the middle east in turmoil. a high stakes crisis for president obama. from war in gaza to the threat from iran, this morning i'll ask former u.s. middle east envoy what a potential ground invasion for gaza means for the future. my exclusive interview in vienna, with iran's foreign minister. his tough words for israel and resistance to u.s. demands in crucial nuclear talks. he insists iran will not dismantle nuclear capacity because it has no interest in making the bomb. back home to politics of the immigration crisis. can the president find agreement with republicans to stop the flow of illegal immigrants.

>> announcer: from nbc news in washington, this is "meet the press" with david gregory. >> good morning. israel is stepping up its attacks on gaza despite international pressure for a cease-fire, ground invasion as israel sends ground troops into gaza and warns residents to evacuate homes. palestinian authorities say people have been killed. air raids as far north as tel aviv sounding as hamas continues to launch rockets into the country causing damage and injuries but no deaths. i'm joined in the first television interview since stepping down last month's as obama administration u.s. emboy. he served as american ambassador during the clinton administration. martin, nice to see you. thanks for being here. what's next. what is the ground invasion? is it to stop hamas ground fire. >> extremely reluctant to go in order ground.

doesn't see how this can serve israel's purposes. what he wants is an end to rocket fire and looking for ways to press hamas to do that pushing them out of the northern parts of gaza to try to put pressure on hamas from the civilian population and give him room to clean up the rocket firing launches. but he's very cautious man when it comes to using force. i think he's very reluctant to go in. in a scene hamas knows that. the bluff of mobilizing all of these tanks is not working in terms of getting hamas to stop firing. >> the backdrop is a horrible breakdown of the peace process you were in the middle of and tried at the behest of secretary kerry and president obama. now you have an unraveled situation that unravels further. what does american leadership have to look like now. is it to press for cease-fire,

to constrain israel or what? >> yes, to press for a cease-fire. i don't think it's a problem on the israel side, the problem is on the hamas side a soois fire. they are looking for something to claim as a victory and looking for someone to pay salaries of hamas people in gaza because they have been cut off by natural source of revenues by egyptians. the whole question is how do you leverage hamas. i think president obama and isn't kerry want very much a cease-fire and are willing to do what they can to achieve that. until hamas decides it will call off the rocket fire, it's hard to see how this comes to an end. >> there's probably an agreement among israel, even the palestinian leadership is important for people to understand president abbas, egypt as well, they would like hamas to go and maybe a chance for peace between israel and the palestinians. what does it take to get that to happen? >> i think you're right. there's a strange confluence of

agreement that hamas is the problem for egypt and passing authority under mahmoud abbas and israel. but to actually change things, take control away from hamas, gaza, would require a major ground operation by right lane, clean out hamas with its 20,000 militia and all of those rockets and then, perhaps, have u.n. come in and take control and hand over to the palestinian authority. that kind of stirring up of the status quo with all of the costs involved is something that notwithstanding a confluence of interest none of the parties are willing to. >> less than a minute now. you said fundamental lack of trust and bad blood between the israeli leaders caused the peace process to break down. what did you mean? >> beyond that what we can see is all those factors. but essentially what we discovered is secretary kerry strongly believed the status quo

is unattainable. he's been proven right again here today. what we discovered was the status quo was actually sustainable for the two leaders more than for us. that's why we really couldn't achieve a breakthrough. that's what we're seeing at the moment again. maintaining the status quo is less costly in terms of political risk and in this case loss of life than really shaking it up and making peace. the problem with that situation becomes a chronic situation in which a preference for the status quo leaves a vacuum that's filled by extremists and violence. then the parties try to clamp some stability back on, but there's no fundamental breakthrough to the kind of risky, costly decisions necessary to achieve peace. we're ready to do that when they are ready but we can't do it without them being ready for it. >> thank you so much for your perspective this morning. very interesting, you think they will be restrained on the part of israeli ground invasion to

tensionally into gaza. martin, thank you so much. i want to turn to more foreign policy challenges facing president obama. israel on the brink, as we discussed, with hamas. isis terrorists control iraq and syria the threat from iran, is it pursuing nuclear weapons? this morning secretary of state john kerry arrived in vienna to take part in high level talks aimed at forcing iran to abandon its nuclear program. he says chances remain slim for a deal. i travel to vienna for a wide ranging interview with iran's foreign minister zarif. i started by asking the foreign minister why iran was determined to keep its extensive nuclear capacity if it claims it doesn't want a nuclear bomb. >> actually, i think what we have said should give confidence to people we are not looking for nuclear weapons. we have said our entire nuclear energy program can fit in a very

clear and well-defined picture. that is, we want to produce fuel for our own nuclear reactor, nuclear power reactor. we have a contract that provides us fuel for that reactor. but that contract expires in seven, eight years. >> but re-upping that is not a problem, as the americans have told you. >> actually, it's more complicated than you think. the united states built a reactor for us in the 1950s. and for the past 20 years, we've been searching all over the world for fuel for that reactor. the united states has not only not provided the fuel itself but has prevented others from providing fuel from iran, to the point three or four years ago we had to announce if you're not giving us 20% of fuel for the american built reactor in tehran, we have to produce it

our self. it's not that we couldn't do it. we did it and now it's running on fuel. we want to make sure nobody is concerned about iran's nuclear point. >> to that point if that's what you want to do, it's important our audience understands when we talk about centrifuges and nuclear power, centrifuges is how you enrich uranium. enriching uranium ultimately makes nuclear weapons, at a certain speed. if you really want to say to the international community, we don't want a nuclear weapon, are you prepared to dismantle a good portion of the nuclear capacity, the center of centrifuges you now have. >> i don't think it would do the job. as somebody who worked all his life for nuclear nonproliferation, i can tell you the way to make sure iran will never break out allow an internationally monitored nuclear program. we have the technology. we have the know how.

we have the equipment. so the only way realistically to deal with this is to have a genuinely peaceful program that can be worked in a transparent fashion without the need for imposing arbitrary restrictions. >> minister, with respect, the international community is divided about a lot of things. they are actually not divided about one thing. they think iran is up to no good and wants to build a nuclear weapon. why not say definitively that you will eliminate the bulk of your capacity, the bulk of your centrifuges to say to the world, we really won't build a weapon. >> the international community. the day i went to five plus one or e 3 plus 3 in new york, they said present to the international community. i said i'm coming from chairing 120 countries where iran is the chairman and they support us. they believe actually 180 some

members believe and they repeatedly said in 1990 and 2010 that a country's choices of their fuel cycle should be respected. so it's not the international community. it's a few countries who have concerns. and we are talking to them in order to address those concerns. but those concerns are international criteria, in order to address those concerns. we have given them opportunities to find resolutions, realistic resolutions, in order to address those concerns. one of those is to phase, as the leader pointed out, that we don't need this capacity tomorrow. we can produce this capacity over a length of time. we are prepared to work with 5 plus 1, with members of the 5 plus 1, with others in order to make sure the confidence is created. >> you won't commit to a specific number of centrifuges. another way of saying that is you won't commit to dismantling the bulk of your capacity?

>> i will commit to everything and anything that would provide credible assurances from the international community that iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, because we are not. we don't see any benefit in iran developing a nuclear weapon. >> how could you not see a benefit. you're a shia state surrounded by sunni states, many of whom are your enemies. you know full well the deterrent factor a nuclear country like pakistan can wield in the international community. you can have more influence regionally. sin ins will say why wouldn't you want an international weapon. >> all this is wrong. in fact, we need to go out of our way in order to convince our neighbors that we want to live in peace and tranquility with them, because the politics of geography, the fact that we're bigger, the fact that we're stronger, the fact we're more popular, the fact we have a

better technology, the fact that our human resources is by far more developed than most of our neighbors, all of this have inherent areas of strength we don't need to augment with other capabilities. >> if that's the case -- >> that is what nobody considers. our neighbors in pakistan, as a stronger force in the region than iran simply because they have nuclear weapons. in fact, i believe nuclear weapons reduces country's influence in our region. it doesn't help anybody. the fact that everybody in the international community believes that mutual assured destruction, that is the way the united states, russia and others seek peace and security through having the possibility destroying each other 100 times over is simply mad. that is why i do not believe you need to inculcate this mentality you think will make everybody

safe. have they made pakistan safe? have they made israel safe? have they made united states safe? have they made russia safe? all these countries are susceptible, 9/11 is proof, no amount of military power makes you safe. so we need to lifr in a different paradigm and that's what we're calling for. >> let me ask you about a couple of other areas and i'd like to return to this in the end. lets talk about the war in gaza. iran supported hamas in the past. rockets fired into israel, israel believes were provided by iran. how do you see this situation playing out? >> it is extremely regrettable people are being killed. hundreds of innocent men, women, and children have been slaughtered, almost 100 people have been killed, over 500 wounded in gaza, and the united states is not taking any action. we know that all the weapons that are used by israel in order to attack civilians in gaza have been provided by the united

states and we don't see any move by the united states to condemn that. >> what about hamas firing rockets into the country of israel. >> to use the security council in order to put an end to this. we call for an immediate end to all these activities. >> you condemn hamas? >> we do not condemn people who are defending themselves. we believe that actions that are putting civilians in jeopardy in gaza that have placed restrictions on civilians to get access to medicine, to food, have tried to starve civilians in gaza, need to be vehemently condemned by the international commune, united states and members of security council have a moral and legal responsibility to put an end to this. we regret they have not taken any action in order to deal with this. >> more of my exclusive interview later in the program as foreign minister zarif talks about iran in iraq and the

threat from isis in our region. now i want to turn to the politics of the immigration crisis. a big story in washington. thousands of unaccompanied children continue to cross u.s. border. the president pressuring congress to help him fix the problem requesting $3.7 billion in emergency funds. i've got two key members of congress to talk about this. first here with me republican congressman mike rogers from michigan, chair of the house intelligence committee. chairman, it's good to have you here. what is working with the president here look like to find a solution? >> obviously when this happened, certainly appears most of the parties have gone to their mutual corners, if you will. we've got to get through that. more importantly, the president has tools in his toolbox that he can do immediately to stop this. dianne feinstein, co-author of the bill who allowed for these folks not from mexico or canada that brings minors into the country not be deported right away. there's circumstances and she believes as the co-author, that would allow them to immediately

and responsibly get these children back to their home countries. that's where the president needs to start. he needs to reengage, get folks doing administrative work on the border. they need to make sure they send a clear signal. this is an interesting thing, a bipartisan issue. hillary clinton says if you want to stop this, send them back, let them know don't put in the criminal pipeline. certainly dianne feinstein thinks there's a way for the president -- >> the majority of them have to go back home is your point? >> think about what we're doing. this isn't a walk in the park to get from fl salvador, honduras into the united states. these are criminal gangs. these kids subject to sexual exploitation, drug exposure. some are being recruited or pressed into gangs along the way. we're losing these kids along the way. imagine the experience when they get here -- >> why turn them away? do you come up with a process to safely return them? >> we can safely get them home. the problem is by encouraging the behavior you see and not

stopping this attitude. >> is that fair to say the president is somehow encouraging them to come? >> the policy on the border is certainly encouraging this behavior. if i believe and i'm in el salvador or somewhere else that i can pay a criminal gang through some dangerous circumstances to get to the united states and they are going to open up with loving arms to keep those kids, you're encouraging that behavior. >> state law, right? >> no, i disagree. even dianne feinstein, democrat from california said that's not right. that's a wrong interpretation of his authority to get those kids back home safely and humanely. all our energy is on this. all the border folks are trying to figure this out and how to put them around the rest of the country. that time, energy is better spent trying to get them back home. it's better for the children. you don't want kids exposed to this sex trafficking, drug use. again, some of those kids are being recruited for gang use,

press gang-type activities in these criminal organizations all en route up to the united states. >> do you lament -- you're going to be leaving politics. do you lament republican party stand on immigration reform, on an unwillingness to come together to find some path to -- a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants here to somehow fix some of these problems? >> to say this is a republican problem is wrong. >> republican political problem. >> democrats have the same problem. i think there's a way to move forward on this that's responsible. most americans, off the charts, secure the border first. think of this, this is a problem we talked about. this certainly has serious consequences. by the way, the public health security problem is growing. we're going to have the highest number of measles case that we have in over a decade. 97% of those cases have been imported. so you have a national security problem, a public health problem. we have from 10 countries of interest afghans, pakistanis, saudis, other places, sudan,

somalia, iraq, iran, we know that those individuals are using the southern border to infiltrate the united states. that is a serious national security issue. while all of our focus has been on this, guess what, they are taking advantage of the opportunity. >> we'll watch that as well. chairman rogers, always good to have your views. thank you so much for being here. let me turn to the democrats. castro from texas joins me now. you're from texas. your governor, governor perry, has been in the news a lot. back in 2012, he wrote the administration and said we have an influx of illegal immigrants trying to get into the bored. why didn't the administration do a better job of heading this off before it got to this point? >> the fact is, david, that the administration has been trying to work with congress to pass an immigration reform bill for over two years. so it's been folks in congress and specifically in the house of representatives, who have not moved forward on a bill that would have helped us prevent some of the things we're seeing on the border now.

>> you've got democrats saying now, additional money, changes to the law, is not what they want. there are democrats feeling pressure from immigration reform folks on the left saying you can't deport these people. that is not the humane thing to do. >> well, that's because that 2008 law, passed under george w. bush, was passed for a reason. the problems with sex trafficking are real. also, david, because many people believe these kids should have a chance to make their case for asylum. i think we've got to be careful when we consider completely doing away with that law. >> you don't support what the president is saying here, which is the majority -- even the children need to be deported? >> well, i think -- those are decisions for an immigration judge to make, not for the president or myself or any member of congress. that's a decision the judge will make. but the point is these folks need to be given a chance to

raise their case. it raises the question, who do we consider to be a refugee in america in the 21st century. that's a very tough question for us and tugs at our conscious. >> even democrats said this is a katrina moment for president obama, that it has not been handled well, wasn't anticipated well, hasn't been handled competently. do you agree? >> no. the fact is, this was not the president's last opportunity to get to the border. i think you will see him go down there. i think it's important for him to get down there at some point, to let people know he personally is attending the situation. jeh johnson has been down there five or six times. he's keeping the president apprised of everything. also, david, to say thank you to the people of texas who have offered food, clothing, shelter, everything that they can to these kids to be helpful. >> congressman castro, we're going to leave it there. thank you so much for your time.

>> thank you. coming up next, our political roundtable, debates already scorching political summer in washington. we've been talking about the issue, foreign policy troubles, immigration debate, even republicans suing the president. >> he's been president for 5 1/2 years when is going to take responsibility for something. >> best thing you can say is they haven't shut down the government so far. it's estimated that 30% of the traffic in a city is caused by people looking for parking. that's remarkable that so much energy is, is wasted. streetline has looked at the problem of parking, which has not been looked at for the last 30, 40 years. we wanted to rethink that whole industry, so we go and put out these sensors in each parking spot and then there's a mesh network that takes this information, sends it over the internet so you can go find exactly where those open parking spots are.

the collaboration with citi was important for providing us the necessary financing; allow this small start up to go provide a service to municipalities. citi has been an incredible source of advice, how to engage with municipalities, how to structure deals, and as we think about internationally citi is there every step of the way. so the end result is you reduce congestion, you reduce pollution and you provide a service to merchants, and that certainly is huge.

lebron james announces he'll be coming home. stuart! stuart!

stuart! stuart! ♪ check it out. this my account thing. we can tweet directly toa comcast expert for help.

or we can select a time for them to call us back. the future, right? ♪ this doesn't do it for you? [ doorbell rings, dog barks ] oh, that's what blows your mind -- the advanced technology of a doorbell.. [ male announcer ] tweet an expert and schedule a callback from any device. introducing the xfinity my account app. [ female announcer ] f provokes lust. ♪ it elicits pride... incites envy... ♪ ...and unleashes wrath. ♪ temptation comes in many heart-pounding forms. but only one letter. "f". the performance marque from lexus.

welcome back. at a time when washington is getting very little done and economic recovery seems uneven, cleveland, ohio, may be america's new comeback kid. lebron james is returning, you might have heard, and the gop is heading there for its 2016 twengs. this morning on meeting america kevin tibbles asks how cleveland is beating the odds. >> reporter: happy days appear to be here again for a city once the butt of america's jokes. the triumphant return of lebron james is just another sign brawny blue-collar cleveland is coming back. steel mills flex their muscles.

global giant has 2,000 employees and is hiring more. mike trains them. >> i saw my dad coming down here. every since i was little i wanted to come down there. provided for my parents, put five of us through college. i hope it does the same for me and my family. >> reporter: you can't build a city without beer says patrick conway. he along with his brother owns great lakes brewery. it's a modern environmentally sustained facility that is also expanding, located next to lake erie's freshwater. makes sense. >> over 90% of beer is water. or in the case of bud light, 99%. >> restaurants and bars line streets that just a few years ago were derelict and dangerous. it is a cleveland in renaissance, driven by health care and manufacturing, the republican convention will visit in 2016. >> the republican party felt, why don't we be part of a city

on the upswing. >> still, there is a ways to go. the slavic village neighborhood was devastated by the foreclosure crisis and many of the scars remain. here, too, new building and hope. >> are you glad you fought for this community? >> absolutely. i wouldn't trade living here for anything. >> kristin and her family stuck it out. >> everyone goes through something negative in your life. it's what you do with that diversity that makes you or breaks you. >> as for cavaliers, time to kiss and make up. >> a bad breakup. cleveland is for giving. whatever is best for the cavs, whatever is best for cleveland, that's what we're going to do. >> the king is back. long live the king and his town. for "meet the press," kevin tibbles. >> the roundtable is here rick santorum, 2012 republican presidential candidate, senator

from pennsylvania. democratic governor from michigan, kim extrasel, editorial board member of the "wall street journal." first time, detroit free press, winner of the pulitzer prize. welcome. >> thank you. >> here is the big political question, rick santorum. if you're a candidate in 2016 and you go to the convention in cleveland, do you praise lebron for making a good political move here? >> i'm a pittsburgher, cleveland and pittsburgh tough rivalries, like sibling rival rice. just like a sibling, when your brother does well, you're proud. i'm excited for cleveland. a good blue-collar town. >> just the fact he said i'm going to go back there and talk about hard work and contribute to my community, those are all very positive things. a lot of good mojo. >> i worked here in washington for five years and went home to detroit where my work could matter more. lebron is doing the same thing. >> the prodigal son.

>> unfair swipe at bud light, which is my favorite. jennifer granholm, let me ask you about these challenges the president is facing on immigration. here he is, he loses the shot at getting immigration reform. now this border crisis and getting a lot of heat from those in his own party but doesn't look like he's engaged enough. doesn't look like he's done on the border. >> what's going to result in policy, republicans in the house actually giving him what he's asking for, which is really what everyone is asking for. they want a quick due process. they want to be able to deport those who are appropriate quickly. they want to be able to make sure people are treated humanely so we don't look like the poster child of some third world country refugee camp. they want to make sure there is a message sent to central america if you send your kids here, the borders aren't open. all five of those things

democrats and republicans want. >> what's holding it up, kim. >> the president here, people talking about the photo-op, the mistakes were made earlier in this. he has really set back the cause of immigration reform in this way. the republicans, a bit of a phony excuse saying the border is not secure, border not sure, presidential action on daca, it has inspired a lot of people to run up to the border now. it's given republicans an additional reason to say this is why we cannot do reform. they bear responsibility for not taking a vote on this as well. if the president really cares about immigration reform, some of his executive actions in the past have really helped deter this. >> it seems to me, rick santorum, part of this is what kind of country do we want to be. have you a lot of tension about circumstances some children are going to get here and why they want to be here versus people in communities on the border and beyond saying we can't absorb all of these folks. >> first up, i disagree with

kim. the border isn't secure. it's obviously not secure. the idea the republicans have this phony thing it's not secure, it's not phony. >> the kids are coming up and saying take me into detention. >> that's because we have a president who says, if you come, you're going to be able to stay because we're not going to enforce the law. >> he did not say that. >> answer that point. they obviously push back hard on that. >> i think what the president is saying is for people who know no other country than this one, this should be home and should not be sent away. that's not the same as inviting. >> you say no other country. they came here illegally so they obviously knew another country. they didn't say decades, they said here. once they are here, they will be here, children from other countries. that was the message sent, obviously the message sent because you have tens of thousands of kids coming. >> a bigger picture here about a country, the sons and daughters of immigrants. >> i am. >> sitting around this table,

yourself included, saying to other people who want no more or less than what your familyh the opportunity to be a part of the greatest nation on earth. we're saying to them with our broader policy we're not going to welcome you anymore. >> first of all, we're accepting more legal immigrants, whole same immigration, the very countries they are coming from. most immigration is tied to people who are already here. >> let me get into just as the president wants some action on this with congress, we've got the specter of congress suing the president, talk of impeachment that boehner struck down. this had now become a huge fundraising opportunity on both sides, kim, to what end are we seeing this? >> there's been a lot of talk whether or not john boehner did this to gin up his base this fall. that's unfair if you look at the suit they are putting together, there's been a lot of attention and focus doing a very legally specific way. there's a huge believe among

republicans that, in fact, the president has been exceeding his authority. they are going to do this in a very narrow way. they are going to look at this particular question of the employer mandate. the fact the law very clearly said it had to go into effect and the president unilaterally changed that. there's a lot of substance behind this. >> if presidents that were taking these steps on the affordable care act, democrats would be crying foul. >> except george bush took these very steps when he passed medicare part d. nobody raised it by then. this case is complete hogwash. >> that's a legal term. >> a legal scholar says it's the legal equivalent of birtherism. it's not going to fly. but the reality, does anybody see the irony in the fact john boehners house voted 264 to 161 to delay the very provision he's

suing to have the president enforce now. there is a bit of irony in this. >> rick, can you answer for me where you see this year in presidential politics? i ask that as a key to the debate the party on immigration, the party on foreign policy, national security policy and these grassroots issues on health care. >> i talked about it across the country. we're a very divided country right now. that's not necessarily a bad thing. we're having really good debates on national security, other thins. what we need is a positive decision. won reason i wrote the book is to provide a positive way forward. right now we're arguing about a lot of things that are not, in my opinion, core to where the american public's concerns. the american public concern is middle in come americans, low in come aren't rising, seeing opportunities, that's what we have to focus on.

>> one of the things the president's leadership, the question of iran and nuclear weapons, even if there is a deal, kim, there's going to be a tough sell to congress to say we think we've got a deal with iran, we should ease up on sanctions. it doesn't seem like either party is willing to let the president get that deal. >> this has been a good example of bipartisanship in congress, both in the senate and house. democrats and republicans, they don't want to go back for it. they want tougher sanctions. >> did it resonate at home, the idea of the threat from iran and nuclear weapon? >> absolutely. anyone on the globe thinks we don't need more nuclear states in general, and we certainly don't need this state which has shown itself to be responsible. the interview you had earlier today shows how irrational the thinking is. >> do you believe, you worked on issues long and hard. >> we were in agreement watching your interview. democrats and republicans all laughing. >> not at you. >> no. we were laughing at him saying he must have the toughest job.

weren't going out and lying, bald faced irrational lying, nobody believes these guys are trustworthy partners. >> it's striking republicans is likely in 2016 to argue forresteration around the world which is precisely how president obama, barack obama ran at the time. >> it is interesting. the republicans have an internal debate. >> they do. >> with the missive rick perry lobbed against rand paul on friday calling him an isolationist. they better solve their own internal disputes. break out the popcorn. >> it's a legitimate debate. we have to have one. i know -- >> take a break, republican threat from isis, more of my interview with iran's foreign threat from isis, more of my intermy daughter is studyingn to be a dentist, and she gave me advice. she said, "dad, go pro with crest pro-health." [ male announcer ] 4 out of 5 dentists confirmed these pro-health products helped maintain a professional clean.

crest pro-health really brought my mouth to the next level. [ male announcer ] go pro with crest pro-health.

crest pro-health really brought my mouth to the next level. really... so our business can be on at&t's network for $175 dollars a month? yup. all five of you for $175. our clients need a lot of attention. there's unlimited talk and text. we're working deals all day. you get 10 gigabytes of data to share. what about expansion potential? add a line anytime for 15 bucks a month. low dues... great terms... let's close. introducing at&t mobile share value plans... ...with our best-ever pricing for business. a good night's sleep... and aveeno®. [ female announcer ] only aveeno® positively radiant face moisturizer has an active naturals® total soy formula... one of nature's most effective skin tone correctors. it helps reduce the look of brown spots in just four weeks. and for stubborn spots, there's new aveeno® targeted tone corrector, with vitamin a added for faster results.

[ jennifer aniston ] aveeno®. naturally beautiful results™. you think it smells fine, vo: you passengers smell this... eliminate odors you've gone noseblind to for up to 30 days with the febreze car vent clip. female passenger: wow. smells good in here. vo: so you and your passengers can breathe happy. cmy daughter is studying to be a dentist,

coming up more of my and she gave me advice. she said, "dad, go pro with crest pro-health." [ male announcer ] 4 out of 5 dentists confirmed these pro-health products helped maintain a professional clean. crest pro-health really brought my mouth to the next level. [ male announcer ] go pro with crest pro-health. and our luggage was immediately... taken to... stolen from... our room. the hotel manager was clearly behind it. he was such a... kind man. con man. my husband wanted to... hug him. strangle him. and to this day we're still in contact with... the manager. the police. i wish we could do that vacation all over again. don't just visit paris. visit tripadvisor paris. [ male announcer ] with millions of reviews, a visit to tripadvisor makes any destination better. at a moment like this,

i'm glad i use new tampax pearl active! [ female announcer ] new tampax pearl active is 20% slimmer, totally comfortable and 100% as absorbent as regular pearl! [ cheering ] stuart! stuart! stuart! stuart! ♪ check it out. this my account thing. we can tweet directly toa comcast expert for help. or we can select a time for them to call us back. the future, right? ♪ this doesn't do it for you? [ doorbell rings, dog barks ] oh, that's what blows your mind -- the advanced technology of a doorbell.. [ male announcer ] tweet an expert and schedule a callback from any device. introducing the xfinity my account app.

interview with iran's foreign minister in vienna. we discussed his views of the broader middle east, particularly whether the u.s. and iran are more likely allies in iraq. let me ask you about iraq. how will iran use its influence there? does nuri al maliki have to go? >> we believe that's a question

and decision iraq has. >> nobody believes you adopt have tremendous influence over that government. >> we do have tremendous influence because we have followed correct policies. we have followed the choices of the people in afghanistan, in iraq in the rest of the region, that's why we exercise great there. not because we have greater military, because we respect people. my advice to the united states would be do the same. try to ask iranians, iraquis, bodes much better for the future. that respect requires us to do two things. first of all, now there is a very dangerous terrorist which does not target only the shia population in iraq but targets every member of iraqi society. >> talking about isis. >> so-called islamic state of iraq and syria.

has more syria than shia and putting more citizens in jeopardy in iraq than it has for years. we need to address that very serious problem which is going to be a major security problem not just for iraq but for saudi arabia, syria, turkey. >> for iran as well. which begs the question, does iran feel it is encommon cause with the united states for the future of iraq? would you like to see it stay together or do you think it will break apart? >> i believe iraq, it is in the interest of everybody, and i mean everybody, in the interest of stability in our region to keep territorial integrity of iraq. to keep iraq one. all attempts to break up are short sighted, will do harmish even those trying to do good. it's in the interest of not only iran but the united states -- >> how does iran and the united states come together to defeat isis. >> we need to agree on

principles. principles. we need to respect the choices of the iraqi people. we need to use whatever influence we have in iraq as well as afghanistan in order to convince various forces inside the country that the best way to move forward to inconclusivity is working together. that is the call we made to every portion of society. we are in contact with various people inside iraq. we have been in contact before this horrific incident of the attack by isis and we continue to call on all forces in iraq to work together to form an inconclusive government. that represents and respects the wishes of the iraqi people. now, whoever the iraqi parliament can come up with as speaker of the parliament and as the prime minister, iran will respect as a neighboring country with influence. our advice to them is not to pick this man over this over

this man of the our advice is to pick a government that can represent the entire iraq and bring peace and stability to the region. >> 170,000 people have been killed in syria, a third of them civilians. why does iran continue to support the assad regime. >> the question is why the united states continues to support forces like isis that are wreaking havoc in this region. this the problem, the united states and some of its -- >> is that fair to say united states is supporting isis? >> the united states is supporting those who are trying to dismantle syria, destroy syria using these tactics. you cannot pick and choose. >> isn't that what iran is doing? >> this the reality of the situation in syria. we have called from the very beginning to respect the will of the syrian people, to allow syrian people to determine their future, to allow syrian people to use political processes mod

to obtain the objective. >> this is the force of assad's fist, not the will of the people, isn't it? >> no, it's not. the number of people out to vote in lebanon were not worried about assad's fist. we're not worried about any individual or any specific group, what we're saying is why doesn't united states abandon the idea of preconditions on the syrian people about who they should decide to govern them. let the syrian people, let the process form, let the syrian people have the will and have the chance to determine their own future. you want this for your sechlt have t -- have the respect to allow people to make their own decisions. don't make our decisions for us. le us make our own decisions and we will have a much more secure and better world. >> let me come back to where we began with the final question on nuclear cost. you said repeatedly it's so

important for the west and america to respect iran. it seems like a big issue for america and the west is trust of iran. there's several points that seem to go to that mistrust. efforts to conceal nuclear facilities by iran. inspectors still haven't gotten access to a facility that's near tehran. iran has studied how long it would take to actually produce a weapon, so that mind-set has been there. president rouhani, has been raised before, has written in his book talking about three years ago in the past he said negotiate with the west to buy time so iran could develop its nuclear weapon. you take that together, do you feel like there's something going on here that iran doesn't want the world to see. >> if i may. all of these did not happen in vacuum. why did iran need to conceal its program? because the minute -- everything we did was lawful. but the minute we made it public, the united states would

try to prevent our access to various facilities even to fuel to its own built reactor, the united states prevented it. no question we have. we own uranium enrichment facilities outside of iraq, 10% but we haven't been able to get a gram. you're talking about the facility, when the united states talk about bombing iranian facilities out of existence, what do you expect iran to do? iran would create a facility that is not susceptible to being bombed. that is what any rational country would do. it's not that we want to build nuclear weapons in that country. it's our program, you're threatening, not you, united states government and israel, threatening to attack it, use bunker busters to destroy it. so we need take it to a place it cannot be destroyed. you talk about other facilities. if you're a cancer patient in

iraq and need radio isotopes in order for treatment, you cannot get it. you can only get one dose after going through several procedures. even that you cannot do now, all banks bullied by the united states not to accept iranian money. have you to put cash in a suitcase, go to europe and buy a dose of radio isotope to treat the patient. you put a country with the manpower, with the technology, with human resources, with scientists, most of iranian scientists working in the united states are the best. we have the intellectual capacity. a country with all of this, with the wealth, resources, you deprive it of the ability to gain access to international markets and then you expect it to simply sit and die quietly. it won't happen. what we need to do is to

establish a new paradigm. that new paradigm is to provide incentives for iran to stick to our strategic doctrine that we do not need nuclear weapons, but we cannot be deprived of the science and technology that the rest of the world has. i can assure you. i can assure you, within the next 11 days, we can reach an agreement that would put all the concern, all the concerns that are serious, if you want not to be allayed of your concern, you will have it, but if you want to address these concerns, all these concerns can be addressed. if we're talking about even a hypothetical breakout, we can extend this breakout to over three to four years. not three to four months, but in reality three to four years. in every aspect of our nuclear program, so that it will not be even conceivable for people from

iran to go about. we're prepared to do all of that, in the realistic framework. we have presented ideas about it. we're engaged in serious partners in five plus one. i hope they are working on the basis of realities and not on the basis of illusions. >> we will leave it there. foreign minister, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the foreign minister of iran, my exclusive interview in vienna. jeffrey goldberg columnist for bloomberg view, national correspondent for the atlantic. some of our audience may not have heard prime minister zarif on his views and what he's saying. >> breathtaking interview, breathtakingly audacious. lets take syria, his government, primary government prime supporter of assad regions which used chlorine gas and barrel bombs to murder among others thousands of children. more than 9,000 children have been murdered by the assad regime. put aside everything else, just that alone -- >> the iraq issue stood out to

you as well. >> this is one of the cosmic jokes of what he's saying. for years the iranian government was directly responsible for killing probably 1500 american soldiers in iraq. now all they want is for america to come back and kill iran's sunni enemies. there's an audacity to many of the things he said. >> this whole debate about iran's nuclear weapons, they have nuclear capacity. they say they don't want a weapon. we talked about the politics of selling this to congress may be tough for president obama right now. what about the facts for the region. what is the danger? >> the danger is this is a country that destabilizes the entire region, supports terror groups. lets not forget, this country is considered prime sponsor, state sponsor of terrorism in the world by obama state department. do you want prime state sponsor of terrorism to have -- >> you think they want the weapons. >> they spent billions and billions on developing intercontinental ballistic

missiles. there's only reason to have ballistic missiles and that's to put nuclear warheads on it. we know from every source, u.n., every intelligence agency around the world, they are trying to reach the point they can reach the nuclear threshold and breakout. that's why negotiations are so important. that's why they may not work. >> they may not work here in the end. >> what we know, because of the pressure of obama administration and congress, international community, iran agreed to go to negotiations. what we don't know is if the supreme leered, the guy he works for, would ever agree to dismantle the programs. >> that's the key issue. you cover the region widely. thanks for that reality check this morning jeffrey goldberg. a note here. you can see an extended version of the interview with prime minister zarif on the website. asked about internet freedom or lack thereof in iran. back ♪ nervous whitening will damage your teeth? introducing new listerine® healthy whitetm.

it not only safely whitens teeth, but also restores enamel. lose the nerves, and get a healthier, whiter smile that you'll love. listerine® healthy whitetm. power to your mouthtm! at a moment like this, i'm glad i use new tampax pearl active! [ female announcer ] new tampax pearl active is 20% slimmer, totally comfortable and 100% as absorbent as regular pearl! [ cheering ] new tampax pearl active.

[ cheering ] birdhouse plans. nacho pans. glass on floors. daily chores. for the little mishaps you feel use neosporin to help you heal. it kills germs so you heal four days faster. neosporin. use with band-aid brand bandages. you think it smells fine, but your passengers smell this... eliminate odors you've gone noseblind to for up to 30 days with the febreze car vent clip. female passenger: wow. smells good in here. vo: so you and your passengers can breathe happy.

finally from us here, the week's big question in politics, politics of immigration. the president's katrina moment or gop dodge. rick santorum you start off. >> optics matter. the president not going to the border is the same as george bush flying over the border. you have to be there, you have to care. >> photo-op. >> the substance of the question, give us your tired, poor, huddled masses. that has to mean something. >> politics, still tough for gop. >> look, i know people are trying to separate this out from comprehensive immigration reform. if we had it, some of this would not be happening. >> this is now a problem on the left for the president who says deport them. >> i don't think it's as much a problem on the left. i do think it's gop's katrina moment. >> congressman castro disagrees with the president's approach. >> i don't know that he does. i think everybody agrees. the same principles apply. i think gop failing to do what the president is asking and failing on immigration really is a problem for them. >> we've got to go.

thank you very much. appreciate you being here. find the big question and weigh in on your response with the facebook page. all for today. if it's sunday, it's "meet the