tv Charlie Rose PBS June 29, 2015 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. this was an important day a historic day in america in washington, d.c., the supreme court said that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right. in charleston, south carolina president obama spoke to the issue of racism and how much work we have to do. we begin with the president in charleston. >> we are here today to remember a man of god who lived by faith. , a man who believed in things not seen. a man who believed there were better days ahead off in the distance. a man of service who perce veered knowing full well he would not receive all those
things he was promised because he believed his efforts would deliver a better life to those who followed. we do not know whether the killer of reverend pinckney and eight others knew all of this history, but he surely sensed the meaning of his violent act. it was an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random, but as a means of control. >> amen. >> a way to terrorize and oppress. ( applause ) an act that he imagined would
incite fear and recrimination violence and sususpicion an act that he presumed would deepen divisions that trace back to our nation's original sin. oh, but god works in mysterious ways. ( applause ) >> yes sir! >> god has different ideas. for many black and white that flag was a reminder of systemic oppression and racial subjugation upon we see that now. removing the flag from this state's capital would not be an
act of political correctness. it would not be an insult to the valor of confederate soldiers. it would simply be an acknowledgment that the cause for which they fought, the cause of slavery was wrong. ( applause ) for too long, we've been blind to the way past injustices continue to shape the present. >> that's right. >> perhaps we see that now. perhaps this tragedy causes us to ask some tough questions. about how we can permit so many of our children to languish in poverty. ( applause ) or attend dlipidated schools or grow up without prospects for a job or a career. perhaps it causes us to examine what we're doing to cause some of our children to hate. >> rose: in washington before he left for charleston president obama spoke about the historic day at the supreme
court. >> this ruling is a victory for america. this decision affirms what millions of americans already believe in their hearts. when all americans are treated as equal we are all more free. this ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering to all loving same-sex couples the dignity of marriage across this great land. >> rose: also this evening we hear from david boies, the lawyer who has argued before the supreme court and other courts about the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. >> i think it means that on the first level that loving gay and lesbian couples all across the country, every one of the 50 states can now get marry to the person they love. it means that the children they're raising can now have the stability and the recognition of being in a marriage, being in a family where the parents are
married and they know they're going to be together. they know they're committed, that they're receives the benefits that come from marriage, economic benefits in our society. >> rose: we continue with emmanuel macron, the finance minister of france. >> i think this tragic event just reminds us how violent is this war against terrorism and fundamental islamism. we have to keep extremely calm in this situation. the investigation is ongoing. but i think that that's a very tragic news. but the war against terrorism will continue, and everything will be done precisely to preserve the safety of the whole population of france. >> rose: and finally this evening, david sanger, gary samore, and dennis ross on the nuclear negotiations taking place in vienna with iran. >> i think supreme leader khamenei who has been interested in a nuclear weapons capability
for over 25 years is not going to change his mind about the utility of having nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons option to defend iran and pursue its foreign policy. so i think it's really a gamble on our part that he dies in the course of the next 15 years or some other change in government takes place, and you have a different government with a different set of calculations and interest. >> rose: a funeral in charlie charleston, north carolina a historic day in the supreme court, and more about the nuclear nenegotiations in i vienna when we continue. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by: >> 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: it was a historic day and a historic decision from the u.s. supreme court. it will stand as a milestone for the american equality movement. the court declared in a 5-4 ruling that same-sex marriage is a legal right nationwide. the decision means that 14 states can no longer enforce preexisting bans on same-sex marriage. justice anthony kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that gay american citizens, "asked for equal dig tee in the eyes of the law. the constitution grants them that right." conservative justice antonin scalia na dissenting opinion said the decision shows the court is a threat to american democracy. joining me now is david boies. he successfully argued against california's same-sex marriage
ban proposition 8 and the federal defense of marriage act. i'm pleased to have him on this program on this day. it is for you for all americans, a historic day. >> it is a great day, charlie. it really is a great day. >> rose: tell us what it means in terms of everybody. >> i think so it means that on the first level that loving gay and lesbian couples all across the country, every one of the 50 states, can now get marry to the person they love. it means that the children they're raising can now have the stability and the recognition of being in a marriage, being in a family where the parents are married and they know they're going to be together. they know they're committed that they're receiving the benefits that come from marriage, economic benefits in our society. but in another level i think a very important level, what it means is i think every american can be proud today proud that
we've taken another step towards creating the equal society that our founderseral envisioned. they wrote a great document. they wrote great principles. they didn't practice those principles so well, but they set out a set of principles we could afire spier to and we made a lot of steps along the way and today of the one of the most important steps in eliminating the ban marriage inequality, and permitting people to exercise that fundamentally important right to marry the person that you love. >> rose: it stand right up there with civil right equality? >> i think it does. i think with loving against virginia, where the supreme court struck down bans on interracial marriage "brown versus board of education." thisand i think every american can be proud. >> rose: the dissent argued essentially this is against
democracy, that it is up to the congress. >> every constitutional decision is by definition against democracy if by that you mean majority rule. because what we do in a constitution is we say that there are certain right-- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to be free from searches and seedsures, equal protection, the right to go to the same schools as everybody else, the right to marry the person that you love-- all of these fundamental rights are so important that our constitution says no legislature can take them away from you. no majority of your fellow citizens can take these away from you. >> rose: these are principles. >> these are basic principles. you don't have a vote every year on whether we want to have freedom of speech. you don't have a vote every year whether you want to have freedom from searches and seizures. >> rose: and you can't vote, i assume, therefore, to eliminate it, because that would be
against the constitution. >> exactly right. we didn't leave up to the legislature whether we were going to have segregated schools or not. we didn't leave up to the legislature whether we were going to permit interracial marriages. we said that's a fundamental element of equality. and the constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws, and that guarantee applies to every citizen regardless of race religion, national origin, sexual orientation. it doesn't make any difference what the other characteristics are. if you're an american you deserve equal rights. > rose: judge anthony kennedy stood up again-- again-- >> he did. >> rose: what was it about the opinion that resonated with you? >> i think it was in part his recognition of how important this decision was to human dig tee. to equality in the constitutional sense, but also to dignity in a very basic human
sense. we are saying to our citizens you're no longer going to be considered by your government as inferior, as second class. your relationships are no longer going to be considered somehow inferior or second class by the government. you the person that you love the children that you are raising are just as good as everybody else. and in a sense that's always been true but in another sense we are only now beginning to recognize that and make that the law of the land. and that's what our constitution guarantees. >> rose: so everywhere you go, from one state to another, it still applies, whereas in the past you could live in a state-- >> yes. >> rose: that allowed gay marriage, same-sex marriage, and go somewhere else that did not allow it. >> and that was exactly what happened with interracial marriages. i mean, what you want was somebody got married in one state, went to virginia -- >> where it was a crime. >> where it it was a crime.
and we have one country constitution, one set of rights and those rights apply to everybody in all 50 states. >> rose: you can't forget here that this th has been a struggle. this didn't happen overnight. what happened, as the president suggested was a thunderbolt today. but you were part of it. you made arguments before the supreme court against proposition. and here it is that people who stayed there on the ground, who tested the law-- in 2013 the court said we're not hearing this. 2013, two years ago. >> right. they left it-- they left it up to the courts of appeals and the individual district courts. and that got us two-thirds of the way. 36 states today already had marriage equality. but those last 13 or 14 states would have been a long time coming without the supreme court's decision. >> rose: and the windsor decision was important. >> the windsor decision disigz was very important. "lawrence against texas" 12
years ago was critically important. the roamer decision, critically important. all the decisions written by just kennedy, all decision, unfortunately, 5-4 decisions. >> rose: this is in part his judicial legacy. >> it is a great judicial legacy. it is a legacy of recognizing human dignity, human liberty the the rights of all americans to have equal protection of the laws. >> rose: justice roberts who on another decision yesterday about obamad care, wrote the majority opinion disappointing many conservatives said the following about same-sex marriage today, "if you're among the many americans of whatever swul orientation who favor expanding same-sex marriage celebrate the achievement of a desired goal, celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. celebrate the availability of new benefits. but do not celebrate the constitution. it had nothing to do with it."
>> i agree with everything he said up until last two sentences because the constitution had everything to do with it. it was the constitution that guaranteed equal protection of the laws. it was the constitution that provided that people cannot be treated unequally based on any characteristic-- whether it's race gender sexual orientation tevery american has the right to equal protection of the laws. and that's written in the constitution. you don't have to look very far to see it. >> rose: justice kennedy said, as you suggest that an interest in personal dignity is central to the due process clause of the 14'ing amendment. >> and i think not only is he right about that, but that's what the supreme court itself has held, and not just justice kennedy. but the supreme over and over again, 14 15 times over the last 75 years has ruled that marriage was a fundamental right
because of its value in terms of human dignity. justice scalia sort of pokes fun at some of the principles that justice kennedy is writing about. but those principles weren't created by justice kennedy. those principles come from supreme court decisions. there was a supreme court decision that you and i have talked about in wisconsin where the wisconsin legislature prohibited somebody from getting a marriage license if they were not satisfying their obligations from a prior marriage in terms of child support and the like. the supreme court said you can't do that. marriage is too fundamental a right. there was a missouri statute where they said you can't get married if you're an imprisoned felon. and the supreme court said no. the spiritual intimacy that
marriage brings, the dignity that it brings to relationships is something that is so important, that you can't deprive people of it even if they're an imprisoned felon even they're a child support scofflaw. and yet there are people who argue that people ought to be deprived of that right simply because the person that they love is of the same sex as opposed to a different sex. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: david boies. back in a moment. stay with us. we turn now to the finance minister of paris france. earlier today islamic militants launched attacks on three separate continents, tunisia, kuwait, and an industrial plant was attacked in france where a man was decapitated. today's tragic events come a year after the islamic state officially declared its caliphate in syria and iraq. joining me is emmanuel macron.
he has been finance minister of france since 2014. at 37 he's one of the youngest people ever to hold a cabinet position. i'm pleased to have him on this program. mr. minister, thank you so much for joining us. it's been a very busy day for you and also in washington. >> hello. i'm very happy to be with you. >> rose: i realize this is not your primary responsibility. it is the responsibility of the interior minister other ands including the president, but what can you tell us about the terrible events that took place in your country today? >> first, we're all extremely shocked and upset because of this horrible attack and this terrorist attack. and obviously, the whole country is completely shocked today. the president of was in brussels, but he came back to france and gathered the defense community into first additional measures to preserve safety and security for people. but i think this tragic event
just reminds us how violent is this war against terrorism and fundamental islamism. i mean, we have to keep extremely calm in this situation. the investigation is ongoing, but i think that-- that's a very tragic news, but the war against terrorism will continue and everything will be done precisely to preserve the safety of the whole population of france. but i want just here to remind all-- to present all my condolences to the family of the victims. in paris, in tunisia as well, and all the victims today and as well, i want to present my condolences to precisely this company which is an american company because this person killed in france basically worked for an american company in our country. >> rose: do we know anything about the suspect?
>> i mean, not a lot of things, and i want to be extremely cautious at this stage. this person was known and identified as a potentially dangerous person. he was particularly observed by our services between 2006 and 2008, but after that, i mean, given his behavior, the decision taken by the government was to release specific measures taken. but i don't have at this stage additional information about the situation and the suspect. >> rose: let me turn to the greek debt crisis. you have certainly been involved in that, and your colleagues in europe. where does that stand as we speak this afternoon? >> look, i think we are reaching a great momentum.
now they're aligned about the greek situation, about reforms and discuss about that situation. this morning, the i.m.f., today in washington. and i think we all concur to say that we are not so far from an agreement. now the greek government has to present additional reforms, and credible reforms to be implemented. i'm confident that over this weekend or probably at the end of this weekend, we will find an agreement. i do hope that we will converge. we know where we are. we know what we have to deliver and i'm confident at this stage pathat we'll find a common solution. >> rose: what makes you so optimistic? >> i'm not so optimistic, but i know that everybody around the table perfectly understands that there is no plan "b" at this
stage. and i think that the greek government's interest precisely to present new reform and that's our interest to find a holistic solution for reform and fiscal situation. so this win-win agreement should be found in the coming hours. but i remain extremely cautious because everything is still to be found and negotiated. but i do think that we all take into consideration certain political consequences of the absence of an agreement. so i'm not part of those who pretend that potential agreement will be a good solution. so for sure, an agreement is a necessity, and i think an agreement is reachable. >> rose: what do they have to do? what reforms do you believe are essential? >> look, the greek government presented additional reforms for
v.a.t., pension system and so on. from my point of view, the key measures are those will allow to modernize the greek economy and put more competition into this economy because one of the key concerts today when you look at the greek situation is we want them to deliver fiscal consolidation is fine. we want them to cut, for instance -- i mean, a lot of salaries and pensions but it's extremely hard from a social point of view. and it's verb if at the same time you manage to implement a policy to decrease prices put more competition and modernize your economyop on this part of the picture the form of government failed. and inge it's because will it's extremely difficult. today the greek economy is completely captured by some people and some insiders so we have to push them and to help them to modernize the economy first to increase potential
growth and put more competition. i think it's key. in terms of pension reform, i think the average retirement age is not sustainable because today it's 52. they probably have to increase that much more than decreasinare already extremely low. so you have a series of technical measures but i think now what we have to do is precisely to finalize this holistic negotiation with reforms on one hand and credible and sustainable reform because we have to respect the greek democracy, and all made by great people. on the other hand, we need an execution on the sustainability. i know that the i.f.m. will raise that but it means probably we will have to discuss-- we are all very much against potential cuts, but i think we need to negotiate about precise -- >> would you say that the
i.m.f.and the french and german government are essentially on the same page? >> yes, i think a lot of people-- i think everybody has their own sensitivity, and insist more on specific points. but president hollande, with-- and the i.m.f. plays its role. sometimes the i.m.f. was probably more demanding, which i perfectly understand given its role. but there is a franco-german strong position, and the i.m.f. now concurs with us. >> rose: are we looking at-- if there is no agreement and there is an exit from the euro zone by the greek government, the possibility of a ton taijion, so that others might leave, so it will have a profound impact on the global
economy? >> look, charlie i mean, my responsibility is not to-- it can create precisely such consequences. i'm always extremely cautious in some kind of situation. so for me there is no plan "b." but when you look at such a situation, i just want to insist here to say there was a big risking of the european system and the euro zone after 2012 because we created this banking union which is an extraordinary step forward. so now the situation is not-- is a 2012 situation for sure. my concern is much more on potential political consequences in this case. that's why we have to be extremely careful, and we have to monitor the situation to take into consideration-- i mean greek democracy and greek commitments vis-a-vis all the member states of the european
union. >> rose: do you worry about the the rise of extremism? i mean by that, political extremism that will be a product of, you know, economic events and social issues in europe? >> look, i think poplarrism and extremism are fueled by first crisis and unemployment. but they are largely held by the absence of projects, the absence of vision the absence of willingness. so i'm not concerned or feared about that. i just want to solve the situation and fight against it. and my deep conviction is that there is a strong future for europe. europe is a great continent. and what we have to do now is to accelerate our reform program to accelerate solidarity program inside europe and the euro zone precisely to deem diehl with
unemployment and especially unemployment for young people and to propose something new to, propose a future to this generation. if we stay like that, if we don't act eye mean, the dismantling of the euro zone will be a fate. so my strong willingness today is to say we are-- have to accelerate reform in france and we have to deliver. s that's our program. that's what i'm pushing at home. and i'm here to explain this reform and this reform agenda because it's key for our credibility and for whole europe. second, we have to put more solidarity in europe and more investment, precisely to recover. and for me this reform agenda, this optimism this new vision for europe to have a strengthend and more integrated euro zone is key to the extremism and populism. >> rose: let's talk specifically about-- i want to talk also about the wikileaks issue, but first talk about the french economy. are you here to make the case
for france to have-- to encourage investment in france and encourage france as a business partner. what's the case that you make when you talk about france today? because as you know many people look to france and they think there is too much state control of the economic economic reign. >> which is not the case at all. my point here is just to say france is back, and we are here. we are reforming the country, and the country is changing. first, because we are dealing with public finances and we are reducing public expenditures by 2.5 g.d.p. points in three years. second, because we have the competitiveness agenda. we are decreasing corporate taxes and corporate charges by 2 g.d.p. point in the coming three years.
that is the most aggressive supply-side policy ever. third, because we are accelerating investment, and we need private investment in our country. it is key. and we are-- we have basically a big acceleration program for our industry to accelerate digitalization of this industry and it's key. and for that, we need for an investment intel, facebook general electric, samsung, all of them decided in the recent weeks to invest in france or invest in french start-ups. we are here and we need this private investment precisely to strengthen our economy. and on top of it, we are implementing a big modernization program. i'm pushing with 400 articles precisely to unlock a lot of sectors, to modernize the economy, to enable people to get more opportunities and especially to enable the
outsiders of the economy to get more opportunities, and to reduce-- which is key to me in terms of economic and cultural change in france-- to deal with the cost of-- if we want to modernize france, we have to reduce the cost. >> rose: is there a-- quote-- new socialism in france? >> for sure. we are making it. new socialism is just about emancipation. it's just about how to enable people, how to provide more opportunities. it's not-- i mean, the government is not the one who will create growth. the government is not here to correct all the inequalities sometimes it created. our role is to enable people to provide more opportunities especially to young people and outsiders of the system, to protect those who fail and
basically, to allow people to take risk, to try sometimes to fail, and to promote those who succeed. that's my view of socialism, indeed because it's an efficient and fair view. and if you don't produce, if you don't succeed, that's impossible to redistribute. >> rose: is that the view of president hollande? >> i mean, president hollande is the one hobasically appoint meade and he knows me very well because i advised him in the past. so i do think that is president hollande's view. >> rose: it's said when you were work him as a member of his staff that he encouraged to you develop proposals for reform, that early on high knew that france's economic policy and france had to reform because the past had not worked and that he had-- he had to change direction, although it might seem unusual for a socialist
president. >> you're right but being socialist is just being lucid is all. and when you look at the french situation, we had a lack of competitiveness and a big situation in terms of indebteddedness. so i think our view is we have to deal with reality. we have to improve the french situation. it's part of the job. i mean, we are here to govern. we are here to reform the country and to modernize the country. with a fair method. and i think that's how to be socialist. we modernize the country but at the same time we don't kill the social model. and we protect people. but our past mistake was both to protect people and protect jobs. i.e., by refusing any change. now what we do is we want to accelerate. we need a disruptive approach in economic terms. we will protect people and we
protect people by education, training, social security system. but we have to promote risk and risk takers. that's why i'm here to encourage entrepreneurs to take more risk in france and because are now risk taker friendly. and it's key for the recovery. and you know what? taking risk is socialist. because it-- i mean, it just means you help people who are ready to take their risk to succeed, but at the very beginning they are not automatically the insiders of the system. >> rose: let me turn, finally, to the wikileaks and the notion that the u.s. was spying on france including three french presidents. was this surprising to your government? because there is an assumption that many governments spy on each other. i think your ambassador has even take note of that fact. >> no, i mean, we knew the
situation after 2013. so it's not brand new. that's a confirmation and this leak is problematic because they spread all over the place so thos an issue. as want president said, that's unacceptable, especially between france and the u.s. but that's past practice. two days ago, the president had the opportunity to discuss with president obama, and he repeated basically the statement, and i think that president obama repeated the fact that now there is a strong commitment from the u.s. side that there is-- i mean, no more of this kind of eavesdropping. so the situation is complete over now which is the most important. in a few days, two 47 officials
basically will visit their counter-part in the u.s. to be sure all the technical measures precisely are put in place in order to be sure there is-- i mean no more eavesdropping of this kind between the u.s. and the french government. >> rose: it is said, because france is a member of the p-5 plus 1 negotiating with iran, and because because france has been strong ins own efforts against terrorism around the world, that there is a strong foreign policy connection between france and the united states in the battle against terrorism, that it is one of the strongest bonds that exists. correct? >> you're perfectly right. that's why basically the reaction of the french president two days ago was efficient demanding, and appropriate which was to say we are two extremely important strategic partners and the most important thing is to work together
precisely on foreign policy and against terrorism in all the battlefields. so that's why he had such a reaction. but you're perfectly right. i mean, the strengths of all the links between our two countries are extremely strong. that's why i do believe that all of the relevant and efficient measures are being taken and was taken by the federal government after this revelation was made in 2013. >> rose: thank you so much. france's minister of finance. back in a moment. stay with us. >> rose: we turn now to the nuclear deal with iran. the "new york times" reported today that five former varieses of president obama and iran on nuclear policy have written an open letter to the president questioning the deal. david sanger reporting for the "times" about the group said "the public nature of the announcement as to the challenge facing secretary of state john kerry as the negotiations head towards a deadline next tuesday."
the letter comes one day after iran's supreme leader rejected a long-term freeze on nuclear research. he also said iran will only sign a deal with international sanctions are lifted first. joining me are two former advisers and sig tors of the letter from the harvard kennedy school gary samore. he is the president's former top varies for nuclear policy, and from washington, ambassador dennis ross. he is a councilor at the washington institute for near east policy and former varies for iran at the national security council from the white house. finally from vienna, david sanger from the "new york times." i am pleased to have all of them on this program. tell me the significance of this as you reported in the "new york times." >> well, i think the letter that was written by the five-- and it was a bipartisan letter that had many more signatories, including a number of republicans, including steve hadley the national security varies to
president bush, of-- was an effort to lay out some parameters for the administration about what kind of deal they could all support. and so the positive news for that, i think, for the administration, is that since most of what they laid out were talking point you would hear from the obama administration at various points over the past year or two, i think it means that there's an opportunity there to bring both republicans and democrats together. on the other hand, if secretary kerry at the end of the process that's going on behind me here-- and he'll be here tomorrow night-- if at the end of that he has something that is significantly less specific on issues of inspection, on issues of how much fuel the iranians can possess, on how much research and development they can do on making faster
centrifuges, then i think it's going to be a hard sell in congress because i think many in congress will say look, the president's own varieses laid down these markers. >> rose: gary why go public? >> well, we wanted to encourage the administration to stick to our demands on the unresolveed issues, especially now that the iranians seem to be walking back some of the earlier at least tentative understandings they made in april. and as david said, we think these are not only important in terms of substance for the value of the agreement but we also think these are achievable objectives. in fact, in many cases the iranians have earlier agreed to them and now supreme leader khamenei for whatever reason, seems to be backing away from that earlier agreement. so we wanted the administration to both stand firm but also to have-- to feel they had the luxury of taking their time to get a deal right even if it means negotiating past this next deadline at the end of june.
>> rose: dennis? >> look, i think what gary said is quite right. i think, "a," we looked at the fact that there was a deadline coming up, and we really felt that it's more important to get the content right than to worry about that deadline. "b," we felt in many ways by putting out a bipartisan statement, we were actually helping the administration because the signal we were sending is there is a bipartisan consensus that will support an agreement that has he's principles and these principles themselves are embodied in the framework understanding. so if you can produce this kindav an agreement, you will have this kind of a consensus or you can have this kind of a consensus. and in many respects, this is something that the administration should be able to embrace and as gary said, it's a kind of reminder that these are the principles that the administration itself has used as a criteria to define a good agreement, and we're simply reinforcing that point. >> rose: you know the
iranians, dennis, why do you think-- is it simply negotiating tact, or do you think they have decided to take a harder line for some other reason? >> no, i think what we're seeing is the style that the iranians employ when it comes to negotiations. first they try to use deadlines and they try to use the deadlines as a form of pressure on us, as opposed to pressure on themselves. secondly it's very interesting that the supreme leader would come out making these public statements onstatements on the eve of the deadline which is another way of sort of signaling that his negotiators are operating under more tight constraints. so i see it much more relating to posturing than i coto the interplay of politics on the iranian side. i think it will be used by the iranian negotiators to try to make a case there's a limit as to what they can agree to. and here, again it's the reason why our approach ought to be june 30 is a target date. yitzhak rabin used to say during the oslo process "there are no
sacred dates." i don't think we should treat june 30 as a sacred date. getting the content right is what matters and sending that signal to the iranians will make it clear in a sense, if they want to take more time we're quite relaxed about that. we're not going to be pressured into changing what in fact was worked out in the framework understanding. >> rose: david in vienna tell me-- i know you have just arrived, but what the feeling is on the ground there in terms of is there an ebb and flow about this with the source you've already talked to before your plane touched down? >> charlie, there is. you know, usually you've got a sense when you're a few days out if a deal is sort of coming together. and in the background conversations we've had not only with administration officials but with the french, the germans, the british others, you don't have that sense. there are big wide areas that one would have expect would have been closed up by now. and today we had one senior
administration official say to us that these aren't just technical issues. they are also political decisions. and i think that was evident from the ayatollah's statement. now, i think it's fair to say- that the letter that dennis and gaerp and others sent gives a sort of alternative for the administration to sort of say to zarif, the iranian foreign minister who will be here on saturday, "hey look, we have politics back in washington as well and if the president's own former varieses think we need to meet this standard we can't go to congress with anything less." to some degree it's a useful bargaining tool for the united states as well. on the ayatollah's statement there are a lot of people in the iranian guard core who are opposed to this agreement not only because the nuclear program has been central to them for 15
or 20 years but because they're making a lot of money from the black market that has come up around selling goods that evade the sanctions. and if the sanctions went away that money source is going to go away for them. so it's very possible that you're seeing real politics inside iran to try to kill the deal as well. >> rose: gary, one thing you may have said but i have noticed, there's genuine concern about where the iranians will be if there is a deal after 10 years. so what is allowed during this 10-year period, beyond inspections and beyond access to military installations. there is the question of what they will be able to do to prepare themselves for what happens after 10 years or 15-- whatever the period is. am i correct in that? >> yeah. the fundamental concessions we made to come close to an agreement was "a" to allow the iranians to retain a substantial
enrichment infrastructure, several,000 centrifuges continuing research and development so that they can have equipment and people trained and so forth. and then after 15 years all of the physical constraints on that infrastructure are removed, and the iranians, according to the agreement, can then expand to have a much larger industrial scale enrichment program which would give them a more credible nuclear weapons option. so basically, this agreement kicks the can down the road 15 years, which is a long way but we don't know in 15 years what iran will be like what, u.s.-iranian relations will be like. it may turn out enough change will take place in those 15 years so we won't be as concerned about iran having a basic nuclear capacity. on the other hand, if there's no change, the president, whoever that is in 15 years, may have to be faced with the need to oppose iran expanding its program, even
though they've complied with the agreement for 15 years. >> rose: so what do you think the president is expecting to happen, that somehow if he can get this to happen for 15 years the iranians might change their mind in terms of wanting a nuclear weapon or they will be a different regime judge well, i won't speak for the president but for me i think it really requires a change of the iranian leadership. supreme leader khamenei who has been interested in a nuclear weapons capability for over 25 years, is not going to change his mind about the utility of having nuclear weapons or a nuclear weapons option to defend iran and to pursue its foreign policy. so i think it's really a gamble on our part that he dies in the course of the next 15 years or some other change in government takes place, and you have a different government with a different set of calculations and interests. >> rose: that's his bet.
>> i think that's the gamble. >> it's his hope. >> rose: dennis it's his hope meaning-- >> look, again, i think there is probably a hope within the administration that you will have an iran that is increasingly dependent and connected to the international economy, the global economy, and that will build their stake in not wanting to become isolated or ostracized again. they will see all the benefits of this. the pragmatic constituency that might be associated with people like zarif maybe they will become empowered by this. i think the hope suwill see that kind of gradual transformation. i don't think you can base policy on hope. you always have to hedge against the unknowns and you have to plan for the worst. so i think the hope is there. i think when the administration says they're not banking on trust there, that's why there's going to be verification, i
think that reflects their understanding that in fact you can hope for something but the outcome can't be based just on hopes. we put in our statement a very clear point that the cons consequences have to be real number one. and if iran is going to be a threshold nuclear state it becomes very important that they understand from the time this is concluded that the president now is making a commitment that in fact his successors should be bound by that we will not permit iran to be a nuclear weapon state. it's very important to say that. it's very important to make it clear that we will use whatever means are necessary to ensure that. so that iran isn't tempted to move from a threshold status to a weapons status, knowing what the price would be. >> rose: all of these issues have been debated within the walls of the white house and the pentagon and the state department. i mean, is anything new about this debate and the questions that are being raised?
my assumption is that all of these questions have been considered and considered thoroughly by the obama administration. david. >> they have been, and they have been from the first days. i mean, i think that gary and dennis can tell you there were more meetings on iran nooshz 2009, president obama's first year, than there were on any other topic even though iraq and afghanistan were still alive. and you have seen the president do a lot of things. he's done a big build-up of military forces in the gulf to show the iranians that there was a credible military option. you and i have discussed before the range of cyber attacks that were done on the iranian nuclear infrastructure, and that was to send a message that there was a non-kinetic way of trying to slow them down. and now we're down to the crunch here. and, of course whenever you get into a negotiating dynamic, you get this inevitable tension
between what you can negotiate and what your principles are. and really that's what the next four or five days are all about. they're about decision is this just good enough that even if we have to cut back some on some of the principles of where we wanted to be, that it's more important to get the deal and take the gamble that gary just described and that dennis just described? and that's a really hard call because for the president to come back with something that looks like iran could have a significant breakout capability after 10 years or an 12 or 13 is gog require a lot of explaining in congress. and now, of course, congress does get a vote on this. and that's why the letter was so interesting because it tried to say here are the things on which the administration must hold the line, and we'll know in the next week or two weather they really are holding the line on those.
>> rose: either dennis or gary, you have heard from john kerry since this letter became public? >> i have not. >> no, i haven't. >> rose: do we know, david sanger, what his response is? >> well, we know what the state department said to us yesterday when the letter came out, which is that the principles that are laid out in the letter are very consistent with the principles that are being discussed in the negotiating room. but that's different from what agreement you actually end up with. now,, you know, the administration has moved in recent times on a few things. we did not expect six months ago that they would allow iran in a negotiating deal to kind such a large frurpt in place even if they're doing so with very little nuclear fuel. that infrastructure would allow iran to ramp up quickly at the end of the agreement, whether that's 10 years or 15. we did not really understand
what iran's inspection regime would look like. we're still trying to get a handle on how quickly sanctions would get relieved, because if a lot of the sanctions on oil and financial transactions are lifted early, then the administration will have a lot less leverage when they're dealing with iran later on. >> rose: final question to denis and to gary, do you think there will be a deal? >> i think khamenei's recent hand grenade his new red lines really raises questions about whether the iranians iranians are prepared to close the deal right now. and we've seen this before. last summer, when we were facing a deadline, khamenei gave a similar speech with red lines that were unacceptable, saying iran wouldn't give up a single centrifuge and insisting on a rapid build-up upon upon. and i think that delayed a deal for a couple of months-- or a partial deal.
we may have the same thing here where khamenei, for whatever reasons-- whether it's bargaining tactics or domestic politics-- has put forward these new red lines which the iranians can't walk away from right away and that may lead these talks to extend and drift through the summer. >> rose: david-- i mean dennis, dennis. >> i do believe there will be a deal. i also agree that i think it will take some prime time to produce it, and i suspect khamenei has aloud these negotiations to go for as long as he has not by accident. he sees and i think the iranian leadership sees something to qain. it's true the revolutionary guard may not have much stake in the deal but i suspect at the end of the day we will see one. and i also suspect the supreme leader, who likes to be above the fray will compensate revolutionary guard in the aftermath of deem diehl. i think it's not going to come immediately but i think there will be a deal.