inside iran and even among iranians outside of iran. even among iranian americans who live here who might despise the regime and what it does in terms of human rights and civil rights. but still believe that iran should be an independent nation, should not be a country that is allied, necessarily, to one country -- to another greater power or not. so for iranians, that third concern is actually quite important. and that's the concern that the regime has been able to play on for the last 30 years. and particularly in the last ten years when it's been about the nuclear issue. this concern that we want to be an independent nation. we don't want to be dictated to by the west. we don't want to be dictated by anybody let alone the west. in in the foreign ministry, they carved into the law neither east nor west. it's important to the iranians to not be linked to the communist east or the capitalist west. and that sentiment still plays a very strong role in the iranian culture. so i'm going to move to whether this government or this regime is a

the problem with iran -- not the problem, the challenge with iran, iran is not the country which you can bully. it simply doesn't work that way. if you look at what iran excels at at the olympics, it's wrestling and weight lifting. really, i'm serious. this is a country that's very very nationalistic but has a strong sense of self. i told people if you go to teheran, i'm sure you all will at some point, your host will take you to something called a zuhrhana. it's a house of strength where people do sort of synchronized weight lifting. it's very, very interesting. the point i'm making is culturally this is not a country that gives in well to -- they have a strong sense of themselves. they're very nationalistic. there's a sort of a marshal quality there. it doesn't work. what's so interesting about the collection is yet again an opportunity for some type of peaceful resolution of our differences with iran emerges. again, i'm skeptical because i'm always skeptical. we middle east specialists are kind of the oncologists of middle east studies. invariably, we're wrong, we can't do anythin

ideology on iran, and iran is resisting that. and another example for the iranians is the sass saying of -- the assassination of nuclear scientists which is blamed on israel and the united states. and although the united states claims that it's not involved in the assassination of iranian nuclear scientists, that's not very much -- that's not very well believed in iran by even ordinary iranians who dislike the regime. then you have the virus introduced to the program running the nuclear program which caused a lot of damage. the iranian people have two major concerns in life. they have one concern which is economic, which we all have. everybody wants to have a good economic life, have a stable life, have a stable country, a stable economy. and to do well. their second concern, secondary concern, is a socio political concern. so they want a government that represents them. those two are their own primary concerns for the iranian people. the iranian government knows those two are the primary concerns. they know the economic concerns

effect on iran. mary snow is in new york. mary. >> ali, mistrust fueled by people and parties not attending the negotiation in vienna. starting with ayatollah ali khamenei. he has warned the u.s. cannot be trusted and hopes the talks will succeed by demanding most sanction he be lifted before the infrastructure. and inspections of iranian military sites and he resumed out any freeze on iran's nuclear enrichment. so-called framework that iran struck in early april. that agreement came one month after republicans led by house speaker john boehner made a dramatic show of their mistrust of a deal by allowing israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu to speak in march. spoke for nearly an hour, announcing a bad deal, that iran would emerge with a clear path to the bomb. take a listen. >> this will not change iran for better. it will only change the middle east for worse. a deal that is supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation will only spark, not a farewell to arms, but a farewell to arms control. >> 47

weapons iran is against. the u.s. officials know well if iran did not want, bashar al-assad would not agree. >> iran is okay with bashar al-assad bombing with conventional bombs. >> this is it a war. conventional civil war is something else. we are talking about weapons of mass destruction. >> syria - we have lost the embassy in syria and yemen, where the houthis come south. you know, you can be the judge, and your public can be the judge of whether the activities are helpful. we can face criticism and do better. if you are concerned about proliferation about north korea, israel and others, why is iran losing the trust of the international community and i.a.e.a. by claim thatting it needs nuclear energy for energy. purely a question of trust. either the world trusts iran or doesn't and we'll find out. >> we'll have a final question. nuke loor programs historically have never been the type as described by the worst fears of those that believe iran will get a nuclear weapon, meaning they've never been a civilia

weapons surround iran. why wouldn't it be natural they may want a weapon. >> we must not allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. >> it could lead to a nuclear arms race in the middle east. >> they are a designated state sponsor of terrorism. >> this is a state threatening to annihilate israel. [ chants ] >> we can't get on iran's back and say you can't have nuclear arms, but we can. >> a nuclear armed iran would bring stability to the region. >> you'll never be invaded if you have nuclear weapons. >> who presents an existential threat to all. >>> we have ambassador, former iranian nuclear negotiator and ambassador to germany, and ambassador lincoln bloomfield, former assistant secretary of state under president george w. bush. thank you for joining us, gentlemen. ambassador, before you think we are insane with the premise, we are asking the question why shouldn't iran have nukes or why can't they. fully understood iran says it does not want nukes. we are asking the question. it's a fair question. if everybody

permanent 5 and iran on the other. this talk of non-negotiatables and red lines, is it looking more or less likely that iran's nuclear programme will be limited, regulated and inspected in return for the limiting or lifting of international sanctions on the republic. >> joining us the president of the united against nuclear iran, and the director of the middle east programme at the wilson center, and charles duelfer, former u.n. weapons inspector and chairman of a washington area consulting firm. let me start with you. does the finish line look closer or further away now that things are breaking up and june 30th is arriving and leaving without a deal in. >> ray, i continue to think that a deal will happen, i don't know when. the supreme leader intervened on the eve of the deadline last summer, he gave a speech, laying out red lines. months later the iranians made concessions and compromised and produced the framework agreement in april in lausanne. this may be a similar situation where you put forward red lines, unacce

iran to allow iran --the u.s.iran to sit -- what you say to the fact that we refuse for them to do so? general flynn: ok, yesterday there were fbi agents in long island that went into do a search of an individual's home. the individual was there. this was yesterday. they found that an associate in new york had plans to do further damage in this country. i do not think this is just an iraqi syria problem. it is not. it is not. >> [indiscernible] general flynn: huh? >> [indiscernible] general flynn: i've got real big hearing problems. you said about iran, again, be very careful when you hear or see a headline in a major media outlet, go dig in and find out what they are doing. no find out if the iranian backed gore led by a guy who is a minister in the government, go see what their behavior is on the battlefield. go see if it is internationally except it norms. whether it is within the rule of law or the land of warfare. this is tit for tat out there. do not think because they are fighting isis. there is a war betwe

inside iran and even among iranians outside of iran. even among iranian americans who live here who might despise the regime and what it does in terms of human rights and civil rights. but still believe that iran should be an independent nation, should not be a country that is allied, necessarily, to one country -- to another greater power or not. so for iranians, that third concern is actually quite important. and that's the concern that the regime has been able to play on for the last 30 years. and particularly in the last ten years when it's been about the nuclear issue. this concern that we want to be an independent nation. we don't want to be dictated to by the west. we don't want to be dictated by anybody let alone the west. in in the foreign ministry, they carved into the law neither east nor west. it's important to the iranians to not be linked to the communist east or the capitalist west. and that sentiment still plays a very strong role in the iranian culture. so i'm going to move to whether this government or this regime is a

the problem with iran -- not the problem, the challenge with iran, iran is not the country which you can bully. it simply doesn't work that way. if you look at what iran excels at at the olympics, it's wrestling and weight lifting. really, i'm serious. this is a country that's very very nationalistic but has a strong sense of self. the thing i tell people if you go to teheran, i'm sure you all will at some point, your host will take you to something called a zuhrhana. it's a house of strength where people do sort of synchronized weight lifting. it's very, very interesting. the point i'm making is culturally this is not a country that gives in well to bullying. they have a strong sense of themselves. they're very nationalistic. there's a sort of a marshal quality there. it doesn't work. what's so interesting about the election is yet again an opportunity for some type of peaceful resolution of our differences with iran emerges. again, i'm skeptical because i'm always skeptical. we middle east specialists are kind of the oncologists of middle east studies. invariably, we're wrong, we c

ed by iran, bomb and killed -- which was supported by iran bombed and killed. in iraq, 2006 2007, 2008, they were responsible for killing hundreds of our service members through the she height militias that were -- shi'ite militias that were operating there and may have killed as many as 1,500. that's major, major american blood on their hands. this is a regime that has never, since 1979, showed any evidence of changing or deviating from their ideology rooted in militant islam. they are a danger not only to the region but to the world. and i think you're starting to see, well, we've seen now for some time, since this president's taken office, iran has steadily increased its influence and power in the region. they're the number one actor in iraq by far. they're now battling for yemen with the huties they're the number one patron of hamas on the gaza strip, they're the number one patron of hezbollah and lebron and they're the number one pate -- lebanon and they're the number one patron of assad in syria. this is a massive shi'ite crescent throughout the middle ea

but then what does iran do next? do they take a course of joining the community of nations in peaceful activities and nonproliferation? we certainly hope that would be the case but we don't have any illusions that that would automatically occur. or do they act with the increased economic empowerment to have more negative impact in yemen and syria and iraq and spreading terrorism? we need to be prepared in how the united states can best act to make sure that the iranian activities are channeled towards positive rather than negative activities. and then lastly, if we are not able to reach an agreement, we also need to be prepared as to how we act to make sure iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. >> thank you so much. we will now turn to our witnesses. our first witness is the honorable james jeffery currently with the washington institute. ambassador jeffery previously served as the deputy national security adviser to president bush. ambassador to albania turkey, a

iran's nuclear deal. and the suicide bomber, attack in kuwait. >> welcome back to al jazeera america. here is a look at your ton stories this hour. facing a -- top stories this hour. greek banks are going to be closed all week long. atm withdrawals are limited to $66. the move coming after european officials refused to extend had a loan deal for greece. it owes $1.8 billion by tuesday. >>> pride week, rainbow thrag waved in studies across the united states. celebrating the supreme court ruling celebrating same sex marriage. the second of those prison escapees from new york is now in critical condition. he was located in the town of conestablish in northwest new york. sweat was convictof murder in 2002. it's sunday night time for a look at our week ahead. with reports of tehran making demands on key points of the iran nuclear deal, there's talks that tuesday's deadline will have to be extended again. now that iran will only sign a deal if those international sanctions are lifted first. so how did we get he

and same thing in iran. there are steps we can make sure that this is not just security from a land invasion but the infiltration of the region but an iranian ambassador. indyke said shia supported almost an i deal logical religious movement. >> senator purdue. >> thank and thank you both for being here in your testimony and your service to our country. i have a question about the money and the sanctions. today it is estimated that we have about $140 billion in held cash through these sanctions on just their oil exports alone. president obama back in april mentioned there would be a signing bonus. we don't know details about that, as high as $50 billion on that. iran right now is producing -- potential capacity around $36 billion annually in terms of oil exports, larger than venezuela. and they spend about $10 billion to $17 billion on their military and that seems low but those are the estimates that we've seen but it puts in perspective their about to have a cash wind fall and with their history of support

the shot was the head of iran. -- the shaw was the head of iran. he was democratic if you agreed with him. if you did not, you are likely to get lynched. at the same time, who were the co-conspirators? we can litigate from other points in time, but if you look at the literature, our allies were the conservative energy to make up the leadership of the islamic republic. while americans like to sell flagellate, if you want to be accurate, we are apologizing to co-conspirators. we have done it again and again. regardless, when it comes to the iranian government and the united states, and i do not include the iranian people but the guys with the guns control things when it comes to that we had good relations after the coup until the revolution. 1953 is not the breaking point. with that, let me turn over to claire. [applause] mcfarland: clare lopez on the center for security policy. lopez: thank you very much. and thanks to the acu for sponsoring this event. the chance to talk about such an important topic. i want to talk about a couple of things. michae

iran expert, lived in iran and knows a lot about nuclear weapons. then we'll ask clare to give opening remarks, then we will interview both. then it is your turn. michael? rubin: thank you very much. it is an honor to be here. . >> it is an honor to be here her cry want to address very briefly so conclusion first of all, there has been absolutely no bias from the revolutionary guard corps is problematic because when it comes to issues with command-and-control with the nuclear program the islamic revolutionary guard corps would have that control and custody so we're dealing with the foreign ministry that is un able to show they can bring the of core into compliance. number two the president is about style the leader is about substance he has not firmly committed to the nuclear program talk about her awake flexibility the office has suggested it means the change of tactics but not policy he is happy to get more than $100 billion of sanctions relief with unfrozen assets but that does not mean with basic policy with regard to nuclear weaponry also looki

the prime minister of iran. now that episode was hardly noticed in the world press and certainly the involvement of the united states the truth of what really happened was completely unknown at that time. at the time this coup was launched it seemed like a success in the united states. we had gotten rid of someone we didn't like and put in someone we did like for 25 years the period that the shah was in power, we could still from the perspective of the u.s. government consider this to be a success. it's only now looking back on it from the perspective of 50 years of history that we can begin to understand what fundamental turning point this 1953 coup was. this was an episode that really shaped the whole second half of the 20th century. and had a great influence on the violent currents that are racing through the world today. it would not have been possible to realize this even a few years ago. it's only now that we're able to understand the meaning of this episode and for that reason it teaches us a real object

the problem with iran -- not the problem, the challenge with iran, iran is not the country which you can bully. it simply doesn't work that way. if you look at what iran excels at at the olympics, it's wrestling and weight lifting. really, i'm serious. this is a country that's very very nationalistic but has a strong sense of self. i told people if you go to teheran, i'm sure you all will at some point, your host will take you to something called a zuhrhana. it's a house of strength where people do sort of synchronized weight lifting. it's very, very interesting. the point i'm making is culturally this is not a country that gives in well to -- they -- in well to bullying. they have a strong sense of themselves. they're very nationalistic. there's a sort of a marshal quality there. it doesn't work. what's so interesting about the collection is yet again an opportunity for some type of peaceful resolution of our differences with iran emerges. again, i'm skeptical because i'm always skeptical. we middle east specialists are kind of the oncologists of middle east studies. invariably, we'

it is doing nothing to stop iran's regional aggression. it encourages iran. they soon get over $100 billion in sanctions relief. it provides little comfort that we can prevent a regionwide nuclear arms race among iran's adversaries. and offers no answer once the agreement expires after 10 years. the clear goal would be to dismantle the nuclear weapons program which, after all, was president obama's stated objective. if current negotiations cannot accomplish that goal, sanctions should be strengthened and the threat of force restored. in other words, president obama should really be held to what his long stated policy was. with regard to ukraine, we must take the steps to deter further aggression and deny the kremlin a victory in its attempts to undermine the government of kiev. we must raise the costs of military action and it requires the u.s. to lead a robust and coordinated efforts with our allies to build the capacity of the ukrainian government. ukraine is prosperous, free, and stable. it will stand as a rebuke to moscow. and frustrate vladimir putin's a

shouldn't stand up for women's rights, for example, in iran. doesn't mean we shouldn't decry segregation. we shouldn't decry various aspects of civil rights that are abused. but it also doesn't mean that we should try to impose our way of life and our thinking and our ideology on other people without taking into consideration that there's a culture there that is proud, that needs to evolve in its own way and its own time. and whatever changes come to the government, whatever changes in terms of the political system happened, have to happen internally. they can't happen because we want them to happen. that's just not going to happen with iran. you know, we tried that in iraq. and we were able to bring about the change in iraq. but i think in the long-term when we look at it, there are few people who are going to say that for america -- maybe for the iraqi people 50 years from now they'll say thank god the americans removed saddam hussein because we got what we wanted in the end. that may be true. but for america, i don't think america is going t

to talk about the iran deal deal, iran used to be one of the greatest threats to the shah of iran was one of the closest allies and in 1979 there was the iranian revolution to bring to power a different type of regime. with an ad after a state sponsor it has pursued a weapons program but what it has done in the last decade it has continued the nuclear weapons program and encouraging regimes throughout the region and it now gives credibility to death in america when iran for started to chant death to america with president reagan came into office there was the relationships to be tenuous at best over the last 35 years. one of the concerns of all of us have is the agreement to negotiate with ivory and. and the three experts will talk about that but the key question is the administration claims is that a legitimate question or two options? the second is if there is an agreement is a verifiable? trust but verify. is this as we see it that is enforceable if they are receptive with the agreement to clawback the sanctions with any leverage and finally why does every and once this agreement i

and iran.alue of an agreement is that it would be supported by all of those six biggest countries and most important countries in the world and the un security council. that is the perfect protection against iran cheating because we know they have violated their treaty commitments and understandings before, but it does provide some measure of determinants so that if iran reenacts or cheats on the agreement, hopefully the u.s. and the allies would be in a good position to resume economic sanctions, political isolation, and if necessary, use military force. host: this is a tweet from another viewer who says, isn't a stock iranian economy the best way to promote a modern i'm a non-extremist iran? guest: well, the experts will argue about that. there was one school of thought that agrees with that. if you open up iran's economy, it will eventually not right away, it will eventually strengthen those sectors of the society that paper reform and moderation. and get iranians a stake in not pursuing nuc

with iran, iran is not dismantling its nuclear weapons.it's not being asked to stop support for terrorism. it's being rewarded with a signing bonus as michael said i think $120 billion on day one as assets are un"f iran. so, to quote the general iran is getting nuclear weapons. we now realize iran will probably have an economic boom in the region and the other countries in the region as claire cleverly pointed out the other countries in the region are buying this and will embark on their own nuclear projects. money will be no object. when that starts happening, which we feel it will be in the next several years that you will see nuclear weapons introduced into the most dangerous and unstable part of the world a part of the world where people should be allowed to play with matches and now going to have nuclear weapons. as we have seen in the last 18 months governments long time autocratic governments can fall seemingly overnight and what takes their place is not freedom and democracy and human rights but jihadi chaos. so we could potentiall

the deal with iran, iran is not dismantling its nuclear weapons. as not being asked to stop support for terrorism. it is being rewarded with a signing bonus of a hundred or -- $120 billion on day one as assets are unfrozen. it means the islamic economy will boom. it will be like the california gold rush as companies and companies rush to do business in iran. they are getting nuclear weapons, they will have an economic boom in the region and the other countries in the region aren't buying this. they will embark on their own nuclear program. it is a region where money will be no object. they can buy the programs. when that starts happening which we feel will be in the next several years, you will see nuclear weapons introduced into the most dangerous and unstable part of the world. a part of the world where people shouldn't even be allowed to play with matches and now will have nuclear weapons. it we've also seen in the last 18 months governments long time governments can fall overnight. what takes their place is not freedom and democracy and human r

with iran. is that possible? we don't know that at this point. but if there is going to be some attempt that is made towardsbetween iranian governments, surely it's based upon an agreement that doesn't then lead to an automaticity of action that is already preapproved by this committee in terms of use of military against iran, if there is some questionable activities, questions that are raised with regard to compliance with the agreement. so i just disagree with you, ambassador jeffrey. i just think that would be a dangerous statement for us to be making at a point at which we've reached an agreement that is acceptable to the p 5 + 1 and will lead to a sigh of relief across the planet. and that this would be an unnecessary escalation in terms of the dynamic that would have potentially have been created between our country and iran. >> senator one word on this, i understand your point. none the less, it is the policy of the u.s. government we would do this. that was announced repeatedly by the pr

in an iran task force memo on verification it says that -- quote -- "until iran provides a full accounting of its past and present possible military dimension activities, the international community cannot have confidence that it knows either how far iran is along the path to nuclear weapons or that iran's nuclear weapons activities have effectively ceased." david albright, who i've called many times when i was a chairman and still has come before the senate foreign relations committee, the founder of the institute for science and international security, said the secretary's remarks were -- quote -- "very worrisome. he said they reflect the administration's long-standing practice of offering concessions to iran. and he said -- and i quote -- " whenever confronted with iranian intransigence they fold. it's going to be hard for a lot of people to support this deal if they give in on past military dimensions." he has always said addressing the international atomic energy administration's concerns about the military dimensions of iran's nuclear programs is fundamental fundamental to any long-t

the deal with iran, iran is not dismantling its nuclear weapons.as not being asked to stop support for terrorism. it is being rewarded with a signing bonus of a hundred or hundred and $20 billion on day one as assets are unfrozen. it means the islamic economy will boom. it will be like the california gold rush as companies and companies rush to do business in iran. they are getting nuclear weapons, they will have an economic boom in the region and the other countries in the region aren't buying this. they will embark on their own nuclear program. it is program. it is a region where money will be no object. they can buy the programs. when that starts happening which we fill will be in the next several years, you will see nuclear weapons introduced into the most dangerous and unstable part of the world. a part of the world where people shouldn't even be allowed to play with matches and i'll now have nuclear weapons. it we've also seen in the last 18 months governments long time governments can fall overnight. overnight. what takes their place is not

and regarding the iranian nuclear deal and iran and the sanctions we have on iran.ecent reports indicate that the administration will not only seek to lift sanctions on iran's nuclear program, but also lift sanctions on iran for its ballistic missile program and its conventional military support for terror and its abysmal human rights record. will the administration lump these on iran as nuclear related? when we tried to bring it up they said they are not nuclear related, but it seems to lift sanctions, everything is nuclear related. >> first on your first question, thank you for not asking me to do that math on the spot. it would have been deeply humiliating. >> tough for me to do that, too. >> and then, second, on iran, absolutely not i think is the answer to your questions. we will -- the sanctions that we, the united states, have put in place that are so important on human rights, given the human rights record which we support should remain in place. >> thank you. if i could continue, last week a u.n. panel stated that the u.s. has neglected to report iranian sa

he has a long history in iran. he said it is not so simple. >> countries with large oil and gas reserves are beginning to compete with each other. mexico is opening up and has potential. there are big shale opportunities in the u.s. iran needs to create terms that are attractive to investors. it has to be something between a service contract and a psa. ryan: the deadline for talks between iran and the other countries over a nuclear arrangement is september 30. we get the sense that the negotiations between iran and the oil companies is going on for a lot longer. that might have an impact on exactly how quickly iran is able to bring a much larger amount of oil to the market. mark: ryan, good job. thank you. ryan chilcote in vienna today and tomorrow. the job stories on bloomberg. australia's trade deficit widened in april. that is the country's biggest trade gap since records began in 1971. australia had to close coal ports and limit shipments due to storms. dish network is in talks to merge with t-mobile u.s. accor

and the success came because it was iran versus the west rather than iran versus the us. so going through these negotiations would probably -- the only way to really keep this coalition together (does not comply now and we could come back and it won't be that simply nothing will be good enough for the us but there is a material breach that is demonstrated that iran simply will not live to the agreements that are set out. i have been supportive of negotiations. i agree with the formulation that senator mccain put forward. sanctions were effective and debilitating their economy but it did not do much to slow their drive the drive for a nuclear weapon. i don't know how the same level of sanctions over another amount of time while we would expect that to have a different result. so now given where we are command i agree with the formulation that an agreement that really truly does limit there ability to move forward to nuclear weapons if only for ten or 15 years is better than not having an agreement and we can focus on the other issues, but that's what i want to ask you abou

of the broader question of iran. and we need to be very careful that an apparent resolution of the nuclear question is then allows us to mislead ourselves that we've suddenly solved the iran question which i think lingers for a very very long time. i also need to mention that, you know, in the executive branch in the last administration, we left this as an ugly baby for the new guys. this was not a problem that we all went if you'd only done what we just laid out, this would have been finished in your first term. we didn't have any such plans. i fully recognize how very very difficult this is. all that said to answer john's first question, i do think we're trending towards a deal. i think the dynamics of a negotiation as many of us feared have croateated its own energy in the direction of a deal. the dynamics being so strong i think that we've gone from if we were ever at no deal is better than a bad deal, i actually think the circumstances under which we now operate because of the energy and investment that's been p

the solution is nonnuclear iran. it's democratic iran that will contribute to peace and stability in the region. >> as you know, the stream lead denied inspections of iran's military facilities and interviews with iran's nuclear scientists. with limited access work? do you think a deal without inspections is acceptable? >> it is absolutely not acceptable. the mullah's nuclear program is drawn by the revolution it got. so it is impossible to have an effective inspection regime with unconditional access to all military sites. the military dimension of the regime's activities are taking place in military sites. >> what does it mean if a deal does not include inspections of military facilities? what do you fear? >> we are confident that the regime is pursuing the bomb. we have information. the iranian resistance exposed detailed information about work done on nuclear warhead and nuclear figures. we are confident the nuclear program is run by the regime. the people of iran want to get rid of this regime. i'm confident tha

the nuclear deal with iran has focused mostly on iran just harnessing nuclear power in and of itself and it has been treated as an issue that is exclusive from iran's missile capability which we know is essentially a litmus test for a country's nuclear ambition. that being said, why has the united states not addressed delivery systems for nuclear power as opposed to just nuclear power in and of itself? >> bad policy decisions by the president. this is an example of something excluded from the negotiations from the very beginning, in part because the president is so determined to get a deal of any kind with iran. so we largely excluded any negotiations about their ballistic missiles. they already have missiles that can hit pretty much every one of their adversaries in the region. the only reason they need a ballistic missile with intercontinental range is to reach the united states, or at least our allies in western europe, or at least to threaten the united states and try to deter us from protecting our interests and defending our allies in the region. it's a piece of the four americ

they were to give iran more power. iran is soars about its own end of commitment. the executive director thank you both for being with us. >> thank you for having us. >> here are some of the other event in "the week ahead". tuesday - new jersey's governor plans to announce he'll run for the presidency >>> wednesday - mcdonald's to pay a dollar more than the minimum wage. and wednesday - oregon plans to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, there's no licensed retail stores in the state to sell the drug >>> kuwaiti officials identifying a saudi man as a suicide bomber that attacked a shia mosque. we have the latest from kuwait city center mohammed jamjoom. >> kuwait's ministry identified the bomber that killed 27 people and injured 220 as a saudi citizens. the interior ministry say he took a fight, and hours later he entered the mosque blew himself up in the horrific attack that shocked cow wait unlike an a -- kuwait unlike an attack that happened here instaying a sense of fear. the interior ministry announced other arrests in relation to this attack. on frida

. ♪ charlie: we turn now to the nuclear deal with iran.e new york times reported that five former advisers of president obama and iran have written an open letter to the president questioning the deal. david sanger said the public nature of the announcement has a challenge to secretary of state john kerry as the negotiations had to a deadline next tuesday. it's one day after iran's supreme leader rejected a freeze on nuclear research. he said iran will only sign a deal of national sanctions are lifted first. joining me are two of the former advisers of the letter. gary is the president's former top advisor for nuclear policy and ambassador dennis ross is a counselor for the washington institute for near he's policy and former president on iran. david sanger is the national security correspondent for the new york times. i'm pleased to have all of them on this program. tell me the significance of this, as you reported in the new york times. david: i think the letter that was written by the five, and it was a bipartisan letter that had many m

they have been able to learn new things about iran suture future production and they happened -- iran'sifuge production and they have been able to identify that they are reaching those agreement. if we do not reach a deal, it will not end or alter the demand for greater respect for human rights and the rule law. we continued to insist that iran can help us find robert levinson. [applause] secretary blinken: and reaching the conference of deal will not alter our commitment to fighting iran's efforts to spread instability and to support terrorism. this will not change with or without a deal. [applause] secretary blinken: but iran with nuclear weapons -- without a nuclear weapons, excuse me be far less emboldened. it will reduce the pressure for nuclear arms race and strengthen the international proliferation regime. is a critical step to greater global security for the united states, for israel, and for all of our partners in the region. finally, i would like to address this morning another great concerns. and that is the deeply disturbing rise in anti-semitism in parts of our world that

is have some sort of trust of iran. are we really supposed to trust iran? >> i think right now what we're trying to do is develop a partner. we're trying to engage them and have them engage us. >> they're calling for destruction. >> that's my point. >> i think it's important that we understand there's got to be a bigger vision here than simply more sanctions. it's not -- the end point is not sanctions. the end point is to create a peaceful middle east where we are not called upon to spend more money, more lives, more death, more bombs, and a greater threat -- >> have i absolutely no confidence. >> they can't even strike a deal on capitol hill. you go to the negotiating table. we have a president and a secretary of state to have tunnel vision, and all they see is nobel peace prize legacy. they're not thinking about how do we get the best deal out of this? instead they're thinking we just want to strike a deal so that we have a good legacy but what we should be doing is making sure we have a deal in which inspectors can g

stay with us. >> rose: we turn now to the nuclear deal with iran. the "new york times" reported today that five former varieses of president obama and iran on nuclear policy have written an open letter to the president questioning the deal. david sanger reporting for the "times" about the group said "the public nature of the announcement as to the challenge facing secretary of state john kerry as the negotiations head towards a deadline next tuesday." the letter comes one day after iran's supreme leader rejected a long-term freeze on nuclear research. he also said iran will only sign a deal with international sanctions are lifted first. joining me are two former advisers and sig tors of the letter from the harvard kennedy school gary samore. he is the president's former top varies for nuclear policy, and from washington, ambassador dennis ross. he is a councilor at the washington institute for near east policy and former varies for iran at the national security council from the white house. finally from vienna, david sanger from the "new york times.

today a leading iran expert told fox news iran is hemorrhaging money in sanctions, costs and in support for the assad regime in syria but senses an opportunity in these talks. >> you know you would call an asymmetry of desire. secretary kerry wants to leave this legacy of resolving conflict and the supreme court leader has been ruling for 26 years and his record has been very consistent. the organizing principle of the iranian government is resistance against the united states. >> and just in the last five minutes we learned from state department officials that secretary kerry's latest sit-down with iranian foreign minister javad zarif has begun and it's under way as we speak. it will be the last of the sessions of zarif urns to iran for consulations in his capital. jewel? >> count on spendingled fourth of july in vina james. thank you very much. >> probably so. >> without verification without the ability to have international inspectors go on to those military sites and be able to get the questions answered without the ability to talk to those iranian scientists this deal wouldn't be w

and iran and a new era for iran's place in the world. even if you get this deal, how likely is it that iran in a good faith sense joins the community of nations? >> the middle east is a graveyard for empires and forecasters. difficult to predict how this deal will play out. the paradox of iran is you have a regime who wants to be like north korea and society that wants to be like south korea. they want to be prosperous. there's a valid concern in the short-term this is not going to do anything to transform iran but if you are able to open iran up economically and try to crack it open politically, i think there's a better chance of transforming the system than keeping it under isolation. >> thank you both so much for coming in today. we'll stay on top of these negotiations. up next the supreme court hands down an historic decision on marriage leading conservative lawyer ted olson will tell us why he's been such a strong advocate for same-sex couples right to marry in all 50 states. what do you think about the supreme court's marriage ruli