>> rose: well welcome to practice. we begin there evening with the agreement reachedf lauz an switzerland with iran and the countries ha to do with iran's nuclear capacity. and we start with ben rhodes he is the professional assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for communications. first of all charlie we do not believe there was any deal that could have been agreed to in which iran got rid of its erin much capacity. days mantelled its enrichment capability and no other country would have supported us taking that position. what we tried to do though charlie is assign practical needs to iran's nuclear program. so for instance the centrifuges that they're operating, some of those will be converted to the purpose of medical research. so they are essentially

producing medical isotopes for research. so we have tried to again draw a line between what what their capacity is and what peaceful purpose that nuclear capacity feeds into. and then of cose close off through the inspections and the limitations on the program, any ability to transfer that capacity towards a weapons program. >> rose: we continue looking at the iranian deal with ray takeyh and gary sick. >> in this case you know iran has put it under-- itself under the most intense scrutiny that it could possibly have. so that isn't going to go away at the end of ten years. people are talking about a sunset clause. it's not really a sunset clause. actually the inspection of their centrifuge line and the mining and milling of uranium goes on for 20 25 years. >> right. >> rose: so this is-- this is-- i really think we ought to be honest with ourselves. that this is, in fact an

accomplishment a significant accomplishment and with all of the concerns about what may happen 25 years from now you know i will take the 25 years as opposed to a nuclear strike. >> rose: in and in a two-part conversation the former chairman of the joint chiefs admiral michael mullen we get his assessment of the deal as he knows it. >> many of us forget this is the percent empire. this is an historic empire that has a view of where they should be in the worldment and i think one of the things that is certainly there on this path is an opportunity for them to become ac=tñ responsible integrated member of the international community in ways that they certainly have not over theasñi decade. >> rose: andq evening we look forward to the final four in a conversation with jay bilas of espn. >> to hav kenta coming in unbeaten with a chance to make history with a ho-and-0 season an to have duke across the bracket if that

were to be the final game on monday night, you would have in my judgement one of the highes rad games in the history of basketbalxd and a lot of fans not knowing who to root against.d >> rose: nuclear talks and the final four. when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose is provided by the following: >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by blmberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose.

>> rose: we begithis evening withhe inian nuclear negotiations, a preliminary agreement was reached by iran and major world powers. the provisionary deal constrains iran's nuclear program for at least ten years. esident obama spoke earlier today from the white house. >> i am confident-- nfident that we can show that this deal is good for the security of the united states for our alies and for the world. but the fact is we only have three options for addressing iran's nuclear program. first,we can reach a robust and verifiable deal like this one and peacefully prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the second option is we can bomb iran's nuclear facilities, thereby starting another war in the middle east. and setting back iran's program by a few years. in other words setting it back by a fraction of the time that this deal will set it back. mean while we insurance thatñr iran would raise ahead tovp try and build a bomb.

third we could pull out of negotiations try to get other countries to go along and continue sanctions that are currently in place or addg# additional onesnd hope forñi the best. knowing that eve time we have done so iran has not capitulated but has instead advanced its program. >> rose: sanctions will be removed depending on iran's compliance of the deal secretary of state john kerry spoke from switzerland earlier. >> not only will inspectors have regular access to all of iran's declared facilities indefinitely but thewill also be able to-- they will be reduce the centrifuges themselves and the humanitarianooun at supports the nuclear program and they will be able to do that for at least 20 years. >> joining me now from washington is ben rhodes deputy national security advisorñi for strategic kpun case and speech writing and assistant to the president

and has been very close to the president on these issues and more having to do with american national securitynd i'm pleased to have you on the program. ben, we know the outlines of this. we know that is is a preliminary agreement. we know that it is in some cases surprisingly specific and we also know that there are details to bexd resolved. but i want to hear from you a couple of things. how did the breakthroughfá come? give us the sense of what finally happened to start the united states and iran and otherountries on this historic journey. >> well charlie the real breakthrough took place elected in iran and he started to negotiated seriously on thexd nuclear issue and gave us an indication that hexd really wanted to resolve it and not just string out these negotiations. what has taken place over the last several months though has not been one moment wh breakthrough on a single issue. but rather, a lot of very hard work with our technical people sitting down with the

iranianxd technical people. figuring out how wexd can block ir+nws pathway through its plutonium track enrichment capacity and inspection and trsparency. if i were t point to one thing that was iortanté secretary kerry's tirele effort allowed this to happen but also secretary of energy joined the talks five weeks ago and he was able to sit down with the head of the nuclear program and hammer out these technical details and draw up the blueprints that imposes theseñ limitations on iran. >> is there and i realize in a rigorous and intrusive inspection is crucial to this, is there a judgement on the part of the united states that iran truly wants to achieve this objective. the removal of sanctions in exchange for them giving up the capacity to break through with ne >> yes, charlie. i tink what we saw in order to get to this deal is political will from tehran. you will recall that there

was a deadline in november where we didn't get there. the iranians put a deal on the table. that was nowhere near our bottom line. the question we were testing ever since is whether they would move sufficiently on e key issues for us. the differt elements of their program and the inspections regime to show that they were serious. to show that they would have a deal that is verifiable that would allowxds the assurance that they are not cheating, the assurance that prograin ways that could allothemo ruire the maerial for a nuear weapon and they broke in that direction over the course of the last several weeks. and what thathowed us is that they wanted a deal. they did not just want to have a process that could break down where they tried to play blame gameçó with us. >> what was the single hardest thing to get them to do? >> well you knowi think it was a number of things charlie. first side wer side we did well if that they are not going to develop weapons grade plutonium, they are shippingoaj out the fuel from thefá reactor.

but the enrichment piece was har how do we design an enrichment capacity from iran that et gos us what we need which is the one-year breakout time if they cheated t would give us a ramp to make a decision about what action to take. that one year breakout time on if they did and start operating theirw sent ri-- centrifuges. we had to a essential a set of pieces. how many centrifuges they are permitted to operate. they two-thirds from their current sent rye fujes. the types of centrifuges and they would only use their first generation centrifuges to enrich uranium and getting rid of their stockpile so they are not amassing the stockpile of dangerous materials on their soil. putting together that equation so that they could feel that they were going to have a peaceful ability to access nucle energy but we would have the ability to insurance that we culd verify that they didn't have an enitch respect pathway to a weapon. that took a lot of work. >> rose: are they sending enriched fuel out to russia outside the country or not? >> so charlie, there are two ways when we talk about the technical details what

we have agreed to with the iran yens is they will not have a stockpile of highly enriched uranium and they will come down by about 98% in terms of loewen riched uranium. there are two ways it do that. one is that they dilute the materials, essentially neutralize that stockpile withn iran which is what.udeyy have done if the joint plan of action and the other is ship it out of the country. those are the two mechanisms that are on the table for getting this objective accomplishes. and what we will figure out in terms of the technical details is how much we will utilize shipping material out ofhe country an how much they will dilute in the country. at again will also be shipped out of the country is all of the fuel produced by their reactor in iraq so that they cannot have a plutonium pathway to a weapon. >> rose: do we know how much enriced fuel they have now an how much --. >> yes. >> rose: we do. >> yes. so we know they are 20% stopile, high enriched urinium that can be more easily turned into material for weapons. this is the material that prime minister netanyahu had in that cartoon bomb at the u.n.. they have already gotten rid

of that undernb the initial agreement, the joint plan of actio unthis agreeme their stockpile of loewen riched uranium, we know ex much that stockpile is and they are going to come done again by abo 98 percent and they're going to cap that stockpile for 15 years. so far 15 years they're to the goingto b permitted to amass concerningtockpile of these materials within iran. >> rose: is it true that the breakout timenb now is two to three months and you've extended it to a year? >> yes so right now the estimates are that if they did operate all their machines and try to break out and acquire enough material for a weapon that would be two to three months. under the agreement that we reached for ten years that would be at least a year. there will be additional limitations on their program that extend beyond ten years like the cap on stockpile that i mentioned. that will still insurance a breakout time line that shier significantly higher than two to three months even for several years after ten years. the important point here is

that the inspections would allow us to see immediately if they were cheating. so therefore if they broke 8 trying to break out we would have a very long period of time to make a decision about what to do about it. >> is there no question that they cannot and will not and do not have anuclear facility that we don't know about? >> well this has always been the question charlie. because they have used cert facilities in the past. but what we get with this deal is the best guarantee we've everhad against a covert pathway. and here's why. we have daily access to all the nuclear sites enrichment bu we also can look across their entire uranium supply cha uranium mines mills, their centrifuge production facilities and warehouses. and what that means is if they wanted a covert path they wouldn't jus have to have one building where they're doing something, where they are operating centrifuges. they would have to have an entire covert supply chain to feed that that facility.

that gives us a strong hedge against iran developing a covert pathway to a weapon. and we're also going to be able, if we see something suspicious to go to the aiea and get access to that facility through inspection. >> rose: do you know the former chief inspector of the international atomic energy agency i think now but hard vard he said quote looking at the tentative agreement. it appears to be fairly comprehensive with most important parameters. but he cautioned that iran maintains enrichment capacity which will be beyond its near-term needs. >> well first of all charlie we do not believe there was any deal thatv could have been agreed to in which iran got rid of its enrichment capacity dismntled entirely essentially, its enrichment capabilities. and frankly no other country in the negotiation would have supported us taking at position. what we have tried to do though, charlie is assign practical needs to iran's nuclear program. so f instance the

centrifuges that they are operating some of those will be converted to the purpose of medical research. sohey are esntially proding medical isotopes for research. so we have tried to again draw a line between what their capacity is and what peaceful purpose that nuclear capacity feeds into. and then, of course close off through the inspections and the limitations on the program, any ability to transfer that capacity towards a weapons program. >> this was a negotiation of very difficult negotiation. what did we give up that we didn't want to give up? >> well charlie first of all the main thing that iran sought in this negotiation was sanctions relief. and we always knew that we were going to have to provide sanctions relief as a part of this deal. that is what is in it for them. and what we have done though, is we had a principal of sanctions relief that number one if the iranians cheat, at any time in the deal the relief we're providing can snapback

into place. and thaté@ number two the relief is earned. so iran performs certain steps and in return for what they have done they get sanctions released so it's phrased shall did -- phased in over time. we hado structure the sanctions relief package and work through the details and schedule of that as we wo through the negotiations to the e of june. that'a critical issue for iran. i think otheise really, this was about finding technical solutions. iran i think importantly to them, wantedto demonstrate that they're very proud of their scientific achieve. as it relates to the ability to access peaceful nuclear energy. but what1eñ we needed to say is you cannot use these certain fa cits in a certain way. so if you have an reactor in iraq that is one thing. but you have to convert it to a different purpose so it can't produce weapons grade plutonium. they have an enrichment facility in fordo that they burieddeep underground. what we said is you have to convert that facility so the sent if i-- centrifuges are not enrichingr so finding ways in which

again iran is going to be able to have a program that can access peaceful nuclear energy, but that the facilities are converted and there are limitations that cult off these pathways to a nuclear weapon. >> rose: there are many people who believe that the fordo facility would be impervious to bombing. is that an understanding that the unites states has? >> well the fact of thelp matter is that the fordo facility is buried deep underground. it was a covert facility. there's no reason that iran had to bury that facility deep underground other than to hide it from the international community. it is certainly a more complicated military target. i'm to the going to get into our own military capabilities. they're obviously quite significant. but the fact is now that they e converting this facility they will no longer be usg centrifuges to enrich uranium there. an inead theyill be enriching uranium onlyat the one site natan, which is their more long-standing enrichment facility. and containing the

enrichment there, i think was an important principles for us. >> have we made due is part of this agreement an understanding of what they can do in terms of the technical enhancement of their-- process their enrichment process whatever it may be? centrifuges or something else? >> yes charlie. in cenifuges are the most important element of this. in the first case what was very important to us is over the course of the ten years iran has several different types of centrifuges. they are ir ones ir its 6s 8s and i get up higher numbers these are the more advanced centrifuges and have much greater capacity. they will only be installing and using for the purposes of enriching uranium. their ir ones so they will pull out their i r2 mre advanced sent ri fujes and that was very important to us because that again limits their ca passit ot break out and produce the material for

weapons. those other centrifuges they are going to be permitted to do very limited research and development on. and as we said in the statement we put out today and the agreement that we reached in this framework that is going to be termined through a schedule that we set with the iranianñrs so that there are limits on even the researchnd development they cado o those advanced centrifuges so they are not able to install them on the purposes of enriching uranium. >> you have been with this president for a long time. is this historic. if it successfully completed in your judgement. and if so what makes it historic? >> absolutely charlie. you mentioned, i have been with the president a long time. i started working for him in 2007. and we were having a debate if you remember all the way back then about whether or not we should engage in diplomacy wit iran to try to resolve this issue. the reason it's so important to the president is if this gets fundamentally the ability of nations to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

and we've had a pattern of nuclear proliferation since the end of the cold ware with india and pakistan on thing a nuclear weapon then north korea obtaining a nuclear weapon. we want to break that pattern. and if we can through a very principlesed and top diplomatic process have the world impose sanctns that impose a cost on iran fo violating the nonproliferation agreement and then can design this type of program that has strict limitations and pvented iran from geting a nucleareapon that will strengthen the global nonproliferation regime and frankly it will also aress one of the most profound threats to american national security. because the middle east is messy enough as it is. if we had a country like iran obtain a new clear weapon, that would scramble the deck and you see a nuclear arms race profound and existential threats to our friends and applies like israel. if we can take that off the table as it relates to iran that will make us much pore secure. >> i'm now sqolting scott shane in a piece he wrote, it's on-line now for "the new york times". and he said the deep divisions in american policies over the nuclear

talks are precisely mirrored on the american side with hard-liners skeptical about whether iran is giving up too much but iran supreme leader has publish -- publicly suppressed support for leaders heartening iranians who yearn for a breakthrough in their country's relationships with the world. then this question. and i'm asking you this question, but i have given credit to scott shane could a deal and an easing of sanctions empower reformers without would like to see annd to the 35 year cold war with america? or might it set up-- go ahead, ben. >> well, dharlie, are you exactly right. they have politics in iran. they have a spectrum of hard-liners to elements that are not nearly as extreme. here is how i put this charlie. we would do this deal inny case, rht. so ten 15 20 years from now the duration and phases of this agreement. we would do this deal even if the iranian regime is just as difficult and jus as threatening as it is today. because we feel the deal works on the merits. however, it is also

certainly the case that a potential outcome of this agreement is strengthening forces inside of iran that are more moderate like frankly the iranian people, the iranian middle class that wants to be reconnected to the global economy and the committee of nations so it affords us the opportunity to test whether or not or not there can be a process over time of moderations in iran and among iranian policies. but again we're not betting on that. we're betting on the good deal. and even as we implement this deal we saw sanctions on terrorism and human rights we want to see that behavior evolving and changing over time as well. >> rose: ben, it's been a busy day and you were up all night, thank you for taking the time to see us. >> thanks good to be with you. >> rose: ben rhodes from the national security council. back in a minute. stay with us. >> we continue with our coverage on the iranian nuclear gotiationsoining me from washington ray takeyh, a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations, with me in new york is gary sick, he is a

senior research scholar columbia university. he previously served on the national security council under president ford, cart are and reagan. i am pleased to have both of them on this program. ray let me begin vkth you. what is your assessment of what y know so far? >> wello again, it's an armed control agreement and it is a complicated pore but is a more substantial one than i thought we anticipated. and again it's conforms to the parameters of the interim agreement. iran will have a sizable enrichment capacity. the agreement will be sunset clause in the sense that it will extire in ten years. there is a greater enhanced verification regime so there are some positive aspects to the agreement but there are also some troubling things that will linger on. >> rose: what are they? >> well, upon them is the sizable residual enrichment capacity. a ten year sunset clause upon expiration of which iran can become a industrial sized nuclear capacity. the fordo facility that the president had insisted has to close not only remains open, but according to iranian accounts will have

1,000 centrifuges operating in there. the fuel, the loewen riched uranium that was supposed to be shipped out is now going to be shipped out and is likely to remain in iran perhaps at a diluted capacity. that affects your time line in terms of breakout capacitiment but it does impose caps on the iranian program, it does restrict enrichment capacity for a period of time and it does have some enhanced verification pressures. >> rose: is it a framework that was worth doing? >> well it conformed to the joint plan of action. it remains to be seen some of the details. i can't say this dealis necessarily better than any alter-- alternatives. i think it does have weaknesses an deficiencies an has to be considered along the lines of advantages that it has. and the disadvantages that it poses in terms of enrichment and in terms of potential proliferation risks. >> rose: gary? >> well i understand people being very cautious about what has happened. but you know, this is far better than anybody

anticipated that we were going to get. this is trauly historic event. and you know one can disagree about what may happen ten 15 years from now. but compared to all of the other alternatives without exception that's really very good and basically back just two years ago we were only basically weeks away potentially, from having enough enriched uranium to make a bomb. >> rose: what do you think about two three months away now, if you look at it today? >> what they did, for instance, when netanyahu went before the u.n. general assembly, he held up this cartoon bomb and it was fillingp with 20% enriched uranium. and he said when it was etting close tothe top and within a few months it with be up there to the point where a very short period of time, maybe weeks itould be turned into enough enriched uranium. that is gone. that's been diluted down eliminatedsent a what.

so that whole threat he held up the bomb doesn't exist any more at all so we've movedback from th. but even n they hve got ,000 kilograms of loewen riched uranium which is a lot. they're going to cut that down to 300. we're really, we're talking her the other thing eally if you want to get serious about the thing if iran was lusting to break out and create a bomb why in the world did they do this? just from their point of view. if you really want a bomb in the worst possible way you have just moved yourself away at least ten years and probably more like 20 and subjectedded yourself you are going to be the most inspected country in the entir world. >> rose: ray, can you answer that question. >> the question of if iran wanted a bomb why would they sign this agreement there are two paths with a nuclear weapon when you have been apprehended before maturity, before debt nation which happened in iran in

2002. there is illegal path continue to enrich-- your enrichment capacity reject any agreement. and that risks economic sanctions and military attack as gary suggested. the other path toward the new clear bomb is the legal path. you secure an agreement that essentially preserve much of your capability it allows you research and development into advanced nuclear technology and it extire-- expires after a per of time upon which you can move to an industrial sized capacity like japa where you ca essentially dash the bomb with relative impunity. illegal path is quicker and more dangerous. the legal path is longer and moreafe. i think that iranians have chosen the latter. i don't think their nuclear weapons ambitions have changed but they have expressed themselves differently and in a longer time frame which makes me believe that they don't want the bomb immediately but they have certainly set an agreement that could prestage those technologies and essentially that capability at later point in time. >> you know this really strikes me as odd that we're you can talking about this is a separate path, a

way to get to the bomb. you know netanyahu back in 1992 that's 23 years ago said that iran was three to five years from a bomb. and people have been saying they're just dying to have a bomb. they're going to-- i think our secretary of defense at one point said they're hell-bent to get nuclear weapon. at the done have a nuclear weapon. they haven't done it. they could have done it within the last ten years. they had all of the makings of being able to do that. and they didn't do it. >> rose: why do you think they didn't do it sanctions or because they haven't made a decision to do it. >> they clearly have not decided to build a nuclear weapon. and from all the evidence everybody who was making these predictions is wrong. i mean they have not done all the things that the naysayers and the criers of panic and alarm were making all this time you know. and i think it has to be said, you know that actually we have seen something happen here that is real. and i think we should at least acknowledge it. >> rose: other peoplin the

american national security framework have said they haven'tade a decision. i'm not sure what they meant by that. what do you think they meant by that? >> ray. >> well i think what they're suggesting is that there is no hard evidence that iranian supreme leader and others have made a decision to essentially construct a bomb. however there are a lot of circumstances evidence. iran has engaged in a type weaponization research and nuclear energy research for which there is no real explanation other than rep ree. it is developing the ballistic missile is which are only suitable for an payload. three weeks ago their former negotiator who is a current representative of the supreme leader to the supreme national security council objected to the western impossession saying the americans have all these bombs but they don't want us to have enough material for a single one. there is a lot of circumstaes station evidence to suggest that this country is interested in nuclear weapons and interested in the deterrent power and suggestion of power capability that such weapons produce. now i think gary is right

that is not the first and foremost priority of the system at this point it is to rehabilitate its economy uny its ele to deal with its disaffected population to address all the opportunities it has for influence in the region. but i done think we have signed an agreement that forever forecloses the possibility of iran obtaing nuclear weapons should it desire to do so at a later point this time. it lernl will have the technological infrastructure and certainly have a great deal of resources at its disposal to do so at that time. atq;2z a later time. >> we have not precluded any country in the without world from using their capabilities to go for a bomb if they want to. = is part of the nonproliferation treaty whether you like it or not. >> actually, that's not true. >> people who are members of the npt promised they're to the going to build a nuclear weapon. they put themselves under restrictions and inspections and they didn't go-- they go

ahead with their life. we have had countries that were thinking abo breaking out that backed away from it. in this case iran has put itself under the most intense scrutiny that it could possibly have. so that isn't going to go away at the end of ten years. people are talking about a sunset clause. it's to the really a sunset clause. actually the inspection of their centrifuge line and the mining and milling of uranium goes on for 20 25 years. >> rose: right. >> so this is-- this isr really think we ought to be honest with ourselves. that this is, in fact an accomplishment, a significant accomplishmentñi and with all of the concerns about what may happen 25 years from now i'll take the 25ears as opposed to a nuclear strke or a military strike. >> rose: make a point and then i will come back with the point -- >> i was just going to agree with gary that iran has as a member of the mpt

essentially committed itself to not producing nuclear weapons. and it has violated those obligations in the past testimony stands in violation of security council resolutions today. i realize those security council resolutis are likely to be disbanded. but nevertheless, there is a history of noncompliance here and as we sit here today we have to ackwledge the fact that director general amano of the international atomic energy agency sun satisfied with the access that iranians have provided to him. so that should essentially concern us about verification upon which this is predicated on. it is mott the-- iraq after 1991, brazil and south africa after it declared its nuclear facilities subjected-- military facilities to inspection i don't thi that's in the cards in this case. >> rose: there are two things that everybody says when they talk about this one is no deal is better than a bad deal. the second thing they say if you don't have a deal was's the alternative. what'she alternative if you don't have a deal ray.

>> the alternative would be essentially you go back and try to increase pressure on iran, see if y can get a better deal. ut ithink what we're talng about here is not no deal or this deal. it's how do you improve this particular deal. there is a negotiating process taking place. and secretary kerry has until june. i think in order for him to improve this deal and make it a deal certainly worthy of the title historic, he really has to addre the notion of a ten-year sun ses clause. that's a little too short. he has to essentially suggest that iran has to come clean with pmds because that val the only way you can have a viable verification system. you have to know where you have been in order to know where you are going and i think he should address the issues of ballistic missiles and other issues. secretary kerry has an opportunity to improve upon this deal and essentially make it such a profoundly important deal that boththe united states and its partners in the region can get behind it in a solid fashion. >> you know i am sure that

the last 48 hours was spent doing exactly that. and i you know the talk about we could always get0l a better deal basically you know for anybody looking at this in any kind of a realistic way we have moved so much further. i mean from 18 months ago we have moved from a position where iran had the capability to build nuclear weapon, in a very very short period of time to a situation where it's 10 15 25 years down the line. that is sigificant. and i think you know looking you know with the green eyeshades and examining it and saying oh you know maybe they could do this maybe they could do that. i just go back to where i started. why would they be doing this at all if they really were that were interested in breaking down and getting a nuclear weapon. there's really not a good answer to that. and the other thing is that basically what really happens if the negotiations

should break down because we're going to insist on hat i call a union i cord+mjdfyy in every possible way but is impossible. and doesn't it doesn't exist andt's never going to exist. if we insist on a unicorn deal we're going to get a unicorn at the end of it. >> ray, are you opposed to what they have done? are you simply saying i want to point out that there are weaknesses in this and they need to pay attention to them. >> i don't think i'm opposed to it i will call it an arms control agreement. i agree with gar that secretary kerry has been tireless in his pursuit. and i think this particular agreement as for the joint plan of action has a lot of constructive advantages and gary has pointed out some of them and highlighted some of them. i'm merely trying to suggest there are some areas of concern about this the sunset clause of ten years. the notion of mmds ballistic missiles. the notion that iran is not going to ship out its enriched uranium as it had promised to do in the past.

all of these things should be addressed in order to improve this deal and mack it a more solid arms control agreement.m let me say one thing this is an arms control agreementment and for those who want to defend it they should defend every provision of it. they should defend why it is that they think fordo enrichment facility that we have sought to close remains open and operates 1,000 centrifuges. they should defended notion of a ten year sunset clause. if you defend the arms control agreement first and foremost you have to dend the provisions of that agreement and its technical characteristics, not just say because it's better than war. because when you say thatu agreement is better than no agreement. >> i have to leave it at that. thank you so much ray pleasure to have you back on the broadcast. >> thanks. >> thank you gary. >> thank you charlie. >>e'll be right back. stay with us. >> the president announced this afternoon as we talked a sent difficult nuclear deal. which they have lots of things to work at but we seemhe framework for a

deal. i know you have not had time but pay serious attention to it. but at first glance with limited information, how does it look? >>ell what i have been able to see, it looks it is a framework and itooks pretty reasonable to from the standpoint of the details that are i think as in all of these things, the devil i in the details and there is a l of that still got to be-- both revealed and i think worked out. but i'm taking back with the numbers that i have seen in terms of some of the issues that iran agreed to in terms of the length and period of time, there are a couple of issues that they have taken after 15 years one taken out to 25 years. so i am-- from what i can see, at this point it looks fairly reasonable. when i got asked i mean even when i was serving i was asked about iran. and i used to talk about the

very narrow space that diplomacy offered. and that that was so much better than the other options. and the other ons are iran with a nuclear weapon which we-- i think an many people certainly reinforced essentially weaponize. i mean put nuclear weapons in the middleast and others will go after that. and or another strike byus or by israel or by both all of which i think generate increased instability and conflict in that part of the world. and if there's any chance that we can avoid another conflict as anndividual who is lead in two already i'm willing to take that chance. now this this deal so far as it's been talked about talks about very intrusive inspections, more so than has ever existed in the history of nuclear weapons. and i'm not unfamiliar with inspections that we did with the soviets which were very exhaustive inspections. the concern and i think it's a legitimate concern is will

anybody, will the iranians cheat on this in the long run. what they're saying they will do in terms of numbers of sent ri finals in terms of their facilities their level of enrichment which is very low, i think threeny of that percent whack they have signed up to the indications are going in the right direction. but it's in the details first of all, and secondly in the enforcement that will prove whether or not whether this is the deal that makes a difference in the long run. >> if you advise the president, what would you worry about the most? >> i would worry about the intrusiveness of the inspection. >> whether you in fact could be as intrusive as you think is essential. >> to verify. >> to verify absolutely. the other thing about this whole initiative though charlie, whh i think isok important and gets lost in sort of the focus on the deal, is there is a tremendous amount of tension you know internal to iran represented by current

president rouhani in one case without is clearly a reformer in ways it was really a sur pris that he got elected. and then the hard-liners. and its's the hard-liners that certainly you worry about getting retaining control in a way that a nuclear weapon would be-- it would be, in fact developed. and so is this, i think a question is, is this a step towards reform inside that country. i mean rouhani has got his handsful, there is no question about that. sometimes in america we have a tendency to just create or just look at iran as one big monolith. and if in fact that isn't the case. i think this tension which will play out in the next overñi his term i think he is up for re-election in 2017. and i think this deal could well possibly-- possibly be part of a step in the right

direction. and there are other issues out there there are, i think the council of ellers gets elected in the first part of the year. the parliament which isow 2 to 1ard-ners against reformers those elections happen in the spring of next year. so all those are a possible road map to potential reform. so theres a-- there is clear risk in this. but i think if iran doesn't reform and you end up with a hard-liners continuing to be in charge that is when i would be conceed about are they cheating will they develop this weapon and will they, in fact put the whole middle east at -- in a drumbeat of potential nuclear proliferation. which would be disastrous for that part of the world. >> it clearly is true that they would not have agreed to this without the consent of the ayatollah. >> i think that's true. there is no question about that. >> rose: so he had to sign on to this deal. >> i think i would

certainly say that. that certainly president rouhani wasn't out here by himself without that endorsement. >> so?;what is in it for iran other than the draw down of sanctions in one question w the rapidity they argd lnged and hard that they wanted sanctions eliminated before they began to put all the things that we wanted them to agree to. >> sure. >> but what do they get? >> i think many of us forget this is the percent empire. this is an historic empire that has hey view of where they should be in the world. and i think one of the things that is certainly there on this path is an opportunity for them to become a responsible integrated member of the international community. in ways that they certainly have not. over the last decade,i think it's been pointed out there is up to four presidents that have been trying to work their way through some kind of engagement.

and outcome that would help ease tension between our two countries. i mean in that sense it's remarkable what has happened in those negotiations because we haven't talked to them for over 35 years. so i think that that responsibility, the ability to be a responsible player in the international community first of all. second clearly sanctions have had an impact. their economy the reports that i get their economy is in complete tatters. alough i s also told recently by a friend that had been there that president ahmadinejad essentially damaged their economy, extensively. almost on an equal basis to what thefá sanctions have done. i think -- >> it's probably why he didn't win the -- >> among other things. and i also think that there is-- ts isn't 1979. iran has got a youth ball that is significant roughly half the populati is under 30 they certainly are not aligned with the revolution specifically like it was

1979. so i think the supreme leader also has those challenges that he's got to deal with.u with respect to how he moves the country forward. and in the end it is he who is in charge. >> i think henryjf kissinger said once that iran has to decide whether he wants to be an ideology or i state. >> and i think that's a great statement. and i would hope that this deal would put them on a part to be a state and not just an -- >> an openxd up conversations not only about the positive role they could play but also the negative role that they have been playing in terms of support. >> this is the same country that has killed lots of americansin iraq. i know that. this is a country who is a state sponsor of terrorism. this is a countriesthat's linked very heavily to national just syria but also the hezbollah leadership in lebanon. so it is-- it clearly could be an opportunity for them to change in that regard. >> when you say a state

supporter of terrorism you're talking primarily about hamas: >> no, i have seen it in other pts of the world. >> because most of terror groups seem to be sunni rather than shi'a. >> yes, in terms of scale they clearly have supported they have supported terrorism in that regarv and it's mostly inhat part of the world. >> rose: the final four is here. heaven for basketball fans. some of college basketball's biggest names will tip off at the final four on saturday night from lucas oil stadium in indianapolis. the evening's first game features duke against michigan state. the wisconsin badgers take the kentucky wildcats in the night cap. kentucky hopes to become the first undefeated team to win a national championship since indiana did it in 1976. joining me now from indianapolis is jay bilas espn's lead college basketball analyst. and i'm pleased to have him back on this program. welcome jay.

>> charlie great to be with you how are you doing if. >> rose: i'm good.ñi size it up for meñi if you will. it seems to me that we have four great teams. >> we do. we've got four of the best coaches you could possib ask for which makes it compelling right out of the gate. but you have three number one seeds and say seven seed in michigan state that was probably underseeded by the committee. but hardly a mistake. the committee did a great job. i thought this year overall with the tournament. but to have kentucky coming in unbeaten was a chance to make history with a 40-and-0 season and to have duke across the bracket if that were to be the final game on monday nht you would have in my judgement one of the highest rated games in the history of basketball. and a lot of fans not knowing who to rooted against you know if you go by i hate christian-- later and all theentucky haters out there. there will be a lot of people that don't know which way to go.

>> rose: okay let's look at those two-- les look first at the games on saturday night. look at wisconsin versus kentucky and tell me how you see that game. because wisconsin has beaten kentucky before. >> yeah, i think it comes down to carlie kentucky is the best team. they have got the most professional players in the future. they've got the most talents. and they have proven to be the best team with winning 38 straight games this season. they operate very well at the end of the games. i think in order to beat ntucky you've got to play in the a good game but a great game. and you have to three three things you have to be able to control tempo, you have to be able to move the kentucky big guys out on the floor so they can't camp out and protect the rim. and i think you have to really defensive rebound. wisconsin does all those things really well. they have the player of the year who i think will be the player of the year in frk cameinski, a sior. and they've got big guys that can play on the perimetre and that will be really important. i just don't know that

wisconsin is going to be able to defending for an entire 40 inams against the depth of kentucky inside and do so without fouling. i think kentucky is just too strong inside. wisconsin can beat kentucky but i think kentucky is going to play monday night. >> the first game on saturday is duke versus michigan state. >> boy that's a really interesting me. because mhiga statehas played really well over the last probably three weeks. and it's played its best basketball. and duke is playing at a really high level. earlier if the year duke who has got much more talent than michigan state does duke has got a few lottery picks on his team just young, four freshman out of their eight scholarship players but duke wasn't a great definsive team earlier in the year. i think mike was talking about his team not communicating as well as he would like largely because they were young and had to play some zone. but right n they are playing defense at a really high level. outside of kentucky duke has proven to be the best defensive team out of the final eight. and they are the second-best

defensive team out of this final four certainly. and i think they've got more firepower than michigan state. the spartans can win but duke's better and i think we're probably absent something extraordinary happening we will have close games. i think we will have a duke kentucky final on monday night. >> rose: obviously it's too early to tell you about i will not talk to you before monday night. tell me how you see it if it in fact is what for many people woulde the dream game, kentucky versus duke. >> rz kin ken has got mortallant, charlie. they have more depth. they've got a number of freshman as does du but kentucky has more upper-classman. and when we like to think about the narrative of kentucky being the one and done program they have got a bunch of guys that have come back. they have six guys that have come back after their freshman year two came back for their junior year including womenie who was in the player of the year raise with okafor with wisconsin's frank camein skooechlt i

think you're looking at a much deeper more physical team and much bigger in kentucky. and i think that can probably be the difference. duke can really shoot it. they can stretch the floor and they've got really good guards that never miss free throws. but kentucky's guards are bigger. their guards go 6 5, andrew har ison aaron har ison are 6, 5 devon booker a freshmane's 6 6. they've got tremendous size and strength. and i think the ability of duke to hang on the backboards and to guard inside because i don't think okafor although can block some shots he's not a big time rhyme protector and i think the kentucky big guys can put him in some foul trouble. and duke starting wincelow at the floor who 16 6 6 7 that makes them awfully small. and i think the size and depth of kentucky would be ther d i wouldñi f heavily in the ball game that doesn't mean duke couldn't win they could. and it would you know what

charlie t would remind you a little bit of duke unlv in '91. the overwhelming favorite would be the unbeaten team. but think this is a different-- a fferent makeup of a duke team. it's not as experienced as that '91 team. and i think it wld actuallbe a bigger up set if duke were to beatc kentucky this year. >> dukefá has to have a good game fromxd justin winslow doesn't it? >>c winslow may be their most valuable player rightfá now. their best player is okafor but their most valuable has been quinn cook throughout the year because of his leadership hitting shots the defense on the perimetre. last month maybe since it's been a little longer since mike moved him not starting line-up but that hpb rely given their line-up a lot of punch with him. it has made him difficult to match up with. i think he would be a difficult matchup for kentucky. the problem is winslow what have to match up with kentucky at the other end. and i think that would be awfully div on winslow.

that is really intriguing and it would be a lot of fun to watch. but boy, there would be a lot of-- you know the chess pieces that perry gets to move around are a lot bigger than the chess pieces that mike gets to move around. >> compare the two coaches. came perry,. >> they are both hall of famers. think by sunday monday whatever the date is that the hall of fame makes a decision, will you see both of them in the hall of fame. call perry say great basketball coach. he comes across differently than coach k does. i think coach k seems to present an image different than call perry. but they are both unbelievely good caliperi gets as much out of his players than anybody i have been around. he what done with with different teams an different place so it's not just that he plays with the lottery picks and has always done

that. he did it with i a blue coar approach with you mass and they went to the final four. he built up the memphis program and want to the final four in '08 and has been a constant in the final four since he has been at kentucky. and his-- he's got a great group of players here not just great talent but they're great guys.ko and of kentucky players asq guys up with any team in the country. and you know you know coach k as well as anybody. he's maybe at the top his game more now than he5aas ever beeand that remkable given how many years he's been in it i played for him. i had the opportunity to be on his staff. so i'm a believer. you know he has had me at hello. but@rt got to till i don't think he's ever been better an he ise and i find it remarkable that for all the years he's en in it he's at his best at the ta end of his what appears to be the tail end of his career.

but he's really amazing. >> is there mment advantages on either side? >> i would think there is kind of a mental edge for whatever is playing kentucky because it's almost like they have nothing to lose the old cliche they have nothing to lose. but it's funny charlie i don't sense that kentucky team plays with any kind of tension that they are afraid to lose or they are hanging on to something. they want to hang on to this undefeated season. they n't play like that a they don't act like that. think think play way free mind and they're not afraid to lose. i think they understandhat lousing is a possibility if they don'tplay well or if somebody plays great against them. but i don't sense that there is any tightness to them. and they have got a great demeanor out there. and they get along great together. they are not-- they don't talk any noise to o upon ents. they're very respectful of who they play. and they do erythng we claim that we want in a college basketball team. and for some reason people don't want to seem to accept

fr kentucky but they're unselfish. they have accepted they have sacrificed for the good of the team. they dot play for the name on the front rather than the name on the back. they play defense as a team. and the stuff thatfá if another am or major did it we would b celebrating this great sacrifice they make. intu somehow if it is kentucky we take a cynical attitude toward them. ut i don't. i think their players are great guise and i have been extraordinarily impressed with them. >> rose: so you are picking÷ñ kentucky. >> you know i have since the beginning. i saw them in the bahamas this summer. i was there with them when they played something games in eight days in august. when i saw them up close i was like if they play their best nobody is beating these guys. they even had an injury añr junior that started for them last year in the championship game. they lost him to and knee injury anyone or ten games intohe season. most teams you lose a player of that calibre you would be really hurt by it they haven't missed a beat. that is another amazing

÷igng nobody talks about. they lost an outstanding player and they kept rolling. >> jay bilas thank you so much. pleasure..o >> thank you, pleasure is mine. >> rose: thank you for joining us, see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us yen line at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

announcer: a kqed television production. man: it's like holy mother of comfort food. woman: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.