From our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. We begin with israeli Prime Minister netanyahus speech to congress. The run up to the visit was controversial. Speaker boehner extended the invitation without consulting the white house. Many perceive the event as a highly political one in anticipation of elections in israel. More than 60 democrats boycotted the speech. Meanwhile negotiations on Irans Nuclear program are approaching a deadline. Netanyahu warned congress that this could paint a path to the bomb. This has two major concessions. One, leaving iran with a vast nuclear program. Too, lifting the restrictions on that in a decade. President obama defended the negotiations. The alternative that the Prime Minister offers the alternative of no deal. In which case iran will begin pursuing their nuclear program. Accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they are doing. Joining me now is tom friedman. I am these two have been back on this program. Pleased to have him back on this program. A couple of things. One, there was a quote by you that the decision to cook up an address to congress is churlish. Quite dangerous. Do you still believe that, now you have heard the speech . I believe it even more so. For me, the real question as i watched the speech, the Prime Minister of israel making the case why there is nothing more important for israel, america or the world than iran not getting a Nuclear Weapon. There is a lot about that sentence i would support. I think iran getting a Nuclear Weapon in an unstable middle east could only lead to more proliferation and Nuclear Weapons in that region, is not only bad for israel and arab allies but would be terrible for the world. It could unravel the nonproliferation regime. It would happen in a region where the traditional deterrence would not be present. Mutually assured distraction is destruction is one of the things that kept a balance between the u. S. And soviet union during the cold war. In the middle east, mutually assured destruction is like an invitation to a party for some people. A lot of the traditional constraints are not there. I totally buy into the fact that this is a huge issue. If i was a Prime Minister of israel, when i potentially would i potentially pollute it by insisting on speaking to the u. S. Congress two weeks before a neck and neck election in which i have fallen slightly behind, which invites people to speculate whether this is not just about the future of israel and iran . But the political future of netanyahu . What i do that . If this were the Biggest Issue facing israel, what 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 to be part of any palestinian state that would be negotiated. I would do that because by announcing that, i would seriously diffuse a lot of the delegitimization of israel in europe particularly. Whose support i need for the iran deal. When i listen to netanyahu, i see a guy who, when it comes to taking on enron, is churchill. When it comes to risking his own Political Capital is awol. I have a problem with that. You dont question the idea that he thinks that the deal is a threat to israel. And israels survival. They are living in the heart of the region. They have been targeted by iran. It has every reason to worry they will be targeted by iran again. I understand that. Our interests can be satisfied. We have to start with our interests, by a deal that builds in a kind of one your insurance one year insurance before iran can get a bomb. That is with the president is going for. I would encourage the congress if i was worried about this, one of the things i would do if we get the deal the president is talking about, with a oneyear break out insurance, i would encourage congress to pass authorization for the president. Put it into law. Authorize any means possible or necessary to respond to iran should they violate the deal. The president seems to believe that in fact what the israelis want the iranians to do, they will never do. Therefore military action will be the only alternative. That will delay the program, not end it. I think it is a legitimate argument. In fairness to netanyahu, i also think there is a legitimate counter argument. If you extend the sanctions, i dont think theres much of a chance that europeans would intensify the sanctions. Let alone china and russia. It is not clear, if israel were to scuttle the deal, they would even keep the sanctions on we have right now. Im not so sure that the morning after the collapse of the deal iran goes out and starts enriching fullscale. It could invite an israeli attack, let alone an american one. What have we learned about wars in the middle east . We have learned that you tend to bump into things that you never expected. You tend to outcomes you never anticipated. That could apply to israel as well. They have thousands of hezbollah rockets on their border aimed at israel, with the trigger in tehran. I shudder to think of the damage that could be inflicted from some sort of iranian retaliation. Benjamin netanyahus problem is he does not trust the iranians. To do anything. Therefore he does not trust any agreement except the elimination of the Nuclear Facilities. Correct . Yes. If your Benjamin Netanyahu and youve seen them blow up your embassy and Jewish Community center in argentina, and get away with it. If you are america and easy you see iran being advocated in the bombings of the towers in saudi arabia, killing marines in beirut. Any number of weapons built to use against our forces in iraq. I have no delusions about who the hearing in the art. I just know one thing. The only long term security for israel and the neighbors, not to mention the iranian people, is some sort of regime change. Driven from within. The one thing obamas deal has the possibility of, i would be careful about making any predictions about this. At least it contains the possibility of integration. And the possibility of some change of course. You can say, maybe the use of force would do that as well. I dont know. Very uncertain. Might lead to nationalistic fervor as it often does. Exactly. The middle east, all real politics happens the morning after the morning after. How the iranian people react, it could be very different in morning after the morning after. But that is not the dice i would care to roll. Is it your understanding what is being negotiated will love it would allow the iranians to develop the capability to have a Nuclear Weapon as long as it is at least a year off . So they could do something within that year . The position is slightly different. Their position is iran already has the capabilities. The only question is if they can enrich enough fissile material. To make the warheads and then design the warheads. The deal is designed to put years distance in the capabilities. The capability would be to enrich uranium which can provide fissile material. Correct . Correct, but not great enough. The uranium would go out of the country and be stored in russia. You describe to maybe difference in the two administrations in terms of what they believe is possible you described to me the difference in the two in the distractions in terms of what they believe is possible. And what it is at the heart of their disagreement. There was agreement a disagreement three years ago. Bibi would have prepared a military response. The military disagreed and he was not ready to overrule him. They disagreed with it for the mental reasons. They felt that once you started this war with iran it would never end. They would keep trying to build a bomb. Israel would keep having to bomb them. Iran would keep retaliating via hezbollah. They would be in an endless cycle. There are only bad options on the menu. A good option went out that window a long time ago. The idea that bibi represents the perfect solution is an illusion. And netanyahu represents only threat, or the other way around that is an illusion. Thank you, tom. When we come back, i turned the program to Jeffrey Goldberg who has a conversation with ben rhodes. I am Jeff Goldberg filling in for charlie rose. We continue tonights coverage of Benjamin Netanyahus speech to congress. Joining me now is ben rhodes. Thank you for being here. We heard the president today say that he heard nothing new. Is this speech going to damage the president s cause . No, i dont think so. The fact of the matter is, the president said there was nothing new because we had been hearing these arguments privately and publicly for some time. He has made clear his opposition to the type of deal we are pursuing. We heard a lot of different arguments we have heard in different places, pulled together in one. The president made similar arguments before the joint plan of action was agreed to. That has been borne out as a successful effort. Again, the Prime Minister has been clear about his view. We dont think he is putting forward an alternative to deal with iran getting a Nuclear Weapon. Im surprised the emotional effectiveness of the speech. Did you as a speechwriter, did , you find it at all convincing . Did you find anything that made you worried as essentially the adversary here . We are not adversaries. Israel is one of the closest friends we have in the world. A lot of what the Prime Minister said are views we share. What he said about the need to defend the jewish state, those are things we agree with. We have a difference on how to do that. There is tremendous emotional resonance. The question is, how do we accomplish the goal we share . You share the view of the regime. One of the key points he made is that he believes these negotiation should be enlarged to include irans support for terrorism. Korans various aggressive moves in the middle east. The administration has been adamant you dont want to do that. Why . We think the Nuclear Challenge is distinct. The Prime Minister said the challenge is a combination of Nuclear Weapons with the regime. We need to deal with the threat of a Nuclear Armed iran. That is what we are trying to do. They would be much more emboldened with Nuclear Weapons cap abilities than they are today with a Nuclear Weapon. Our concerns about other iranian activities will be exactly the same. We will be just as concerned about their support for terrorism and hezbollah. The fact is, if you can verifiably and share they are not able to get a Nuclear Weapon, we will be more secure and the region will be more secure. Why are you so confident you will be able to verifiably ensure they do not have a weapon . This is a country that had two Nuclear Facilities hidden from view for years. Eventually discovered through intelligence means. But why do you believe it is possible to know what they are doing underground . The type of inspections we are contemplating do not just cover the nuclear sites. The facilities and the reactor in iraq it also covers their uranium supply chain. Uranium mines and mills. Production facilities where they produce centrifuges. We are looking across the entirety of the program. That is your best hedge against a covert path. You are able to detect iranian activity. Make sure not only do they have facilities but they would have to construct a covert supply chain. You know as well as i do that intelligence is not perfect. It is not a perfect art. We have seen multiple occasions of intelligence failing. Is there Something Different about this im not understanding . Iran would be accepting inspections that go beyond any other country in the world. You have more eyes than any other similar program. Without a deal, you do not have those. You dont have that transparency. Have a greater risk of a covert path. With a deal coming get inspections and the ability to verify. The ability to challenge and seek out sites that are of concern. Again, we are not going on trust here. The concern is we can verify what they are doing. Why do you think the Israeli Government is worried . The Prime Minister has a longstanding view of iran that takes a particular line and opposes this kind of agreement. The fact is the type of deal he laid out today is one that is on the table. One that involves them dismantling their program. Changing the nature of behavior in the region. That is a recipe for no deal. Not only was the iranians not agree to that no country would , support us taking that position. Why is it a recipe for no deal the United States is the party in that drivers seat. Iran is a weak country, under sanction. Theres the perception out there among some people that the u. S. Wants the deal more than iran. They are under the pressure of sanctions. They agreed and have gotten rid of their stockpile of highly enriched uranium. They have submitted to inspections. Theyve kept their low enriched stock pile. They have not installed enriched centrifuges. They have already adjusted behavior because the interim agreements. When you talk about the limitations we will impose, they are significant. No ability to produce weapons grade plutonium. Not using in enrichment facility. Not having a oneyear break out time line. That is up from two or three months now that deals with strict limitations on their stockpiles and centrifuges. Those are all changes in iranian behavior. It would set the program back in terms of their capacity to break out and pursue a Nuclear Weapon. We are using the leverage but at the same time, we are dealing with different alternatives. What is the best alternative . A long term deal that verifies into the double digits of years, that iran is not pursuing a Nuclear Weapon, they are at least a year away, and involves the transparency measures. That is better than the alternatives of military action that would only set the program back by a fraction of that period of time. Or simply pivoting to sanctions. Every time we have moved to sanctions, the iranians continue to dance their program. The so called sunset clause it says the agreement would expire after 10 years. Why is this being talked about as an in issue of time . Rather than saying, if you wait 10 years, you will be relatively speaking free and clear . A couple of things. First of all, we are negotiating an agreement that has a specific duration on it. We are not negotiating a permanent treaty and we never have been. There was never going to be a there was always going to be a fixed duration to the type of agreement they were pursuing. On the other hand, that should not be read as some type of preemptive commissions let for permission slip for iran to pursue a Nuclear Weapon on the back end of the agreement. The same type of options that we have now will be available in 10 or 15 years. Whenever the conclusion of the duration of the deal is. Secondly, the transparency measures are going to be extensive beyond the duration on the limitations of the program. You will know what the iranians are doing with their 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 program . And again, the israeli Prime Minister and president of the united can make a judgment on the back end of that deal about how to move forward. President obama has said one of the reasons he is so concerned is he wants to prevent a Nuclear Arms Race in the region. From what i have heard from arab allies, they are just as nervous. Is that something that concerns you or should concern you . We take seriously the security of our partners. That includes israel and arab partners. First of all we are talking , about an Iranian Program that is set back from where it is today. We have been living in a world with an Iranian Nuclear program. For 10 or 20 years now. Our partners have not felt the need to pursue their own weapon capabilities. The fact of the matter is iran is going to have less facilities, less centrifuges longer breakouts time, during the duration of the agreement. What we would say is we are preventing iran from getting the Nuclear Weapon you are concerned about. At the same time but you are not guaranteeing permanent nonnuclearization. We will continue to oppose iran getting a Nuclear Weapon. On the back end of this unit steel there is no permission , slip after the agreement. There are limitations that will be imposed for the duration of the agreement. There are transparency measures that have permanence to them. We can make a judgment about where things stand. In the meantime, what we do have to do is reassure partners this in no way lessens our concern. We are more aligned with arab partners when we look at issues like syria, yemen. But arab partners would say in fact, you have a let assad regime maintain control over much of syria. You have not intervened in a more muscular way. A more robust way. Their critique is you have been so focused on the nuclear file you have allowed yemen to fall to iran. That hezbollah is more powerful than ever. This goes back to the original question of, why the sole focus on this behavior and not others back behaviors that are affecting American National security . That is not our sole focus. We are a superpower. We do more than one thing at a time. We are negotiating and nuclear deal. Every day we are working to counter influence. We do a lot to restrict the proliferation of Ballistic Missile technologies. To iran, for instance. We cooperate in