omri, if would you like to pick up. fill out some of the -- omri: sure. i think in addition to the geopolitical environment and the verification regime, it's important to understand the dynamics that have emerged here in town over the last month, two months, certainly before that, this debate has been shaping up for several years. but really after the announcement of the jcpoa in the middle of july you saw a particular kind of debate shape up here in town. and it has a range of dimensions that have to do with intersections between policy and politics, frustration on the hill. the administration is operating in an environment in which they've lost the benefit of the doubt with many lawmakers. both republican lawmakers and democratic lawmakers. and that comes from a number of places. it comes from frustration by lawmakers who believe that they were led, that they were essentially had their chains pulled for several years, for several years, of course, administration officials would go to the hill and they would testify that if only were they to be given bre

omri: sure. one of the hallmarks of this debate is that is a more specific version of what mike was talking about, which is this has not been, and there is a , and this hason not been a clean debate. this has not been a debate. a lot of this debate has occurred with not just different claims being made but claims were either in one way or another fine. they told lawmakers, please back off. of course, they will be forced to come clean. of course, they will have to get access. to parchin. i do not think we would have accepted an offer that did not parchin, ando then as those began to fall by the wayside, a number of things started to happen. one is that it was done on blinking. this goes to the level of absurdity with the anytime, anywhere inspections, where secretary kerry says no one ever mentioned anywhere, anytime. that interview happened during testimony, so we have not had the usual way for political deliberation to proceed. nobody's asking for, and it will not be achieved. that is an absolut

omri: sure. one of the hallmarks of this debate is it's a more specific version of what mike was talking about, which is, this has not been -- and i suppose a more specific version of what david's talking about -- this has not been a clean public debate. this has not been a debate -- a lot of this debate has occurred with not just different claims being made, but claims that were either in one way or another not binding. the usual way that the risk of oversimplification, the usual way policy proceeds is policymakers lay out their goals, they articulate why they believe that a particular policy has more benefits than costs and then they defend them. but we've gone through a two-year process where the administration repeatedly told lawmakers, please back off. if you give us breathing room, we will do things like -- of course the iranians will be forced to come clean, under secretary sherman, every time they went to the hill, emphasized that. of course inspectors will have to get access to parchin,

michael: i'll just say that, with respect to what omri just aid, i too have been disturbed by the way that the administration has presented things. on monday in a way that it completely contradicted on tuesday. and then nobody is troubled by it. but i would also add that this has played out and this has since the from the moment out interim deal was signed november 2013. the final agreement that we got was prefigured in the interim agreement. the interim agreement gave the iranians the right to enrich, although that phrase was not in the agreement, it effectively gave them the right to enrich. it also gave them the sunset clause, that this would only be a temporary restriction on the program. at the same time, while the negotiation -- while the agreement was being negotiated, we saw greater coordination between the west and iranians on the ground in the least, where we have shiite militias led by the iranians in iraq, enjoying the air cover of the u.s. air force. the public has been informed. me is therprising to number of people who have seen this clearly and have pretended not to. i

omry has been taking a lot of political and policy matters regarding both the iran deal and unfolding here in washington. it is a real privilege to have him here. thank you for being here. to be on the panel with mike. mike will be taking up some of -- broader implications of the comprehensive plan of action, especially how it relates to american strategy in the middle east and what it looks like, what that deal and the ramifications and consequences of that deal look like in the broader middle east. it is an exceptional panel. i look forward to learning a lot from it. i hope you do as well. right now, david, if you would would be great. david: it is my first day back in washington since may. i missed much of the personal combat that has been going on. institute and i are neutral on the deal. involved inly developing provisions in the closely with some negotiators in the agreement. some of the negotiators have said some of the provisions, our name is on it and we share with other governments and groups. at the same time, when we assess also the final deal, we see several weaknesses in