Transcripts For KQED Charlie Rose 20150304

Wittes. He wanted to deal with the clause issue and the Ballistic Missiles. Those are not inor inordinately unwise positions. Rose tom friedman, ben rhodes, ray takeyh and Tamara Coffman Wittes when we continue. Thrs funding is provided by the following. And by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. Rose we begin with israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahus speech to congress today, the runnerup to the visit was highly controversial. Speaker of the house jon boehner extended the invitation without consulting the whowssments many perceived the political address as an insult to the white house. This h deal has two major concessions. One, leaving iran with a vast Nuclear Program and, two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. Rose president obama defended the Nuclear Negotiations following the speech. The alternative to the Prime Minister offers is no deal in which case iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its Nuclear Program accelerate its Nuclear Program, without us having any insight into what theyre doing. Rose joining me from washington, New York Times columnist tom friedman. Pleased to have him back on the program a couple of things. One is a quote from you earlier saying the decision by Prime Minister Prime Minister and House Speaker john boehner to cook up a conversation on why the u. S. Should get turf on iran is dangers and churlish. Do you believe that now that youve heard the speech . I do. The real question here as i watched the speech the Prime Minister of israel is making the case why there is nothing more important for israel america or the world, the stability of the world than iran not get a Nuclear Weapon. Theres a lot about that sentence i would even support. I think iran getting a Nuclear Weapon in an already unstable middle east that could only lead to more proliferation of more Nuclear Weapons in that region. Really is not only, you know, bad for israel or other arab allies there but would be terrible pore the world, it could unravel the Nuclear Nonproliferation regime which is already unraveled and would be happening in a region where the traditional deterrents that america and the soviet union had during the cold war would not be present. You know, mutual assured destruction is one of the things that kept a balance between the United States and the soviet union during the cold war. In the middle east, mutual assured destruction is like an invitation to a party for some people. So a lot of these traditional, you know, constraints arent there. So i totally buy into the fact that this is a huge issue. You know charlie, if i was a Prime Minister of israel and this was the Biggest Issue before me, would i potentially pollute it by insisting and speaking to the u. S. Congress two weeks before a neck and neck election which ive actually fallen slightly behind in where it invites people to speculate whether this isnt just about the future of israel and iran but the political future of Bibi Netanyahu . Would i do that . And if this is the Biggest Issue facing israel, would i not announce that im not going to allow any more settlement building in those areas of the west bank that are already understood by israelis and americans that would be part of any palestinian state that is negotiated or israel unilaterally withdraws from and i wouldnt do that because by announcing that kind of forbearance i would end or seriously diffuse a lot of the delegit medication of israel in europe particularly who support a need for the iran deal. So when i listen to netanyahu, i see a guy who, when it comes to taking on iran, is churchill and when it comes top risking his own political capitol is awol. Rose he thinks the deal is a threat to israel and israels survival . Sirlz living in the heart of the region, has been targeted by iran before and haas every reason to worry it would be targeted by iran again. I understand that. But our interests i think, can be satisfied and i think we have to start with what are our interests by a deal that builds in a kind of oneyear insurance before iran can get a bomb which is what the president is going for. Now, id encourage the congress if were worried about the deal if we got the deal the president s been talking about with this oneyear breakout insurance built into it, i would encourage the congress to pass authorization for our president , whoever is president , but put it into law authorizing the use of any means possible or any means necessary to respond to iran should it violate this deal. Rose the president seems to believe seems to believe that, in fact, what the israelis want the iranians to do they will never do and trfer, military action will only be the only alternative and that will simply delay the program not end it. It. I think its a legitimate argument. I also think in fairness to netanyahu, there is a legitimate counterargument that if you extended the sanctions i dont think there is much chance that europeans would intensify the sanctions let alone china and russia and its not clear if israel were able to scuttle this deal that they would even keep the sanctionons that we have right now. But im not so sure that the morning after the collapse of this deal iran goes out and starts enriching full scale because it could invite an Israeli Attack then, let alone an american one. What if we learned about wars in the middle east . Weve learned that you tend to bump into things that you never expected. You tend to have outcomes that you never anticipated. That not only applies to us but could to israel as well. Israel has thousands of hesbollah rockets on its border now aimed at israel basically with a trigger in tehran. I shudder to think of the damage that could will inflicted on israel, its society, institutions and economy from iranian retaliation. Rose netanyahus problem is he doesnt trust the iranians to do anything and therefore doesnt trust any agreement with them except pore the elimination of all of their Nuclear Facilities correct . Yeah, if youre netanyahu and have seen iranians blow up your embassy and Jewish Community center in argentina and get away with it, if youre america and see iran, we believe, was implicated in the bombings of our barracks in the towers in saudi arabia, in killing of our marines at the beirut airport any number of charges built for shiite militants in iraq to use against our forces. I have no ill lunges about who the iranians are. I just know one thing, charlie the only longterm security for israel and any of irans neighbors, not to much, i think for many of the iranian people is some kind of change of the regime in iran that is driven from within. And the one thing obamas deal has the possibility of and i would be very careful about making any predictions about this, but at least it contains the possibility of some greater iranian integration into the world and the possibility of some change of course there. Now you say well, maybe the use of force would do that as well. I dont know. All very uncertain. It might lead to some strong nationalistic fervor. Exactly. Because this you know and ill say about the middle east all politics in the middle east happens after the morning after. So, you know, thousand iranian people would react the morning after military tactic would be different but thats not dice i would care to roll right now. Rose is your understanding of what is being negotiated would allow the iranians to develop the capability to have a Nuclear Weapon as long as it is at least a year off so that they could do something within that year . Well, i think their position is slightly different from that, charlie. Their position is that iran already has the capability. The only question is can they enrich enough fissile material to design the warheads and load them onto a Missile System and this whole deal is designed to put a years distance between those capabilities. Rose so the capabilities within that year would be to enrich the uranium which would provide the fissile material correct . But the uranium they would be enriching would go out of the country and be stored in russia. Rose so you have described for me as we talked the essential difference to have the two administration also in terms of what they believe is possible and what it is that is at the heart of their disagreement. There was a period three years ago or so where bibi as Prime Minister prepared a military response and both the assad and u. S. Military disagreed with it and he was not ready to overrule them and they disagreed for a fundamental reason. They felt once you started this war with iran it would in effect never end because they would keep trying to build a bomb israel would keep having to bomb them, iran would keep retaliating against israel via hesbollah and you would be in a cycle that would be tremendously damaging to the israeli economy. So lets remember, there are only bad options on the menu now. Good options went out the window a long time ago so the idea that bibi represents this pure wonderful, perfect solution and netanyahu represents only threat or the other way around is really an illusion. Rose suppose there is no deal, a the president says its probably unlikely there will be a deal. Suppose there is not where are we . My guess is, if there is no deal and the president comes out and says i failed to get a deal, but i want the iranians to understand that i am prepared to use any means necessary, as i promised, to prevent them from acquire ago Nuclear Weapon which i believe will threaten our interests and those of our closest allies in the middle east and europe, my guess is, my bet and its only a guess and a very small bet is that the iranians would not do anything. They would keep their program right where it is at this subthreshold level. Rose suppose there is a deal, what would israel do . Its hard to know. Lets remember, in terms of the interim deal, Prime Minister netanyahu said the interim deal that set up the negotiations would be a disaster iran would violate it and it would lead to an end of sanctions. That didnt happen. So what would israel do . I dont know. There is a whole covert Israeli Program that goes back to the u. S. Israel initiative to introduce cyber viruses into the Iranian Program. I think you will see the israelis double their Covert Program which involved assassinating Iranian Nuclear scientists and trying to introduce vie russells and other things into the iranian Nuclear Program to undermine it. Would you see that as at a maximum . I dont know. We may have a very different israeli Prime Minister in two weeks. Rose thank you, pleasure. Thank you, charlie. Rose when we come back i turn the program over to Jeffrey Goldberg in washington who has a conversation with ben rhodes of the National Security council. Goldberg im Jeff Goldberg of the atlantic magazine filling in for charlie rose who is anchoring cbs news. We continue tonights coverage of Benjamin Netanyahus speech to congress. Joining me is ben rhodes, deputy National Security advisor for Strategic Communication for speech writing. We heard the president say he heard nothing new. This speech going to damage the president s cause . I dont think so. The president said theres nothing new because we have been hearing the arguments from Prime Minister netanyahu privately and publicly for some time. He made clear his opposition to the type of deal were pursuing. Weve heard different arguments weve heard from different places from the Prime Minister pulled together in one place. The president said he made similar arguments a year ago and that was born out as a successful effort to halt irans program and roll it back in certain elements. So the Prime Minister has been clear about his view but we dont think hes putting forward an alternative to deal with the issue of preventing iran to get a Nuclear Weapon as effectively as the type of deal were negotiating. Goldberg i was surprised at the emotional effect of the speech. As a speech writer, did you find anything in it that made you worried as essentially the adversary here . Were not adversaries. Sirlz one of our closest friends in the world. A lieutenant of what the Prime Minister said are views that we absolutely share. What he said about the nature of the Iranian Regime about the need to defend the jewish state those are things we fully agree with. We have a difference on how you go about doing that. So, yes, a tremendous need of emotional resonance and a need to stand up to the Iranian Regime. How do we accomplish the goal to prevent them from getting a Nuclear Weapon . Goldberg you say you share the view. One of the points he made is the negotiations should be enlarged to include irans support for terrorism irans support for assad, irans very aggressive moves in the middle east. The administration has been adamant that you dont want to do that. Why dont you want to do that . First of all, jeff, we think that the Nuclear Challenge is distinct and the Prime Minister himself said today that the challenge is a imine combination of Nuclear Weapons with this regime. We need to deal with a nuclear iran. They would be much more emboldent with Nuclear Weapons capability than today. The day after a deal is reached if we get an agreement our concerns ant other iranian activities in the region will be just the same today. Well be just as concerned about their support for terrorism, hezbollah larks destabling actions in the region as we are today. If you can verifiably ensure theyre not able to get a Nuclear Weapon, we will be more secure and the region will be more secure. Goldberg why are you so confident you will be able to verifiably ensure they wont have a weapon. This country had two Nuclear Facilities hidden for years eventually discovered through intelligence means but why do you believe its possible to know what the iranians are doing underground . Well jeff, the types of inspections were contemplating in the agreement do not just cover the Nuclear Sites the facilities, the reactor at iraq, it also covers the uranium supply change, so the uranium minus and mills, the production facilities where theyre proagd centrifuges. Were looking across the spirity of the iranian Nuclear Program, your best hedge against a covert path, because youre able to detect iranian activity and make sure they not only have the facility of concern but have to construct a covert spliff chain to feed into that. Goldberg intelligence is not a perfect art and weve seen multiicle occasions in recent American History of intelligence failing. Is there Something Different im not understanding . Whats different is iran would be accepting transparency. You have more eyes in the iranian Nuclear Program than any other program around the world. Without a keel, you dont have the inspections or transparency and more risk of a covert path. With the deal you get inspections, the ability to verify, the ability to challenge and seek out sites of concern to us and, again, were not going on trust here. The whole point of the inspection regime is we can veferl for well over aldecade what the iranians are doing in their Nuclear Program. Program. Goldberg why do you think the government is so worried in israel. The Prime Minister has a longstanding line that oppose this is agreement. The type of deal he laid out today involves iran involving its entire Nuclear Structure and changing the nature of his behavior in the reason. Thats a recipe for no deal. The iranians wouldnt agree and no other country would support us in that. Goldberg the United States should be the party in the driver seat. Were the super power. Theyre a weak country relatively speaking under sanction. Theres a perception out there among some people that the u. S. Wants to deal more than iran which is not logical. Thats not the case. The iranians dont want to make the type of concessions theyve already made and are contemplating. They already under the pressure of sanctions have agreed to get rid of and have gotten rid of the stockpile of urinums, the cartoon bomb president netanyahu had before the United Nations. They have capped their nonenriched stockpile and have ajusted their behavior in their Nuclear Program because of the interim agreement we have. When you talk about the limitations on the program, significant limitations, no ability to produce weapons grade plutonium. Not using the enrich meant facility. Having a oneyear breakout time with the enrich meant program that deals with the stockpiles and Center Funerals and the types of centrifuges, those are changes in iranian behavior setting the program back in terms of capacity to break out and pursue a Nuclear Weapon so we are using the leverage we have to bring to bear here but at the same time were dealing with different alternatives. What is the best altern teff course . A longterm deal that verifies into the doubledigits of years that iran is not pursuing a Nuclear Weapon is at least a year away in terms of its breakout time line and that involves these types of transparency measures is better than the alternatives. Military action would only set the program back by a fraction of that period of time or simply pending the sanctions, every time weve moved sanctions away from the negotiating table the iranians continue to advance the program. Goldberg the socalled sunset clause that says after ten or 15 years if this is not fully negotiated yet that this agreement would expire. Why is this being talked about as an issue of a time condition rather than actual behavior on the ground . In other words, why dont you set this up so that the United Nations Security Council for instance can look at iranian behavior over the next period of years and say, okay your honor what . Theyre being responsible actors, were going to remove some of these conditions wrath than just saying if you guys wait ten years youre going to be relatively speaking free and clear of these onerous burdens . Well, so, a couple of things, jeff. Firstfirst of all, were negotiate an agreement with specific duration. Were not negotiating a permanent treatiy and never has been. On the other hand, that should not be read as some tape of preemptive permission slip for iran to pursue a Nuclear Weapon on the back end of this agreement. The fact of the matter is the same type of options we have in place today to prevent iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon will be available to the president of the United States in 10, 15 years, whenever the conclusion of the duration of the deal is. Secondly, the transparency measurers will be extensive beyond the duration on the limitations on the program. So you will be able to know what the iranians are doing with the Nuclear Program and make a judgment at that time. I think the question is why would you not want to have a decade or more of verifiable limitations on the iranian Nuclear Program that prevents them from getting a weapon and then again the israeli Prime Minister, the president of the United States and the International Community can make a judgment on the back end of that deal about how to move forward. Goldberg president obama said one of the reasons hes so concerned about the iranian Nuclear Program is he wants to prevent a Nuclear Arms Race in the worlds most volatile region. From what i and other people hear from arab allies of the United States they are just as nervous about this program as sirlz. Is that something that concerns you or should concern you . Look, we take very seriously the security of our partners in the region including israel and arab partners. First of all were talking about an Iranian Program set back from where it is today under this agreement. So we have been living in a world where iran has a Nuclear Program for 10 or 20 years now and our partners have not felt the need to pursue their own Nuclear Weapons capability. The fact of the matter is iran is going to have less facilities, less centrifuges, longer breakout time during the duration of this agreement. So what we would say to them is we actually are preventing iran from getting the Nuclear Weapon youre concerned about. Goldberg but youre not guaranteeing permanent nonnuclearization. We will continue as a matter of policy to oppose iran getting a Nuclear Weapon. So again on the back end of this deal there is no permission slip for iran to simply then wait until the end of the agreement and get a Nuclear Weapon then. Again, there are limitations imposed for duration of the agreement. Transparency measurers that have more permsy. We can make a judgment on the back end of the agreement about where things stand. In the mean time, with respect to our partners we have to reassure them that this doesnt lessen our concern about what else iran is doing in the region. That we are more aligned with our arab partners when we look at issues like syria, yemen than goldberg but your arab partners would say in fact you have led the assad regime maintain its control over much of syria that you havent intervened in a more muscular way and a more robust way, and that their critique is you have been so focused on the nuclear file that youve allowed yemen to fall to the iranoriented iranaligned rebels that hesbollah is more powerful than ever, youve heard these arguments and comes back to the original question of why the sole focus on this behavior and not other bad behaviors that are actually affecting american National Security today . Well, first of all thats not our sole focus. Were superpower, we are doing more than one thing at a time. Every day we work to ep counteriranian influence. We do a lot to have restrict proliferation of Ballistic Missile technologies. We share information and intelligence about hesbollah. With respect to the gulf, jeff, we have tens of thousands of military personnel stationmade the gulf stationed in the gulf. We have deep relationships and joint military exercises we conduct with your Gulf Partners aimed at reassuring them that we have a commitment to their security and the president of the United States stood up at the u. N. General Assembly Last year and laid out really our core interests in the region. He put up top the security and sovereignty of our partners and that certainly includes allies like saudi arabia like the United Arab Emirates again who we manifest our commitment with tangible military presence in the gulf region. Goldberg you and i both know there have been difficult moments in the last six years between the Prime Minister and the president. Do you think theres a chance that the white house reacted too strongly to this speech to the idea of being invited by the republican speaker . No. First of all, jeff, this goldberg i mean, susan rice called this a destructive moment. This is not a dynamic we sought out. We have had a very clear policy of coordinating and briefing our israeli friends about the status of these negotiations for some period of time when there have been differences we addressed them privately, publicly. This specific speech is something that was planned between the Prime Ministers office and the speaker of the house. Thats what created the current dynamic were in. What we were articulating and susan was articulating is this relationship should not become partisan. The president himself said part of what makes our relationship different and special zits not between the parties it has to endure under different parties and should be bipartisan. Thats what we believe and what were going to continue to stand for. At the same time, on a core Foreign Policy of the president the Prime Minister is making a case that is against that deal that we believe is the right policy for the United States of america. Were going to make our case as well and do it respectfully. Goldberg what would happen if the Prime Minister were to win the argument, which is to say this was a very effective speech and he convinced some wavering democrats to join in with, lets say, a republicansponsored sanctions program that the iranians say, will drive them from the table . Two things, jeff. First of all, the deal doesnt exist yet. Our simple message to congress has been give us the space to get a deal and then take a look at it and people will have an opportunity to weigh it, to be heard. So one thing is lets see the deal, lay it out on the merits. Well make our case, people can make their case against it. The second thing thats important is lets say we dont get a deal. Lets say were not able to get to the finish line. Thats a real possibility because the iranians may not move far enough to reach our bottom lines in. That case its important the perception internationally be that the iranians are responsible for the failure of negotiations. Thats how we have been able to get by into the sanctions regime. Time and again we have been able to say iran are the runs who are not serious about these negotiations, therefore we need to tighten tighten the sanctions and apply pressure on them. If the appearance is that before were able to reach an agreement the United States took an action through for instance the passing of new sanctions that derailed the negotiation that puts us in a weaker position to build the very sanctions that the israeli Prime Minister has advocated. Soar, in other words, its important to let the negotiations reach the end point. If theres a deal, look at it. If not, let it be the iranians fault. Goldberg do you think the Prime Minister of israel is trying to drive the United States toward a military oventation with iran . Look, i dont think thats his preferred course of action. What i do think however, is theres a logic to the alternatives in the sense that if you get a an agreement thats verifiable that goes into the double digits of years, that gives us a pathway to ensure iran is not getting a Nuclear Weapon diplomatically. If iran does not reach that type of agreement with us and we pivot to sanctions, then the options start to shrink for the United States and International Community and youre either bet is going to completely capitulate under the pressure of economic sanctions which by the way can coz not seem likely given the very nature to have the Iranian Regime, that the Prime Minister laid out today or youre left with the decision to take military action. The president said all options are on the table and he means it. The point is the military option is not as effective as the dim pact option in ensuring iran doesnt get a Nuclear Weapon for the longest period of time. Has the white house studied this in a deep way and said, you know what . Were not going to be able to buy much time if we destroy the ten or fifteen remaining Nuclear Facilities . Yes, if you look alt even the independent assessments, jeff if youre talking about an agreement well beyond a decade or a decade itself, that is a longer period of time that you could set back a program by just bombing a certain number of facilities. They know the forel fuel cycle. They have expertise and what is most likely to happen in a scenario where theres a military option is they do break out and that the program goes underground. Goldberg what makes the president believe that an iran that is essentially empowered, that has been granted through this alleged deal or theoretical deal the right to enrich uranium that puts it on a pathway toward an end of sanctions, what makes the president think that this kind of empowering moment would lead to better behavior on the part of a country that he himself describes as a bully and as a sponsor of terror and as a sponsor of the assad regime . So a couple of things, jeff. First of all, we would make this deal even on the basis that the Iranian Regime is not going to change. So in other words, this is a nuclear deal, the type we are pursuing that we would make on the merits. Because we distrust the regime we would make the deal that includes the verification measures that allows us unfettered access to the their Nuclear Program. If making the deal pleads to a dynamic where the Iranian Regime is moderated, that would with a preferable course of action. Were not banking on that. The purpose of the griement is not to bet on the notion iran will moderate. The purpose is to prevent iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon throughout the duration of the agreement. Id say what weve seen in recent years as iran has been isolated is they prioritized their funding on the Nuclear Program, they prioritized their funding on the r. G. C. That the hard liners are very comfortable goldberg the revolutionary guard. Yes. Theyre very comfortable on the dynamic they still operate and get their accounts. There is i think a possibility that if you have this type of agreement, that there is a different faction of Iranian Society that does not feel comfortable with more hard line direction of the country that could be empowered and that could lead to a more moderated policy that would be good for the United States, israel and the whole region. Again, were not banking on that. I do think its more likely that that dynamic takes place if theres a Nuclear Agreement than if there is not. But again, were not going to take any chances on that and thats why the deal calls for the verification measures it does because lilt thats our best hedge against iran taking various actions. Goldberg how do you feel about these negotiations right now . Do you feel theyre moving toward a successful conclusion . I feel like they have come a long way but there is no guarantee. The reason i think we still put this as a 50 50 proposition is its going to come down to a question of political will on the iranian side. Can they make the final compromises on the key areas that can get this across the goal line . Ultimately, that decision is going to lie with the iranian leadership and until thats done, we dont know that the deal is going to get done. Again, whats different about now or november or july when there were extensions is were in the ballpark in terms of gaps narrowing, we can see what it looks like but were not there because the iranians move on issues we care about it and were not going to make a bad dial. We have had plenty of opportunity to accept the bad deal and we havent done it. Goldberg ben rhodes, thank you very much appreciate it. We continue looking at israeliu. S. Relations with the director of Brookings Institution center for middle east policy Tamara Coffman Wittes. Also with us is ray takeyh senior fellow for middle Eastern Studies at the council on foreign relations. Welcome to you both. Let me ask for a quick analysis of the speech as a speech and as policy and its ability or inability to actually shape american policy. Starting with you tamara. Well, i think the speech was very effective as a speech. I think, particularly attend when netanyahu was really playing to his domestic audience, to his it Political Base more than anyone he said, if we need to, israel will stand alone, but were not alone america stands with us. And that got a huge stand og standing ovation. I think thats probably the clip it will be use thing in its ads. Goldberg i thought it wasnt a political speech. I thought it was a modest speech in that the Prime Minister is accused of being maximalist. His demands were modest limited enrichment capacity, wanted to deal with the Ballistic Missiles. Those are not inordinately unusually unwise positions for a person in his position. Goldberg are these points iran will accept . What he highlighted was not criticisms limited to Bibi Netanyahu. These are the criticisms of most of the people in congress, criticisms of people like Henry Kissinger and George Schultz and criticism of numerous legislators in private. So its not an unusual position for him to be in. Thats the consensus position in many ways today. I think all of those involved in the negotiations would agree, in principal if they could get those things that would be great, they just dont think thats realistic. What was really striking to me in policy terms about this piece what was really striking to me in policy terms about todays speech is netanyahu did not have any alternative strategy to offer to get what the negotiators have already concluded they cannot get, using a negotiating strategy. Goldberg ray, did you hear any strategy there, any sort of practical advice to keep the iranians altiranians at the table and get from them what Bibi Netanyahu wants . The practical advice was you increase pressure and revisit the problematic provisions. Theres no way to disprove or prove that will work. Thats a proposition that can only be tested and practiced. I cant tell you it will or wont work. Moreover, he was saying wait them out, use time to your advantage. Ironically, this is the strategy the Obama Administration is trying to pursue and it was israel and congress that were presting for sanctions right away in such a way the administration fearful this would scuttle talks was asking for earlier conclusion. Iran is feeling the pressure of sanctions and if netanyahu had embraced that wait them out strategy in january i think he probably wouldnt have been giving this speech. Goldberg would more sanctions now or in the very near future impose on iran by the United States congress, would that cause the Supreme Leader to pull the plug on these negotiations or do you think hes bluffing . Do you think that the system is actually weaker and it would have to respond to more pressure by actually making more concessions . There are a number of reasons why iran stays at the table. Number one because the table works for them. They have managed to legalize and legitimize their program. They can only do that at the table. Number two, the table gives you a measure of Economic Relief even beyond sanctions, the psych the psychology of the moment. It stems the possibility of dissatisfaction. So there are a number of reasons he wants to stay at the table. Soim not sure if sanctions imposed at the would damage negotiations. But proponents of sanctions made one mistake after the Bank Sanctions the most critical on iraq at that time they should have pivoted from the sanctions into parameters of a final deal essentially whats happening today with bob coker and others figuring out how to inject their voice in the deliberations. I cant tell you he will walk away. Im skeptical. These negotiations have been going on 13 years. Its difficult to be concerned about longevity of negotiations that have gone on that long. Theyre the second longest negotiations in the history of the middle east without producing a conclusive result. Goldberg didnt address it at all by ben rhodes talked about this is the United States does not want to be perceived as the party that causes the talks to fail. What would be the consequence of that perception taking root in iran and in the greater middle east . These particular negotiations have to be viewed in segments. There is a lot of concern about them in the region uniformly, arabs and israelis. I think an International Community in europe if these talks fail, they have work to do Alliance Management and refurbishing that and making a case. I think its a possible case to make. If you cant win a p. R. Battle you have to revisit your p. R. Strategy. Goldberg ray, you have written that the Supreme Leader is in a way a strategic genius. This feeds into a broader notion, one that ive written about, youve written about, that it is very, very difficult ultimately, and this may be the dirty little secret of this whole process,eth very very difficult to stop a country of means of native intelligence, of resources that wants very badly to have a Nuclear Weapons program. Are we looking at something thats inevitable over time . Im not sure. There are two paths for iran to a Nuclear Weapon the legal and illegal. The illegal path is what they tried for ten years before 2013. Goldberg the facilities. Building up insulations, the capacity, but the risk of that is you incur sanctions, economic distress and possibility of a military strike. Thats a risky strategy. The other strategy is to get agreement permissible in terms of technology and has a limited sunset clause and after expiration of that you can build up to industrial size capacity which puts you in position to search for a bomb with impunity. Thats a longer path but more judicious path. The other is a riskier path. Goldberg do you think that the theoretical deal were all talking about its amazing the chronology here. The Prime Minister came to america to denounce a deal that doesnt exist. But this theoretical deal, do you think if ratified, it would set iran on a glide path toward a nuclear bomb . Because that is, of course, the scathing critique of the Obama Administrations approach. It allows iran to maintain enrichment capacity of some capability and sophistication and acknowledges on expiration of that date ten years, iran can be treated as member of the Hall Goldberg within the proliferation. And if iran has an industrial size program what happens inside an industrialized program is things move. The iran develops sophistication then it can develop clandestine facilities small enough that will be difficult to detect. Any inspection regime is predicated on what they call managed access. You have to essentially have permission from the iranians. Goldberg you have to call ahead. Yes. That point. I. A. Is unsatisfied with the deal in place. So if this deal expires the decision to have a bomb would be an iranian decision and thats it. I think the challenge here is what ray is describing is an iran that can reach threshold capacity, stay there as long as it wants, and sneak or dash across the line at some point. The question is whether theres any way to avoid that scenario. Realistically, iran was driving toward threshold capacity before these negotiations began, before the j. P. O. A. Was agreed to in 20136789 weve halted that agreed to in 2013. Weve halted that. Without negotiations in some manner they will be going down that road anyway. Its a heavy burden on the Obama Administration to make a case for the deal that the best it can achieve is to slow down the date you know, the time line for iran to be a threshold nuclear state. But i dont see any alternative that actually pulls them back from the threshold except the hypothesis that more pressure will do what all the pressure so far has not. Goldberg is there an alternative were missing . Yeah the position of israelis and americans and the critics of the deals and its proponents are not that far apartment. Goldberg could have fooled me. If the administration dealt with one aspect of the deal, name the sunset clause, it would be in a better position in terms of confidence. Ten years of a sunset clause talking about 30 25rbgs 10, the ten year sunset clause is a poison pill. If they adjust that theyre in a good position domestically internationally and in the region as well, i think. They have to go back and renegotiate that clause. American statesmen negotiate these clauses. Henry kissinger had to do it all the time, he did it in vietnam all the time. You have to go back and renegotiate that particular provision. Dollar lot of other problematic provisions to this agreement, but this they do that one because that is a provision that is easily understood, as veals understood digestible and disturbing. Goldberg let me ask you this question both of you about the Prime Minister today. Did he come here in order to create conditions in which a u. S. Military strike on iran would become inevitable . You know, to me, this was the most interesting aspect of the speech, and the area in which he seemed to depart from his previously articulated positions. If you look back to the disagreement that erupted between the u. S. And israel just a few weeks ago as reported in the press that the u. S. Has been negotiating on the basis of a oneyear breakout time and the israelis are now saying thats completely insufficient we need double that goldberg a year from a decision to make a bomb, to get to a bomb. Right. You know, that was a goalpost that i think the u. S. And the rest of the p5 plus one saw as completely unrealistic, uncleavable and a new unachievable and a new goal post. If thats the goalpost thats not a deal sippable to the israeli government. We heard criticism of one year but didnt hear a different goalpost. Goldberg what does that mean to you . It means to me that netanyahu is leaving things ambiguous. He was leaving room for himself to acquiesce in a deal if it got a little bit closer to what he wanted and i think also he didnt want to lay down a gauntlet in front of congress that would put them in a position where they felt squeezed. Goldberg is the Prime Minister trying to set up conditions in which there is only an eventual military solution assuming iran continues down this path . I take him at his word when he says he wants a better deal and hes right to high light the deficiencies of this, the issues of previous military dmerchtionups which are critical to a regime. The inspection regime that is to the fall within managed access, the tenyear sunset clause, these are not Bibi Netanyahus objections. These are a lot of other peoples objections. Since 2013, there were critics of the joint plan of action. Since then whose coalition has grown the white house or critics . Theres a loneliness to the white house position. The Republican Party is against it. Foreign policy luminaires lining henryHenry Kissinger and not an inconsequential number of democrats on the hill. Goldberg was there a moment you said they were played . Id go back to the bush administration. These were complicated negotiations and are going to be tradeoffs across a lot of different issues and i think the United States has to satisfy a lot of different Coalition Partners within the p5 plus 1 in the broader sanctions coalition amongst the partners in the region. Those are a lot of different friends to satisfy simultaneously. It might be theres nothing that will satisfy everybody so the United States will ultimately have to decide who it can most afford to disappoint. Frankly, given the the consequences that president obama has repeatedly laid out that hes worried about, if a deal is not achieved or if a deal doesnt do enough to contain rierns only bigs the Nuclear Proliferation concern in the region, if thats really the president s target, then he needs to satisfy his regional partners. If the saudis are unhappy, then this is not going to be a happy situation. Absolutely. And netanyahu made a very good point on that today, i think. P the deal isnt good enough the proliferation will happen anyway. That was an important argument. That said, its not the terms of the deal itself that will satisfy or dissatisfy those regional partners. Its also about the side deals that the United States can make with them the security guarantees, the other provision also that it can put into place in terms of Regional Security architecture. So the terms of the deal in and of themselves dont tell us enough about whether the regional partners are happy and i have to add, its striking to me that this is a moment when israel has maximum leverage to talk to the United States about what it wants in case a deal happens, what it could get from the u. S. In terms of additional intelligence sharing additional American Security guarantees. Its not using this timeo to have that conversation. Instead its engaged in an argument with washington about the process. Did the United States enter these negotiations prematurely . In other words, was the u. S. And the sanction regime that congress and obama had created together, were those really bringing the Iranian Regime to a crisis point and did we kind of throw them a lifelin with this interim agreement . If. N 2013 iranians economy was declining so there was a crisis of liquidity and economic crisis. I dont think the United States entered the negotiations premoo chiewrl. The United States has been involved in the negotiations for a long time. The the question of agreeing to an interim agreement which had a lot of positive stuff but stipulated principals for the final deal which is advantageous, that was a mistake. Goldberg tomorrow, israeli elections. How much about the visit was about prevent ago second holokansas and how much was about making sure that the israeli voters return him to power on march 17 . To be perfectly honest, im not sure its possible to disentangle these things. I dont know if in net nit its possible to disentang ale these things. Goldberg does he believe he is the state himself, the guarantor of their survival . No, but h he clearly believes it is his mission, perhaps primary mission as Prime Minister of israel to prevent iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon and to do anything it takes to achieve that goal. So his role as Prime Minister is to do that. That means its essential that he be Prime Minister. I think he holds both these views very sincerely and passionately. Give us a breakdown of his problem right now because he is facing an electoral problem. The center Left Coalition is polling fairly well. There are a lot of people on the right who are tired of having netanyahu as their standard bearer. What is the chance march 17 will be the end of the Prime Ministership of Benjamin Netanyahu . Odds are, i think, that he will be able to serve again as Prime Minister not necessarily because he will win the largest block of seats burks because looking at the fragmentation of israels parliamentary system, there are probably nor combinations that could have him at the helm. If you look at the polls, actually laborers numbers have been going up in the last weeks. Goldberg why the net in the more unpopular than hes been in is. Hes been in power six years and when you have been in power that long, any election is to some extent be a referendum on you. Israelis, i think, when they look at their domestic economic challenges struggling middle class, growing in equity, rising poverty rates in society or look at foreign and security policy, yet another war with gaza last summer, constant tensions in jerusalem, no end in sight on the threat to iran which he has been talking about for years, if this guy cant get the answers, who can . Its not clear to me that the israeli public sees any other term that offers more solutions. Goldberg do you think theres any chance the ayatollah would say, you know what, i would like to meet barack obama. Hes a person of intelty he goldberg how important is antiamericanism. Important, but he has learned to separate the deal of coming to terms with the United States. He understands that a deal serves a number of purposes for him and essentially insists therethatshould there be a Nuclear Arms Agreement it would not interrupt the region. Goldberg theres no trust between barack obama him and a coldness for a while. Do you see this damage as permanent . I dont see the damage as permanent. I think there is a permanent lack of trust between these two personalities but i dont think that would necessarily prevent them from finding a way forward onon. On the Iranian Nuclear issue or a host of arrearagele crises that demand u. S. Israeli cooperation. I think netanyahu set out with a bit of con cilia tore tone particularly at the beginning warm words about president obama personally. Goldberg warmer than hes ever been, i think. Maybe. And the substance of what he had to stay i think left room for the u. S. And israel to come to terms on this issue. But, practically speaking, i think this is an administration that is gaining out its last two years and not going to be tilting at wind mills. So fit finds itself dealing with Prime Minister netanyahu after the israeli elections, there are certain issues its not going to try to push forward including renewing israelipalestinian negotiations. Its just going to be a nonstarter. So i think cooperation will be there certainly Crisis Management will still be there, but i think theres just going to be a hesitation to press forward creatively on some of the other big issues where there could be progress. Goldberg Tamara Coffman Wittes, thank you. Ray takeyh, thank you very much for being here. Thank you. Rose for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs. Org and charlierose. Com. Captioning sponsored by Rose Communications captioned by Media Access Group at wgbh access. Wgbh. Org and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and Information Services worldwide. God isnt just about worship and faith. God is about making dreams come true in your life today by going to the source. Announcer dr. Deepak chopra, medical doctor, spiritual teacher and bestselling author, closes the gap between science and faith. We arent outside god. We are participating in god by simply being alive and conscious. Announcer simple, practical methods to profoundly improve the quality of your life whatever your beliefs are. The reason that god has a future is that once you contact the source there is infinite intelligence, creativity, peace and love. Announcer join Deepak Chopra as we explore the future of god. audience applause thank you