that they can have, they say they re going to go up to 20% enrichment. you need 90 president for a bomb. 90% for a bomb. they ve got these new advanced centrifuges, why are they allowed or why is it permitted to happen, advanced material? you had agreed to a nuclear deal to basically freeze everything. well, under the terms of the jcpoa, that s not allowed. but what the iranians are saying is, look, the united states itself withdrew from that agreement, and under those conditions then it s really an act of generosity on our part to continue to comply with its provisions. their position here is that the united states is the guilty party in what s going on here. obviously, we don t see it the same way. eric: do you think the president will change his view? i don t think the president s going to change his view. he clearly has long believed that the jcpoa was a flawed agreement, that its sunset provisions allowed the iranians
the united states is of the greatest country in the entire world. for whatever reason, the last administration exchanged hands of the negotiating table and chose positions of weakness for no good reason, that doesn t mean the same administration should be playing the same tired playbook that we saw previously not work with what resulted in a fatally flawed iran nuclear deal for what was in it and what wasn t in it. the president was right for withdrawing from the iran nuclear deal. there are genuine important serious concerns with regard to sunset provisions, verification regime, nonnuclear activity. the iranian economy is suffering greatly because the sanctions are working. that s why rouhani wants to come to the table. he is in no position to be dictating that we remove all our sanctions in order to have a conversation. that should be a nonstarter. shannon: the president has been talking over the last several days about the economy in china. he says having their worst year in decad
approval to the north koreans to move forward with their nuclear program and now of course the decisions that he s made over the past two years regarding iran. now it s put iran in the position where they re breaking out of their nuclear anything that bound them before by the nuclear deal that the united states and europe signed. this is surprising only in the sense, joe, that it s not surprising. like didn t anybody in the administration think just for a second that if they get out of this deal it would open up options for this wasn t a perfect deal. the sunset provisions kicked in too soon and all that. but the administration had the opportunity from the get-go to try to negotiate a better deal with longer provisions, with constraints, to capture ballistic missiles and instead they get out.
is that the iranian are going to put back. they re shooting at saudi arabia, we have seen the attack on the saudi tankers and we have seen palestinian/islamic gee lads do things and iran is going to start targeting us with cyber. one of us is going to feel the other crossed the thresh hold. we don t have clear, core year graphed articulated red lines with iran and this will spill over. do you not agree that a measured response to shooting down the u.s. drone would be a cyber attack against the systems it s a measured response, but what s missing is if larger policy. if you keep turning up the heat what do we think they ll do? any idea what that measured policy might be? sure. what it should be is we would basically say we would be prepared to enter tone the negotiation with you. we ll take the old agreement but build on it. we have to add missiles to it. we have to extend the sunset provisions. make it last much longer. in exchange you get a degree of
narcissistic schizophrenia. ronald reagan was reluctant to use military force. but when he did use it in 1981 or 1983 or against the iranians in 1988, it tended to be he made a few mistakes but it was short-lived but decisive. it had an effect. this is almost like a parody of what republicans would accuse, say, jimmy carter of doing. like going right up until the edge and then pulling back in a show of weakness. what we should be doing is having a campaign of steady pressure against iran. i don t think it necessarily required military steps but could require changing the rules of engagement signaling that we re pushing forward to the sake of a new nuclear negotiation that would have yielded a better result for us and the rest of the world than the last one did. most people agree the last deal had real flaws, including the sunset provisions. what he s basically told the