iran is different. as we sit here, today is 40 days from the july 20th deadline set by the agreement. again, as previously mentioned, there is talk about moving iran back on the pathway to a nuclear weapons capability. i think many of us have stated here before and again today that moving iran backwards is not efficient. the goal should be move iran off the bath to introduction. for the whole panel, is there any reason we should be giving up the goal of holding iran to zero enrichment, to not having a plutonium reactor, previous dimensions of their program? >> first of all, i think we're in violent agreement on perspective on this. in answer to your question, rational for allowing them to enrich, i'm the wrong person to ask to provide. the correct answer is they should not be allowed to enrich given their history. i think if you want someone to give them the reason to permit that, perhaps you need -- the obama operation -- >> does anyone have a case to justify allowing iran to enrich? >> we are all in a

sanctions on iran have to go have to go way our sanctions on iran have to go away. all of that will end at that point. restrictions on nuclear commerce with iran and so iran can be singled out and treated differently than other countries. we can't have export controls that treat iran differently than other countries. nor can the rest of the international -- iran becomes a legitimate partner so the idea of a conference of solution is for a period of time if iran behaves if they are not caught cheating and they uphold their commitments of the conference of solution at the end of the conference of solution they go from being a nuclear pariah to in the rear partner. and at that point they are subject to the same verification that germany or japan or any other country subject to and that basically consists of two things. it consists of iaea verification and the comprehensive safeguards agreement and secondly the additional protocol which is an enhanced verification that iran is committed to ratifying and implementing under the gpa -- jpa. there will be more robust verifi

how close is iran to having nuclear weapons, does iran want nuclear weapons? something i teach my undergraduate at georgetown university is in order for nuclear weapons to happen or nuclear proliferation to happen, there is a supply side, those things have to come together. on the supply side the country must have the ability to build nuclear weapons and on the demand side, must have the will to produce them. i talk about the supply and demand. how close is iran to having nuclear weapons capability? to build nuclear weapons iran has to do three things. it has to acquire enough material to form the core of the nuclear device, that can be highly enriched uranium or plutonium. second, iran has to be able to form that into an explosive device, the nuclear warhead and third it needs a way to deliver that to an opponent, ballistic missiles, aircraft, submarine launch, ballistic missiles of the platforms that dvanadvance nuclear powers use. all the matters is the first stage. the international community if necessary could take military action, could destroy those nuc

iran is different. and as we sit here, today is exactly 40 days away from the july 20th deadline set by the agreement. and again, as was previously mentioned, there is talk about moving iran back on the pathway to nuclear weapons capability. i think many of us have stated here before and again today that moving iran backwards is not sufficient, the goal should be to move iran off the path to a nuclear weapon. by that long way of introduction, mr. rademaker, for the whole panel, is there any reason why we should be giving up as you stated, the goal of holding iran to zero enrichment, holding iran to not having an iraq plutonium reactor, holding iran to fully disclosing their previous potential military dimensions of their nuclear program? >> well, first of all corporationman, i think you and i are in violent agreement about our perspective on this. in answer to your question, the rationale for allowing them to enrich, i'm really the wrong person to ask to provide such a rationale because where i come dow

special torah in iran.e eight months into the rouhani presidency, expressed outrage over the alarming number of executions that have taken place in iran this year. per capita, iran ranks first in the world in terms of executions. more than 500 executions have taken place this year alone. but the iranian government had only publicly reported on some 125. a recent report by the u.n. special repertoire, stated there are at least 895 prisoners of conscience and political prisoners in iran. this includes civic activists, students, journalists and other society leaders. political prisoners face widespread physical, mental and often sexual abuse. iran continues to discriminate and to perpetrate egregious abuses against minorities. the largest nonmuslim group in iran, numbering somewhere between 300 and 400,000. faces discrimination throughout the iranian judicial system. as of last year, 136 are being held in iranian prison for religious reasons. since 2005, 49 incidents of arson have been reported on the property

iran is no soviet union. i mean, do we really believe that we could put in place a way to just to monitor and this is what i'm going to ask you, are there ways to put in place to monitor what they're doing and do it with assurances they're not hiding anything in mountains or underground. >> one of the challenges we face you quite rightly point out this is very much an asymmetric relationship. this is not where the united states is concerning some of its capability compared to something that we're asking iran to do. we're asking iran to stop doing what it has been doing illicitly in -- against international norms and international agreements and we're trying to trade off sanctions relief against that. we know how to monitor missiles an we certainly have a track record of things that we could put in place if we could bring iran to that position. >> no, but your point is right on. that's so central because if we're talking about weaponization and miniaturization that's a delivery system you have to look at the b

sanctions on iran have to go have to go way, our sanctions on iran have to go away. all of that will end at that point. restrictions on nuclear commerce with iran and so iran can be singled out and treated differently than other countries. we can't have export controls that treat iran differently than other countries. nor can the rest of the international -- iran becomes a legitimate partner so the idea of a conference of solution is for a period of time if iran behaves if they are not caught cheating and they uphold their commitments of the conference of solution at the end of the conference of solution they go from being a nuclear pariah to in the rear partner. and at that point they are subject to the same verification that germany or japan or any other country subject to and that basically consists of two things. it consists of iaea verification and the comprehensive safeguards agreement and secondly the additional protocol which is an enhanced verification that iran is committed to ratifying and implementing under the gpa -- jpa. there will be more robust verifi

we have heard the harsh realities in iran. , dr. george iran is not alone.a part of your commissions mandate by law is to review the ongoing facts and circumstances of violations of religious freedom around the world. present that in your annual review and make policy recommendations to the president .nd secretary of state comic entries are listed as a country of concern due to their ongoing violation of religious freedom? how manager commission recommend to be listed? when was the last time in a country was designated as a country for particular concern by the state department? administration overrule your commissions recommendations? is the systematic of a larger problem that the united states is dropping advocating for religious freedom on our foreign-policy agenda? have we been using all the tools available to us like shank shins -- sanctions. your you again for testimony and telling your story. that story is not unique to just you as a member of a minority community. 'su talked about rouhani citizens rights. , the least ofns which that does not recommen

as well as iran. does iran, i believe iran has an opt-out system. >> no.an opt-out system. what he's talking about is when you die, are you considered, you know, like communal property, or is it assumes that you were going to donate. and if you don't want to donate, you have to call or e-mail a registry that says you do not want to be a donor ahead of time. there are softer provisions and harder provisions. soft provisions would allow your family still to say no. hard provisions would say if you have said -- if you have said nothing about or began donation -- organ donation, your families can't stop it. my problem with that is i think it kind of goes against the grain of what americans believe. they believe they kind of are control of their own fate and their own bodies, and they like the idea of their families deciding if they haven't decided. but that aside, that aside would only increase the number of organs by maybe 10,000. i think through living donations we could solve the organ shortage. and the reason, you know, maybe not with just getting rid of t

and the nuclear weapons program to the risk of proliferation to iran. as opposed to continue rain with 6 inches with a continuous nuclear development? that is not a good solution so that a negotiated solution is ideal if you can get it but it has always been possible to negotiate an agreement with ivory and we just have to agree to their demands and we have a deal. obviously that is not acceptable. >> you want to get a deal. >> we know it is not easy if it was we would have done a net. we know it is hard. this is hard stuff. that is why the hearing is stood and listening to you with this dialogue is good to hear sides from other countries because this is not easy. thank you for your testimony about a time -- i am out of time. >> thank you for calling today's hearing and one of the great foreign policy challenges we face are preventing a nuclear armed dictatorship in their ran one of the things that has been lacking in this discussion so far today is the fact that we would not care as a fundamental difference if this was brazil, ireland's with the nuclea

the interim agreement of last year would allow iran to maintain an enrichment program to give iran cover to develop a covert weapons program as the the ability produce low enriched uranium is close to that needed for a nuclear weapon. if iran is left with the capacity to enrich a breakout race to a weapon will be a permanent threat. a threat that undoubtedly will increase as sanctions are eased and the world turns its attention elsewhere. that's especially troubling given how iranian leaders have spoken of israel as, in their words a one-bomb country. many on the committee are very troubled that the obama administration has this on track to an agreement that leaves iran as a permanent nuclear threat to the region and to us. today's hearing will be this committee's latest warning against the ill considered course of action. i will turn to the ranking member for his opening statement. mr. elliot engel of new york. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you and i have made a great deal, as have other members of the committee about the bipartisan nature of our committee and how you and i have

and iran. the meeting comes one week prior to scheduled negotiations between iran and six world powers, including the u.s. and russia. the negotiations are aimed at limiting a ron's nuclear program and possibly removing further sanctions. june 11 is the deadline for the copperheads of agreement to be reached. >> the earliest account we have of joseph smith's first vision occurs in a book he began riding in 1832. in the front part of that book, he wrote a worse no history about his life until that point. he described a vision he had 12 years earlier. joseph smith himself did not write the things personally. he had clerks riding before him. altogether in finished form, we volumes. 2000 printed >> this weekend, learn about the rich history and literary life utah, at 6e city, p.m. today on c-span 2's book tv. >>

and now we might rely on iran? i mean why are we trusting these untrustworthy actors. >> i don't think we're trusting untrustworthy actor ps. iran debate gets away from the point of what's happening inside of iraq. what's happening is a terrorist group that were unleashed largely by the chaos that came into iraq after we started a war in iraq. don't forget that mali ki is iran's guy. at this point we need to focus on the fact that this terrorist threat is real to iraq and the region and we need to be worried about it. but the petty micromnging of who we should partner with -- >> i don't think it's petty. clearly you cannot argue that these are not trustworthy guys. you're not making the case that iraq is playing it straight with us. >> what this has to do with, just as in 2006 to 2008, we were able to work with all sorts of countries around the region to increase stability inside iraq. even iran wanted that at that time. they encouraged secretary governance. >> the reason that he's able to do that, the reason he's

iran becomes a legitimate partner. so the idea of the comprehensive solution is that for a period of time if iran behaves, if they are not caught cheating and uphold their commitments under the comprehensive solution at the end of the comprehensive solution, they go from being nuclear pariah to nuclear partner. at that point they are subject to the same verification that germany or japan or any other country is subject to. that basically consists of two things, that consists of iaea verification under the safeguards agreement that applies to all countries and the protocol which is enhanced verse verification that they are required to under the jpa. that's it the. there will be more robust verification agreed to under the comprehensive solution. i think the parties are talking

iran. it's "inside story." >> hello, i'm ray suarez. over the weekend, iraq stayed isis posted pictures on the web that shot around the world. captured soldiers from the iraqi national army, restrained, led to a field and executed in a shallow trench. isis said that it has killed 1700 soldiers that way, and the army says it's a lot less, but either way, it's a symbol of the cold murder that isis said it's prepared to use in a drive to take as much territory as possible in a drive for a sunni state on both sides of the border. iraqis president is under pressure and scrutiny. maliki was voted in in the last round of voting but the territory in which he is charge is shrinking. the u.s. has ruled out sending the u.s. military back into iraq, but the country is examining the options and one of those is talking to iran. long an american opponent and a government. >> i wouldn't rule out anything constructive to providing real stability. >> in an interview with yahoo news monday, secretary of state john kerry said that he might be willing to re

now, it also comes as both iran and russia are also aiding this iraqi government. of course, in neighboring syria, eric, the u.s. is supporting the sunni rebels against the assad-backed iranian and russian government there. it is a really strange bedfellows of people in the middle east right now. but the u.s. basically working alongside russia and iran trying to keep up this maliki government. the question is will maliki, the prime minister, eric, still be in power at the end of this week? we'll find out on tuesday when iraq's parliament meets to pick a new prime minister. >> all right, conor. and isis, of course, still pressing its advance. thanks so much. arthel? >>> benghazi suspect khattala is now being held at a detention center after making his first appearance in u.s. court yesterday. khattala pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to provide support to terrorists. this after u.s. agents interrogated him on the navy ship that brought him here from libya. but lawmakers are hoping his trial will provide further insight into the events of september 11th,

with the support of iran. now the whole issue of whether or not we could have stayed in some numbers really is just debatable. on the one hand, many feel that we should have insisted much stronger that we have a residual force there and the argument that comes back is, well, maliki was taking his orders from iran saying under no circumstances could american troops remain. well, maliki is now paying the wages of his sins in the sense that when you take the u.s. forces out, it's almost predictable what's going to happen. it takes time to train an army. it takes time to inculcate certain democratic values and, clearly, maliki has been pursuing a very narrow sectarian objective. and as a result of that, you have the sunni moderates joining with the most radical of all elements in al qaeda now taking towns all over the central part certainly and part of the north of iraq. i think that we're not going to be in a position and don't want to be a position of helping iran simply confirm what's been going on by having a

>> if there's something constructive that can be contributed by iran, if iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of iraq and the ability of the government to reform, i think we are open to any constructive process here that could minimize the violence, hold iraq together. the integrity of the country. >> the pentagon was quick to stress that for now, that would be purely political, not military collaboration. iran would be something of a strange bedfellow, though, of course, with the shared goal of stopping sunni insurgents sweeping iraq right now. it would be the latest in a long history of america forging some pretty uneasy alliances in this region. desperate measures spurred by desperate circumstances. that's because isis fighters took another city tal afar just before dawn today. adding it to this list of territories already under isis control. you see those cities there. and there are also new rumors of mass atrocities, include something reports that isis fighters executed hundreds, some say more than 1,000 iraqi soldiers and posted pic

would acknowledge that iran is a big important country that you. happens to be a neighbor it happens to be next door to iraq next door to syria has a lot more right to be in the region than the us you know and begin a process of normalizing those relations that's a huge challenge to israel it's a huge challenge to saudi arabia and the other gulf states but if the u.s. was prepared to say you know what israel doesn't get to set our foreign policy you know what saudi arabia doesn't matter does it if all of those countries were ready then there could be the beginning of real negotiations which then could pull in russia as well and go back to the potential for negotiations that we saw that was never really able to come to fruition the last time around i mean given that talk ron and d.c. are so at odds with the syria issue i mean is that the only way reconciliation can really happen is if the u.s. says look let's leave all these other people not to dictate our foreign policy and really negotiate around where we can absolutely that's why president obama

deal with iran?be talking to a former ambassador of one of those states coming up, and tell us what you think. how high could oil prices go if iraq gets worse? tweet us @fbnatb, your answers coming up. ♪ ♪ peace of mind is important when you're running a successful business. so we provide it services you can rely on. with centurylink as your trusted it partner, you'll experiencreliable uptime for the network and services you depend on. multi-layered security solutions keep your information safe, and secure. and responsive dedicated support meets your needs, and eases your mind. centurylink. your link to what's next. so i can reach ally bank 24/7 but there are24/7branches? i'm sorry- i'm just really reluctant to try new things. really? what's wrong with trying new things? you feel that in your muscles? yeah...i do... drink water. it's a long story. well, not having branches lets us give you great rates and service. i'd like that. experience a new way to bank where no branches = great rates. ally bank.

that's where talks between iran and western powers over iran's nuclear program are happening.e situation in iraq and reopening of this embassy are talked about as well. okay. unfortunately we don't have him there. i'm sorry. we had the line but didn't have the sound. so we will try and re-establish the line to vienna and speak to him for his views. >>> okay. let's round up some of the day's other main stories now. the french president has condemned an attack on a teen e teenager in a suburb. the 16-year-old boy is in critical condition after he was beaten by a mob that suspected him of being behind a burglary. the president said it was an unspeakable and unjustifiable attack. >>> crew members of the south korean ferry that sank in april with the loss of 300 lives have argued it was up to the coast guard to rescue the passengers. the 15 surviving crew members of the sewol are on trial from charge ranging from homicide after abandoning the ship with most passengers still on board. >>> at least 20 people have been killed and least 10 injured in a bus crash in venezuela. it was 35

is only getting its international help from iran. so i, for one, believe the united states needs to be active. and i would like to see us active also in the form of air strikes. >> on top of that, the former acting cia director told cbs today i believes isis wants a save half tone launch a terrorist attack in the u.s. potentially we are putting more pressure on the president to act on his own. >> thank you. let's get some thoughts from senior political analyst. >> reporter: president obama has an interesting view of wars and how they end. most presidents bring the troops home when the war is over. mr. president thinks he can end war by bringing the troops home. he thinks leaving is winning and the only thing better is not to get involved in the first place. it seemed a quiet place compared to its earlier years of blood and chaos. so he appeared them to be sovereign, stable and self-reliant and brought the last of the american troops out. it seemed not to occur to him the presence of those forces were a major region iraq was holing to

and iran.his is the moment when i can be possible. right now in this exploding violent conflict going on on the sectarian bases in iraq and syria, iran and the u.s. have a lot of the same interests. for someone different reasons, but they come down on the same side. in iraq, it is clear iran on some level like to see malik he and his sectarian shia government stay in power, but iran certainly does not want to see an explosion of this kind of destabilizing violence on its long border with iraq. in syria, both countries have an interest in tamping down the violence, even though they have differences over what the real threat might be. syria are still supporting the syrian regime. the u.s. opposes the syrian regime. the both iran and the united states say they are against isis , the leading force in syria that is opposed to the syrian regime. so the u.s. and iran in that context are on the same side. it makes the whole u.s. policy eric complicated and very sort iscontradicted of of what it trying

and iran and we have we have worked with iran in the past with in terms of afghanistan and there are there are shared interests i mean there was talk before in terms of the discussion about nouri al maliki being you know america's nouri al maliki i mean he's also iran's nouri al maliki so there is that in the sense in the sense there and iran will be will be looking obviously incredibly closely at the situation and is. is it is becoming ever more apparent that actually nouri al maliki is one of the biggest factors in in this problem and is sectarian as ation of a state institutions aside iraq and iran will be looking at this very closely indeed nouri al maliki does not command all support from all all of the shia community inside iraq and i think we saw that in terms of the parades in baghdad of starters militia and that is another another sign and of course these will be taking orders from iran that's interesting to put. a militia in in the context of how iran sees that but again that is further proof not just i mean the violence with isis in terms of engaging various sunni communit

if iran and the united states cooperate on iraq there is the fear that iran gains additional leverage on the nuclear issue. and this will make the saudis but more importantly the israelis very worried. because they are under the impression that iran is on the march in the region and whether that impression is correct or not cooperation between iran and the united states and iraq could complicate nuclear negotiations. while it is theoretically possible i'm not sure it's the best time. >> what sort of working relationships do you think the two will have? >> the united states and iran on iraq? >> yes. >> right now i don't think they're going to work together very closely. we've heard reports there have been some discussions but i think the united states has been very careful to separate the nuclear issue from other regional issues in the fear of making negotiations very complicated. and i think that has been smart. the problem though is if i.s.i.l. captures more iraqi territory and is poised on marching towards baghdad and taking the capitol then the united states might have to consider

there is a fear in iran. after all, who is going to lead and since iran has an upper hand in many ways in terms of technology and techno contracts, and the way it is managing itself under the embargo i think it has left a very positive image as a whole. to be the leader and that's the fire that is really pushing the isil to go to the land of not only discrediting shia as non-muslim, but that iran will not succeed. make it clear that iranian arms cannot really protect iraq at all. that's what they fear. that it is iran's protection that is keeping iraq going under the mismanaged government of nouri al-maliki. >> professor landis, briefly, before we go, does this war have the possibility of changing international borders in that part of the world? >> well, it could. in the sense that you have two shiite governments. one in baghdad, one in damascus. in between them there is a big sea of sunnies. if you keep the same borders and keep assad in baue power. it's going to finance. isil is saying this will not stand,

we talked about iran, and you've talked about the unique set of circumstances with iran. and to a certain extent, with russia and ukraine that targeted sanctions, you think, have already affected russia's economy, and potentially this behavior. where doesn't it work? steve? syria? >> well, a couple things. and i'm -- others can correct me on the numbers, but one of the issues that came, surfaced in connections with sanctions against russia on ukraine is people, you know, the united states generally has to lead on these things, and encourage the europeans to come around. but i think germany is, i think, russia's number two trading partner, if you take the eu together it's far and away the number one trading partner for russia. we're way down that list. so one of the problems in sanctions is, you know, they need to be multilateral many times because the folks with the money, with the economic and financial relations, may not be the united states of america. this is why it was so important to bring the europeans along, which actually started in the clinton administration, to

officials said talking with iran would not mean coordinating iran's military. the u.s.ts allies have accused of iran of trying to build a nuclear weapon. but iran has, of course, denied that. one top adviser said the united states and iran are the only two countries that can bring the crisis to iraq to a peaceful end. ed henry is here. it seems like the administration is doing some backpedaling on iran's role. >> they are. this would be a curious alignment, as you're suggesting, the u.s. secretary of state calling iran the terror around the world which has been inciting terror inside iraq for years now. but when as secretary of state john kerry went on yahoo! news as you suggested, he left the door taupe some sort of a partnership, if you will, that would end the war in iraq. >> look, we're open to discussions that can be contributed if iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of iraq and the ability of the government to reform. >> reporter: now republican john mccain said it was foley to suggest that the u.s. could actuall

it comes to tackling the crisis but it's not just about iran and the u.s. syria israel and saudi arabia all have a huge stake in the power play unfolding in the middle east and every wrong move could set off a dangerous chain reaction or earlier i spoke to phyllis bennis middle east expert at the institute for policy studies i first asked her why iraq and syria are so intertwined when it comes to what's happening on the ground. when i think it has to do with a couple of things certainly there's the shia connection these are both predominantly shia country. countries and the governments are shia oriented they share enemies who how they define enemies but it's also a question of the political positioning of the various countries you know you have a situation where syria has positioned itself historically although it didn't really play the role that positioned itself as the arc of resistance as the resistance force in the region it didn't really play that role that united with the united states to go to war against iraq it attacked the palestinians you know so

is willing to work with iran on this iraq crisis. how does iran help here? the u.s. are not happy with the shia led government and al-malaki government. could they convince iran to convince al-malaki to step aside. >> you asked me earlier about what saudi arabia said. the reality is the reason why saudi arabia is very angry was al-malaki. they believe he is a client of iran. when i say there is a regional war by performy, it's between saudi arabia and iran. this is the big dogs, they are waiting -- >> you have the u.s. seemingly reaching out. >> why? because iraq is iran's most important ally. iran has major political capitol inside iraq. iran could really exercise its influence and try to convince al-malaki to stand own or establish a more inclusive government, a national unit government that addresses the legitimate grievances of sunni arabs. isis or isil is embedding itself within the sunni community. you don't want this to happen. there is an urgent task to drive a wedge between the sunni community and isil, because if isil finds a social base within a sunni comm

a former ambassador for iran, worked in iran's foreign ministry, advised iran's powerful national securityncil, and worked alongside iran's new president hasan rouhani. welcome to you. >> thank you. >> let's start with this idea that a collaboration of some kind between the u.s. and iran would serve mutual interests in iraq. >> certainly iran and the u.s., they have common interests and common threats in iraq. the rise of the new version of very dangerous terrorism from syria and iraq spilling over to the whole region is a threat to iran and the u.s. both. the breakout of civil law from syria from iraq and later perhaps to jordan, lebanon, and even persian countries is a matter of concern, a threat for both iran and the u.s. it is about more than a decade that the iran and the u.s. are supporting the same government and the collapse of the government, the collapse of the state, the collapse of the iraqi nation is not what iran and the u.s. are seeking. however, i believe neither iran can imagine the iraq crisis nor the u.s. and even if tehran and washington go for comprehensive cooperation

sanctions is what brought iran to the table. my personal belief is that we need to make sure iran understands that the no deal is -- no deal is better than a bad deal. no deal is not the sanctions we had in november of 2013 but orders of magnitude greater bite in those sanctions if there's not a deal that is to our terms and does close those gaps. with that i yield back. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. we go to mr. ted yoho of florida. >> thank you. we've sat here several times in the past year and a half. i think some of you have been here, and i remember ambassador bolton was here and everybody was pretty" agreement that iran was going to have feasible nuclear material to construct a bomb, five to six bombs, by january, february of this year. has iran accomplished that mission? do they have enough material to do that? >> i don't think we see that. the sense is no, they do not. the concern was when they had 20% purity and enough kilograms up there to have maybe one -- >> but yet we don't have all the information. s