>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the iranian nuclear agreement and talk to dennis ross and nicholas burns, two veteran diplomats. >> i think the key for us is deterrence is a concept that needs to be cemented over time. the credibility deterrence needs to be built over time. the steps we take over the coming years needs to reinforce it. making clear not just that all options are on the table but saying explicitly, we will not permit iran to become a nuclear weapons state even if they're a threshold state we will not permit them to take that leap. >> the united states can take more to strengthen our position in the middle east. two things. build up a military capacity of the gulf states saudi arabia and others to in effect contain iranian power in the persian

gulf and very importantly find a way, and this is going to be difficult, to mend fences with prime minister netanyahu of israel. they have a profound disagreement, netanyahu and president obama on the wisdom of this deal, we've seen that. but there's no question the iranians need to see a restrengthening of the u.s. i real relationship. >> rose: we continue with al hunt on the story with presidential candidate ted cruz. >> i think this iranian nuclear deal is a catastrophic mistake. because if it goes through, if congress doesn't stop it we've got 60 days of congressional review. it's my hope we stop it f we don't, what that means the next president when he or she comes into office in january 2017. i think the odds are very high the next president is going to confront an iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons. >> rose: the iranian nuclear agreement, and ted cruz when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by:

>> rose: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, 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 begin this evening with our continuing coverage of the iran nuclear deal. circumstance world powers led by the united states reached a historic accord with iran yesterday that will limits its nuclear program in exchange for lifting economic sanctions. the agreement is president obama's dig es diplomatic achieve that stands to define his foreign policy leg z the battle now shifts to congress where republican lawmakers have vowed to unravel the deal during the 06 day review period.

the pack has attracted opposition from america's middle east allies. they worry that it empowers iran to escalate destabling activities in the region. president obama defended the terms of the deal at a whitehouse press conference earlier today. >> the bottom line is this. this nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the united states and our allies. it prevents the most serious threat iran attaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it's why the alternative no limits on iran's nuclear program, no inspections and iran is closer to a nuclear weapon, the risk of regional nuclear arms race and a greater risk of war. all that would endanger our security. that's the choice that we face. if we don't choose wisely, i

believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away. >> rose: the president also spoke yesterday with tom friedman of the "new york times." >> we have purchased, essentially, over a decade now of international consensus to join us if we feel that iran is violating any of these agreements. but ten years from now 15 years from now the person sitting in my seat, the president of the united states, republican or democrat, is not only going to have the same capacity to take necessary military actions or to impose new sanctions. but they're going to have more insight into the program and will be better positioned and will have international legitimacy if they deal with a violation of the program. >> rose: dennis ross is a councilor and fellow at the near east policy and serves as a special assistant to president obama from 2009 to 2011.

he was middle east peace envoy under republican and democratic administrations. anything burns is professor at harvard kennedy school form are undersecretary of state drafted the first sanctions of iran passed by the u.n. security council in 2006 and 2007. i been am pleased to have both of them on this program this evening. and i thank dennis for his appearance here and my colleague at fox news where he serves as a consultant for them. let me begin with a question for both of you. it is this. how difficult is it to achieve a deal like this? give or take where you may differ with it, but the huge task of doing what has been done here. dennis. >> i don't under estimate the difficulty of doing this. any multilateral negotiation even though this became basically a bilateral one was going to be complicated. given the ideology of the

supreme leader given the dynamic of that country, how they look at us and how we look at them in the legacy. given the complicated nature of the issues themselves, this was bound to be a difficult negotiation. one can always question about how one negotiates. perez used to say when i was negotiating in the middle east he used to say anyone away from the table thinks they're a better negotiator than those at the table. i have no doubt about the difficulty of negotiating this. there certainly were times when i would have preferred our posture to be one that made it clear that we didn't need this deal as much as the iranians did, that the failure of diplomacy is something that would have cost them much more than us. but whether we had done everything just the way i would have preferred to do it this was still going to be a very hard negotiation and i have no illusions about how complicated and difficult it was. >> rose: nick. >> i agree with dennis. this was ten years in the making. this was all started by the bush administration. i served in that administration

as a career diplomat. we tried to negotiate with iran. iran rejected those negotiations in 2006 and 2007. we then turned to sanctions. and i do see in a sense that unity between the bush and obama administrations. president obama was able to strengthen the sanctions regime, working with the european union. a lot of our allies in asia and the middle east. then he got into negotiations over the last year and-a-half. these were extraordinarily difficult negotiations if you think about it, charlie. on the one happened we had to open up the first sustained conversation between the united states and iran in 35 years. we literally had no sustained strategic communication until the autumn of 2013. so you had to deal with that dynamic. and the political sensitive tease in both tehran and the united states about that dynamic, first. second, the president had to keep his coalition together at the negotiating table, and that was russia and china. and they're not easy. they were part of the coalition that i dealt with some years ago. and then he also had to keep the

europeans on side. finally he had to deal with this very difficult domestic political climate that distressed this administration by many republican leaders. it was as if the president and secretary kerry were in a three ring circus. i give them credit for having persisted. i can't imagine what john kerry broken leg, 18 days in vienna at the end came to these negotiations. he showed a lot of fortitude. so as a former negotiator dennis and i are both former negotiators, my hats off to the american team. >> rose: then the question is as the president asked this was the best way to achieve one single goal which is to stop the iranians from having a nuclear weapon. do you agree with that, dennis? >> well, i certainly agree that pursuing a diplomatic outcome is by far a better outcome than any other one, number one. number two there is no military

solution to the problem. the fact is even if you use force, you can't destroy their know how or engineering capability. the question is not whether a negotiated approach would be the best way to do it, the question is whether what has been negotiated meets the standards that we really set for ourselves and really makes us safer. and i think the people in the congress should evaluate it seriously. i would suggest many people not to rush to judgment. they ought to take a very hard look at this. they ought to ask questions about it. they ought to treat it as what amounts to what it is, meaning a very serious arms control agreement. and take a hard look and ask questions and seek clarification, seek interpretations. try to understand exactly what this agreement does and what it doesn't do. >> rose: so what would you recommend them do, other than look at it. because a lot of people have already seemed to have made judgment. most of the republican candidate presidents have already spoken out against it without seeing

the deal. >> i would have preferred they not do that. i would have preferred they look at it carefully. i think that there are a lot of positives in this agreement and i think there are some vulnerabilities in this agreement. and one can talk about how you try to minimize those vulnerabilities but at least you ought to take a look at the totality of the agreement where in fact it really does seem to set the iranians back, where it does buy you time. the essence of this agreement is basically deferring the iranians for 15 years you have a high level of confidence they won't have nuclear weapons. they will legit nays being a threshold state and being a weapons state is not so great. how does one deal with that. the sanctions relief after rely six months means they will have access to $150 billion in frozen accounts. it sort of strains the bounds to think they won't use some percentage of that even if it's

a small percentage to provide it to hezbollah, to provide it to hamas, jihad and so forth. >> rose: that shouldn't strain it, the president said in fact they know they will use some of it for that purpose. but it is not in the end game at all comparable to the idea of stopping them from getting a nuclear weapon. >> it's true it's not. but one of the reasons if you look at the countries in the region who are america's friends, they are profoundly uneasy because they think once they have this money it frees them up to do things much more dangerous and threatening to them. here again for those who have questions bit, whether they're in the congress or they're here, what are the administration's plans to deal with that. do they have contingency languages to increase iranian spending. do they have plans for targeted economic sanctions for the europeans if we see the iranians in fact providing that kind of additional support to these groups. in other words there are issues that are opened up by this

agreement both within the agreement that the congress should look at, should ask questions about and the administration should address. >> rose: nick, was this a deal you would have accepted. >> i think it's a sensible deal. and i support it. i also think it's a very difficult complex deal, with a lot of imperfections. on the positive side, i think what the president and secretary kerry have been able to negotiate is a decade-long future where around very likely will not be able to get a nuclear weapon. because all the roots to a nuclear weapon through uranium enrichment in part and whole demanded by the agreement. they're not going to have enough highly enriched uranium to have a nuclear record. they will have 300 kilograms low in rich uranium. the president said today at a facility which was their major

uranium facility 24/7 infections. i think the key thing charlie is that right now the united states is saying publicly that iran is one to two months away from a nuclear capability, nuclear weapon. and this agreement will put iran a year away. and i think that is the real achievement of this negotiation. but here's the difficult side of it. and i do see the problems in this agreement. and congress is going to have to ask questions. i testified before the house foreign affairs committee yesterday for nearly four hours and got a really good sense of what's on the minds of the members. i think they're worried as they should be. will the inspection regime be effective enough. i think we have to assume that the iranians at some point are going to cheat. because that's been their history. they have lied to the united nations repeatedly about this program for 20 years. will the iaea the international atomic energy have clear line of sight on what they're doing. that's number one. number two, will we be able to

reimpose sanctions should they fundamentally violate the agreement. i think that's difficult. i have no question that the europe means would be with us but i have a lot of questions about the russians, chinese and maybe even the indians and japanese who are major consumers of iranian oil and gas. that's another problem. and third is the problem that dennis ended on. the iranians are making a major push for power in the sunni world right now in iraq, syria lebanon and yemen. with sanctions released, the iranian revolutionally guard corps command has more money to so sow chaos. there's a risk in the agreement, a risk in not going forward but i think in the main this is a sensible deal for us. i think what the president did and my final point charlie the president did successfully today was to say to his critics what is your alternative. and most of the republican candidates have been saying well

we should have stepped away from the negotiating table and just sanctioned them further. if we had stepped away from the negotiating table in the last six weeks or so i know what would have happened. the sanctions regime, the pressure on iran would have diminished or dissipated. the countries would have weakened and all of iran's nuclear programs would have been lifted. if that's the construct obama's deal versus this no deal option of the critics, i take obama's deal. >> rose: dennis? >> look, a lot of what nick is saying i think is something i would agree with. i guess my position on this point is i would really like some of the questions to be addressed by the administration. i would to know how they will bolster. once they are a threshold state and legitimize as a nuclear are threshold state the ability to move to the a weapon state is not that difficult and it's not that great. i think we have to create a

baseline now. it isn't enough to say we'll know more in 15 years. it isn't enough to say we'll have the capabilities. we need to create the deterrent now. it needs to be a baseline that the iranians understand that the world understands, everybody is conditioned to. and then we take advantage of the 10 to 15 years that this agreement buys. there's no doubt this agreement buys you 10 to 15 years. i think one of the thing the administration should be asked is what are we going to do how are we going to take advantage of that. how are we going to take advantage of the time we buy. so i would focus on how do you address the vulnerability and the risks that are in the deal. i think what nick is saying about there's a risk with the deal, there's a risk without the deal. that's very fair and that's part of what the discussion should be between the congress and the administration. >> rose: well the president and you nick happened the advantage of seeing it and you didn't get a chance to see the press conference dennis. >> that's right i didn't see it. >> rose: the president said two things. if he didn't make this deal the

sanctions regime would be over. after making that effort. and nick just made that point. but the president said that al in of times. that if he walked away from the deal they had, that the sanctions regime would fall away. secondly he made the point that if in fact a lot of these things would stay in place after the 10 to 15 years, a lot of the kinds of inspections and other restrictions they had had would stay in place. and that if in fact there were violations of that, then they could reconsider sanctions and things. am i wrong about that nick? i want to make sure i understand it as the president said it. >> that's what he focused on. i think charlie on capitol hill yesterday and just listening to members, their major focus was this managed inspection. and will the iranians have the capacity to cover up any kind of skulduggery. and the president i think addressed that and said look, he said in the existing facilities that we know about, there's going to be 24/7 inspections.

this comes in if there's a covert facility that's uncovered, he said then there's a possible up to 24 day period where you jockey for position about getting in. but he said we have line of sight he said on that facility if it had been uncovered. i thought he made the best case but still congress is going to ask tough questions here. >> charlie, can i say just one point on this. part of the problem with as iran is a threshold state, the fact is after year 15, there's no limitation on the size of the program. the larger that program becomes even with the existing monitoring that will take place over time under traditional protocol, the harder it is to know everything. and so here again one of the points i'm making is, if they're going to be a threshold state if there's no limit on the size even in there's monitoring, i think the key for us is deterrence is a concept that needs to be cemented over time.

the credibility deterrents need to be built over time. the steps we take over the coming years needs to reinforce it. making clear not just that all options are on the table, but saying explicitly we will not permit iran to become a nuclear weapon state. even if they are a threshold state, we will not permit them to take that leap. if we in fact pick up signs they're moving towards a weapon given that threshold status we'll act militarily to prevent it. the more you enforce those steps to make it credible the more the deterrence becomes real and more flows out of this agreement. >> rose: the president made that clear since the annunciationment of -- announcement. >> more importantly he needs to earn back the credibility of the middle east the people knows he means what he says. the president's right that the

situation we're talking about is for two presidencies from now. if you think about it, the man or woman who is in the whitehouse well beyond 2025. but it's one thing to say it and it's very important to establish the baseline, we will not permit iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. but you have to have the credibility to make people think you mean it. that's how you get to strategic deterrence. with syria and assad we need to earn that credibility. >> rose: do you think the president has taken the military option off the table or he's not told explicitly to iran that in fact it's necessary to use military action to prevented them from having a nuclear weapon, the united states will use it. what is your understanding of the president that you work for in the national security council as its iran expert. >> let's no doubt in my mind that certainly in the first term it was unmistakable that when he

said options were on the table and he had us work within the administration and it exists today to create the capabilities to act on all options being on the table, that this was not only something he meant. and that the rest of the world understood and accepted. i think he still means it, but i don't believe as nick was just suggesting, that necessarily it's believed. >> rose: that's a very different thing. that has to do because of senior -- syrian's red line and the crown prints of the emirates. >> perception that matters is also the iranian perception. starting about six months ago the supreme leader for the first time began to say the united states will not attack us. now he never used to say that before. owe we are dealing with deterrence of the iranians. the iranians need to understand

that if me make the move it triggers this kind of response. today i think it's very important to begin to reestablish the credibility of that if in fact iran is going to be left as a threshold nuclear state. >> rose: how do we do that. >> well one way we do it is by repeating the language very clearly. another way we do it is being prepared to compete much more in the region to raise the cost of the iranians in places like syria and elsewhere. and if in fact we see them providing much more money to hezbollah, to hamas, then we begin to work with our allies in the area to counter these moves and raise the costs and when make it clear we're not going to tolerate a shifting and balance of power in the direction. the point is you not only make it clear that there's a threshold for us that won't be tolerated, but we are taking steps to give meaning to our word so everybody doesn't doubt what we say. >> rose: nick, this question. the president in talking about

about these negotiations made clear that he understood the add venturism by iran. he understood the fact that iran had prisoners. he understood a lot of things that some people wish had been part of the negotiations but it was impossible to maker them part of these negotiations. and that the goal was always a very simple goal prevent iran from the ability to make a nuclear weapon. >> right. and this as you know, charlie has been a controversial aspect of these negotiations. some people believe we would have been better off having introduced some of these issues alongside the nuclear issue. i frankly think that secretary kerry and president obama made the right decision to make this only about nuclear weapons. the president referred to this in the press conference when he was admonished, i thought rudely, by a reporter who said the president with a insensitive in effect about the plight of the americans being held captive. and the president said look that

wassable true, you're out of bounds. but he also said it would have been a negotiating mistake to put the american hostages issue into these negotiations because it would have given the iranians more leverage. i think he made the right call there. but i also think following what dennis just said and the question you asked, charlie, the united states can do more to strengthen our position in the middle east. two things. build up a military capacity of the gulf states saudi arabia and the others, to in effect contain iranian power in the persian gulf. and very importantly find a way and this is going to be difficult, to mend fences with prime minister netanyahu of israel. because they have a profound disagreement, netanyahu and president obama on the wiz -- wisdom of this deal. we've seen that. but they need to see a restrengthening of the israel relationship. dennis and i have both negotiated the qualitative military edge that we want israel to have versus any

potential fall in the middle east. if there's more we can do to strengthen israel, we need to narrow the gap. that's just common sense de moment see for the year ahead. >> rose: i hear you. denyist deny -- dennis you know the prime minister as well and negotiated with him. the president always reminds his audience that it was the prime minister of israel who how many months ago warned that the initial agreement would not hold. and that the prime minister of israel was wrong there and he is wrong now. >> look, there is no question that the prime minister of israel feels that this is somehow subjecting israel to dramatically greater threats. to be fair to him he's not alone in israel. you've seen -- came out with a statement as well. the statements may not take on the full character of what prime minister netanyahu is saying but

they reflect that there is a profound fear that an iran that legit nice a nuclear threshold state could become a nuclear weapon state. iran that suddenly has all this additional money to cause trouble, providing money to hezbollah, providing 100,000 rockets to hezbollah that covered the whole state of israel. they have provided clear monetary support to hamas. for israelis across the board strengthening iran in this region is not an abstract threat. they feel it very directly. so nick's point is completely right, not only because it's the right thing to do but also it's very important for the iranian to see there isn't a wedge ultimately between us and israel. this is a country. iran talks about eliminating israel. last fall the supreme leader talked about nine questions about eliminating israel. so for the israelis this is not an abstraction. there threat is profound.

and having the u.s. to say look whatever our differences are on this, even when we pursue this agreement from an american standpoint and i think the president said this, the president believes this deal is good not only for the united states but he believes it's good for our allies including israel as well. >> rose: and he believes that the allies think that too. >> obviously the israelis don't. i'm suggesting it's not just prime minister netanyahu. they're looking at iran that they see as being more a are gressive in the region. and being in a place where they can be become more aggressive in the region without suffering lot of risks as they do it. one of the things i'm suggesting along the lines what nick is also raising, not only do you mend the fences, and that mains not just dealing with qualitative military edge. but how about sitting down and doing contingency planning with israelis to look at what could be the different kinds of options the iranians may well now pursue when it comes to having more resources available. by the way it's not only the israelis who have this fear that relieving of the sanctions is

going to somehow create enormous space and more assets for the iranians to threaten everyone in the region. listen to the saudis, listen to the emirates. >> rose: the king already said he has some concerns about this. let me go with a question to both of you and i think it was referred to this as well. what's the alternative to this deal. i think you were saying dennis the alternative is to make it a better deal. the alternative is not to simply reject the deal essentially to what the president said but to modify. but the alternative of not having a deal is not a very good alternative. >> look, i think those who say there's an alternative, they need to explain what that is. because i have to admit i don't see an easy alternative. i'm not so much calling for a better deal. what i am saying is there are areas of vulnerability that need to be addressed. there are areas that flow from the agreement that creates those

vulnerabilities. that's what i mean by strengthening deterrents. this is a very important thing to be done. i think having an approach we're dealing with an iran that becomes much more offensively minded because i believe that the revolutionary guard is going to be compensated by the supreme leader. the revolutionary guards may not favor this agreement. i think result given the way the supreme leader operates being awe above the fray i think he's going to compensate them by giving them greater license within the region. i would say within the context of the agreement itself, there's something in fact i think maybe you don't change the agreement but there needs to be a clear explanation of what happens with smaller violations. if you look at the snap back sanctions, the snap back sanctions deal with material breaches of the agreement. what if the iranians do in fact what they're most likely to do which is to cheat along the margins. partally to test our verification, to see what they can get away with. to see in fact if the various fa indication is -- various know

indication is as good as they say. let's say enriching to not at 6.73% and then they stop it. there needs to be a penalty for each of the transgressions no matter how small in part because that gives meaning to your words. we could be talking to the other members, the five plus one what are the responses going to be. what kind of consequences should there be for smaller kinds of violations. and here i think discussions that congress could actually i think move the administration to give assurances on how they will do that. >> rose: nick. go ahead and then i'll ask a question. >> i think that this is exactly right. you have to set a very tough tone early in the implementation phase. as soon as iran complies with the agreement which may be five or six months from now when they deconstructed the facilities and modified them. we've got to be very tough in calling any kind of violations. i a also think charlie we're

going to be dealing with two iranian governments. the reformist part of the government rouhani the prime minister and the -- and secretary kerry could use that relationship from the difficult middle east issues if we can find issues to talk about. but we're going to have to push back against the revolutionary guards in the middle east through our support for israel and the gulf states. >> rose: but don't you think, i'm basically basing on what i heard the president say in an interview with tom friedman and what i heard him say at the press conference. he emphasizes not trust but verification. this is a deal that's constructed with the expectation that there might be efforts to cheat. and that's why you have the level of inspection and level of intrusion that you have. nick. >> that's right. and you remember president reagan's famous phrase trust and verify a lot of people are now saying about iran don't trust but verify.

the president essentially said that today. i think he's right to say it. i think the iaea is a very competent and i think tough minded organization. they're going to be in the existing plants. and i have a reasonable degree of confidence that that 24/7 constant monitoring of those plants, we're going to be able to see most violations, if not all violations. the problem will be with any covert attempts by the iranians to break out to build secret nuclear plants. they done it twice before. with nata and with ford. they were caught lying four times. if they open levi late this agreement they may throw themselves back into sanctions. they are smart and ruthless and i think they will test us so therefore constant vigilance in the beginning will be critical. >> can i add to that. critical, i think you put your finger on it nick, as well. the critical thing here is we are going to try to verify

everything. the critical thing what we do when we catch theme in a violation. as i said the snap back function deals with big material breaches. but the most likely kind of scheating will be on the small end not the big end. i'm not sure we've created a structure to deal with the small kind of cheating. i think the critical thing here is to create not just the mechanism but to work out at least on our own but certainly with the europeans and maybe with the russians and chinese what's the penalty for the smaller end kinds of violations. because if it's just a case where the iranians do it we catch them and they say we won't do it again, we'll see more and more of it. this is clearly an area where i think the administration can explain more and maybe it can think through more what it would intend to do. >> rose: thank you dennis thank you nick. great conversation and clearly as the president said as he left the press conference, all of us will come back and talk about this a lot more between over the next 60 days as the congress

also does just that. thanks to you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. >> ted cruz is a junior senator from texas and a 2016 republican presidential contender. 44 years old, he's a graduate of princeton and harvard law school. he clerk for supreme court chief justice william rehnquist. in the two and-a-half years he's been in the senate he has ignored the old dictum that freshman are supposed to be seen but not heard. the cruz voice has ricocheted loudly around the chamber chanting conservative clauses including a 21-hour filibuster of obamacare. he is a national security hawk, opposes most of obama's foreign policies, paramilitary and has been very critical of the supreme court decision up holding the affordable

healthcare act and same sex marriage. he's the author of a best selling book, ted cruz a time for truth. senator cruz thank you for being with us. >> it's good to be with you. >> you are a first term senator not much executive experience. you're conservative, so are the other 16, at least they say they are in this deal. why ted cruz? >> well i think there's a sharp difference. there are a lot of good and talented in the race. if you look who has been a consistent conservative, stood up and led on social issues, on constitutional issues, on national security issues. i think a lot of voters, they're frustrated with politicians who are campaign conservatives who talk conservative on the campaign trail but when they get to office they don't actually honor the promises. that's what a lot of politicians

particularly in this town are. >> let's talk with foreign paul z you would undo the iranian nuclear deal that president obama did. as president you could persuade the europeans and maybe to ream pose the economic sanctions. >> i think that would prove very difficult. it's one of the many reasons why i think this iranian nuclear deal is a catastrophic mistake. because if it goes through if congress doesn't stop it. we've got 60 days of congressal review. i hope we stop it. what that means the next president when he comes into office in january 2017 it's very high the next president will confront iran on the verge of having nuclear weapons. in that happens, the consequence of this deal is effectively taking sanctions off the plate as a viable to be. once the allies lifted sanctions it would take months if not years, if ever to reassemble that national coalition.

so this deal today makes military conflict only more likely in 18 months. and that's a really unfortunate consequence. >> how likely would it be then the united states or israel would have to take out those. >> i think there's a substantial possibility the next president will confront a simple binary choice. acquiesce in allowing them to use military weapons or use military force to prevent them. >> what choice would ted cruz make. >> under no circumstances should we allow iran to acquire nuclear weapons. and the reason is simple. they are led by a theocratic zealous by the eye ayatollah. >> so you would take it. >> i would do whatever is necessary to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. it's worth remembering that in

eight years in office the biggest country reagan ever invaded was grenada. that when you have a credible commander in chief the need to use military strength drops dramatically. i don't think it was accidental. one of the things i talk about in the book a time for truth is that iran released our hostages in 1981, the day reagan was sworn in. that's the difference a new commander in chief with make. >> i know reagan is your model and you talk about him a lot in the book. you right about him. on national security in general and you believe obama's too soft. would a cruz presidency be on foreign policy be more like bush. >> i think it would be much more like the reagan model. i think the republicans, the neo cons among the republicans are too eager. we been reluctant to use

military force. my view of foreign policy is we should number one be a clarion voice for freedom. reagan understood powerfully. a couple years ago i sat down with -- soviet dissident -- one of the saddest aspects of the obama presidency is he refuses to use in the speech today on the iran deal, it was shocking. it was shameful that president obama did not mention the americans in the iranian prisons right now. he didn't mention -- we should speak for freedom but when it comes to military force, america's always been reluctant to use military force.

and it three principles should govern the use of military force. number one if and when we use military force, it should always always always be directed to the vital national security interest of the united states. that should be the touch stone. number two if military force is required, we should use overwhelming force. but number three, and this is critical, we should get the heck out. >> that's where in your view the george w. bush administration failed. >> it is not the job of our military to go in and try to transform foreign nations in the democratic utopia. it is the job of our military to protect this nation to seek out and defeat terrorists before they kill innocent americans. >> is there any place you would put american boots on the ground today to fight against islamic state. >> well, you know, i've often pointed to two circumstances to illustrate those principles this action. those two circumstances are

syria and iran. syria two years ago, president obama proposed a unilateral military attack against syria. and i listened to the administration's argument. i kept an open mind but at the end of the day they never advanced any national security interests that was compelling. so i oppose the that military attack most significantly because two years ago when the president was opposing attacking syria of the nine major rebel groups, they had a lot of time to administer to isis which at the time was not a household world. the question i asked over and over again, if we succeed in toppling assad who is a monster and -- >> do you hold that today. >> i do. >> you disagree with lindsey graham putting 10,000 troops over there. >> when it comes to the question of boots o the ground, what is

missing most importantly as the commander in chief laying out a clear objective that we will destroy isis. they declared war on us, they're crucifying christians, they are beheading journalists, they are lighting people on fire. once the commander in chief sets that goal that we're not going to degrade them, we're not going to weaken them we're going to day destroy them, then i think you have to destroy on the judgments for the military commander and the tools necessary to do so. i think the principal tool we should ememploy is overwhelming air power. right now we're engaged in photo up foreign policy. we drop a bomb here and missile there but the rules of engagement are so strict that right now from isis' perspective, they're winning. the second key thing we ought to do is arm the kurds. i think the kurds are our boots on the ground. they're fighting isis now. they are our allies and the obama administration refuses to arm them. because rather than focus on the

national security objective protecting us from terrorists, they're engaged in the sort of ground nation building that frankly the bush administration engaged in. they are trying to seek a reconciliation of the sunnis and the shi'ites. the sunnis and shi'ites have been battling since 632a.d. >> let's switch to domestic policy. you i believe are an advocate of a flat tax. what would a rate be. >> i have not yet rolled out a specific tax plan. i'm working with my advisors right now and i intend to roll one out. >> do you intend what it might be. >> the range you see are somewhere in the tains. there are a series of judgments you make in terms of is there an exemption initially at one level, do you allow deductions like charitable contributions or mortgage interest. each of those trade offs have impacts on how the tax plan affects jobs, wage growth and distribution among incomes. we're making those decisions now

so i will roll out a specific plan. what i had said and what i'm campaigning on right now is we should have a simple flat tax where every american can fill out his or her taxes on a postcard. and that when we do that -- >> no exemptions. >> no deductions. you might well have a handful of deductions. >> charitable. >> charitable is a good example. those are the decisions we're making right now and there are trade offs where we're looking at the numbers. i actual lee -- actually think one of the proposals i'm rolling out is the fact it's on a postcard. there are limitations of physics in terms of what can fit on there. >> what you can fit on there. >> that's exactly right you don't have congress adding exemptions and complicating it. complexity is the friend of the lobbyists. one of the things i talk about in the book now is the time for truth is called the washington cartel which is career politicians in both parties, democrats and republicans who get in bed with lobbyists and

special interests. and the incredible complexity of the tax code is one of the tools they use to entrench their power. >> immigration. you made it very clear you don't want to join the donald trump bashing. do you think that some republicans are worried that this has hurt the party however this rhetoric. do you see that. >> what i think hurts the party are the members of the washington cartel that campaign on one set of issues and govern on on the set of issues. >> do you think that -- >> i think the frustration men and women across this country are feeling with career politicians of both parties is say one thing and do another. >> is voicing that. >> he is tapping into how ticked off people are. >> you don't disapprove of what he said. >> he speaks in a colorful way. that's not how i speak. i don't express things the same way he does. but i'm glad -- >> is it the same? >> he is focusing on the problem

of illegal immigration, and in particular the problem of crimes. i'll give you an amazing statistic. in the year 2013 the obama administration released into the public 36,000 criminals. it released 116 murderers it released over 15,000 people who have been convicted of drunk driving already. people are concerned about illegal immigration for rule of law. >> these are all immigrants. >> they are all illegal immigrants. they were all released by the your -- obama administration. i think that's wrong. >> let me go to a broader question. this book is entitled a time for truth. you are a straight shooter from texas. yet when you were on met the press chalk todd asked you repeatedly what would you do about the 11 million who are here now illegally. and better with all due respect

you ducked it repeatedly. >> he didn't like my answer. what i said i recognize that is the question that the senate democrats and most of the media focuses on. in my view if you want to get something done on immigration we ought to focus where there's bipartisan agreement. the question you just asked there isn't by partisan agreement. >> that has to come later. >> you don't have to answer every question at once. what i said is we should focus number one on securing the borders on stopping the problems on illegal immigration and number two improving streamlining legal immigration so that we can -- >> take up the 11 million. >> once we've secured the borders. is american people don't trust politicians that will secure the borders because every time washington politicians have said that, they've been lying. they haven't done it. once we've secured the borders then we can have a conversation

about pete pull that remain here but that's not solve it all at once. >> that's talk about the topic of the supreme court. you were very critical of the 5-4 same sex marriage decision. what do you say to the imminent conservative jurist richard pose n er behind that was the 1967 loving decision that outlawed a ban on interracial marriage. >> there's a difference. we fought a bloody civil war over shameful history of slavery. >> it was fought over slavery. >> it was fought over slavery and he passed three amendments to the constitution, the 13th 14th and 15th amendment to turn this country around. the 14th amendment was designed to protect equal protection of the laws. loving versus virginia is absolutely rightly decided that the law should be color blind. and the constitution addresses

that. the difference is, the supreme court here for its decision on marriage to be right, it would have to be in 1868 when the american people were ratifying the 14th amendment they were somehow silently unawares striking down the marriage laws of every state in the union to mandate same sex marriage. now my view is marriage is a question for the state. you and i may disagree as a policy matter on gay marriage. that's fine we can do that as citizens. the constitutional avenue, an individual sports -- supports gay marriage is to convince its citizens to change the law in each state. i don't see why everybody in washington including every democrat in washington have given up on democracy they want every major issue in our country decided by five unelected lawyers. i believe in democracy. >> speaking of that you announced you favor a constitutional amendment which would force retention vote

periodically on supreme court justices. if the cruz amendment were in effect today, would you support or oppose retention of the chief justices? >> you know, one step at a time. when you're talking about a structural reform -- >> i know being from texas you're going to tell me you're a supporter of chief justice roberts. >> when you're talking about a reform to the constitution it's got to be a broader reform than just one decision or one individual. and look, i've spent most of my adult life in and around the supreme court. as you reached i started as a law collector in the court. i litigated before the supreme court. i know the justices personally. it is with a great deal of sadness and reluctance i have proposed a constitutional amendment to rein in their power because they're abusing their oaths. 20 states employ the check of

retention elections. we've seen it in the laboratories of democracy. >> today you're not quite willing to say you would favor or oppose retention of the chiefs. >> when you're dealing to structural reforms to the constitution, it should be a broader argument what the court is doing. >> that's just pose a couple questions, that's a subject of great interest today. you wrote in your book you worked for george w. bush in 2000 but you wrote in your book it was a disappointing presidency on both the northern policy and domestic policy. and that he took us down a path, i'm quoting you you now bigger government, excess i spending and entitlement. is jed bush the same or different. >> i'm sure they're different. i admire george w. bush. there are many things he did that were admirable none more so after 9/11 when he stood on the pile of rubble with a bull horn i was never prouder of the

president at that time. >> [indiscernible] >> jeb bush is someone i like or respect. i think he's done a good job as governor of florida. >> do you think he's conservative. >> i think the policy positions he's taking whether it's embracing amnesty or embracing common core are not conservative positions. i think they are in direct conflict with the views of most republicans. i think his views in the aftermath of the marriage decision it's the law of the land move on. that's word for word what barack obama said. >> let me try one more. marco rubio and ted cruz. you're both 44 years old. you are both first term senators. you both are the sons of a cube immigrant. his supporters say he has had more experience, he was speaker of the house that gives advantage marco. what's the advantage ted cruz has. >> i like and respect marco a great deal. in my book a time for truth i praise marco. in fact when i ran for senate there were really two political

races i modeled our campaign one over. one barack obama over hillary clinton and marco rubio's. first of all before i was in the senate i spend years as solicitor of texas. it's the chief lawyer of the state representing the state before the u.s. supreme court. >> you have that experience. >> i do. and i also have a record of fighting for conservative principals over and over again and winning on a national level. for example as solicitor general we defended the ten commandments and won dee fended the pledge of allegiance -- >> what's the difference. what are the factors between these two very similar people seemingly. >> well our records i think are actually quite different. you know, what i urge how can

primary voters is think of the dozen biggest battles of the last couple years. this is with respect to over candidate. >> are you more conservative than marco rubio. >> i would ask a different question than that. which is after the last dozen battle of the various candidates whos has stood up and led in any meaningful way. my list of the dozen i would say when have you stood and fought against obamacare. when have you stood against the death that's bankrupting our kids and grandkids, when have you stood against obama's unconstitutional amnesty. when have you defended free speech or libertiment where were on indiana which i think was a critical question. second amendment where were you when harry reid and president obama wanted the right to bare arms. >> senator cruz this is enjail. thank you very much for joining

us. thank you for joining us. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> big surprise netflix and dow component intel top earnings expectations and their stocks soar. riots on the street anti-austerity in athens on the same day the lawmakers vote on the controversial bailout deal. economic headaches? why the biggest fear millennials have could be a big problem for the u.s. economy. we'll tell you why in the final part of our millennials and money series tonight on "nightly business report." good evening. i'm sue herera. tyler mathisen is on assignment only the but we will hear from him later in the program. we begin tonight with earnings from intel