>> do you think they can do it without you? >> you have to ask him. [laughter] we are heading back, i want to thank these two gentlemen. and thank you very much. and see you in washington d.c.. anywhere in this world, thank you very much. >> order. >> in a nation divided, a rare moment of unity.

this fall, c-span presents "ceasefire" where the shouting stops and the conversation begins. in a town where partisan fighting prevails, one table, two leaders, one goal. to find common ground. this fall, "ceasefire" on the network that doesn't take sides. only on c-span. our first gueste morning is alex vatanka of the middle east institute. he serves as a senior fellow, here to talk about all things going on between the u.s., israel, and iran. your specialty is regional security, so let's start with what happens now regionally and what the united states has to watch out for when it comes to iran. >> the obvious thing to watch out for and try to shape is iran's next move.

the iranians did not think anything like this could be happening. just a few weeks ago, they were getting ready for more diplomatic talks. from the trump administration point of view, those talks were not going anywhere. they were moving too slow and the trump administration made the bet that it was better off taking iran's nuclear sites out as opposed to continuing the diplomatic track. the region is anxious. iran's retaliation involves another country. there are 40 to 45,000 american troops and about 19 bases, iraq, kuwait, qatar -- plenty of targets. but the iranians decided to extend -- they could retaliate against the u.s. attack over the weekend on nuclear sites and then look for de-escalation.

that is what they got and what we are hearing from sources in the region is a number of u.s. allies played a role here, trying to get trump administration and iranians to agree to a cease-fire and then president trump picked up the phone and told israel that was the course of action going forward. as of now, i do not see a clear roadmap for what comes next. the cease-fire could last. it could break down. but let me stop there. host: you talked about the cease-fire breaking down. add to that we heard in the report from the defense intelligence agency, the possibility that a pushback of the iranian nuclear program may be in a couple months. how does that factor into shaping things from the united states side? >> i started covering the iranian nuclear program after college. it has been about 25 years. so the idea that one military

mission will end the nuclear program is a strategic bet that the trump administration made. i do not president trump thinks that was the end of it. i think he is hoping it shook the iranians to their core and will change the cost-benefit analysis and they will do the things the president has been asking for. that is the president's position. the iranians at this point lost some nuclear capabilities. will they come back to the table and negotiate? might be willing to come but if they decide the opposite is the best way forward, that is where the strategic bet would have failed, which is they have capacity. they can probably hide it. iranian skies right now are open to the israeli air force, so if there is intelligence on the part of the israelis -- they are going to try to weaponize because they feel that is the best way to survive this and

protect themselves going forward. then you can see the u.s. and israeli air force taking on more action but we are not there yet because that depends on what iran's next move will be appearing will they say what we went through the last 12 days of war has taught us diplomacy needs to take the front seat? i do not know which decision iranian leaders will take. that is the most important thing we are looking out for. host: you have written a book. as far as the ayatollah is concerned, how much is he involved in shaping next steps? guest: i would argue this disaster that just happens to iran is his fault. his worldview appearing he has been the supreme leader since 1989. for 36 years, he has had opportunities to change course and instead he has gambled on essentially what he wants to

come onto be a leader of the islamic world and pursue this policy of opposing the united states in the middle east and deposing israel's right to exist -- opposing israel's right to exist. about four decades of investing in this. it is an ideological mission he has been on. iran and israel do not need to be at war with each other. these are two countries that do not have land conflict or historical content. they are over thousand miles apart. the conflict is the supreme leader's call. it becomes interesting to see if the regime decides it is time to sideline him and his worldview because he brought this disaster on iran and going forward we should not listen to him. that could be one course of action. the other is his worldview gets more supporters, that the only

way is to resist the united states and so forth, which is a dark place. i hope they do not go there. host: if you want to ask him about the current events between united states, israel, and iran, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. . a little bit about the middle east institute and the point of view it takes in these situations also and how the institute is financially supported. guest: we do not take a point of view. our role historically -- where the oldest think tank in the united states with a focus on educating the american people about the middle east and why it is important to know -- to know what is going on in that part of the world. countries from turkey, iran, egypt, and so on. in terms of funding cut we get support from the u.s.

government, sometimes from foreign governments. lots of different foundations and individuals support our work. we have been around since 1946, started by american diplomats who came back from the second world war and realized that the u.s. needs to know more about the middle east because it is going to be a critical part of the world going forward. they met that -- they made that decision and we are still here. the middle east still matters. host: funding from the government -- is that from the defense department? where does it come from? guest: all that is available on our website. you can see the entire annual report, every donation documented. we get from state department and other agencies. we have close cooperation. we get foreign governments in the gulf states and european countries that have an interest

in trying to bring people together. but every year of donations can be seen on our website. host: let's start with moses in ohio. you are on with alex vatanka of the middle east institute. caller: thanks for taking my call. your guest, i want him to explain to some of these callers who have called in supporting our president and his decision -- i want them to be reminded that under the obama administration there was a deal with the iranians. i repeat. it was not perfect. but it was a deal. what did our president duque? he came in and tore it up. he did the same thing with a bipartisan immigration bill. now the last thing i want to point out is this.

have anybody in the world ever seen a human being jump over there shadow? no. our president is who he is and we have to live with it. but i just want to callers who are enamored with his spinning and taking credit for something before it even ends. host: he referenced that jcpoa. maybe start there. guest: jcpoa was working out. it a perfect agreement because it was centered on a nuclear issue, how many centrifuges they can have and so forth, but at the heart of the conflict it is a political conflict. without political trust, these agreements that deal with specific issues are going to be on thin ice. so president trump comes and in

2018 and decides to walk away from the 2015 deal. he campaign on it. the president made another strategic bid by making away from the deal that obama had signed that the iranians would rush to him and cut a better deal with him. they never did. they essentially stayed the course. they took on the sanctions the u.s. imposed. they have suffered plenty. from their point of view, they are talking about national pride and the united states cannot force them into that direction. if you had the right political calculations on the part of the iranians, for example direct diplomacy with the trump administration, which i think is right now needed more than ever before, it is the sort of thing you need to create a roadmap, that political conversation. the obama administration had a

deal with them, but at the same time iran policies in the region did not change, so if you were sitting in israel or other u.s. allies, the fact that iran did not politically -- ideologically change course was always a concern. because the nuclear agreement was coming to end eventually, october of this year -- people would say we are on borrowed time. let's have a fix for the problem that is permanent. maybe president trump will find something more permanent. as i said, he is taking a strategic bat. we don't know where iran is going to go. his first bat in 2018 did not work out. maybe this one well. host: from maryland, this is bill, independent line. >> wise it taking iran so long to develop? i have been paying attention for probably 25 years and i can remember 25 years ago pundits

saying they are on the verge, it is six months, four months. here we are and you look at north korea. it did not take north korea that long to develop. the second question was i read a report that after the bombing that russia was talking about supplying iran with nuclear weapons and i had always thought why don't they just buy it from another country? and of course i think that russia, china -- nobody wants to see them with nuclear weapons because they all recognize they are an existential threat to the entire world. those are my questions. host: bill in maryland, thank you. guest: on why iran did not weaponize earlier, it is a great question but