>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with a continuing discussion about the iranian nuclear deal, and we talk to ari shavit, an israeli columnist for harretz. >> if you come from mars and read this document you think iran is one of the leading seven, eight powers in the world. if irannians have managed to change -- their diplomatic brilliancy is incomprehensible. they managed to turn the process around in a way that it's like a totally legitimate discussion between the seven or eight powers and them and, as i said, they are more respected in this document. there is no sense of guilt of we've done something wrong or we're changing our ways, nothing. >> rose: we conclude with ian bremmer, president and founder

of the eurasia group. >> president obama has been arguing for the iran agreement on the face, on the terms of the actual nuclear deal and frankly, that's not a very good argument. it's a fairly weak deal doesn't get us a lot of what we want. they're likely to cheat. enforcement will be challenging. we talk about all of those things if you like. on the other side, the geopolitics of the deal are quite favorable for the united states and those aren't being argued by anyone at all. ian bremmer, next. >> 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 continuing coverage of the iran nuclear deal. the united nations security council unanimously endorsed the agreement and authorized the lifting of economic sanctions. u.s. secretary of defense ash carter arrived in israel sunday to meet with the country's leadership. prime minister benjamin netanyahu is one of the most vocal critics of the deal. received negatively by a broad spectrum of israelis from varied political backgrounds. ari shavit is a columnist for harretz, wrote "five reasons to worry about the iran deal," also the author of "my promise land, the trump and triumph of israel," a highly regarded book, out in paper backand will soon be an hbo documentary.

pleasure to have you at the table, ari shavit. >> pleased to be with you charlie. >> rose: you have in your hands what? >> the text that will transform the middle east, i think will shape the next decade and possibly the 21st century. >> rose: the 21st century. i think that this is the most important, dramatic document i've read in recent years and probably the most important document -- international document of recent decades. >> rose: why do you say that? look, a nuclear iran, i felt for a long time, is not an israel issue. that's where i disagree with my prime minister. nuclear iran would be a challenge to our civilization because it will make the middle east nuclear, it will destroy the world order and, long term, will endanger europe and america. >> rose: let me interrupt you just before you go on. is it because iran will threaten

the use of a nuclear weapon, or because nuclear proliferation will erupt in the region? >> i think that even if we have a guarantee, i think the iranians are too smart to throw a bomb at tel aviv. by having a nuclear weapon they will force saudi arabia and other gulf countries to have nuclear weapons. so you will have a multi-polar nuclear system in the world's most dangerous region and have potentially nuclear tariff erected by iran and next 9/11s will not be conventional. we will feel that in ten, twenty years, not now but that will be the implication. >> rose: if there are that many nuclear weapons by that many parties somebody with a nefarious mind will get control of one.

>> absolutely e greatest achievement of the international community in the last 70 years the greatest achievement of america -- and i'm such an admirer of america, i am much more pro american than most americans -- is the fact that we prevented the post-nagasaki disaster. we brought this nuclear demon into the world and controlled it in a remarkable way for 70 years. if this deal is right -- >> rose: the doctrine of mutually assured destruction worked. >> absolutely. if this deal is the right deal, great. but if there is a mistake, god forbid, here, the implication is this is over. so all this discussion about israel and about specifics and even about the american iranian relationship, all of this is pennies. the main thing, the main danger that, if this goes wrong the 21st century will be about

nuclear, this is the danger. >> rose: the president of the united states would argue that this is the best way, this document is the best way to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon and there is no alternative as likely to prevent them as this document. that's his argument. >> absolutely. so let me say two things. one, i have deep president for the president of the united states -- i have deep respect for the president of the united states. i think the values he represents are my values. i am totally with him in what he wants to achieve in the world. unlike some others who oppose him, i am totally with him in what he represents and what he stands for. >> rose: including his policy toward snirlz. >> we can get into it but i have no doubt he loves israel, he cares and wishes the best and he's a very able man, very intelligent. i have deep respect for him. the second thing which is

important for me to say here, that, as an israeli, when i come to america i have gratitude and respect, and the decision regarding this deal has to be an american decision and i will not do anything in order to intervene in this, unlike some of my countrymen. having said that, we israelis and some arabs live in the middle east, i think it's worthwhile to listen. perhaps we know something about the middle east. the challenge is how to take the obama values, which i cherish, and to implement them in a brutal, dangerous region that is so politically incorrect, this is the challenge, this is how we should begin to address this. >> rose: define the important dialogue to have, and you're right on target to suggest that's where our focus has to be. >> absolutely. and, therefore, i'm not saying there is a better alternative. i'm not saying the decision was

wrong. i want what i think is very important is to understand the implications. perhaps there is no better alternative. i am willing to get into that, but first of all let's see what we have here. and if i may, first the achievement. there are two achievements and there is a hope. one achievement is that the iranians have a very strong declaration that they will not pursue the nuclear weapons. it's an important declaration. i don't believe them, but it's an important declaration. the second achievement, which is dramatic, is that this deal, this agreement diffuses the old nuclear program of iran because the sites will be monitored, i have no doubt about it, the stockpiles will go down and the danger will be suspended. the president's hope, which i understand, is that change will come in iran before nuclearization. that, by doing this, you will unleash the constructive positive, free forces in iran

and you will have a new iran before we'll have nuclear arms. that's the positive side. what's the problem? one, this document in an incredible guy guarantees -- guarantees -- a future nuclear problem in iran. it does not only stop all the holes, it actually afirst afirst affirmatively says iran will be able to produce the sophisticated centrifuges that will make the old ones ridiculous. so from 2025-on we will have a vigorous, robust, new iranian nuclear program. that's number one. number two the danger is you will not have enough capability to control what's happening outside. the problems with verification

and control of others should the iranians go to breakout operation, will be hard to monitor. i don't think they will do it right away but later on they might try. the third problem that is as dramatic is the lifting of the sanctions is almost irreversible almost irreversible. what's so amazing about this text is that you totally crash the sanctions regime while you actually maintain the foundations of the nuclear infrastructure. i think there should not be symmetry altogether, but the symmetry goes the wrong way. sanctions are gone. as of today, as of the moment of the nuclear decision. but, on the other hand, the nuclear project is at the best suspended. it's definitely not crushed. >> rose: but what you are arguing is that the nuclear program, not as it has been, but as it might be, that is the crucial point.

>> the question we are to answer is do we want to live after 2025? and how do we want our children to live in 2035? the question is future versus the present. the present will be much rosier than the alternative, but the future is somber. >> rose: and there is unlikely to be over 10 or 15 years any change in the iranian leadership? >> there would could be, but it's a gamble. there could be. sanctions work in such a remarkable way there is an ability to have more sanctions for a longer period of time in order to get a better deal. when you have to strike a deal with the mafia -- sometimes you have to strike a deal with the mafia. you have to be very tough and remember it's the mafia. don't pretend it's mother theresa. i'll tell you what i think are the implications. >> rose: okay. i don't think the iranians will throw a bomb at israel or any other country soon.

but in the future, we will have a future nuclear arm race. one, too we will have an immediate conventional arm race which is already beginning. mr. carter is going to the middle east to deliver arms to everybody. so already the implication of the deal is a much more dangerous middle east. in this unstable region you will have much more sophisticated systems running free. iran is remarkable. my respect for the iranians, i think they are an evil regime, but i think my respect -- i love the iranian people, i deeply respect the iranian civilization, i hope they will get rid of the regime. what the iranians were able to do is remarkable. when they were nearly bankrupt, they built a military industrial complex that is one of the best in the world today. >> rose: wow. they are, today, like where israel was in the 1980s

1990s. they are about to manufacture satellites, accurate missiles, drones, you name it. they did it when they were nearly bankrupt. now, if you are going to inject $10 billion, $20 billion $30 billion into that activity you will have a conventional monster. hezbollah's budgets is about $1 billion. if now they have the ability to triple, quadruple that, you will have the return of strategic conventional danger in the middle east like we did not have in a long time. number two while they were an international pariah, the iranians took over indirectly or directly four arab capitals dnr bay rube, damascus baghdad. the glamour they will have in the region now with the victory the danger of them becoming a demonic regional power is imminent. the arab world sadly is so

weak, there is an arab chaos to unleash a tiger on steroids that will be able to walk around there is dramatic. the fourth point, and that's the last one is the fact that there was no demand for conversion. i am a positive person. i believe in change. i'm willing to take leaps of faith. but when you deal with a convict, you want to see conversion before he goes out. the fact that the deal itself does not respect -- leave aside israel -- the deal does not respect america. there is honor to iran here on every page. there is more respect here for the iranian and much less to the american congress. so how do you think if you do not any -- the supreme leader

talks about death to america. the you want a deal, you want conversion, if you want peace you need to be respected, you need to be honored, definitely in the middle east. look, some marriages go bad. but if the evening before the wedding one of the partners says about the other one that his death is legitimate, where will the wedding go? what can you expect of the future? >> rose: so,future? so there are achievements and good will here but this is 60 days of reckoning. it's a great opportunity for your great democracy to discuss it and think about the implications. >> if, in fact you believe everything you've said and if you've studied it as you have and know the middle east as well as you do, then your editorial position should be please american congress stop this deal. it should be.

>> we are at the crossroads where all the options are. this is basically -- it's not the end. it's the beginning. it's a new beginning, and stopping the deal where we are will have tremendous cost. i'm an israeli. i have no right to tell, to ask american senators and congressmen to make that decision. they have to make the decision themselves. >> rose: but you are a republican electoral and you have a right to say, look, i i'm saying the consequences of the deal are bad. >> what i say, is again, within the american-israeli relationship, i think our role is to be respectful, and i hope the people in washington and elsewhere throughout the world would listen to us would listen to israelis and many other people in the middle east. it's only an american decision.

because, either way, the prices can be very, very high, and it's not for me to make the decision. this is an american decision, it must be taken by americans, and i will not say anything about your political system and what's happening. i hear it's a wonderful system, but i -- >> rose: sometimes sometimes not. >> i hear that. >> rose: but at the same time you have to argue with the passion you do, you say this is the most interesting thing you've read in a long time. >> absolutely. >> rose: because it is what for you? >> it's a brilliant document. as i said, i think it's of dramatic consequences. and what's so striking about it look, if you come from mars and you read this document, you think that iran is one of the leading seven, eight powers in the world. the iranians have managed to change, and their diplomatic

brilliancy is uncomprehensible. they manage to turn the process around in a way it's like a totally legitimate discussion between the seven powers or eight powers and them, and as i said, they are more respected in this document, there is no sense of guilt, of we've done something wrong or we're changing our ways nothing. >> rose: you know who helped make iran in the perception of the world a power was israel. prime minister netanyahu has been talking about his primary worry has been iran. it's not the palestinians or his neighbors, it's iran. that has been the force of his rhetoric over the last four or five years correct? is that correct? >> i am much more free to discuss my prime minister than your president. mr. netanyahu, on the one hand needs the credit deserves the credit that he sees the problem. i think he's worth listening to.

his historical analysis is a good one. he made every mistake in the book by making it an israel issue, but being not friendly enough to the american president, by not paying in palestinian currency. had israel gone for a peace initiative, had israel been a clearly peace-loving, peace-searching country in the last years, if we would have had a much better relationship with the president everything would have been different. mr. netanyahu likes to compare himself to winston churchill. churchill knew he cannot win the battle without winning the heart of franklin delano roosevelt. and mr. netanyahu did not do that. so i think he's worth listening to. i think his analysis is, sadly pretty accurate. but he made many mistakes. by the way, everybody makes mistakes. the whole story over the last decade, many many mistakes were made, and now it's time for us to have a much more intelligent and serious conversation about it. >> rose: okay. i'm going to come to him in just

a moment. but the interesting thing is that the president will and does argue and it is his argument that is the principal argument in his administration and others, he will argue that mr. netanyahu, at the time of the framework deal, came to the united nations and came to america and said, oh, this is terrible and these are the things that will happen, and none happened. that's the argument president said, the prime minister made all the arguments and didn't come true, therefore, we shouldn't listen to the prime minister as if he has superhuman wisdom. >> he does not have superhuman wisdom. we should listen to everybody. i think some combined thinking and insights is what is called for. but let me talk about where mr. netanyahu and president obama succeeded.

the policy led by president obama in 2011 and 2012 with the harsh sanctions, harsh rhetorics and making it very clear to the iranians that he's tough, that changed iran, that brought it to the table. and i think that, if we would go -- if there's still an option, perhaps, it's not too late, to go back to that kind of attitude, of assertive diplomacy led by a person who represents the rest of america and the free world, saying to the people out there who have different ideas and different psyches and different approaches to life that we will not let them take over the middle east and endanger world stability. >> rose: the president says this is the best possible deal and way and there is no alternative as good as . this that's his argument.

his argument is this will stop iran from getting a nuclear weapon. you agree with that, over the next ten years correct? but things may happen. but let's assume where we are now. with the passion you have with the intelligence you have, with the experience you have and with the amount of energy you have applied to this, what is the alternative now, in your judgment? >> i think that, one, the first thing is not to have illusions. to understand where we are in this juncture both options are very, very problematic, and we will pay a price for both. i think that if there is any sort of option to have, this return of the diplomatic approach, while accepting it or after rejecting it, i think that's the only way to make sure that even what we don't have

here, what we don't have here is done out of this document. that the demand for an iranian conversion the demand that we will see a new dr. iran unleashes its power into the unstable middle east that's crucial because the alternative is, as i said long-term nuclear danger, not now because it's been suspended but we might have already short to medium-term conventional implications of a mistake if we god forbid, make a mistake. >> rose: in terms of what, syria? of -- >> i think the danger of iran taking over larger parts of the middle east and the danger of iran having through its proxies, such capabilities that

will endanger israel endanger saudi arabia, endanger others and the main danger, if i may say that, is not immediate nuclear war fair warfare but reactivation of conventional warfare in the middle east. now the iranians will be much more stronger conventionally and politically if the arabs and israel will arm themselves. these are all the ingredients of a strategic mess. so we might, god forbid, have the strategic hell later on with nuclear capabilities but right now we will have the mess we've seen in the last three or four years, this will not stabilize this, this will make the middle east much more chaotic and the world much more dangerous. >> rose: why do you think that the saudis and the emirates are not saying this with such vie hemmensvehemence as you are.

>> henry kissinger said the politics in the middle east is the most sophisticated than in any other region he's ever seen. many people in the middle east know how to want a say b and do c. we are very sophisticated at that. and we israelis tend to be the exact opposite. we are too direct, we are too loud. we say what we think, sometimes in a very blunt way. so i think that there is no doubt, and i know this for a fact, all of the arab leaders are terrified. but as they see iran as a potential winner as the rising power, they want to hedge. they don't -- >> rose: the saudis and the emirates want to hedge with respect to iran? >> no doubt about it. i think some of the statements

that you see that perhaps make some people feel better should actually make people more worried. because it is part -- the fundamental danger is if you have iran, because it's such an able nation, if it becomes the regional power before it becomes the benign iran that we all wish for, that's the major danger. so you already see signs here of this process where people are afraid of it and they are thinking perhaps this is the new ruler of the region and that endangers america's position in the region and obviously endangers the arab mod rats arab moderates and israel. >> rose: where are we in syria and money goes to hezbollah. >> i think this will enable the iranians to support president assad and hezbollah much more

than they did before. >> rose: do you think therefore, they will be less likely to try to find a transition or a negotiated agreement, even though it was said that the russians maybe were moving to that kind of stance? >> he's in deep trouble and he's very weak, but definitely he read this agreement as a great hope. perhaps he's too weak and cannot survive, but definitely this will enable the iranians to support him in a big way. the danger is -- >> rose: they have money. they money weapons. the iranian rockets and missiles have become so precise and so sophisticated, and they will have now the ability to fill the middle east. we already have 100000 rockets at our northern boredder. >> rose: because to have the iron shield, the iron dome? >> the iron shield will not be

good enough with these new dangers. israel will be exposed. what troubles me more is the danger that we will have a more unstable region with more sophisticated weapons, the result of which america's allies in the region will be much more in danger. >> rose: and you think iran is an evil regime? >> the present iranian regime is not only a threat to israel and saudi arabia and egypt it's a threat to the life-loving and freedom-loving iranians. and i think, in this sense so, again, this there is a chance -- say there is a 10% chance that the dynamics of this deal will make freedom for stronger in iran, i think it strengthens the regime so much, gives it so much credit, so much glamour, so much sense of success and so much

resources, the real hope for regime change in iran was based on the sanctions, on the fact the iranians had to choose between their prosperity and the regime, between prosperity and the nuclear project, i think they would have delayed, not given up, would have delayed the nuclear project for a generation and i think there would have been a chance of changing the regime. the result of the sanctions, it's president obama, as much as president obama and benjamin netanyahu don't like each other they have the great achievement of putting rouhani there through the sanction regime. but if this -- but if we are going now into a new kind of middle east, all bets are off. >> rose: my question for you is what is israel likely to do now? and if this deal goes through is it likely the israel from

prime minister will feel compelled to avert the horrors you suggested and do something to make sure it doesn't happen, if that's possible? >> first of all, let me say that even the lesser evil is evil. that's my point. that even if it's true that there is no better option, we have to realize what we're walking into. that's my point. and i wish that people in israel would be engaged in a dialogue with the president in a much more respectful and friendly way so we would look at this not in a kind of partisan way not with all this bad blood but look at the problem we all face and look for better solutions. talking for israel the major mistake, this is not about

israel. it has dramatic implications for israel, that's true, but the major mistake in the entire discussion for years was making it an israel issue. this is not about israel. it's about the middle east. it's about world order and long-term it's about america. so americans, i hope and pray, will take the right decisions that are good for america but good for the world and the free world while looking at the dangers we face and finding creative solutions. >> rose: well, clearly, it's imperative on the part of the president and others to take a look at the kinds of warnings you and others will make and say how do we make sure we avert that. great to have you here. >> thank you very much. >> rose: back in a moment. stay with us. ian bremmer is here. >> rose: we continue our conversation now about iran with ian bremmer. he is president of political

consulting firm eurasia group. i'm pleased to have him back on this program and thank him for sitting in for me while i was away. thank you. >> my pleasure. >> rose: let's begin with iran. you've said two things to me. one, you have a complicated relationship to it i.e., you look at it and see things many people would might know not see that coverage has not been as good as it might have been in explaining all the ramifications? >> i think that's true. i think part of it is because obama has been arguing for the iran agreement on its face, on the terms of the actual nuclear deal and frankly, that's not a very good argument. it's a fairly weak deal, doesn't get us a lot of what we want they're likely to cheat enforcement will be challenging and we can talk about all these things if you like, but on the other side the geopolitics of the deal are quite favorable for the united states, and those aren't being argued by the white house or by any people at all. >> rose: they can come later and you can do that later.

>> some of that comes soon. the geopolitics it's a question of oil right? it's a question of the regional balance, it's a question of iran opening up. >> rose: what's the connection between the deal and the geopolitics? >> well, one, when you actually are working with the iranian government, that means when the sanctions are removed, you're going to have another 1 million, roughly, barrels a day on the market by the end of 2016. that's unmitigated good for the u.s. economy, we ben git from significantly lower energy prices as to the consumer states all over the world. >> rose: don't lower energy prices hurt our emerging fracking industry? >> less than you think, actually. we're producing almost as much as we were at the peak now in part because just like gold producers in the united states, when prices go down, they're fairly efficient and quite competitor and so they find ways to become even more efficient. but, of course, the united states is not saudi arabia. we're not russia.

we're an incredibly be diversified economy and most is not about energy production, it's about energy con copings and our citizens will benefit from having lower prices. >> what will lower oil prices do for iran -- a iran, and saudi arabia and russia. >> the saudis and russia will take it on the chin. with oil prices around $50 a barrel over the course of one year with present budgetary projections, the saudis will burn through about one-sixth of their total reserves of cash. that's a lot. the saudis, of course, have a very rapidly expanding population, so it's hard for them to turn back and limit what they're expending in budget. their security environment in the region is getting much, much harder. the terrorism you now see in saudi arabia itself coming fro yemen, the challenges with the iraqi border, their need to

defend it as well as the need to continue to provide support and aid to a lot of countries and regimes in the region that are having their own challenges. egyptians, lebanon, jordan and such. so for those wondering if the iranians get a nuclear ierns race the saudis will build, the saudis won't be in an economic position to do an arms race and the russians will be under much more pressure going forward if oil prices are lower. venezuela, saudi arabia russia they're countries the united states doesn't want necessarily to see lining their pockets and there is no question we don't want to see iran doing that. >> rose: one benefit is lower oil prices from the nuclear deal. >> that's right. >> rose: what others? there are three. one is the fact that we have been working on this deal a long time. the united states has not had an enormous amount of diplomatic credibility on big multi-lateral

deals over the past years, certainly not in the middle east. yet now we have a deal that we've led. we led the sanctions. we led the coalition and the negotiations. it was john kerry that was there over weeks focusing almost moniacally on iran. and we did that with the french and brits and canadians. >> rose: the president argues that it might be troubled with the allies. >> the third which is important is that you've spoken, obviously, to many israeli leaders, pretty much all of them and they're not happy.

but, you know the gulf states, listen to the gulf state and they've come out either assertively in favor of the deal, and even the saudis said we always said we wanted an agreement with the p5+1 and iran and we'll look carefully at this. >> rose: didn't the king of saudi arabia say he had concerns? >> they said they had reservations and want to study it carefully. that's a radically different perspective than you get from netanyahu and, furthermore, other gulf arab states like the qataris immediately embraced and welcomed the deal. the saudis realized iran gets stronger and that's a problem for saudi arabia with everything in the region, a problem in iraq, problem in yemen with the iranians supporting the houthis, a problem for syria. you name it the iranians and saudis are on alternate sides.

but in terms of the other gulf arab states, even a country like pakistan, they will see the iranian deal and say we're now going to work with both countries. we're going to hedge. we would like to do business with both. we don't want to be just a part of coalition of sunni arab monarchies, we want more flexibility, and that the going to be a plus for the united states. that's geopolitically absolutely beneficial for us. >> rose: we need the geopolitical relationships. >> that's right. >> rose: what p president and others hope will come out of this is a better relationship with iran. >> yes. >> rose: and some capacity to ameliorate their behavior. >> yes. >> rose: is it likely? a better relationship with iran is more likely. more capability to regulate their behavior is not more likely. >> rose: more leverage. i don't think their behavior will change much in the near term, but i do think that when you open iran -- so jeb bush today came out and said that we

criticized obama for rushing to open an embassy in cuba. after 55 years, i don't know what rush was jeb was talking about. but he's from florida and marco rubio have the cuban population, so they're doing that. (laughter) but the point is now that we're opening an embassy -- i know it's silly, but it's politics. now we'll be traveling to cuba, the place is going to open up, and it's much more likely that the cuban government is going to start becoming more either engaged with the americans or will atly fall. >> rose: and the big question is would the castro brothers being as old as they are what happens after them. >> i will be much more willing to bet it will be a government far more receptive to working with the americans than if we had 60 years of sanctions with the cubans. with iran, it's the same story. you know iran is a dynamic culture in civilization. it's very educated. women play a very large role in

society. they have about 80 million people in their economy. >> rose: more politically involved. >> also, it's not a petro state. these people manufacture cars, not well because of the sanctions, but they do. 30% of their industry is shuttered. they will see more oil and gas and economy. the wealth won't be just controlled by the regime -- >> rose: i see where the ayatollah said it's okay with him, this deal is okay, he did not oppose it. >> he said that and he said this deal would not change his relationship with the united states, and he's playing hard line. there are still people that still dmon strait and say death to america, and certainly the iranian regime has not become a friend to america overnight because of this deal, but if you ask me five years in, are the iranians going to be significantly more close to the

united states because of the demographic and economic changes that occur as a result of the deal, the answer is yes. >> rose: there are those who speculate we'll be closer to iran in five years than saudi arabia. >> i have speculated that yes. but, thank you charlie, i appreciate that. >> rose: i didn't know whether you wanted to own up or not. >> i own it. >> rose: closer to iran than saudi arabia in five years. >> i believe that. >> rose: what does that mean for saudi arabia? >> bad things for saudi arabia. if i were advising the obama administration now advising ash carter in the region now i would be saying on the one hand the saudis feel vulnerable, economy going to hell and worried about the u.s. relationship, on the other hand because you have the pakistan closer to the saudis because you have qua tarries that don't want to be on the side of vaibz the americans can say let's work more closely with you in a way

that's more sustainable. the saudis just a few days ago, i think two days ago, announced they arrested some almost 450 -- >> rose: it was a grand sweep. -- grand sweep of individuals they said were connected directly to isles i.s.i.l and i.s.i.s. -- >> there are more terrorist acts around the world. >> that's right. and i think that including iran deal creates a saudi arabia that should be more receptive in working with the americans that is more sustainable. >> rose: is there a depp connection between the intelligence agencies between saudi arabia and the united states? >> of course, and that won't go away. but there also was a deep and abiding interest to connect the american energy demand with the saudi energy supply. that has gone away. there had been --

>> rose: because we found another supply. >> because we found another supply right here and there's a lot of concern that the saudis are not going to be reforming their economy the way they were, the way king abdullah had been focusing. there's a lot of concern the saudis have not been willing to stand up and say we're going to do something because we have many mullahs, many clerk that are proselytizing extremist ideologies that are support ago lot of young men part of i.s.i.s. if the saudis have gotten this joke today, it's a little late. so i believe the americans and saudis can maintain a workable relationship, but i absolutely believe opening up towards iran gives the americans more leverage with the saudis and i think we should use it. >> rose: that might include lessening their influence or support of hezbollah? >> the iranian support of hezbollah? that's the real question. >> rose soldiers in syria

and other places. >> the fact the iranians will going to have $100 billion made available to them, unfrozen their own assets right after the deal is in effect and that you can't snap back that 100 billion, i'm sure that somebody will find its way -- >> rose: i think even the administration realizes a significant portion in the beginning will go to that. >> yes. >> rose: no one assumes that $100 billion is not going to be used to support their own activities around the world and especially in yemen and especially in syria. >> ann maloney, a strong expert on iran, i said, don't you think iranians will misbehave when they have that you will cash and she said, no, i don't believe so. >> rose: he alluded to it himself. >> the reason i'm saying is most of what we have been talking about is why i think the deal is a good deal for the u.s., but i

have to recognize, i mean i'm not just in the tank for this deal. i think there are problems with it. i personally don't think the iranians are gagging to have a nuclear weapon tomorrow. i think they wanted credible strategic ambiguity, they were getting closer and that gave them more leverage, but i also think the existence of this interim deal for a longer period of time was not bad for the u.s. and i think we signed this deal too quickly. >> rose: really? eally. i think the iranian government across the board completely upped that the best deal they were ever going to get signed and implemented, was under obama and kerry. they knew that that. they knew anyone else that's likely to become president in 2017 would have a much more significant challenge -- >> rose: including if hillary clinton wins the election she will be much more tougher on the iranians than obama. >> i think so, i believe that especially because implementation including the whole congress back and forth was going to take a total of about eight months.

that meant that as we got closer to 2 *bgs-minus eight months of obama's presidency the iranians would be under more pressure. so absolutely believe that the obama administration should not have been gagging for rushing for getting this thing signed. >> rose: therefore you suggest that your perception of where iran is closer than people including the energy secretary including the secretary of state, including a range of people from intelligence and other sources have weighted in on this. in other words, you're saying our team vastly misper sieved the negotiating tact of the iranians? >> i'm sympathetic to kerry on this. the guy was in there for weeks in vienna, longer than any secretary of state open any issue since, i think george schultz back in '83. when you are spending, you know

20-hour days sometimes, working only on a 150-page document, you get so monomaniacal about it, you know, it's hard to take a step back and think bigger picture. >> rose: and would have been wet better because the arms barringo would not have been tampered with? >> i think the arms embargo is a real problem and i think the fact the russian bs came out fairly late in the process and unilaterally, publicly split from the united states which they haven't done before and said we actually think that the rev occasion of the arms embargo needs to happen and the russians undermined the u.s. -- >> rose: we had ben rhodes and the president of the nate and united states and they said russia was very helpful. >> there's a lot going on there. the americans are trying to find ways to not only talk about ukraine -- >> rose: so they weren't help snfl. >> the russians were 90% helpful

until the last week or so. >> rose: 90-10. absolutely, because they saw the americans were close to a deal and said, a harks we could get something -- a ha, we could get something we want. i think it would have been smarter for obama and kerry to say, we've missed three deadlines, we can miss a fourth. there are those in negotiations that said kerry was close that wanted to do a deal on previous tuesday-friday and was was reined in by the white house. i happen to think closing this iran deal, is after the trans-pacific partnership, the most positive thing obama administration has accomplished in the last six and a half years. i am a supporter. i've given you reasons geopolitically why it works. >> rose: it's not a perfect deal. >> but the composition of the nuclear deal on a scale of 1-10

i would give a 3 or 4. it was an incredibly hard negotiation. a lot of things were hard. we needed to have taken longer and we could have gotten more. at the end of the day the americans drove the negotiations process, but the implementation will be driven by the p5+1. >> rose: i think the iranians were very much wanted a deal and were driving the deal, too and they didn't want to give up either because sanctions were hurting them. >> we give credit for that. >> rose: and deserve credit for the fact they made a deal at all. >> if i'm giving a five-minute sound byte on iran we don't have to get into this, but if i'm coming on your show and we're saying do these guys deserve an a or not and i'm giving them a b-plus b-minus on this iran deal, i have to talk about how we could have got an better deal and the reason is because the obama administration has to sell this deal

domestically for the g.o.p. and the next 60 days all the republicans will say is how this is a horrible deal and obama is not going to be talking about all the geopolitical things that are favorable for the u.s. he'll focus mostly on the merits of the deals. i've spent the last several days talking to democrats and republicans. a lot of d.p.s. felt insecure about saying you know we at a time the iranian regime and know it's not the best possible deal but let's talk about why we have to do it. i think this will be acrimonious and almost every republican will vote against it and that could have been mitt gaiftd by the united states taking a longer period of time and as the leverage not only from the sanctions but the iranian dangers that even if obama signed it it would have been implemented. >> rose: deals like that are never perfect e. i've never seen

anybody walking away from a deal and say i got everything i wanted. negotiations are about finding some exxon ground to move forward in which you are not losing. >> my concern is that the iranians are walking away from this nuclear deal feeling better about the deal they got than we are. i would say that. >> rose: may be true. certainly not better than the administration feels. >> that may well be the case. >> rose: turning to the greeks. what's going on over there? >> when you and i last talked about a greece, and we had a few people here saying there was no way they were going to stay in, i think that was clear that wasn't the kay, the deal happened and in part because tsipras was able to build a mandate for himself in greece and make it clear to merkel that if a deal didn't happen she was going to be blamed for the disintegration or the removal of one member of the eurozone. >> rose: but -- so he had a

"no" vote which was an affirmation of what he had campaigned for reject this offer. >> yes. >> rose: my impression is he took the offer. >> he took the offer but with an unexplicit understanding that that had to come with a level of debt restructuring from the germans and the europeans. whether or not they will actually get there is an open question. there's a nominal agreement on deal and merkel has come out publicly in the last 24 hours and said, well, there will be no haircut, but we are willing to talking about making the interest lates lower or extending out the date of required repayment for the grex by swy not where she or her government was before tsipras had his referendum. so from that perspective, he had a political victory. but the economics of grease will not be fixed by the negotiations we're having now. their debt is unsustainable.

this is a debt issue. >> rose: what do they have to do? >> what the greeks have signed up for includes a raft of labor and pension reforms. it's very significant increases in taxes on just about everything which really hurt both their consumer and tourism sector. it is the privatization of some 50 billion euros of greek assets that will have to go into a fund and deal with their debt. that implementation, there are very few economists that believe it's going to happen. so the terms that they have agreed to, they probably can't get done. meanwhile, the i.m.f. has come out with a report the europeans knew well about and said no bailout, no additional bailout can be made unless there is a reduction in debt. >> rose: how was it christine lagarde became the best friend of prime minister tsipras?

>> she didn't. this report had come out weeks before but wasn't given to the public. she's not a public diplomat. it's given to the europeans, the americans. and the response to the i.m.f. private report on the part of the europeans is we don't agree and we're going to view this as an adverse scenario, right? this is the baseline that the best economists in the world are coming up with and the europeans say this was an adverse scenario. it was the realistic scenario for what actually was going to happen. i think the reason the report came out at the end is it was obvious that people needed to understand, if greece -- if there wasn't going to be a deal you had to have some level of debt forgiveness. going forward, the germans were on the hook with the i.m.f. that

if they don't deal with the debt, there is no bailout. so i see two things that are very hard to get done both of which will scuttle what we had in the last week. >> rose: ian bremmer, eurasia group. thank you for joining us. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

every single bite needed to be tasted. >> wow. >> it's like a great big hug. >> my parents put chili powder in my baby food. >> everywhere all over the table. >> my stomach is g