for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events from washington dc and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. announcer: -- at our table this morning, behnam ben taleblu with the foundation for the defense of democracies. we will talk about the g7, which begins in france this weekend. how big of a focus will iran be? guest: a big focus. the u.s.'s max pressure campaign, to get iran to set down for a bigger and better deal, has kept both sides of the atlantic divided. the u.s. with a more pressure

driven policy, the europeans trying to keep the jcpoa deal, the 2015 deal. this has created tension, but there are other issues to this cost as well, energy and the environment. the all know this used to be the g8 summit, which had russia involved, and russia and iran and other rogue late -- states will likely be on for discussion. host: why is that these other countries would like to stick to this nuclear agreement made under the obama administration versus what the trump administration would like to do? why are they insisting that continue? guest: there are three key reasons. it would be a mistake to say just one. but the biggest one is commercial relations -- or trade, you could say. the european union has always had an interest in trading with iran, thinking that you could trade with iran and that would moderate their paper over time. i think the 1990's disproves

this, where iran did engage in global markets and still engaged in terrorism. , on its face,that the deal is sufficient for now to deal with the iranian nuclear challenge and that the nuclear threat is worth dealing with before terrorism or other nuclear threats. the third is philosophical. that rather than in front iran, you should engage in iran. they say the supreme leader is old -- he turned 80 this summer -- and that there is a chasm between state and society, which is true. even though the europeans have not really supported the street versus the state, and they are looking to say, if iran changes over time, we want them to be engaged when they changed as opposed to isolated when they changed. host: how they respond to this?

secretary of state mike pompeo at the un security council meeting tuesday. i want to show it to the viewers and have you respond. he is talking about iran's behavior. [video clip] >> there is just that here is just a short list of what the regime has done since july. july 1, it suppressed its 300 kilogram limit on its uranium stockpile. houthisthe iran backed attacked saudi arabia's airport. july 8, iran reached levels of enrichment about 4.5 percent, breaching its nuclear commitments, which cap did at .67% -- capped it at 3.67%. the irgc navy unsuccessfully attempted to seize a u.k. tanker as it passed through the strait of hormuz. 12, it seized a uae owned

tanker. seized a british tanker and continues to contain that ship and its crew. july 19, the irgc navy seized a liberian-flagged tanker. missiled a ballistic july 20. and we are already tracking very closely the jcpoa provisions expiring in october of 2020, namely the u.n. arms embargo and the travel restrictions. the whole world is able to count them. we now have a countdown clock on the state department's iran webpage. time is drawing short to continue this activity of restricting iran's capacity to foment its terror regime. guest: that is an impressive laundry list as to why iran

deserves a max pressure campaign as opposed to some sort of broader engagement strategy. i think the european union has been somewhat critical of those aspects. the british have stood up when it comes to the freedom of navigation in the persian gulf and the strait of hormuz. but collectively, the body is incentivized to turn a blind eye to the sources of iran aggression. they say that iran is acting out in response to american sanctions. i would disagree. i think the iranians are trying to build -- there economies cratering. the european union did not believe that u.s. unilateral sanctions could do in 11 years what multilateral sanctions took a decade to do. the european union wants to keep iran in the deal as much as possible and therefore will not respond to some of this aggression. host: what is the maximum pressure strategy?

what does it all and tale? -- entail? policy -- it was really the 2017 period. rhetoricissued tough against north korea, tried to create an international collision against north korea and even multilateral rise -- multilateralized that aggression. formally rooms. moved itself from the jcpoa was in 2018 and took a series of steps to put itself outside that deal and resume to the previous 2013 policy to iran, resurrect every single penalty and sanction, every single designation -- that was waived by the nuclear deal. not only did president trump restore this economic sanctions, he has added to them and and forth of them. this could called the max pressure campaign. power, sanctions,

and apply it against iran for a bigger, broader, better deal that will not be limited to the nuclear issue but deals with the whole reason for why iran has been an international pariah for 14 years. host: we are taking your comments, with the g7 summit coming up. those seven leaders, including the united states, expected to be talking about this issue. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. in iran underike this maximum pressure campaign? guest: life in iran is not good. pressure, post max pressure, during max pressure -- the iranian people understand that sanctions are squeezing their economy. but they are correctly ascribing the blame not to washington but to their own leaders in tehran. , thingscember 2017

heated up inside iran between state and society. people who lived on the geographic and figurative periphery of the country began protesting. the december 2017 protests can be likened to blue-collar protests. these are the urban and rural poor, the downtrodden and dispossessed, and this was a generation that the revolution had put all its hopes in. when this generation is protesting, when this generation cannot be bought off by subsidies, it shows how ideologically bankrupt the regime is. they have to be more course of -- coercive and do more bribery and persuasion, and they have less money to do it at home. max pressure or no max pressure, the people understand these restrictive measures are the result of tehran's behavior. chance thatnational echo the national chance you heard in north tehran in 2009.

the iranian people are resilient and want the national -- international community to do something about it. has: and explain where iran acted outside their country and how is it they can afford those activities. guest: great question. the military on paper, it pales in comparison to that of its u.s. or western neighbors. this is a talking point for those who do not want to do anything against iran, saying that iran does not spend -- they spent a little but get such a high return on investment. adversaries -- iran has a low-tech and low cost investment, that require its adversaries to have a high tech, high cost investment like ballistic missile defense, as you see now -- since 1979, when the ill islamic -- when the

islamic religion camera, it would stand with states like the assad regime seek to control enemies from the ground up. this is why iran's security strategy west of iran has been so effective and cheap. because it is much cheaper to equip a child soldier from afghanistan and sent him to die for iran's cause in syria that .t is to equip a green beret so iran gets a high paying for , anduck, a high return interferes in its neighbors. and it will be resilient and how it is allocating resources. the max pressure campaign is designed to come over time, gradually limit those resources and put tehran to the choice we are seeing this summer, as tehran acts out again and escalates in the persian gulf and through its proxies. iran is trying to put america to

the choice, saying even as you restrict our revenue, we will try to play chicken with you and stop you from issuing these sanctions and stop you from enforcing sanctions. host: we are taking your calls on the g7 summit and iran's nuclear program. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. call comes from john, and republican in pennsylvania. your question or comment on iran. caller: good morning. i have a number of comments, actually. statesn with, the united is already at war with iran. we have been at war with them. what we are doing, this so-called maxim pressure campaign you are talking about is at the behest of israel. we are trying to deny them the opportunity to earn any foreign

currency. so by medicine, by food, buy anything -- so buy medicine, buy food, buy anything. can you imagine if we were forgetting -- forbidden selling our agricultural goods, manufacturing goods? the foundation for the protection of democracies, this is one of these organizations and is a local israeli organization. it is a lobbying group. it is supposed to be a think tank, but it is a lobbying group. host: are you familiar with what he is talking about? guest: the caller mentioned three different issues. one is the unfortunate israeli group, the other one driving this is donald j. trump himself. if you look at the way the trump

administration actually approached this, it is actually responsible. he was one of the few republicans that joined the debates in 2015 and 2016 and did not say he would tear up the deal on day one. goodid i make bad deals deals. and much like the obama administration, which engaged in interagency reviews, the trump administration engaged in an entire iran policy review. and in 2017, the trump administration unveiled this policy towards iran, which unlike the bush and obama admits rations, which focused almost exclusively on nuclear, they decided to look at the breadth and depth of the iran challenge. then the trump administration actually worked with the e-3, france, germany, and the united iranom, to try to fix the deal from within. when that process collapsed, the administration did not issue any more waivers and again, in two down --

ways, issue new sanctions. then the administration tried to grow pressure on iran. the driver of this process has been the trump administration looking to use coercive diplomatic pressures against iran to make sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon and that iran's other threats are dealt with. it would be a mistake to try to ascribe it to some foreign power. lastly, the caller mentioned something about food and medicine -- there are no sentient on medicine. and it comes to food, it is interesting to note that the europeans, especially under the has beenure campaign, critical, because america is actually selling more wheat to iran than now. much like under the soviet union, which started under jimmy carter, to make sure that these do not impact the trade of food. host: what is your interest in iran? americanam an iranian

born and raised in the states. the iran issue is fascinating, because it cuts across many issues. iran and america were once the best of friends. unfortunately, now they are enemies. if you look at iran today, it is a country with so much potential. unlike most of the other countries in the middle east, the population is not reflexively anti-american. the population is not reflexively anti-israel, not effectively anti-semitic. this is one of the few areas in the middle east where our ideology as americans, international security prerogative of americans, need not be in conflict like in other theaters. 1979 is look at iran, a story of squandered potential. anyone interested in great power politics or middle eastern politics should look at iran as a cautionary tale for what happens when the long -- wrong

leaders come about. host: did your parents migrate from iran and why? fatherthey did, but my was out in the 1960's, and my mother's family fled after her father, a journalist under the shah for one of the two major taken intos was prison during the revolution. they fled when he got out. john, an we go independent. caller: good morning. i am a u.s. navy operations specialist during desert storm, and he is correct, for what he is doing. host: in what way, thomas? caller: he is very intelligent. you have to understand what is going on in the ground and at the political and military level . keep a big picture look on what is going on in iran and the middle east as a whole and what needs to be done.

a maximum pressure campaign is the correct way to go. host: let's talk about iran's involvement in iraq. is the u.s. supportive of it or opposed? what impact is iran having on the political situation in iraq? wart: since the iran-iraq ended in 1998, a bloody conflict that need not have come about, but because of accidents and people thinking they can one up each other in the middle east -- this was an eight year off with that killed countless people on both sides. since the end of that conflict, iran was forever slated to intervene in the politics, society, military, that -- the religious and even aspects to never let its neighbor ran challenge to iran.

and aou see seminarians holy city, occasionally challenge a religious ruling by iran's supreme leader, that is a challenge to iran's ruling governing policy. create arying to trojan horse in iran, to create malicious -- militias that will eventually co-opt the state. -- they eventually became a check against iran's national army and became a force that is exporting iran's revolution abroad through force. in iraq today, there is a competition for baghdad between washington and tehran. it will get challenging fast, because iran is influenced that iran's -- isn's influence in the prime

getting larger. the longer we do not push back on them, the louder their voice may be pure there, time where iran does something in iraq, and the u.s.-made seek to respond, and the iraqi government actually asked the u.s. to leave because of tehran back forces. host: what you make of this news? american officials confirm israel behind iran strikes in iraq. the new york times reported that american officials confirmed that israel has been carrying out airstrikes against iranian targets in iraq. one senior official expressed concerns that israel is pushing the limits and its operations -- theead to the u.s. u.s. withdrawing its troops from iraq because of this. what will happen? guest: that gets to the nightmare scenario we were talking about. what if the democratically elected government in baghdad

asks the u.s. to leave. a presence on the iran can tell iraqi's that you have an alternative, different choice. i think america should be in iraq for the long game. the israeli strikes are fascinating, because israel has been the one doing the bulk of the military pushback in the region, chiefly in syria. for the past two years, i think you have seen israelis become more comfortable reporting that here are the targets the israelis are hitting. you are seeing journalists have more sources within israel and syria talking about israeli strikes, not just on missile depots but on military bases, even installations that iranians and syrians operate together. but people have thought that would be geographically contained to syria. i was one of those, because of the operational range the israelis would have to go, and the challenge of with this get the u.s. involved if israel is striking in a theater where the

u.s. is in a carious spot in pure the fact that there have been three or four explosions in militia depots, where they store weapons before they move over with a call the land bridge from iraq into syria, presents something of a challenge. on the one hand, anyone who wants to push against iran in the region should be happy these depots are targeted. iraqrsely, navigating versus the non-governance of syria will be a challenge for washington. host: barbara in tennessee, democratic caller. caller: good morning. my question is all of the things that the united states has been involved in, with israel, saudi arabia, all of the bombings, things going on in the middle thought about any the united states reaping all of the stuff that we are sowing in

the world? all of this bombing and killing? do they ever realize it could come back to the united states, especially with russia moving in , right into kentucky, different places. guest: just to start at the end, with russia moving in, in the middle east, russia is a highly opportunistic actor. in areas where the u.s. leaves a vacuum, you have seen russian forces move in, not just in syria but through arms sales in places like the arab states of the persian gulf and even egypt. wherever there is an ability for the russians to exploit u.s. noncommitment in this region. but in terms of reaping what we sow, there is a certain period in time, like the 1990's, where the u.s. berries its head in the sand -- buries its head in the sand. that we can push away from the table in the region itself wants

nothing to do with us and there are no mac interests at stake -- i would say the opposite. one of the things that could keep the homeland safe is working with local partners in the region. and america does a lot of good in this region. look back at the history of american missionaries, of early american diplomatic missions, early 1900's. by invitation of some of the arab states in the persian gulf that the u.s. posture there to deter iran. look at what the u.s. has done against isis in places like iraq and syria. forces where a judicious of americans has done a lot. guest: we go to -- host: we go to new jersey, republican. caller: good morning. , on miketo ask what

pompeo's laundry list of activities by iran, was senseted by iran in the that it was not in direct response to the fact that we pulled out of the nuclear deal? either ourtions by so-called ally israel or ourselves in the region? that is one thing. name me one thing on the list that was not a legitimate response by iran to activities by the united states or israel. secondly, please explain to the world why iran is routinely referred to as the greatest exporter of terrorism in the world. and if that is the case, then please explain the difference between the sunni regimes like saudi arabia and the shia regime like iran, and what terror

organizations are associated with the sunni regime versus what terror organizations are associated with the iranian regime? and what the purpose of hezbollah has been in southern lebanon, the existence of hezbollah, supported by iran has been? what is the purpose of hezbollah in southern lebanon? host: ok. taking notes here. guest: yes, about half a page. very interesting comments. i think i can put them into a couple of buckets. the first is what is on the secretary's list is iran doing that is not a response to them a 2018 withdrawal from the jcpoa by the u.s.? the secretary gave a speech at the heritage foundation laying out 12 points for what the and

stakes would be for -- end stakes would be for a new deal with iran. almost all of those challenges are challenges that the islamic republic has posed not just to u.s. interest and security and not just to allied interests and security but to international interests and security since 1979. for instance, the point on hostages. the republic of iran birth itself -- birthed itself through an act of hostagetaking in 1979. has routinelyran supported a wide array of terrorist groups throughout the region since 1979, whether it is trying to pass arms to shia militias in bahrain.

unfortunately, a long history here. ballistic missiles is another issue on the secretary's agenda. it was during the iran-iraq war, north korea,nt to went to obtain ballistic missiles. but now that one tool trying to keep iran safe during the iran-iraq war is actually driving more conflict and instability, when you see the .outhi rebels in yemen the proliferation of these weapons is a problem and are things that have been long-standing in the region and desire to the iranian for the u.s. to withdraw from the deal. many analysts, whether you are pro deal or no opinion, many

agree this is the most successful of that successful exports of the iranian regime. lebanonically created has below. it is now trying to replicate that model, where a militia operates simply from the state and then gets increasing power. the entity is designed not just to co-opt the lebanese state but compose a conventional threat to israel, put a knife to the neck of israel and make israel fight a defensive war on its border as opposed to being able to engage in an offensive war away from its border. lastly, sunni versus shia terrorism. this is one area where it u.s. foreign policy should not discriminate. terrorism is terrorism. it should not just the lone wolf radicalized people on the

internet. the difference is saudi arabia versus iran -- saudi arabia, while there are lots of charities running out of saudi arabia, lots of radical preachers in saudi arabia, as a measure of state policy, the saudi state is pro-u.s. and pro-status quo, but the iranian state is anti-status quo and anti-u.s. and used terrorism as an instrument of saudi u.s. policy in some very lethal ways. the different groups -- it could fall under sunni terrorism, al qaeda, the islamic state, the taliban, things that could fall terrorism, lebanese hezbollah and the wide array of iraqi shia militias. colorado,el in independent, our last. caller: it seems to me, with the change in the last 50 years, it

is much easier to have a world economic war than in world military war. to keep things simple in that regard, but i do not see we have any choice but to start a worldwide economic war to get the changes that we need. host: we have to leave it there, because we are short on time. but take his thoughts there -- a world economic war versus a world military war. guest: that is an interesting point. the u.s. does not really won any warped or these are responses to sustained challenges that iran has posed the last 40 years. it is not just american interests at stake. if we are going to talk economic war and measures, the u.s. has felt increasingly triple using punitive economic pressure like sanctions and relying on the strength of the u.s. dollar and the fact that foreign financial

institutions still need to clear transactions through washington -- new york to make sure there is this power behind something other than just bombs. there is a power behind the u.s. currency, behind transactions, and using that power, washington has been able to achieve some pretty strong national security ads without having to fire single bullet. we are in an era where, covertly, there is a bipartisan interest and nonpartisan capability in the use of cyber and overtly a bipartisan interest in nonpartisan capability in the developments of economic sanctions. in moving to a world where where people do not want conventional conflicts and people do not want to do nothing about a national security crisis, and these two tools will play an increasingly important role. host: to follow behnam ben taleblu's work, you can go to

fdd.org. nor folks that university professor cassandra alexander discusses the history of the first africans arriving in virginia 400 years ago in 1619. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal light a 7:00 eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. announcer: earlier today, the supreme court announced in a press release that justice ruth bader ginsburg finished three weeks of radiation there be for a malignant tumor detected back

in july on her pantry us. -- on her pancreas. no further treatment is needed. the justice missed several oral arguments in january while recovering from surgery that removed to cancerous growths from her long. the supreme court says justice ginsburg has otherwise maintained an active schedule. announcer: watch the tv for live coverage at the national book festival saturday, august 31 starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern. with ruthterviews -- ruth bader ginsburg on her book. rick atkinson, and thomas malone , founding director of the m.i.t. center for collective intelligence.

the national book festival live saturday, august 31 at 10:00 a.m. eastern on book tv on c-span2. 2020, watchampaign our live coverage of the presidential candidates on the campaign trail, and make up your own mind. c-span's campaign 2020. your unfiltered view of politics. on friday, massachusetts representative became the latest candidate to drop out of the 2020 race. >> hello, dnc.