ernie: first, i think the iaea is doing a very good job in iran. it's a heavy load for the organization. they have had to -- they have a lot more boots on the ground than they ever had, supplemented by the additional technologies that the jcpoa allowed them to employ, cameras and seals and all kinds of things. in terms of capabilities, i feel, i always have felt and feel today quite confident in their abilities. there is part of that confidence stems from the fact that our, i an, our national, the d.u.e. national laboratories, are very significant participants in the trainers of -- training of inspectors in terms of the technologies. so i think it's a question of staining support for the agency. in fact, whether it's the agency or whether it is the employment of national means, trying to understand what's going on, what i've sometimes said is, as an example, i've got great news for you. we just got you 25 years of surveillance of the uranium supply chain. the bad news is, you've got to stick to it for 25 years. i mean, so -- there's also frankly le

my question is about the iaea. i wonder if you can assess the capability to fulfill that role and as an organization how vulnerable is it? first of all i will repeat they are doing a good job in iran. it's a heavy load for these organization. they have to have a lot more boots on the ground than they ever have supplemented by all of the additional technologies than it has allowed them to an employee. in terms of the capabilities, i feel today quite confident in their abilities. there is part of the confidence that stems from the fact that national laboratories are significant with the training inspectors and in terms of both technologies, so i think it is a question of sustaining support for the agency. in fact, whether it is the agency or the employment of national means of trying to understand what's going on. but i've sometimes said as an example i have great news for you we just got you 25 years of surveillance of uranium supply chain. the bad news is good t he's goto stick to it for 25 years. so, if there's al

in terms of what the iaea needs to do, i'm not very optimistic. i am not very optimistic with how well that will work, simply just giving the iaea more authority and power to go in and control. i think it is generally worth a shot, but in terms of what we contribute to that effort and our resources, i would say minimal. it works better if you are trying to actually prevent -- this is my tiny 101 on what i think the united states is doing in nuclear in nuclear deterrence. if your main goal is to prevent the spread and deployment of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world, the best thing the united states can do is remain a very robust, serious, credible nuclear deterrent. there are many countries that have foregone nuclear weapons , and have chosen not to have them because they rely on the american nuclear umbrella. as the united states becomes weaker, we do not modernize, it was george h. w. bush that ended the american nuclear testing program, a republican. he ended that testing program unilaterally. we can start it up again if we need to do that.

in terms of what the iaea needs to do, i'm not very optimistic. i am not very optimistic with how well that will work, simply giving the iaea more authority and power to control. i think it is generally worth a shot, but in terms of what we contribute to that effort and our resources, i would say minimal. it works that are -- better if you are trying to actually on what i think the united states is doing in nuclear returns -- if your main goal is to prevent the spread and deployment of nuclear weapons anywhere in the work, the best thing the united states can do is remain a very robust, serious, credible nuclear deterrent. there are many countries that have foregone nuclear weapons and chosen not to have them because they rely on the american nuclear umbrella. as the united states becomes weaker, we do not modernize, it was george h. w. bush that ended the american nuclear testing program, a republican. he ended that testing program unilaterally. we can start again if we need to do that. we have chosen not to do that. the best thing we can do is h

lou: can we change who does the inspection, because the iaea has not been always reliable. >> i'm not certain we'll be able to have that kind of leeway to be able to change who does the inspection. but i think we can put some conditions down that would guarantee that those inspections would be done better than what they have been in the past. if t the olympics or not. but the south korean president giving mr. trump full credit for those talks being under way. your thoughts on progress and possibility. >> the north koreans go into it trying to buy time, get some good will to be sure. and also, i suspect they feel some pressure because of the economic sanctions. i do think -- look. talking is better than shooting. that's the reality. and the president's instincts are to negotiate. i think we may see him at some point enter into negotiations with the north koreans and the south koreans. and there may be a deal in the making. and certainly it's a lot better than the two chieses in fron chf us right now, either war or accept a nuclearized north korea. lou: if we can pull that off, the nobe

the saudi's have always said they are not worried about iaea painted a dark cloud ahead of this meeting not worried about shale they say, and we need to look at the entire picture, seeing declines next quote in canada. they are not worried about shale , but that is what everybody is talking about and if oil continues to rise, we could see a massive come back from shale. guy: thank you very much indeed. as matt said, fantastic interview. the it back to david sneddon, the wi analysis. let's bring this chart up. the market is incredibly long. where do we go from here? >> we're at this resistance of the 2015 high. the markets are very long. rally is the best you can say. our bias is that we think oil does hold here and we see a buyback. but if the dollar strengthens from here, if you look at the broader commodity indexes as well, there is significant placement there as well. board risk is that this is too strong a trend and if we break 71.5, we have a significant resistance level. 2014u a prior to the level, we have this big collapse in oil and there is a big vacuum from here, you can argue

at facilities that were never declared, which the iaea which is not a spy agency for those who don'tut, we don't really know what the extent of iran's cooperation with north korea is. for all we know, a substantial part of their uranium enrichment effort is under a mountain and north korea. >> harris: let me step in if you would be so kind. i know we are about to move on and i want to make sure we get to north and south korea and you brought it out. the president said he likes what he sees in terms of potential north and south korea having further talks, your thoughts on that? >> this is a propaganda exercised by north korea, make no mistake about it. i think they take the president at his word that there's military options on the table, i don't think they believed barack obama going through the motions. but i think the north has responded in the way they often do with the propaganda, trying to divert attention from their continued work on ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, people are talking about the olympics and the teams marching together. this is not going to affect the rea

all of the root or it's from the iaea show the radians are complying with the agreement and as a result the u.s. is theseted to renew waivers. otherwise, the u.s. will be out of compliance with the deal. the deadline is coming up sometime around january 12. with these protests, i believe donald trump has found a new pretext to do what he had planned to do all along. to not renew the waivers. as a result, essentially walk away from this deal. the question is whether this deal could survive without the united states. on, he isrotest going a new pretext and will probably easier way to make this decision and sell in washington compared if you done it three or four month ago. juan: you said you believe these were initiative by conservative elements within iranian society, but have an effect, a backfire to some degree. the do talk about that? also, the impact of the new confrontations now between the united states government, the trump administration, and iran, on the economic situation in iran. >> i spoke to his person -- i spoke to a person who observed the first protest, believing was last

international efforts to ensure international and regional security -- especially in a hasation where the iaea continually confirmed full compliance from iran on its obligations. the unitedthat, states has continued to announce unilateral restrictions that are in breach of international law. we keep wondering, do you have any other means other than sanctions at your disposal? instead of trying to involve the security council in internal should, the council usefuly support initiatives and establishing regional dialogue on security issues. we can find solutions to many issues and concerns. russia has put forward an initiative on competent building measures in the persian gulf region. the provision of the resolution 8 from 1987 continues to remain un-implemented. we want security and confidence building measures. it would be useful to pay attention to the ideas of the secretary-general to launch the presence of political dialogue to resolve differences among the countries in the region. president, we would like to believe that we won't have meetings like this under your presidency or under any su

there's a clear opportunity for the iaea, which is the inspecting arm, to be able to go wherever they want to within iran. to date, there's been no challenge to that ability and no reason to believe that there's violations of the commitments by iran. >> i want to ask you about afghanistan because of the tragedies again today. this is the fourth attack in a week. we've had, you know, hundreds wounded, more than a hundred killed in kabul at the sbr intercontinental hotel, the police academy, the ambulance loaded with explosives. today's attack, isis is claiming responsibility. we don't know. the taliban has claimed responsibility for the others. we know great success has been achieved against isis, and the president will claim it tomorrow night. the fact is they've now spread to afghanistan as well, joining the taliban and the haqqani network there. pakistan has to be held responsible. what can the u.s. do? is this going to be a continual explosion against the afghanis, against the government there, and against our own personnel? >> well n th, in that region, including afghanistan, we'v

especially in a situation where the iaea has continually confirmed by the full compliance of iran on its obligations. instead of that, the united states has continued to announce unilateral restrictions that are in breach of international law. we keep wondering, do you have , diplomaticans means other than sanctions at your disposal? is that of trying to involve the security council in internal affairs and interference in international affairs the , council should actually support useful initiatives and establishing regional dialogue on security issues. the framework of that dialogue, in it we can find solutions to many issues and concerns. russia has put forward an initiative on competent building -- confidence-building measures in the persian gulf region. the provision of the resolution 598 from 1987, continues to remain un-implemented. this provision in struct the secretary-general to develop in consultation with regional parties, security and confidence-building measures. to payd be useful attention to the ideas of the secretary-general to launch a process of political dialogue t

the energy security side and having the total energy use would have more than doubled according to iaea without energy efficiency so this has been saving us in so many ways. as you noted, i think it's one-third the cost to develop a kilowatt than save. it's important that we continue that. while we're discussing energy dominance and energy security i hope we'll hear a lot less about just these exporting issues, although we worked hard here on the committee to come up with strategies that clarify what our national policies were on that and focus on what we can do to again drive the cost effectiveness of energy, whoever has the most cost effective energy solutions are going to continue to win in the marketplace. i look forward to hearing your comments on that today, and again, thank you for being here. >> thank you, senator. dr. birol, welcome again to the committee. for those who are not familiar with dr. birol, he took office as iea executive director in september of 2015 after 20 years with the agency itself. previously dr. birol held the position of chief economist with responsibility

instead of the nuclear deal that relies again on iaea sanctions, not sanctions but inspections of northities, not as part of the long-term effect of this. the short-term effect is this impacts the olympics in the united states anytime it puts these in place by north korea that is backed by the european in the community. every time we get them to veto something, that's a good thing. charles: i want to ask you, suggesting president trump could make a decision on iran sanctions sometime today now. you are leading a group against the iranian deal to begin with. how do you feel about what we are hearing, what is swirling perhaps is softening in some sort of accommodation that keeps the deal in place. >> well, we focused on the concessions made in the jcp away pentagon nuclear concessions in the regime, banks that supported terrorism cannot sanctions. individuals in the leader of the besieged somehow got sanctions in the iranian deal. last week, a group of people in d.c. got a chance to give our take to the national security council and we recommended putting sanctions on human rights abusers

would i really like to see him mix it up with the iaea -- with the global elites. that is my story.top of the hour. stuart: at this point it's not certain that president trump will go to the world economic forum in talf vote. if the -- davos. if the government is still shut down, he may not go. that's unfortunate. i want to see our president mix it up with the globalists, the open borders people, the income inequality guys, the european elites. they hate him. i want to see a confrontation with our guy flying the flag for growth and prosperity. our president would be flying into an open borders hornets' nest. france would leave the european union if there was a free vote. he just said it. 77% of belgians don't feel safe at home. within two generations, italians will be a minority in italy. the european elites think mr. trump is a racist, but davos would let him reach over their heads and addresses the long-suffering european people directly. our president would also be flying the flag for a rational energy policy, uncluttered by the paris climate accord. in germany the cost of electr

the iaea and nuclear inspectors have confirmed that everything iran was obliged to do under the agreementrom an agreement in which the other side has continued to honor its obligations? the second thing is this is not a deal between the united states and iran, this is a deal between the international community, the p 5 plur5+1 and iran and it's incredibly clear that russia, china, and the european members of the p5+1 have no intention of walking away from this deal. so if the u.s. walks away from it, you have given iran entree to restart their nuclear program with no benefits whatsoever. and the third thing i would say is that if you really care about the protests that have bubbled up and more recently died down in iran the last thing you want to do is trigger a rupture between the united states and its european allies in terms of trying to promote some sort of democratic uprising in iran. basically what trump did this week was guarantee that the europeans are not going to take the united states seriously in terms of trying to maintain the jcpoa. so the likelihood that it will be any comm

it has prevented iran from preventing plutonium and has had robust monitoring by the iaea. withdrawing from the jcpoa would leave us more isolated and less able to deal with the various challenges posed by iran. the crippleling sanctions regime only worked because the international community was united in its determination to keep iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. if we withdraw from the jcpoa unilaterally and in the absence of a clear violation of the deal by iran, there is no reason to believe that our partners in the p-5 plus one will join us. in fact the french president said there is no alternative to the jcpoa and told the u.n. general assembly that renouncing it would be a grave error. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said that i believe that the u.s. would incur damage if we unilaterally withdraw from the jcpoa. our allies would be less likely to cooperate with us to prevent iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. other sanctions may snap back but not those imposed by the rest of the world. many of whom have begun building economic ties to iran since the jc