Transcripts For BLOOMBERG Charlie Rose 20240622 : vimarsana.

BLOOMBERG Charlie Rose June 22, 2024

End, together with the other Nuclear Related sanctions. We wanted to preserve those for as long as we could during that tenyear period, and we have a fiveyear restriction with respect to an arms embargo, and were continuing to work to limit their activities in those spaces. That again is the nature of this agreement. They get sanctions relief, and in return we get all these limitations to prevent them from getting Nuclear Weapons, and the verification measures. Charlie what is your hope and expectation that we will be looking at 1015 years from now . Ben well, heres what we know. We know that 10 years from now iran will have converted fully its reactor so it cannot produce weaponsgrade plutonium in iraq. We know it will not have conducted advanced r d that will allow them to enrich uranium. We know that for 15 years, they will shift 98 of their stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country and they will limit their enrichment to one facility. And again, we know their different pathways to weapons will be cut off. We know thats in place and we know that verification measures are in place to see if they are violating that deal. What we dont know is how iraq will evolve in these 15 years. If it will stick and be worth doing, if iran can sustain that in 15 years, we also know that a deal makes it more likely that iran will have an incentive to evolve in a different direction. We are not counting on that, charlie. Thats what the deal is all about. Charlie let me just understand that. Critics suggest that after 1015 years, the iranians will have a chance to go build a Nuclear Weapon, that they want to do which theyve given up the right to do in the initial agreement. Ben charlie, absolutely not. In addition to the limitation and the stockpile limitations for 15 years, theres a permanent prohibition from iran ever having a Nuclear Weapons program under their international obligation. If they try to weaponize, they will be in violation. The Additional Protocol will give inspectors the permanent capability to look at suspected locations inside of iran if we believe they are up to the pursuit of a covert pathway to weapons. After 15 or 20 years, we will still have that permanent prohibition on iranian pursuit of a Nuclear Weapon and the transparency to respond to anything we believe to be in violation of that agreement. Charlie the significant argument the president makes is that the alternative, not having this agreement, will not deliver the goods in terms of preventing iran from keeping a Nuclear Weapon, and secondly, the sanctions that are in place now might very well unravel. Is that a correct assessment of what the president is saying . Ben exactly right, charlie. The sanctions that were built up over the last two years was meant to get them to the table to get this deal. The notions that the iranians would give up their Nuclear Weapons pursuit just because of sanctions is not borne out by the fact they have not capitulated under the pressure of sanctions, they have continued to pursue that program. What they have done is come to the table and make this deal which meets our bottom line. In a world with no deal, first of all, they would get up to that threshold of pursuing a Nuclear Weapon and we would be left with the choice of whether to use military actions or to accept their ability to obtain a Nuclear Weapon. If we walk away from this deal the International Unity that is held together the regime would very likely unravel. Charlie what role did the russians play . Ben they played a constructive role in this negotiation. It was interesting. They did not let the very strong differences over ukraine spill over into the negotiations. They were strong with us on the Nuclear Related issues. There are strong with us on the verification issues. That unity made the difference in the end in terms of getting the iranians to make key concessions. The russians did, however, take the side of the iranians with respect to some of these provisions on the arms embargo and Ballistic Missiles. Thats why we had worked very hard the last several days to ensure that those would stay in place. Charlie i was intrigued that the iranians did not bring up the arms embargo until pretty late in the game. Why did they hold back . Ben we always knew it was going to come down to a discussion on those issues. Theyve been raising sanctions generally throughout this and taking the position that sanctions had to come off at the beginning. The fact of the matter is we were able to design the sanctions relief in a variety of other places. They would have to complete the nuclear steps first and then begin to get the sanctions released. The last detail that was ironed out was how long within the 10 year security counsel resolution we were able to maintain those provisions of the sanctions. We knew they were in a position that they should come off right away, and that was a total position in the last several days. Charlie he wanted to restrict the amount of research and development they could do, but my understanding is that there is a limit on how much you can restrict, and they can go forward with some research and development on technological improvements, centrifuges, and the like. Ben he very much focused on this in the negotiations. We wanted to make sure that they are not enriching uranium with their centrifuges in the first 10 years. They are not allowed to enrich uranium in the first 10 years. That will prevent them from making a quick transition to more advanced centrifuges after those 10 years. And then the r d is phased in over a period of 10 years. The inspections regime will be watching very closely to make sure it is consistent with the peaceful purpose. That was the important limitations we want to get so they could not be advancing their r d capability when we essentially want to roll back their program. Charlie the opposed to a lot of irans activities with terrorist groups and others in its region. Some had hoped that you could tie this down in that context with this agreement. Ben this was always about the nuclear program. Were making the judgment that iran with a Nuclear Weapon will be more dangerous and all those activities than they are today. It is worth it to set aside the other issues in this negotiation to make sure they are prevented from getting a Nuclear Weapon. We will still have those concerns, charlie. Even on the issues of arms, even when the arms embargo is suspended in five years if they comply with the deal, we have our own restrictions on they will be prohibited from shipping arms to hezbollah or to the houthis. It was worth it to focus on preventing them from getting a Nuclear Weapon because that is the greatest danger. Charlie the argument was made that you did not pressure the iranians on some of these activities as you were too anxious to get a nuclear deal. Ben we have put pressure on them on this, charlie. We have ratcheted up sanctions on their support for terrorism. The summit at camp david was almost entirely focused on developing capabilities to counter interdiction, cyber defenses for friends and partners, the ability to develop special forces capability. We want to make sure our partners are working with us to counter the threat of terrorism from the region and isil, but also any uranium activity in the region. We will stay focused on the issue even as we implement this nuclear deal. Charlie suppose you have reason to believe that there are activities going on at a military installation that are in violation of this agreement. What are your rights to go inspect that . Ben first of all, we will be better able to inspect that to detect that, because we will be looking at their entire uranium supply chain, the raw material, the point being if we see any diversion of materials to a site, were going to inspect it. We go to the iaea and seek an inspection to that site. If the iranians object to the inspection, we can overrule it. If we and the europeans decide the inspection should go forward, then the russians chinese and iranians, we can overrule them and either the inspection goes forward, or iran is in violation of the deal and the sanctions snap back into place. Charlie theres considerable belief that iranians could have a Nuclear Capacity within three months as they stand now, and this could move it to a year. Tell us exactly what that means as you see it. There are really two questions. How long does it take to acquire enough fissile material for one Nuclear Weapon . Talking about enriching uranium. 14 years, given the limitations on the types of centrifuges they are operating and the numbers and the stockpiles they have in their country, the breakout timeline to get enough fissile material will go to at least a year. Theres a second breakout timeline which is how long did it take to build a device, weapon to put that material into. Charlie i think the president insisted that if Everything Else fails, the military option is still right on the table and he is prepared to use it. Ben absolutely. Iran getting a Nuclear Weapon is unacceptable. Thats why we put the sanctions in place and got this deal. The point is, this deal is more effective than military action in preventing them from getting a weapon. A military strike would set their program back by two or three years. It would almost guarantee they would go underground and try to develop that weapon. This deal gets 10 years of limitations that are restricted, 15 years on stockpiles. That alone is far more time than you would ever get through a military option. The diplomacy is less costly than military action and you are preventing them from getting a Nuclear Weapon. Charlie and you have to go to congress to get this done. The president has a veto that would be hard to overrule. Tell me what it is that you see and the team at the white house sees as the most difficult challenge in Convincing Congress this is a good deal. Ben charlie trusts iran. Thats what we hear time and again. Our point is going to be, it has nothing to do with trust. The whole point is to get the verification regimes in place. We will walk them through chapter and verse. Its the ability to look at what we need to see and when we need to see it inside of iran. The alternatives, as you point out, the president said, are for worse. This deal is better than iran being able to advance the program unconstrained. Its better than another war in the middle east. Lastly, if Congress Votes to kill this deal, not only will they be killing the deal, they will be putting at risk the International Sanction machine. It depends on International Cooperation from the very nations that are invested in this deal with us. Charlie and how will you convince Prime Minister netanyahu that this is a deal that does not endanger Israels National Security . Ben i dont think were going to convince him. We believe it is good for National Security because it prevents iran from having that nuclear umbrella. Prime minister netanyahu said the plan of action that was reached in 2013 was a mistake. Iran did comply with that deal and it has worked. Many people are arguing to keep that deal in place. What we would say to people, including congress, is lets see how the deal goes. Lets see if the iranians meet their commitment. Many of the things iran has to do, they have to do at the beginning of the deal. Get rid of the stockpile, take out those centrifuges, get rid of that reactor. They have to do that before they get sanctions released. So there is not any cost in testing to see whether iran lives up to its commitment. Charlie thank you for coming, its a pleasure to have you, ben rhodes. Charlie we continue our coverage of the landmark negotiations between the United States and iran. Joining me from vienna is david sanger, National Security correspondent for the new york times. From washington, ed royce, who convened the first congressional hearing this morning to review the deal, and karim sadjadpour. Finally from washington, jeff goldberg, National Correspondent for atlantic magazine. Im pleased to have all of us on this historic day. David, i go back to you first because you have been our guide from vienna and from new york and washington, trying to understand this. Take us through the final days leading to this agreement. David we all thought this agreement would be put together days ago. They got hung up, oddly enough on some issues that really had nothing to do with the nuclear program. It had more to do with the arms embargo which was imposed on iran starting back in 2006, when the first sanctions were put on iran. And the idea was to force them into negotiations by imposing a ban on their import of conventional arms and Ballistic Missiles. The iranians took the position this is a Nuclear Related sanction, so if we sign the deal, this comes off. And the american and european position was no, we want to extend this to keep you from behaving badly throughout the region. That really was the standoff for the better part of the past four or five days. In the end, it was resolved with something that will probably make no one very happy. The Ballistic Missile ban has stayed on for eight years, the conventional weapons for five. Both of those could end earlier if the iaea comes to a determination that iran is not pursuing weapons. Charlie is this somehow a triumph for diplomacy and the credit belongs to, regardless of how you make the final assessment, to john kerry . David its a huge triumph for diplomacy in that three years ago, these were two countries that did not even talk to each other. Instead, for the past year, on and off, theyve been sitting in rooms in the hotel behind me spending more time with each other than john kerry has spent with any other diplomats in the world. For the first time, we actually have a real conversation underway between iran and the United States. What we dont know is whether or not that will translate into any kind of relationship that is broader than this nuclear deal. And theres a lot of reasons to suggest that the iranians are going to take a big timeout, try to placate the hardliners, the Iranian Revolutionary guard corps, perhaps by taking some of the sanctions money thats now released and allowing them to spend that on arms, on other activities, on their new cyber corps, anything other than nuclear, to show that they can exert their power around the globe. I think thats the biggest problem president obama is going to run into. A lot of the critics of the agreement that you heard today have actually been talking about irans nonnuclear activities. Charlie we talked about that earlier in the program. Jeff, no one has interviewed this president more or had more conversations about Foreign Policy than you have. He believes it is a crowning achievement of his foreign and International Efforts in the world as president. How do you assess this . What credit does he deserve, and what likelihood does it have, in your judgment . Jeff its an interesting question. When i interviewed him in may, one of the things that struck me, he said he understands that this is on him. He used the number 20 years, which is well after the agreement expires, if 20 years from now iran has a Nuclear Weapon, he knows it is a blot on his record. One of the things ive derived from this is that hes much more a gambler than some people think he is. He is willing to risk his reputation, he is willing in a more serious way to risk u. S. National security and the security of u. S. Allies in the region, on this deal. It is quite an achievement. I would say this, some of the pressure came off of him in the last few weeks to get this deal, because of the gay marriage decision, because obamacare out of the supreme court, the trade pacts that were passed. I think in the white house they were worried about legacy issues. After that momentous week, he became a little less worried. I have a feeling, and maybe david can talk about this a little bit, but i have a feeling that they toughened up slightly on the iranians in vienna because there seemed to be less internal pressure to get a deal at all costs. Obviously the next 60 days will be tumultuous, because a lot of people in washington and elsewhere believe the deal is fatally weak. But i do think that you have to credit him with carrying through a very dicey and high wire act. David on that point, jeff makes exactly the right point. From secretary kerrys staff and president obama said that on many occasions in the past week, they said take the extra time, dont rush this. If you go past the limits in the congressional legislation and they have 60 days to review, thats fine, better to have a better deal. I think the president s own staff believes that came from exactly that string of victories that jeff described. The big question is, in the end, does that result in a significantly different deal . Im not sure it did, but it got rid of some of the perception that he and secretary kerry wanted this too much. Charlie among both of you, do you have any sense of who won and lost here, or is that a question youre not even able to ascertain because you dont know how its going to play out . Clearly the short term loser here, and this is an important point that has to be made, the people of syria who are oppressed by a government supported by iran, as david pointed out. The Islamic Revolutionary guard corps and its proxies in syria and lebanon and elsewhere are going to see a windfall and be able to spend money they did not have to do the nefarious thing so you could look at the hardliners as sh

© 2025 Vimarsana