major the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and there's. >> you will also hear some blunt talk. >> i want a report of the number

of people assigned to kennedy on the day he died. i promise you i will not go anywhere. i will stay right behind them. >> presidential recordings. find it on the c-span now radio app wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: behnam ben taleblu is the senior fellow for the foundation of the defense of democracies, joining us to talk about the latest with the iran nuclear deal. thank you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: remind us about your organization and how you are funded. guest: as a foundation for defense of democracies, a nonprofit, nonpartisan foreign policy research institute headquartered here in washington, d.c.

it has been active over two decades. it takes no foreign government funding. ultimately, it started out focusing on terrorism, the aftermath of 9/11. it eventually grew out to focus on iran, the nuclear program, a couple of functional areas, sanctions, cyber issues and now covers the range of global threats. we have people who focus on north korea, china, russia, and regional and functional portfolios that cover iran. host: we heard news that when it comes to the iran nuclear deal, there may have been a settlement with the finalization of that. out of europe, reports there could be a pause on the talks. what is the significance of the developments? guest: we have heard so much about different iran nuclear deal timelines. you have had the biden

administration saying that window for diplomacy is closing, the runway shortening. ultimately they reengaged with an ultra hardline administration, inaugurated in august. a negotiating mechanism, five members of the security council plus germany. ultimately, the u.s. negotiated with the europeans, russians and the chinese. about a week and a half ago, many people said the deal was essentially done, there was a framework in place to resurrect essentially what i have called the lesser version of that original 2015 deal known as the joint comprehensive plan of action. some call it the obama era nuclear deal. jcpoa. there were two hiccups.

coming up with a roadmap for ironing out iran's responses over undeclared sites and traces of man-made uranium. the iranians have time to provide written responses. there is time to review. by early june, this issue is supposed to come to a head at the board of governors. the main focal point is a russian 11th hour demand that has come up. we know the russians and chinese have acted as iran's lawyers against the u.s. and the europeans in this negotiating mechanism, given the worn ukraine, the russians are using to look the iran as a sanctions carveout. they want written guarantees due to crippling economic sanctions they are facing from the americans and the western bloc. they are trying to get a written guarantee there will be no economic pressure that touches

any vector of russia-iran trade, whether it is economic or any other touch point that might exist between those two countries. the treasury department in the u.s. has no history of actually going about bending over backwards to accommodate such aggression, giving these written guarantees. you could said the talks have not broken down but there is more than cold water being poured on the timeline, being days away like the russian ambassador in vienna said. host: take us a step back and talk about the highlights of this deal. what was the intended purpose? guest: in 2015 versus 2021, 2022, two similar but different democratic administrations. the obama administration got the jcpoa done and try to kick the can down the road 10 years on

the iran nuclear issue. they separated the nuclear threat from the regional threat to the missile threat. in my view, that was a mistake but that was the strategic logic of the obama administration. it essentially waved a lot of executive orders, sanctions, including tough oil penalties, not just by america but the europeans against the islamic republic of iran and removing financial and banking as part of the sanctions architecture. the iranians paused part of the nuclear program. destroying these machines that can enrich -- putting some into storage. the had to reconfigure some facilities. in my view, the way to

responsibly click the can down the road. in this 10 year period, a lot could change. perhaps a supreme leader of iran might die, that has not happened. they may change their political makeup of iran. the regime has brutally and violently repressed protests. there have been no empowering of the iranian moderates. the biden abatis nation, which has many veterans of the obama administration, has inherited a shorter timeline who believe president trump's exit of the deal was a mistake. we have heard what the americans are willing to offer the iranians in terms of a believe, not just removing sanctions that came before 2015 but removing some select nonnuclear sanctions that came in the trump era from

2018 to 2020. we have not heard of an iranian matchup of concessions. many have called this a less for more, you are getting less and offering more. host: our guest with us until 9:30 if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8002 independents. if you want to text us, (202) 748-8003. a tweet said it was president trump's withdrawal from the agreement, it was working well with real verification, a benefit to russian interest to pull out. guest: i will take a respectfully different view. i think leaving the deal and re-imposing tough sanctions has been vindicated. if the caller or the individual who texted or tweeted in has an

issue with what iran is doing currently, kicking up its enrichment capacity, using more advanced machines to spend uranium at faster rates, unfortunately, all of those things are ordained within the jcpoa. it is not a permanent agreement. it was the 10 year sunset, when the restrictions on select facilities, materials would lapse. what the u.s. did in 2018 when the trump administration left the deal is it brought forward those things that were already in the deal. it was a list of tolerant moves. it may have even been a conflict coveting move in the eyes of some, but ultimately it did so on a political timeline that was

beneficial to the sanctions abilities of the u.s. because iran would not have been connected to the international financial system for this longer period of time. it was only connected partially from 2015 to 2020. there was not that surge of financial capital and ultimately when sanctions were restored, the u.s. could really use its economic mite. when you were looking at the russia-ukraine situation, there were many lessons about the iran sanctions regime. graduating sanctions. the americans were able to employ against iran that are now being successfully weaponized in the financial space against the russians. the good news is at least the europeans are with us on the russian side. host: to what degree was iran holding to its agreements before

the united states walked out? guest: iran was violating immediately the tenants of the resolution that enshrined the deal. ultimately, this deal is not a treaty. it is an executive agreement. one of the most important legal pillars of the agreement was the u.s. security council resolution the cam for five days after the deal was a great two in the summer of 2015. iran was violating multiple clauses of annex d of the resolution. the easiest clauses one could point to for a violation were ultimately the arms violation of iran's exports of weapons, things governed by the u.n. registrar of arms. testing and transferring of ballistic missiles. those were subject to lapsing prohibitions, five and eight

year timelines. when many talk about this regime, it is unfortunate that it was not that regime that iran had been hiding a nuclear weapons archives. it was an israeli raid on the archives that exposed the past iranian weapons designs to the world in 2018 and 2019. there were many deficiencies. when you look at why the program was pursued, they come to light. host: let's hear from chris in massachusetts on our line for democrats. our guest is behnam ben taleblu. caller: tell us which country was the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the middle east. in which middle eastern country signed the nuclear nonproliferation treaty? your viewers should be aware -- by any measure, extremist

fanatic. the foundation is to sucker the united finally, i would just like to say that in may 2000 for the late senator fitz hollins stated that iraq was invaded to secure israel, and everybody knows it. host: that is chris in massachusetts. mr. behnam taleblu? guest: he is a great man, i know him personally and professionally. what the caller unfortunately said is pure slander. his career is well-known to everybody. used to be a foreign correspondent for the new york times. he was actually in iran on assignment at the time of the islamic resolution. if you wish to look it up, you can. unfortunately i think i know what the caller is getting at

when they are talking about countries introducing or pursuing nuclear weapons in the middle east. there is a great book, if the caller is mentioning israel, by abner: -- cohen. host: you talk about the topic of ballistic missiles and how it fits into this. guest: could you explain? guest:there were multiple security council resolutions between 2006 and 2010 that represented an international consensus position, not just the americans, of the need to put pressure on iran's nuclear program. by the time this international consensus got to 2010 and they enshrined this in a resolution called 1929, they called for a prohibition against iran's ballistic missile testing. the entire arsenal. for more than a decade american directors of national intelligence, whether under republican presidents or democratic presidents, have assessed that iran's arsenal is the largest in the middle east. they are making a quantitative assessment.

in the past decade or so or over a half decade, this quantitative advantage has been growing qualitatively. iran has developed more advanced systems. they can fly further. they are much more accurate. they are much more better conventional and unconventional weapons of war. iran feels confident in using these weapons. it parades them, it uses them to signal resolve. in the jcpoa, which was sold as an arms control agreement, didn't actually control or regulate the arms that would have been in the eyes of the u.s. intelligence community, the most likely delivery vehicle. for me that is a fatal flaw. during the period of time that the u.s. was a party to the deal -- and to go back to those violations we spoke about -- iran flight tested at least 27 ballistic missiles, inclusive of surface to surface missiles and space and satellite launch vehicles. which can get as close to things

the islamic republic is doing today, which is to use satellite launch vehicle capabilities as a cover for its longer-range strike ambitions. their opinions in 2019 brought to the attention of the united nations that iran had received in the mid to thousands a liquid propellant, nuclear capable ballistic missile, and iran had increased its range, which would increasingly put europe within the radius of iran's striking capabilities. iran is looking to grow that radius, so there is many reasons to be concerned about this arsenal, including how iran has given it -- parts of it, i should say -- to entities like the who these in human, -- houthis in human. -- in yet -- in yemen.

host: what is the level in iran? guest: iran threatened but never acted on going to 60% purity. the thing 20% or over is a considered highly enriched. the islamic republic as of april 2020 one has been engaging in enrichment of uranium to 60% purity. in the eyes of myself this is really practicing for a breakout , and constitutes one of the several other vectors of iran under the early period of the biden administration doing it -- doing things we will call irreversible. not in terms of material, but in terms of knowledge. iran now knows how to enrich uranium to this purity, how to stack the cascades of these machines in a certain way. had to store this quantity and quality of enriched uranium. they are really upping the threat to enriching to such levels. host: from donald in alexandria, virginia. independent line. caller: thanks for c-span.

when biden was running for president he said he was going to get us back into the jcpoa. when blinken was being confirmed, he indicated, in my opinion, that he was going to put preconditions on the jcpoa negotiations that were going to prevent iran from reentering it. that is exactly what happened. then, i think it was in may or march, when iran realized we were not serious about getting into the acp away, they signed a peace treaty that has been on the shelf for a year that they had made with china. and it is a security and economic peace treaty. now we have china with -- is in support in the persian gulf and they are working with iran to

build out the security systems. so, we have dropped the ball and we have handed iran to china. host: ok. that is donald in alexandria, virginia. guest: i think donald raises a very important point, but a two -- a two-prompt point, if i may. one is about the changing goals of the biden administration from when they campaigning to when they entered office, and the second is about iran and china. i want to break them down, because they are two worthwhile points. the first is that then-candidate joe biden wrote a very interesting op-ed in september 2020 for cnn, entitled something to the effect of there is a smarter way to be tough on iran. he is essentially calling for reentering that flawed agreement, the jcpoa, but also the need for new sanctions

against human rights violations, as well as ballistic missile testing, as well as standing with u.s. partners and allies, including israel. ultimately this was the lay of the land that biden sold the american public when he was campaigning. this would be his vision. reenter the deal in a bid to cap a nuclear threat, then pivoted dealing with the nonnuclear issues. i don't think that has turned out very well and i don't think that is the aim of the administration, because in january you had people come as the caller referred to, like secretary blinken, talk about not going to be removing terrorism or nonnuclear sanctions against the islamic republic. as part of its bid for jcpoa reentry, that seems to be the direction the administration is going to be moving in. in fact, the former government of rouhani, when they were negotiating between april and june, they ended up briefing there parliament. they wrote a report that is

available in persian, and some organizations have translated it here in washington. they talk about the sanctions promises the biden administration gave, which is allegedly willing to remove the foreign terrorist organization label of the islamic revolutionary guard corps, which has american blood on its hands, and removing a bureaucratic but very important executive order that the former administration put on, which was against the office of iran's supreme leader, as well as a network of appointees. iran's current president is sanctioned under that authority. he basically made his name in iran in his late 20's signing off on fox was that emptied iran's prisons through mass executions at the tail end of the iran-iraq war, and ultimately this would render a major human rights violator sanctions-free. so the administration is not living up to its promises. pivoting to how that gets to china and the biden

administration pudding and pet -- putting up impediments, i don't see that as the case. what the administration try to do -- and everything with the benefit of hindsight is 2020 -- what they try to do is have their cake and eat it too. they kept, legally, on the books, most of the trump-era sanctions they had inherited. and he knows sanctions that were escalated from 2018 to 2020. however, they did those penalties for political benefit. for domestic political benefit to signal to the base that they were interested in reentering that deal, as well as to the iranians that they were able to be softer than the trumpet ministrations. ultimately this was not enough to placate either side in the u.s. got into this position it was and throughout 2021, where its negotiating position was publicly brought down. for instance, the administration and administration officials were testifying between january and april 2021, talking about

the need for a longer and stronger agreement. once they got into those indirect negotiations starting in april, they dropped longer and stronger and they just talked about the need for the jcpoa. when you look at the administration's play from november 2020 one to present, there is reports that the national security advisor jake sullivan tried to sell even something less than the jcpoa. in january there was a report in nbc that the russians, with american cognizance and perhaps american consent, we don't know, try to offer the iranians and interim deal. now by all reports, if all of these sanctions of nonnuclear pressure are to be removed on the islamic republic, as those foreign ministry reports allege, as well as tweets from former administration officials making the rounds here in washington, then the u.s. is in this position of moving from longer and stronger to jcpoa, to something less than jcpoa, it is

a dangerous position to be in, which means you are causally removing your own bottom line further down. pivoting this to china -- and i apologize for the lengthy answer, but the caller does deserve the full breath and depth of how we got here. evening to china, the iran-china relationship is nothing new. after the iran-iraq war, china more so in russia less so, was a source for arms in the 1990's. the countries played a role in developing iran's ballistic missile programs to where they were, turning a bright -- a blind eye to elicit sales and sales of dual-use items in the 1990's. china throughout the obama administration and trump administration and biden administration has been the largest illicit and illicit -- licit and illicit importer of iranian crude oil. it is able to do so through funding that comes to its entities like the islamic

revolutionary guard corps and networks of terror funding banks and businesses by virtue of continuously having a lifeline through the people's republic of china and the chinese communist party. host: let me go to and. she is on the democrats line. caller: thank you so very much. i have two points which i hope you will allow me to make. one is, i'm old enough to have had metal dog tags to have practiced duck and cover drills in public school. and i have paid attention to nuclear issues and whether it was the agreed legal framework with north korea or the agreement with iran, i think we were in a better position and the world was in a better position regarding that. also, i would like to say as an american jew and a zionist was almost as old as the state, i feel that making common cause with right-wing religious

extremists and political extremists has done as much to destabilize israel as its outward enemies have done, and that other caller, calling it slander for what that other caller said about the guest's organization, i don't think that is true. israel has said they were closely in conjunction with this organization and this organization has been accused of islamophobia, and it has had people like jeanne kirkpatrick on its board. guest: ma'am, i am actually a muslim and i work for this organization, just fyi. going into these factors -- and, pedro, my apologies for cutting it off -- but the attacks need not get personal. my issue is not the united states, the issue is not israel, my issue is focusing on iran's

foreign security program, to galilee the crown jewel of that program, which is its illicit nuclear weapons quest. host: let's go to peter in new york, republican line. caller: yes, mr. taleblu, i agree with you. getting back into this agreement with iran is a big mistake. we had the abraham agreements that were negotiated under the trump administration. it was between these arab states and israel. it is just another foreign policy blunder. the iranians were not -- both, they were cheating on the agreement. this agreement would free up $11 billion of assets that were frozen so that iran can fund more of their terrorist activities, and also allow iran to sell oil on the open market, which would enrich them more and make them more powerful. and now the biden administration

is asking saudi arabia and the uae to pump more oil. they are flipping him off because they are angry about they are going to get back into this bogus agreement with iran, and so they are not cooperating. host: caller, what do you want our guest to address? caller: i want him to talk about that, because i think that is an important factor in what is going on in ukraine, that the biden administration, because europe and the united states went green with ending -- host: we got your point, caller. go ahead, mr. taleblu. guest: i would agree that the deal, if it is resurrected in this lesser form, would end up freeing those revenues. allow me to pivot and explain why the republic of iran, when

publicly their talking points or about they don't trust the u.s., the u.s. is the one delaying the implementation of this agreement rather than the russians, given the quest for a written guarantee from the u.s.. why still iran wants this agreement? we can break this down for two reasons. these are two reasons to be wary. one is it wants to repair its economic armor. i think it understands now, it went through the experience of the sanctions removal and sanctions reimplementation period from 2015 to 2018. and 2018 to 2020, the reimplementation. it had some market access restored, but not all market access restored. what it wants, per what the caller was saying about those frozen funds, it wants the money held in escrow rot in jurisdiction -- escrow in jurisdictions such as south korea, which has between 7 billion to $8 billion, depending

on what figure you are citing. it wants to repatriate that money, not immediately for banking access, to get that hard currency back. and to be able to use that to improve its original position and to be able to dig in its heels. i think based on the diversity of calls we have had today from the left, from the right, from internationalists, from isolationists, and several other vectors i will not get into, see how much of a hyper-partisan, toxic issue the jcpoa is, and even the iran nuclear issue has become. a little under a decade ago these sanctions for a good nuclear deal were coming out of the senate, 99-1 or 100-0. things have changed and our adversaries understand they have changed and our adversaries are watching our vitriolic mystic policies and looking to benefit from them. something happening in our domestic politics today is that this, citing the previous

administration, biden is trying to get back into the deal, now republicans are going to be posturing that they are going to be leaving the deal. you have to be able to say this is part of the structural process. there is more of a domestic component to american foreman -- foreign and these gyrations are hating -- hurting some of our allies. what iran is looking to do is get as much cash up front, which is why it negotiated so well through its partners to get some market access, but a lot of those cash economic evidence early in the reimplementation period of the deal, so i can spend that money as soon as possible to make countering iran after 2024 or 2025 harder if there is someone who is going to come back and restore the former president's maximum pressure policy. conversely, by getting an agreement that is unamended on the iranian side, earning those sunsets do not change, meaning if in 2015 you kick the can down

the road, if you reenter the deal in 2022, he still only kick the can down the road until 2025, which plays to the tail and advantages for iran that exist in this part of the agreement. that allows iran to have its nuclear snapback. if there is someone of a different orientation that resorts to pressure against iran, and iran can have its nuclear snapback option and perhaps a race to something beyond 60%, it would be scary, but ultimately this is iran posturing, signaling it understands our domestic politics and is getting ready for the next race of sanctions versus centrifuges. host: from chicago, east chicago, indiana, actually, this is alan. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. a huge fan of the "washington journal," best show there is on cable. thank you. the question i want to post to the young man is, why is it that you do not think we should finally just leave iran alone?

the speech to the united nations -- trump did say something i agree with. he said, every sovereign state has a right to defend itself. and i totally agree with that. and i would also state, like you said, you need to look at the length and breadth of the whole story. 1953, iran had a democratic elected government, and because they decided to nationalize their oil, british petroleum got in talk with england and the united states and we overthrew the government and established a right-wing military dictatorship for the next 26 years. the united states is not too good at setting up democracies, but we are pretty darn good at setting up dictatorships. so for 26 years they had this to peter schip. -- this dictatorship. this is what we did to them.

and even afterwards, there were some reaching out, the iran-contra affair, ronald reagan did -- someone in his administration did -- work with iran to get them weapons for money. reagan also worked with them to get hostages out of lebanon. host: ok, caller. what do you want our guest to address? caller: i just want to say, shouldn't we just leave them alone to their own sovereign rights? host: thanks, caller. guest: thank you very much. if only it were that simple. the islamic republic has been interested in continuing the conflict on american soil, for instance. but after the islamic resolute -- revolution they assassinated an iranian diplomat using a radicalized lone wolf american attack here just north of here in bethesda. there was a straight line to that to iran trying to assassinate the saudi ambassador on u.s. soil in 2011.

fortunately that did not happen. and a straight line from that to the 2021 reported part of iran trying to kidnap american citizen of iranian origin and extradite her to venezuela, and extradite her to iran. iran has actually brought, or the islamic republic of iran, i should say, has brought this conflict onto american soil. if you look at the carter administration, the early reagan administration, was significant outreach. the islamic republic is the one who has chosen this path of enmity. i am somewhat of an interesting historical orientation in the sense that i love archival material. i love original persian language primary source material. history is the lifeblood of may. but the clock did not actually start at 1953. the iranian fifth -- people have had more than a century-long quest for representative government. there has been set backs. i would take a different

approach to the 1953 to 1979 period of what iran was like, but ultimately once we start having these debates among ourselves -- and remember what i said about the iranians listening to our domestic debates -- and worse than that, our adversaries looking and trying to pivot on our domestic debates. once 1953 became this kind of ghost in american political dogma, the clerical regime -- and they are led by clerics -- any of them had actually benefited from that post-1953 era, in the sense that they were key members of the clergy that were supportive of the foreign-led coup efforts. and ultimately they have tried to rewrite history and make themselves the victim and make themselves the champion of oil nationalization, and we all know the champion was dr. mohammed. we can go down these historical rabbit holes, but for the sake of clarity i think it is important to know how the

iranian narrative, in particular how the regime's narrative has changed based on them watching our narrative. should always be careful of negotiating with ourselves. there are ghosts of history, to borrow from a foreign u.s. hostage who wrote a book about wrestling with the ghost of history. we have to be cognizant to represent those ghost of history as they are, not as we wishing to be, or not as different prevailing political narratives in the u.s. make them to be. host: want to hear from jen psaki, who spoke about the status of the agreement yesterday. this was before the news of this morning, at least where the administrations thinking are in getting this deal done. >> france said today that the window on an iran deal is closing. does the u.s. share that view? is there a sense here that iran is going to run out the clock? >> we have been close for some time now and for the last several weeks, as we have been talking about, we also all know from having been through these

negotiations before that the end of negotiations as always when the difficult and challenging parts of the conversation typically take place. so i would not that assessment or echo that from here. we are continuing to have these diplomatic talks. it is in all of our interests to stay at the negotiating table, and that is when our plan is to do from here. host: mr. behnam taleblu, with the current state of things as they are, do you agree this agreement will see some completion? guest: i think it is possible. the russians have really poured cold water on those estimates that even russian diplomats and officials were making in vienna just over a week ago about the deal being close. if i'm not mistaken a little over a week ago the russian ambassador in vienna was talking about hours. that has come and passed, and the deal is still out here because of this 11th hour russian demand to iran as a carveout to offset legitimate western economic and financial pressure over russia's invasion

and devastating war against the ukraine. this is how we got here, but to the question posed to jen psaki, i want to unpack this. because the european position has been somewhat different than ours. prior to the commencement of indirect nuclear diplomacy between the biden administration and the right ec government that began in november 2021, in mid-november the e3 put out this kind of trilateral statement about iran's increasing nuclear advances, eroding what they called the counter proliferation value of the jcpoa. basically, this is our european partners getting out ahead of us, talking not just about closing windows, but we'll things iran is doing on the ground that even make this deal, which in my view is at best a band-aid and a poor way to kick the can down the road, even makes this deal less appealing for them and they were big

proponents of it. ultimately they cite iran's material advances. we do come to mind are iran's increased testing and deployment of centrifuges, advanced centrifuges are crucial and you need less of them, so you have a sneak out nuclear program rather than those large-scale ones that can be easily detected and monitored. by the iaea and by technical means for countries that have intelligence assets looking at iran. the next is enrichment purity, which is a historic high levels. 60%. the thing is production of uranium metal, which iran has no civilian nuclear need for, and ultimately is more an indicator of them practicing to make spheres for a nuclear weapon. they ultimately did produce uranium in 2021, by the time they got to august it was reported that they had used 20% enriched uranium. given that a set 20% is the baseline for when you call

uranium from that level up highly enriched, there were using 20% as a stand and, in my view, for a potentialy higher level. all of this is irreversible. in terms of the knowledge they have gained. that is why i agree with the europeans as of last november, that these gains reduce counter proliferation value of the jcpoa, and it has been interesting to see the u.s. waffle between my is there a real technical endpoint for when talks don't make sense, or is there merely a political endpoint? if you are in the technical campaign looking at what iran is doing and continues to do while we are paying attention to this russian drama, is it is building nuclear facts on the ground, adding redundancy, adding an irreversible nuclear move for the purpose of becoming a threshold state. one tough counter proliferation measures may not be enough. the republic is, to borrow a phrase, playing to the edge here.

host: behnam ben taleblu is with the foundation for defense of democracies. thank you for your time, sir. guest: pleasure, thank you. host: we will finish the program the way we started. your message to congress when it comes to the russian invasion of ukraine. here is how you can let us know your message. (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001, and independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls were washington journal continues -- calls win washington journal continues. >> i am pleased to nominate judge jackson, who brings extraordinary qualifications, deep experience and intellect, and a rigorous judicial record to the court. >> i am truly humbled by the

extraordinary honor of this nomination and i am especially grateful for the care that you have taken in discharging your constitutional duty in the service of our democracy with all that's going on in the world today. >> president biden nominates judge could tie jean brown -- judge brown jackson of the u.s. court of appeals seventh circuit to the supreme court. if confirmed, she will be the first african american woman to serve on the court. follow this historic process. watch the confirmation hearing monday, march 21 live on c-span, c-span.org or by downloading the free c-span now mobile video app. >> first ladies in their own words, our eight part series looking at the role of the first

lady, their time in the white house and the issues important to them. >> it was a great advantage to know what it was like to work in schools because education is such an important issue both for a governor but also for president, and so that was very helpful to me. >> using material from c-span's award-winning biography series first ladies. >> i am very much the kind of person who believes that you should say what you mean and mean what you say and take the consequences. >> and c-span's online video library. we will feature first ladies lady bird johnson, betty ford, rosalynn carter, laura bush, michelle obama, melania trump, betty ford, and others. watch on c-span two, or listen

to the series as a podcast. washington journal continues. host: president biden expected to make comments regarding the trade status that russia -- that will take place with russia. you can follow along on c-span now. at the united nations, russia calling a meeting to talk about events in russia and ukraine. look for that on our website at c-span.org, c-span now. for the rain -- for the remainder of our time, your message to congress when it comes to the russian invasion of ukraine. (202) 748-8000 for democrats, republicans (202) 748-8001, and independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. yesterday, president biden's intelligence chiefs were asked about issues with russia and ukraine, particularly when it comes to the use of chemical

weapons. here's that exchange between susan collins and cia director william burns. >> i read about the public accusation against ukraine of planning a false flag chemical weapons attack. what do you make of that? does that signal that putin intends to launch a chemical or biological weapons attack on the ukrainians? >> thanks very much, senator. i mean, i think it underscores the concern that all of us need to focus on those kinds of issues, whether it is the potential for the use of chemical weapons either as a false flag operation or against ukrainians, something that as all of you know well is very much part of russia's playbook. they have used those weapons against their own citizens. they have at least encouraged their use in syria and

elsewhere, so it is something we take seriously, and it is one of the reasons, as director haynes said earlier, that i'm convinced our efforts at selected declassification to preempt those kinds of false flag efforts and the creation of false narratives have been so important. in all the years i spent as a career diplomat, i saw too many instances in which we lost information wars with the russians. in this case, i think we've had a great deal of effective -- of effect in disrupting their tactics and demonstrating the entire world that this is a premeditated and unprovoked aggression built on a body of lies and false narratives, so this is an information war that i think putin is losing. host: some of that exchange. you can still find on the website and our app. if you want to hear more of that, particularly with the cia

director. your message with respect to russia in ukraine. billy, a democrat, go ahead. caller: c-span is number one. get the message out. we are defending democracy and what is going on. democracy is a government run by the people who live under it. a dictatorship is a government like the one in russia, which is evil, domineering, overbearing and out of control. it is not controlled by the citizens who vote for their leaders but by crazy killers who force their way into power illegally. if you look at the shocking crimes now happening with russian dictator putin, using his military against the people of ukraine, it is a reminder of the history of dictators, kings and the issues of those cricket leaders when they take -- host: your message would be what?

your message to congress would be what? caller: mike message -- my message to congress will be stay under president joe biden and vice president kamala harris and we can all see what putin is doing over there in ukraine. host: let's hear from jack. he's in tennessee. republican line. jack in tennessee, hello. caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: about the russia war? host: your message to congress about russia and ukraine. caller: well, if i was over there, i would end that battle in bout four hours. i would have everyone of them dead. host: ok. we will go to lee in rockville, maryland, independent line. go ahead. caller: enjoying the show. i have a perfect envoy that president biden should be

sending to eastern europe to mediate a settlement. his name is george walker bush. when george walker bush was president, he said that -- he famously said that he could look into president putin's eyes and see his soul, and i'm confident that, if he did that, he would see the kgb thug, the kgb murder, and hopefully he'd be able to do that. host: that is your message to the president. what is your message to congress about this? caller: my message to congress is give ukraine every single armament that they need, every single piece of -- every single jet aircraft, every single tank, boat, armored -- armament they need to defend themselves. host: that's lee in maryland.

a message yesterday from the vice president in poland, talking about humanitarian assistance for the people of ukraine and aid to those there. here's part of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> as it relates to the people of ukraine, they have suffered immensely.when we talk about humanitarian aid , it is because, yes, the assistance is necessary, but what compels us also is the moral outrage that all civilized nations feel when we look at what's happening to innocent men, women, children, grandmothers, grandfathers, who are fleeing everything they've known, our outrage, which compels not only our security assistance but our humanitarian assistance, is rooted in the

fact that also we support the people of ukraine who have shown extraordinary courage and skill in their willingness and, yes, ability to fight against putin's war and russia's aggression. so today, we are also announcing, in pursuit of what must happen, which is to provide humanitarian assistance, that we will give another $50 billion, the united states will, through the un's world food program to assist with humanitarian aid. the president and i also talked about the fact that, as he mentioned, poland has taken in in just a very short period of time, in essence -- in excess of 1.5 million refugees from

ukraine, so we will continue with the support we can give you, mr. president, in terms of the work that you and the people of poland have been doing to bear this burden but in a way that's been with such grace and such generosity. host: dean is in connecticut, democrats line. your message to congress about russia's invasion of ukraine. go ahead. caller: yeah, my thing is this is a un problem, not america's problem. i mean, they are bordered by the united nations. let's help them, i agree 100% with that, but let's not divide america -- i mean, we are divided enough right now. let's just not be the tip of the spear on this. it is, i mean, a united nations problem.

ukraine is bordered by the united nations. let's send them weapons that they can defend themselves. as far as jets go, the first thing russia would do would bomb the air force, the runways, so the jets would be useless, unless they are a harrier. i mean, they'd probably be no use. host: dean in connecticut. this is michael from twitter saying is that my issue is that belarus and china should be sanctioned for supporting the invasion. vicki in new york, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. my message to congress is go ahead and send some unitary and aid, but it is not our issue -- some humanitarian aid, but it is not our issue. biden needs to take care of his own people, in other words, lower our gas prices and

lower the inflation and begin now. i'm sick and tired of watching that president print money for nothing. host: ok. in new york, this is paul, independent line. paul from new york, hello? one more time for paul. go ahead. ok. let's go to john in north carolina, republican line. you are next up. your message to congress on russia and ukraine. caller: well, here's the thing. if russia keeps on invading ukraine, i'm just going to have to say i will have to go and intervene. we have him committing war crimes, doing bad stuff, but i have to say, if that was me in there, people would be gone in a heartbeat. host: so your message to congress is specifically what? caller: my message to congress

is to intervene, get in there and do something. host: a similar message coming from ukraine's president, zelensky, telling sky news about the importance of time there and the importance of nato, particularly when it comes to the imposition of a no-fly zone. here's an interview from yesterday. [video clip] >> we have to have a united decision. we will have to sit down and vote in the parliament. we don't have so much time. >> the rest of the government says it thinks it will become worse if they involve themselves actively. >> it would be worse at home for our families now, who, for them, who knows? but we know that now is very bad. and in the future, it will be too late.

and, believe me, believe me, if it is prolonged this way, yes, you will see, they will close the sky but we will lose millions of people. host: we will hear from josephine in new jersey, independent line. caller: good morning. i will be coming at it at a different angle. you will say, well, what do you mean? i'm talking about facts and truth. sadly, i a lot of people who are of russian or ukrainian dissent, that they have families that are related in both areas, and when they talk to each other, one party literally believes what putin tells them, and of course then there is the truth of what's happening in ukraine, which our eyes can see, and eisai, how can we remedy this? for so many years, we had the voice of america, that old-fashioned tool, which the former administration put

political hacks in it. that destroyed its validity for them to hear the truth, to come into the country, to know what is really going on,, so we shot ourselves in the foot. it sounds so simple but it was. they don't know what's going on. they are being sold a bill of goods. host: with that said, what is your message to congress? caller: i would want them to spend the money and put enough people in on the voice of america timbo -- america to bombard them with the truth. facebook and twitter is not working. we have to get them the truth, because if the people don't know, this will go on because putin has won. host: let's go to leicester in minnesota, republican line. lester in minnesota, hello? caller: yeah, i hear you. i would tell congress to impeach putin. he let this thing go.

when he lined up on the border with all their troops and tanks and stuff, he could have called putin's bluff and sent drones in there to attack them if they invaded ukraine and he didn't do anything. and besides that, he let our gas and energies go to them. that's it. host: in pennsylvania, we will hear next from daniel, democrats line. caller: hello. can you hear me? host: you are on but you are kind of muffled. if you could get to your -- get closer to your phone, that would be helpful. caller: ok. i think congress should insist zelensky sue for peace. i guess the russians want crimea and the eastern provinces

populated by ethnic russians, who are currently being open rest, and i hear a lot of -- being oppressed, and i hear a lot of people saying we should send money. i mean, i don't want them to take my money and use it for guns and weapons. they can take their money if they want to donate. find. i don't want to go to war. fine. it is just crazy that they keep going to war and fighting in bombing. it is going to end. we are all going to go i guess we can all go away to jesus or something like that. i don't know. host: cindy in illinois, independent line. caller: hi. i just cannot believe that we cannot do more with sending actual bombs and fighter planes. i mean, it is easy to say we are going to give them money. are we going to bury the people and money?

we acted slowly in world war ii, in kosovo. i think we need to do something and be more proactive now. i don't know what's going on behind the scenes but i pay my taxes. i don't mind if you send something over there to help these people. you know, historically, they are my people too, so something needs to be done. we cannot wait until everybody is dead. host: when you hear concern from some that sending weapons and things like that would escalate things, what is your response? caller: i understand the concern for escalation but, to be honest, there's escalation everywhere. are we going to wait until they use bombs that have sarin gas or some other kind of -- hundreds if not thousands of people killed by gas? i think we can do more and all this talking, talking, talking, it is not doing anything.

unfortunately, it is going to come to a head, and an ugly head. i don't know how we can prevent that at this point. and putin is not somebody you can deal with on a rational basis. he is not a rational person. host: that's cindy in illinois. james, south carolina, republican line. james in south carolina, hello? caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i don't know whether this is directed to congress, somewhere in american leadership, we've got to clean up our own house. we have lost our moral standing on the world stage. our enemies do not fear us. we have china and russia with hypersonic missiles, which kind of takes our deterrent away. they could launch and hit us before we even make a move. that's probably why we are so hesitant to get involved and put a stop to this, but at some point in time, we have to clean

up our physical houses. this $30 trillion in debt we are heading for will ruin this country. we have to quit teaching kids to hate america and quit being so divisive playing this race card every day. let's clean up our act at home, not make deals with people we know will not adhere to the deals they make. how ridiculous do we look sitting at the bargaining table with iran? and using russia as a mediator? look what russia is doing. host: we'll framed this as a message -- we framed this as a message to what congress should do. a couple other stories outside of russia and ukraine. yesterday, news about the census, saying the 2020 senses on net missed about 750 thousand people they said thursday, the story adding the margin was not statistically significant but many groups were

miscounted at significant rates according to bureau officials. 3.3% of black people were missed, 5% of hispanic people, 0.9% of american indians and alaska natives. non-hispanic whites were over counted by 1.6% and asian americans by 2.6%. the wall street journal carries that story as well as other papers. when it comes to mask recommendations on public transportation, the new york times reports an extension i the biden administration -- by the biden demonstration to april 18 of mask recommendations for use on public transport, and say they will release a framework. more on that in the washington times. on the senate floor yesterday, the republican leader, minority leader mitch mcconnell, talking about the new inflation numbers

that came out yesterday coul / yesterday. mariupol working families -- [video clip] >> working families know all too well that costs have been rising throughout president biden's tenure. this morning, we know that inflation set another modern record last month. prices skyrocketed. another .8% in february alone. that comes out to 7.9% inflation year on year. the worst inflation in 40 years. and it keeps getting worse, not better. this has been a painful pattern throughout president biden's tenure. we've now had nine straight months of inflation higher than 5%. and remember, three weeks ago, before the crisis in europe, the democrats were already in a

political panic over gas prices and desperately talking about a gas tax holiday. three weeks ago, before the crisis in europe, the average price of a gallon of gas had already shot up more than one dollar from when president biden was sworn in. >> when it comes to the message to congress, carol in illinois texting saying, don't store will were three down -- saying, do not start world war iii. lucienne saying, make their comments accordingly. the comments would have been better directed towards the pentagon, not the state department. jeff in richmond, indiana, independent line, on this message to congress about russia's invasion of ukraine. go ahead. caller: i think when we look at this picture, we need to look at the picture from the beginning to the end.

we could have stopped this at the beginning if we had the right people in our white house. what we need to do now is get the right people back in the white house, because if we don't, the people that's in control right now, especially, is going to take us to the point where we cannot recover. they are letting in the immigrants. they are doing everything. host: ok, but specifically as far as a congressional message when it comes to russia and ukraine, what should it be? caller: ok, well you have got to figure out what's going to make putin happy. without having the right person talking to him, there's nobody going to make them happy. we have to figure out who he will talk to. host: let's hear from linda, democrats line from south carolina. caller: hello? host: hi. you are on. caller: ok. i think that we should be sending ukraine the jets so that putin gets the idea he cannot

control every country over there. these people need a right to live a free life. there's no way that they are going to be able to survive if we are not helping them with these jets. people may disagree on it, but they have a right to be free and show putin that they are a free nation. host: linda in south carolina. this is keith in state college, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning, sir. i really do appreciate the conversations, but, in my mind, the message to congress should be put together a general session, both of the houses, and make sure they give the president the opportunity to declare war with the full

backing and finance of the united states of america. host: why do you think it has to come to that? caller: it has to come to that because we currently do not have an executive administration that knows what they are doing. it is an embarrassment to me and to many in my family. it does not seem to be right that we are making these people die and ukraine will be empty. ukraine won't be there anymore if we just continue to let this go on the way it is. host: keith in state college pennsylvania. this is lamar next up from new york, democrats line. caller: hello. thank you for having this discussion. i would say first that congress needs to make sure to let the american people know that the issue of ukraine and russia goes back to the beginning of the bolshevik revolution. lenin intended for them to be

prepared we need to recognize that the cold war lasted for 50 years -- for 40 years. this is not going to happen overnight and we are entering a new cold war. and finally, the ukraine, i respect the people, respect community. they have to be respected. you have to respect humanity, but you have to make sure that what happened should not have happened, period, and that should be in any agreement or any money that we sent, that they respect humanity, not just ukrainian humanity, but anyone, including the african, indian and arab students that were mistreated. thank you. host: do you think that congress and the american people have a long-term view of what would happen in ukraine? do you think they have the tolerance to go for the long run on this one? caller: the people -- biden is a

cold war politician. the people in america are short-term. you already had somebody here state that they want their energy prices, they want gas to go down and they want inflation to go down, so economically -- emotionally, people see what's happening over there. babies are being born into this world that have nothing to do with this, but the reality is, if we went to ukraine, think of hundreds of millions of people dying compared to what's happening now. so it is a numbers game and that's cold but it is practical. host: ok. that's lamar in new york giving his take. ron in ohio, republican line. we are getting short on time, so your message to congress. go ahead. caller: in my opinion, we have backed all these other countries through the years, such as afghanistan of course, and specifically, when it came to syria, you know, we didn't play

games. we had a president that at least had half a backbone when he said, hey, you put off chemical gas on the people in syria, you will pay for it. we set off 57 patriot missiles. this krapp about the threats of putin, we've heard this before. we see he wants to spend these millions, damaging his country. oil is not the answer. neither are electric cars. it is going to take several years to have the power stations available, and it is going to be done by fossil fuel to create the power to motorized those vehicles -- to motorize those vehicles. the answer is to divert to a different field of energy, such as hydrogen, which replenishes the atmosphere. the veto powers are dead. congress needs to get off the wagon and get onto an alternative fuel such as hydrogen. host: scott, i will leave you there.

eugene, we are running short on time. congress is about to come in so go ahead. eugene in tennessee. caller: good morning, yes. my comment is congress and the senate send ukraine everything they need militarily except allow -- host: ok. that's eugene in tennessee. a couple things to watch. the president is expected to make comments in 10 or 15 minutes when it comes to trade with russia and that process. look for that on c-span2, c-span.org and our app, c-span now. plus, the united nations later today being called in by russia to talk about russia and ukraine. we now take you to a pro forma session of the house of representatives. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp22