today the iaea, u.s. intelligence community and israeli security establishment assessed that iran is complying with the deal. secretary mattis has testified it is in interest so it makes no sense for president trump to decline to certify. the deal does not solve all problems for all time but solves a key problem at this point. the nuclear deal does not preclude the united states from taking decisive steps. the fact that the jcpoa does not address sponsorship of terrorism or regional aggression is -- this is not a treaty of good will and we design the deal to preserve our right and our capacity to counter iran on all of these fronts. today we maintain the means to pursue a multi dimensional whole of government strategy to counter iran's malign activity. we can impose costs, deter and disrupt financing of terrorism, work with allies and partners to curb regional aggression and support aspirations of the iranian people. we can also take steps to address the continued attention of american citizens and while

today, the iaea, the u.s. intelligence community and the israeli security establishment have all assessed that iran is complying with the deal. secretary mattis has testified that it is in america's national security interest. so it makes no sense for president trump to decline to certify. the deal does not solve all problems with iran for all time, but it solves the key problem at this time. this brings me to the second point. which is the nuclear deal does not preclude the united states from taking decisive steps to confront or encounter iran's malign activities in the region. the fact that the jcpoa does not address iran's sponsorship of terrorism is no concession to iran. this was an arms control agreement, not a treaty of goodwill, and we specifically designed the deal to preserve our right and our capacity to counter iran on all of these fronts. today, we maintain the means to pursue a multidimensional whole of government strategy to counter iran's malign activities across the board. we can impose costs

>> on the one iaea intervention on inspection -- that was what the iaea negotiated with the iranians. the iaea claims that they were monitoring that with cameras and all of that, but of course, it raises -- it looks strange. >> it would be analogous to a drug addict bringing in a urine sample he collected himself in private and saying here is my sample. bad.'s not quite that i will stand with it is a strange, it was a strange formulation. >> it is a stretch. thealbright, is overproduction of heavy water allowed under the jcpoa? >> there is a cap of 130 tons. >> they've bypassed that twice. >> iran's exploited what you would call a loophole that they have been able to take overage of heavy water and deposited under their control overseas. and so, that is another problem in the deal is that iran has exploited the loopholes. >> we should talk how that loophole got there. mr. sullivan, you want to explain how that happened? >> how what happened? >> that there was a loophole that allowed iran to overproduce heavywater and that they could store it and monitoring on their own. under accounts

iaea e associated with the to try to learn things. the director on general made he is not going to be transparent. hat is one of the reasons i looked into section t because it eemed to be a clear kron tra diction between what he was saying, director general was saying and what was actually ground.ng on the >> thank you, ambassador jeffrey, you discussed the need to strip the so-called seal of approval bestowed upon iran by the jcpoa and undercutting the willingness of the international business community to fund iran's economy. and you also talk about strengthening the us-eu and the iran alliance. the reality as we know is the e.u. nations have been unwilling to take any and the iran action, partly for fear that iran will leave the jcpoa, but also in large part because they have concluded billions upon billions of dollars and deals with iran. and i would ask, we'll talk later, to your knowledge has the e.u. imposed any new nonnuclear related sanctions or designation against iran since the jcpoa? and how do we get the e.u. onboard when

the iaea does not have a mandate to verify this section. this reflects the consensus with iran, with the position of the eu and the security council, and that the changes to any part of this consensus requires unanimous support from all members of the five plus one and iran, of course. i am convinced, as are our colleagues in europe, that any attempts to do so can put an end to these talks in terms of the iranian nuclear program. >> very good sir. i have noted the reference we have made -- >> can you say two words about yourself? it works. it works. >> i am a retired military officer from pakistan. >> that is impressive. [laughter] >> the best part was still to come. in my own days, i handled some very complicated affairs. frankly, i am in the business of peacemaking now. rearmament, but a possible disarmament. my question was about the stumbling blocks. you have referred to them. which are coming in the way for nonproliferation regime to achieve its core objective. usually on such occasions, one has heard very often, we hope it will happen

do you agree this would be a good idea to strengthen the iaea mandate to verify section t? >> you cannot strengthen something you don't have. they don't have a mandate to verify this section and this has left a consensus that was reached with iran and the eu that was unanimously derived by the un security council and the changes to any part of this requires unanimous support from all members and iran and i'm convinced, as are our colleagues in europe that any attempt to do so can put an end to this in terms of iranian nuclear progra program. >> regretfully serve,. [inaudible] can you say two words about yourself? it works. >> i'm a military officer from pakistan. the best part is still to come minister because in my own days i handled some very, very complicated affairs but nowaday nowadays, frankly i am in the business of peacemaking now. no longer rearmament but possible disarmament. my question about this stumbling block you referred to which are coming in the way of the nonproliferation regime. usually on such occasions, one has heard very often that we hope it will hap

before i go back to what speaker gingrich that a lot of people have said in the criticism is that the iaea doesn't have access to military sites. to be actually now that they're following through with the deal? >> marie: why does general mattis think it's in our interest? >> lisa: what i'm saying is i think it is not a bad thing. the look to congress for that have further discussion. >> sandra: there has been -- >> newt: your complaining two different things. mattis said don't pull out of the deal. the president is not pulling out of the deal. the question is when to be for example designate. i think what he's doing is acting very clever. this is very well staffed. i think they deserve a lot of credit.

we can present that evidence to the iaea, they can demand access into it. if iran denies access, they have 24 days in which to deny or grant access, and if they deny it, that's where we start to kick everything back to the u.n. security council, that's where we enter that whole snapback of sanctions discussion. so the deal has built-in provisions for if we have concerns about sites that are outside the deal. however, the trump administration has not in any way presented any concerns that would rise to that level which is why iran has not been asked to open up other sites. we simply don't have evidence, we don't believe right now -- the intelligence community doesn't believe that iran is actually doing anything outside of those sites. >> yeah. just in terms of visibility in general, i mean, i think there's somewhere between 30 and 40 sites in iran that the iaea has access to. since the deal they've conducted, i think, on the order of 450 inspections in the country. and, again, we've been able to clear it. so this is some concern among some conservatives that

we can present that evidence to the iaea, they can demand access into it. if iran denies access, they have 24 days in which to deny or grant access, and if they deny it, that's where we start to kick everything back to the u.n. security council, that's where we enter that whole snapback of sanctions discussion. so the deal has built-in provisions for if we have concerns about sites that are outside the deal. however, the trump administration has not in any way presented any concerns that would rise to that level which is why iran has not been asked to open up other sites. we simply don't have evidence, we don't believe right now -- the intelligence community doesn't believe that iran is actually doing anything outside of those sites. >> yeah. just in terms of visibility in general, i mean, i think there's somewhere between 30 and 40 sites in iran that the iaea has access to. since the deal they've conducted, i think, on the order of 450 inspections in the country. and, again, we've been able to clear it. so this is some concern among some conservatives that

intelligence services, the iaea, the p-5. when i visit israel and speak to national security and intelligence leaders such as the equivalent of the joint chiefs of staff, they say iran is complying with the deal and it is making the world safer in the near and medium term. secretaries dunford and general mattis have said the same thing. the deal, it gives us more intelligence because we have inspections that we didn't have before. we have gotten more inspections and we know more about the program. in the first paragraph of the deal, on the first page of the deal. iran pledges to never purchase, acquire, or develop military weapons. that promise which is in perpetuity gives us a legal justification if they ever break it to take action, including military action to punish them for violating what they have signed. do we want to give iran the ability to step back from that promise that they have made by stepping back ourselves when the deal is working? and finally, the deal gives us a coalition. our partners around the world who

iaea to not want the inspect it. thatu have some evidence, they refuse access and refuse any of the compromises, then we are in a different world. we are not there yet. there has not been a single incident at a request for inspection of a site by the iaea that iran has refused. this is one of those that is hard to come by at -- to combat because there are so many of them. ms. toosi: john -- quick point make a about the premise of your first question. assume there is a strategic calculus behind trump's decision, and there is not. heart of the recently know that is the entirety of his national security team urged him to certify. there was no strategy behind decertification. all the strategizing that went on was by his national security team to try to figure out a way mp's irrational the state -- irrational this taste for the deep. it is notable that trump did not impose sections and sell. it is notable he did not announce a formal withdrawal from the deal, she has the right to do. that is because virtually the the iaea

the iaea says iran's in compliance. european countries say iran is compliant. the top advisers advise president trump don't do this. iran is in con plays mpliance. what is behind donald trump's move against this deal? >> there has ban lot of criticism from trump during the campaign, the other republican candidates of the iran deal. it was not popular with republicans when obama was negotiating it after it was announced. so in some ways, this is a continuation of a sort of existing trend within u.s. politics. but what happened after the deal was signed and after the election, people who had been opponents of the deal, including the secretary of state and the secretary of defense amongst many other senior republicans, including those in pofgs power on capitol hill basically said we need to hold the this deal because it's not perfect. there are a lot of things we criticized about it. we stand by those criticisms. but it's a necessary framework that holds us together with our european allies. it's a rare area of cooperation between ourselves, russia and china. and

it has successfully kept the iranians from becoming a nuclear power since it was implemented, the iaeahe u.s. secretary of state's office, our own defense department, our intelligence department have all actively monitored iran. 17,000 have been removed. 95% of the enriched rhenium has been removed. the one reactor has been disabled. right now this agreement is working. >> martha: you believe that it's working it should be recertified and marc thiessen -- >> if they are compliant it should be recertified. right now they believe they are complying. >> martha: that's true. tillerson and general matters support continuing to steal. if you've got a divide happening between the people who had lunch together today and how do you think that's playing out? >> first of all, they are compliant with the deal in the sense that the deal is so bad that it doesn't require them to allow the iaea to visit and a facility that it wants to check whether they are complying with the intent to dismantle the nuclear program. if they are also pursuing ballistic missiles whose only purpose is to deliver a nucle

i would love to read the deal between the iaea and iran. when i was at a house foreign affairs committee hearing with then secretary of state john kerry and i wanted to engage with him to have a conversation about what the verification agreement was, i was shocked that even he said that he hadn't read the verification regime between the iaea and iran. it really scratch your head. and you ask -- scratches your head. and i asked the question here on the house floor last congress, while we were debathe the jcpoa. i said, president obama says that we're entering into the cpoa not based on trust, but based on verification. so my question that i posed then, i still haven't gotten an answer today, is how do you support a deal based on rification without knowing hat the verification is? we're propping up the wrong regime. and in 2009, during the green revolution, the undemocratic election, millions of iranians go to the streets. these are people who go to the streets, that right now, there are people, millions of iranians today, who would love a fr

versus reality is where we are. >> marie: the iaea is over and over and over again certified that iran is compliant. >> newt: they visited the military bases. >> harris: don't you think they should see the military bases? >> marie: we have to have axonal intelligence under the deal. if we have a cost to get into a site in iran, we can force it. >> newt: said there good at being sneaky to be don't have a reason to ask them. >> lisa: i have not been able to get in here yet. if i wave at everyone of their head in size because american intelligence is really good at this. with hundreds of inspectors crawling all over the country. before the problem is i think people like marie and those on the left are going to want to put the chrism on the trump administration, but the criticism on the united states we should be looking at what the iranians are doing. not the united states were saying death to the iranians. it's not the iranians who put sailors on their knees, put guns to their heads and shop for propaganda purposes. the trump administration has been very critical of the obama administrat

and it turns out that the iaea was right and we were wrong. so goes back to politicians trying to overrule or tarnish these experts. that is number one. number two, if the president said that he wants congress to rethink the deal, well -- if it will be renegotiated what will iran renegotiate? give us back some of the rich uranium, centrifuges? this can put iran back on the path to finding a nuclear weapons program. which would make the world more dangerous. and finally and most important, we're in the midst of negotiations with north korea. what are the chance of getting a diplomatic deal with north korea in a nuclear program? less than 20 percent but more than zero percent. if china can leverage it, he could find potentially, and secretary tillerson and james mattis said over and over we are diplomacy first. but if he said he is will back that have a deal that is being complied with, you dropped the chance to zero that we will ever get a deal. the president should not put cold water on diplomacy. you risk the unnecessary risk of war. kressa g

what do they know and we went to war and the iaea was right and we were wrong.irst problem is it brings back all this bad memories of politicians trying to overrule or tarnish experts so that is number one. if the president said he wants congress to rethink the deal, if it is renegotiated what is iran going to renegotiate? enrich uranium? this could put iran back on the path to finding a nuclear weapons program which would make the world more dangerous. most important we are in the midst of negotiation with north korea. what are the chances of getting the poetic deal with north korea nuclear program? you could find potentially, rex tillerson saying diplomacy first but if you say the us will back out of the deal that is being complied with you drop to 0 the chance that north korea will ever do a deal and that is extremely frightening. the president should not pour cold water on diplomacy, if you do that you raise the risk of unnecessary war. >> you have given us a great tour of the landscape on healthcare where you were on the front lines. this is such a dynamic

just on the iaea, very quickly, they have reported iranian noncompliance. i think they are testing the envelope but even more importantly, the iaea has also said it doesn't know what's going on on the military bases where the critical weaponization issues are being developed. >> it doesn't know what's going on in iran's military bases. that is probably one of the most important statements and issues on this issue that anyone can say. investor, thank you for your analysis as always. >> thank you. arthel: there are new developments in the harvey weinstein sex abuse scandal. new accusations of assault today. this time, in the uk. brian has more. brian, what do we know about these latest accusations. >> three more women are now accusing harvey of rape. one of the women is british actress lisette anthony. she stars in the soap opera that said weinstein assaulted and raped her in her own home. anthony tells the sunday times in the uk that the hollywood mogul visited her at her house and when she answered the door in her dressing gown he raped her in the hallway t

the iaea and even the united states and all of its partners in the deal, say that iran is in compliancecal compliance. meaning they have to do what they have to do to get past launching a nuclear weapon. as so far as the deal is concerned, iran is complying. >> other countries are ememployering the u.s. not to impose any changes. if that were the case, it would be the u.s. that would breach the deal. >> that's right, if the u.s. breaches the deal, iran can say the u.s. is in breach of the deal, we can throw out all the inspectors, we can go back to inriching our program. i don't know that iran is going to do that. there's a lot of rhetoric flying around about what they will do. the rest of the countries in the deal. have said they're staying in the deal. if the u.s. pulls out, it would really find itself isolated here. >> elise lavitt in washington, thanks so much. >> north korea is renewing its threat to attack the u.s. territory of guam. we have already warned several times that we will take counter actions for self-defense, including missiles into waters near the u.s. territory of gu

or the iaea. they did not see any evidence that they needed to inspect. why would they do that?> you have to push for that, because the international atomic energy a and see does not have access to iranian literary facility is where the nuclear research and development activities are going on. iran is still continuing to develop long-range ballistic missiles and has the capability to develop icbms. and iran is engaged throughout the middle east. syria, yemen, gaza, you name it, iran is engaged up to its eyeballs in activities that are inimical to american allies and to the united states. >> melissa: let me tell you that some of the things that the international community are saying. this is how they respond to what you cited. they do have access to the military facilities, that they have what they called mannish access into that they can go in and take the samples, it was wrong of the reporters like i believe it was reuters to report that they weren't allowed to collect the samples themselves. that the irradiance would collect examples, they said, no, we can go in any time. we c

we can see a lot of attempts to use iaea resources, to direct these resources to make this institution and instrument of pressure on other countries to expand its mandate, to make it responsible for nuclear disarmament and for reviewing military activities. that it is not connected to. and we would like to point out, the international atomic energy agency needs to become a -- needs to remain a guarantor in the area of nonproliferation. and should also -- all states need to be responsible for providing physical security of nuclear weapons in their territory, including the parameters of their national systems, their security systems. and we will do what we can to make everything possible so that the guarantees of the agency remain non-politicized, and are based on international law and work toward implementing -- towards a lot of issues such as the joint comprehensive plan of action towards iran, and the international agency is doing a lot to review and actually implement the plan of action in iran. in any case, the situation around the iranian nuclear work around this problem continues.

the deal does not allow us and the iaea, international atommic energy association, to look at military. there's a way to do it. what happens is there has to be intelligence that says something's going on at a military site, and then the iaea has to request permission from the iranians to look at that. iranians have so many days to respond. that's ridiculous. we really have no idea whether they're complying or not. just because we don't have evidence right now doesn't mean they are. i think given the history of this regime and what they have done, it seems pretty unlikely to me that they would give up on their quest for nuclear weapons. they're not like north korea. they don't like to brag about it. they realize they'll have more luck getting a nuclear weapon if they keep it quiet. >> shannon: interesting, too, that the foreign minister -- spokesman said the president is considering designating iran's revolutionary guard as a terrorist. he said if he does the reaction from iran will be decisive and crushing. so another thing to watch as the president makes these important decisions abou

however, you've got the iaea the s secretary of state tillerson, andme mattis saying iran is complying with the parameters of this deal. aren't we talking atz the end of the day about two different issues? how do you confront iran on terrorism without having to touch this deal? >> it is two separate issues but they are related and first of all, we actually don't know if i iran is in compliance at all. leaders in iran have said that their military sites are off limits, nobody can look there and the iaea won't check unless it has evidence that there is a reason to do so. sort of probable cause and nobody is -- it's unclear what evidence they would need to do that and so they haven't checked so we really don't know for certain whether iran is in compliance. but there are two issues and this is how i think they're related. the pursuit of a nuclear weapon is not the worst thing it's doing right now. it's creating human rights abuses in its own country and other countries. the reason that the deal matters is that it allows the regime to get more money to commit those abuses. we've got the sa

we can see a lot of attempts to use iaea resources, to direct these resources to make this institution and instrument of pressure on other countries to expand its mandate, to make it responsible for nuclear disarmament and for reviewing military activities. that it is not connected to. and we would like to point out, the international atomic energy agency needs to become a -- needs to remain a guarantor in the area of nonproliferation. and should also -- all states need to be responsible for providing physical security of nuclear weapons in their territory, including the parameters of their national systems, their security systems. and we will do what we can to make everything possible so that the guarantees of the agency remain non-politicized, and are based on international law and work toward implementing -- towards a lot of issues such as the joint comprehensive plan of action towards iran, and the international agency is doing a lot to review and actually implement the plan of action in iran. in any case, the situation around the iranian nuclear work around this problem continues.

let's be clear when people say the iaea, international atomic energy agent certify iran as come play ant, the only thing they can say is what they know to observe. do you think that iran would violate this deal at a previously known nuclear site that the iaea is inspecting? of course not. they're cooperating with north korea on ballistic missiles, almost certainly on the nuclear side as well. and the fact is, this deal does include the ballistic missile side. part of the resolution that the city council acontinued, an annex to that, adopted. i don't think they're in compliance, i don't think they intended to be in compliance. even if they were technically in compliance, the iranians have never given up the desire to have nuclear weapons. this gives them coverage, does not help the u.s. achieve its objective of preventing them from getting nuclear weapons. >> dana: we have president trump, he was signing the national manufacturing day proclamation, spoke a moment ago. >> president trump: with manufacturing. my administration strongly supports that goal, and we've been supporting it fo

. >> his own secretary of state certified it, the iaea certified it. it's not perfect.to accomplish everything we want to change about iran. >> well, nothing. it was just a nuclear -- >> it was to disrupt and stall the nuclear program. i think the alternative right now that i think congressional republicans are looking at is what is the alternative. do they reinstate sanctions and that could make the whole deal fall apart. i don't think republicans really want to have to deal with that. i think trump really is looking at this as this is steve bannon's white board that he had up on all the promises he made and this is a way that trump can go out and say to those folks look, i decertified the deal but there is no strategy in iran and there is no sort of what's the next step after that. i think that ultimately is going to be why probably congressional republicans, even if it is decertified don't do anything. >> let me play something for you. i want to hear from you next. let me show you how mattis responded. >> do you believe it's in our national security interest at the p

the iaea that oversees this agreement. the president said iran has had multiple violations. that's just not true. >> the iaea is the international atomic energy agency. >> if you're north korea or anyone else in the world looking at this, you have to ask yourself, if i enter into an agreement with the united states, will the united states keep that agreement? that's not a question that would have been asked six months ago or a year ago. >> you know, you have an important interview coming up on t"the axe files." i want to play an clip with nancy pelosi. you up spoke to her about bob corker's exchange, nasty exchange he had with the president of the united states, especially some of his concern that his policies could lead to world war iii. let's play this clip. >> a lot of heads were turning in washington this week about the exchange between senator bob corker, who is a republican and chairman of the senate foreign relations committee and the president, in which corker described the white house has an adult daycare center and said that he was concerned that the president migh

it appears that in a document that iran gave to the iaea it committed to operate roughly ten of a particular type of advanced centrifuges. it operated 13. the other cigsignatories had a discussion about whether 10 was roughly the same as 13. iran is sticking with 11 of these. if that's the allegation, i think that stretches incredulity. >> the president says it puts them on a rapid plan. >> the first thing to say is the deal as such never expires. iran's commitment never to build a nuclear weapon is indefinite. enhanced safeguards are indefinite. limits on technology that could be used for building and designing a nuclear weapon are indefinite. over the course of 10 to 25 years, there are a number of provisions that are gradually eased off over time. the rest of the world thought those provisions were entirely reasonable. of course in an ideal world, iran would be limited indefinitely. in the real world i think the deal president obama got was a very good deal, and i think ultimately if this deal falls apart, iran's option to develop a nuclear weapon, we will be faced with that much, much mo

bill that the iaea powers and limit iran's centrifuge program.lamic revolutionary guard a terrorist resolution. actions by treasury can come off part of their lifeblood. but to you. >> let's get right to the point on this deal. it's a bad deal and has been a bad deal. bernie sanders is tweeting why we are not complying with this deal. this is a guy who should pay more attention to his wife, jane, not a bad deal turns out. the american people get it. the terrorist regime really important in a president operates the people from the government. he's been there for 28 years as they've been in power. they oppress their people. americans get this is a bad deal. proliferation and the money we gave all says it was a failure from the start. >> this deal together just yet. he is saying congress, do your job. we've got to be stronger when it comes to iran, the biggest sponsors of terror in the world. if you take a step back regardless of republican or democrat, is not what everyone should want? >> democrats claim to support israel don't pay attention to ira

but the iranians aren't even letting the iaea look at military sites. with this deal was that the americans knew the iranians had a different interpretation of several provisions. so if you're walking away from a treaty thinking you've got a good deal even though you don't have all of the parties even understanding the terms, you're going to have problems. neil: okay. all right, guys, i wish i had -- i understand, i'm jumping on you, i'm being rude, and apologize. we have all this different news, word of a press conference coming out of las vegas as well. do want to let you know rebecca was referring to the iaea, the international atomic energy agency, that is sort of the scorekeeper here on whether iran is sticking to this deal or not. the iaea has said they are, others say, yeah, but by the time they get in there, iran could have changed a lot of things, hidden a lot of things. who knows? the president has gotten involved and said that old deal, forget about it. i don't think he said forget about it, but forget about it. we'll have more after this. >>

and significant part to all of this, because they are complying with the agreement according to the iaeatherefore, they have a reasonable expectation that those who agreed with them, this particular set of proposals, will stick to that as well. so there are diplomatic consequences. but aren't there more immediate consequences for regional security if iran suddenly says we don't think this is worth the paper it's written on? i'm sure there's debate going on in iran right now, about that. and for the other five countries part of this agreement plus all the member states of the eu, it is important, the message they send about economic and trade links. those are the benefits iranians received, apart an opening up of the economy. and for people sitting in north korea. can they do a deal with america? it may not be the right approach. nonetheless... in the end you have to use diplomacy to end conflicts, even if as we've seen in the past we've had terrible conflicts. having the diplomatic set of proposals is going to be part of the solution there and elsewhere. and if there's a feeling, even on

that the iaea has never looked at. they don't have any ability to investigate them. that requires millions of volts of electricity. that could be running uranium centrifuges that they have that have not been declared. that could be running something like the krasnoyarsk 76. the soviet union had something called krasnoyarsk so they could cheat on nuclear weapons and cheat on the treaties. something that needs to be declassified is under president reagan there was a thing called the general advisory committee report on arms control compliance. 1959. i think it was 1983, '84 up to that point. which the state department has never allowed to be declass 2350id. and it goes through all of the major arms control treaties we had with the soviet union, demonstrated how they cheated on virtually every one. so we have a long history of the bad guys cheating on these treaties and at least half the problem is our own willingness to acknowledge that because there are interests in this town that are very much in favor of not wanting to face the reality that arms control doesn't work

since the iaea stated iran is in breach of section t by obstructing inspectors inspecting the military site, we have to kill it. it's a bad deal and we have to decertify. lou: the ignorance of those globals who are insisting on a corporate decision which would be to accede to a reality created by iran in the middle east which becomes more disruptive and destabilizing by the month. forget their history and the fact they kill so many responsible for the killing of so many american troops. for this to have been ignored by the obama administration is madness. for this president, for his position, his philosophy, his agenda, to have to put up with the kind of nonsense emanating from so many of his advisors in national security, the defense department, the list goes on, a lot of us i find astounding. >> there is a fundamental issue here. the obama administration facilitated iran with tens of billions of dollars, with ransom monies. but there is a deeper issue. i'm a child of the cold war. my parents escaped communist dictatorships. you have been around a while. you know, you do not get good

not only did we know about it, sticking point to make sure the iaea would have find issuesey could astilitary dimension of the iran program would be addressed. it was addressed, we were able deal.e forward with the if there is evidence today, and when as surfaced, but vienna, she ent to said, it is true, we didn't rovide evidence of suspicious activity f. the evidence is put forward and the iaea demands says no, no, no, we face a problem if not the conflict gh resolution, we have right to say the way, we have allies with us, let's listen to they . they agree, which would if iran were to bar access in illegitimate way to military sites. hat is not what we have today, there is no evidence. there are echos of iraq, we have o be careful of an administration manipulating and we have s down a path seen before. comments get more attention than the expert community and military israel.hment in the vast majority of whom have said this is a good deal, it off iranian nuclear weapon. to have iran, that doesn't have nuclear weapons han a break-out time of a few months. holly: question from this sid

we went to war and the iaea was right and we were wrong. the first problem is that brings back all this bad memories of politicians trying to overrule or tarnish these experts. so that's never one. number two, if the president says he wants congress to rethink the deal, if it's going to be renegotiated what is iran going to renegotiate givebacks and enrich uranium? this could put iran back on the path to finding a nuclear weapons program which make the world more dangerous and finally the most important a we're in a mist of negotiation with north korea. what's the chances of getting a get medicare with north korea? lesson 20% more than 0% or if china could leverage, you could find potentially and secretary tillerson and mattis over and over somewhere diplomacy first. but he does it use but backed out of a deal that is being complied with, you drop to zero the chance north korea will ever do a deal, that is extremely frightening. the the president should not por cold water on diplomacy if you do that. you raise the risk of unnecessary war. >

the evidence is put forward and the iaea demands access and iran says no, no, no, we face a problem if not resolved through the conflict resolution, we have right to say iran is -- by the way, we have allies with us, let's listen to them. if they agree, which they would if iran were to bar access in illegitimate way to military sites. that is not what we have today, there is no evidence. there are echos of iraq, we have to be careful of an administration manipulating and leading us down a path we have seen before. want to seeon't happen to israel either. when netanyahu's comments get more attention than the expert community and military establishment in israel. the vast majority of whom have said this is a good deal, it staves off iranian nuclear weapon. it is better to have iran, that doesn't have nuclear weapons than a break-out time of a few months. holly: question from this side. lady right there. question: hi. my name is debra shoeshon, director of policy and government relations at americans for peace now. pro-peace, pro-iranian deal organization, if any of you are interested in

lou: we all know, or should know that the iaea has been accepting hearsay from third parties to when the iranians are doing in their facilities, that is how absurd the contact of this -- context of this so-called agreement has become. it is a fabrication. a list of desires that in no way, a binding forceful agreement that constrains the iranians to any point beyond perhaps 3 years out. >> just for education of fewers, if this were a treaty, president could pull out on his own anyway. if you want a metric of diplomatic failure, this deal gives it to us. compares position of european in 2003 compared to 2015, and barack obama took them down that slope. i think that notion that -- lou: a slope with this president obama was prime minister and reintroducing it tote rest of us -- to the rest of us. >> a bobsled team leader no doubt. lou: stunning, but more stunning is the tone by tillerson and haley. where is the chief of staff? where is the communication department for this president? this looks so bad. optics are horrific, audio is worse. coming from ambassador to united nations, and sec

you heard the president's advisers talk about compliance and you have seen the iaea, the u.n.'s monitoring this deal saying that arian is in compliance. not of the country involved in this deal with interested. i think it remains to be seen of what congress is going to do and my understanding is the party of the deal have given up on president trump, given up on the administration and now you have the european lobbies congress to say listen, stay in the deal, we want to work with you on some of the areas of iran's behavior and whether it is terrorism or ballistic missile, they're willing to talk about what they can do for when the deal expires. they're not willing to reopen the deal. diplomats have told me that members of congress and even members of the republican leadership understands how this issue was and nobody is happy, that president trump left it in their laps but now congress has the opportunity to move forward and keeping the u.s. and deals and moving forward of other areas. i think it is what president trump tr trump's advisers want and those in the region as well.

iran is capable of sending their own oil samples -- soil samples to the iaea. is a lot of loopholes in this deal that we need to tighten up. i hear your optimism, congressman. we have heard over the last few days words of encouragement from the british prime minister saying she doesn't want the u.s. to back out of this deal or do anything to it and iran saying it's not up for renegotiation. how confident are you we could get all of the parties back to the negotiating table? >> you will never get them back to the table if you continually recertify the deal. i think having the hammer out there will make the diplomacy more likely and when it comes to dealing with an adversary you have to have a stick behind it to actually force that. this is a mild stick in comparison. there's no threats of military strikes. stick to tryonomic to get to a better deal. tore not saying we are going bomb iran. we are saying we need a deal that could certify in a much stronger way. i would love to see missile development under that umbrella as well. lift -- ifran cannot we cannot lift

initiative and the nuclear suppliers group and certain initiatives but it's also important to have the iaea. it's important to have the nonproliferation treaty. it's important. so are we only have one signatory that has abrogated his commitments in terms of dealing with north korea. there was an expectation when it came into existence that there were going to be dozens of nuclear weapons states and certainly that many could gain that capability and some depending on how much china could decide on going nuclear. a long-term effort would be to bring india and pakistan and the israelis into the fold but it certainly does better than the wild west free-for-all. you can never do the counterfactual for certain but that's my opinion on it. >> tom limburg from the hudson institute. the chinese often talk about sovereignty and the russians often talk about sovereignty. do they mean the same thing and did they break down in sheer three categories as well and how much overlap is there? >> the book has comparative stuff and a few paragraphs on india thanks in part from research efforts. i'm not sure yo