Senator flake the nuclear side was pretty tight. It does truly limit irans ability to at least amass enough fissile material to make a bomb for 1015 years. Thats a good thing. The part the troubled me most is that this probably should have been a treaty where it binds all parties. Instead, it is an executive agreement that just lasts the length of the presidency. When there are other issues, like problems with what iran has been doing in the region, some of the terrorist activity, i thought that the agreement unfairly restricts congresss ability to respond to that type of behavior. Thats what tipped the scales for me. For those who say this is an easy call, i think they have not looked easily at it or all the closely at it. This is a tough agreement. Charlie if we oppose this deal what do you mean on the opposite side of our allies . It depends on whats which allies you are talking about. Sen. Flake the p5 plus one negotiated this agreement. The countries who have been involved in the sanctions regime will now go on. Assuming this agreement were to fall apart, i think they might go a different direction. That is not a good thing to break up this good coalition. Part of the success we have had in bringing iran to the table is that it has been iran versus the west rather than iran versus the u. S. This kind of breaks that up. It is not an easy thing to go against your european allies. On the other hand, israel has some real concerns, legitimate concerns about this agreement. They are obviously a very close ally of ours as well. Charlie there is a lot of political pressure, but in the end, do you think that the fellow senators you know well from that group of 100 are voting on the merits of this agreement or on political pressure . Sen. Flake i like to think that all of us look at the facts and the merits of the case. And i think by and large, thats true. Weve had a good number of briefings and hearings and meetings that have been widely attended by my colleagues. I think the senate i cant speak for the house but knowing what we have gone through in the senate, people are taking this very seriously, as they should. This is a big, important agreement, and i thought it was important to do Due Diligence on it. Charlie why is it important . Sen flake this will affect not just our relationship with iran, but the entire region. Allowing or trying to prohibit a nation like iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon is extremely important. It is something we have based a good chunk of our form policy in of our Foreign Policy on in the middle east on for quite a while. It will affect the region. We have got to establish a Regional Security framework in the wake of this accord now, assuming it goes through. Those kinds of things are big and important. Charlie do you believe the president could have negotiated , and the others that were part of the u. S. Team, could they have negotiated better and perhaps included some of these elements that concern you about iranian conduct in the agreement . Sen. Flake yes, i do. Had this been a treaty, they obviously would have clarified some of these things that many of us have been raising for a number of months. I actually wrote to the president in february this year expressing concern that congress had not been involved, particularly in what will happen with sanctions should this agreement go into effect. I do think we could have clarified. With a treaty, you can to what ruds, reservations, understandings, and declarations, where you clarify some of the confusing aspects of a treaty. We didnt have that opportunity here. So i encouraged the administration to support parallel legislation that would clarify some of these items. They just arent clear. The administration will say that we do maintain or retain all the tools that we have to deter or punish iran for behavior in the region on the nonnuclear side. But if you read the agreement, that is just not the case. I think that those things need to be clarified. They arent and i think they will present a big problem going forward. Charlie do you think the president wants this deal too much . Sen. Flake well, i dont want to say that. I know the administration wants an agreement. I want an agreement. I supported the negotiations all along, and i wanted to support a good agreement. I wanted to be there. I dont think it is a good thing to have a big, important agreement like this pass with a bare plurality of a partisan vote. I would have liked to have been there, but i couldnt get over these hurdles. Charlie how do you think it is how do you think the president ial race will come out president obama will come out in the end . Sen. Flake if i had to guess, i would think that the president may lose a few more democrats that have already declared. But in the end will have votes to sustain a veto. Charlie so he will be able to get this agreement that he wants so very much. Sen. Flake i believe so. I believe the votes will be there. Charlie what is it you think he doesnt understand . Sen. Flake i dont want to put it that way. Certainly, these negotiations have been entered into in good faith. I think we are trying to get an agreement that will both restrict Irans Nuclear ambitions. But also, youve got to deal with the behavior in the region. The president believes that we can separate those things. Im not sure that we can. In fact, i think in the agreement, the fact that iran has agreed on the nuclear side to something that it can get out of if we impose sanctions for other behavior, it ties the two nuclear and nonnuclear aspect s together in ways that i am not sure is fully appreciated by the administration. Charlie but the president will argue two things. One, it was a nonstarter to include these things as part of an agreement. They simply werent going to go there. And that the intent of the p5 plus one was only to use sanctions to get an agreement to prevent iran from having a Nuclear Weapon. Sen. Flake well, i would simply disagree. I dont want to disparage the president or the administration. Like i said, i uploaded their applauded their efforts and their willingness to negotiate. I think we should have been doing this on before. I think we have a stronger hand than we have shown. Gotten someouldve more commitments, or at least not bound congresss hands with regard to responding to irans behavior in the region. I think we could have clarified that and that would have provided more deterrence than is currently there with this agreement. Charlie and also the president would argue it is much better to have or be in competition and be engaged in a conflict with iran that doesnt have a Nuclear Weapon about these issues, whether it is support for hezbollah or the denunciation of israel and all of that. To be engaged with an iran that does not have a Nuclear Weapon than one that does. Sen. Flake there is certainly something to be said for that. But im not sure you can take that to the full extent. If iran believes that we are so worried that they will get out of their nuclear obligations, that we wont challenge them on some of the regional behavior, they simply have too much leverage in that regard. I think there is some of that in this agreement. I take the president s point on dealing with an iran without nuclear capability, that is certainly better, but if they can use that as leverage to increase that behavior in the bad behavior in the region, then im not sure that argument holds. Charlie do you believe there are things the congress can do now, that even though the agreement will go into effect, can make a difference . Sen. Flake yes. And i think congress will. That is part of what i was talking to the administration about as late as last friday. I think they congress is going to move ahead. For example, to reauthorize the iran sanctions act which expires next year. Simply so, if there is a need for snapback, we have sanctions to snap back to. That has been met with resistance by the administration. They say we can deal with that when it comes up, but that would be too provocative to do that now. It makes me and others concerned that the administration would be unwilling to challenge irans behavior in the region when it comes to it. If we are that afraid to challenge their interpretation of the agreement now, and and to allow congress to move ahead and reauthorize sanctions without challenging the president s waiver authority, nobody is disagreeing with that, but to violates, even on the nuclear side, we want sanctions to snap back to. I think congress will move on some items like that. It might be uncomfortable for the administration and for the iranians, who said they would consider that provocative behavior. But it should be done. Charlie many people who support the agreement will say i dont think it is a perfectly deal by any means. I dont think i have met anybody who said this is a perfect deal. But they do believe that, in the end, this will be a more important element for preventing iran from a Nuclear Weapon on for anything else that is on the table or off the table. Having said that, when you look at the dangers of iran getting a Nuclear Weapon living under the disagreement, is it the covert possibility that concerns you the most, of what they might do . Sen. Flake no. Like i said, i think the nuclear side its not perfect, obviously. The inspections regime that pertains to the nonknown nuclear sites, or the suspected sites, is certainly far from ideal. But, given our knowledge and what we know about the supply chain and the points at which we can intervene and look at what is going on, frankly on the nuclear side, although there are tradeoffs like i said, it is not a perfect agreement there, but i was willing to go for that part of it. I think frankly that iran has little incentive to cheat big on the nuclear side. If you look at it, they have been a threshold Nuclear State for a while and they simply havent gone there because they have gauged, i think appropriately, the reaction, whether it is a military response or increased sanctions. I wouldnt expect iran to try to break out. Partly because the position they will be in 10 or 15 years from now, they havent lost much. In fact, they can conduct quite a bit of research in the meantime. And in some ways, industrialize their program. So i dont think it is in their interest, and i dont think they believe it is either to break out. But i am concerned. That is why i ultimately could not support the agreement. The nonnuclear side and the license that it might give them to behave differently there. Charlie and what do you think might restrict their behavior beyond this nuclear deal . What are the elements you would like to see in american foreignpolicy to restrict these activities, whether it is support of hezbollah and using hezbollah as an agent in syria , or whatever it might be . What are the tools in american foreignpolicy that can change that behavior . Sen. Flake obviously, a real threat that is known and understood and believed. I believe that is a problem right now. I am not sure after the syria issue and the redline there that are our threats are as believed as much as they should be. Ambassador dennis ross wrote a couple of good pieces where he talked about a couple of items that he suggested we could do simply on the deterrence side to ensure iran that any move on the nuclear side to enrich uranium beyond what is needed for peaceful purposes would be met with a strike, no questions asked. Those kind of things we can hopefully do that would help on the nuclear side. On the nonnuclear side, i think iran needs to understand that it is our understanding as congress and we will move ahead to impose sanctions, tough sanctions, even if they are the same type of sanctions or the same sanctions that we have imposed on the nuclear side if they break out on the nonnuclear side and increase their support for terrorism in the region. They need to understand that. As i mentioned, that is part of my problem with this agreement. I think they believe that they have neutered our ability to impose sanctions on them, tough sanctions, like financial sanctions, on their central bank, should they misbehave on the nonnuclear side. Congress needed to make clear that we will come hard, even if it is the same sanctions. Charlie let me turn to cuba. What do you say to your fellow senator marco rubio about the reestablishment of relationships with cuba . Sen. Flake i think this represents the ultimate policy for today and tomorrow and not yesterday. I think this is long overdue. Obviously, my concern over the years has been the travel ban more than anything else. As an american, i should be able to travel wherever i want. Unless there is a compelling National Security reason otherwise. And to restrict americans ability to travel is just wrong. Some people view this kind of as a concession to the cuban regime. It is not a concession to allow your own citizens to travel. And it is not a concession to have diplomatic relations. That is an agreement between two countries to speak and work things out with diplomacy. So that is not a concession either. So this was a great move. I think it is good for cubans and certainly good for americans as well. Charlie where do you stand on the embargo . Sen. Flake i would lift the whole thing. As i have said, we ought to tell the cuban regime that we are lifting elements of the travel ban and establishing diplomatic relations. And unless you clean up on the human rights side, we will lift the whole embargo. [laughter] i have never seen that as a concession either. [laughter] nothing will guarantee a better behavior on the cuban government side. But we are more likely to get it if we have diplomatic relations, one. And two, if there is increased commerce and travel from americans. Charlie let me make sure i understand you they fear the lifting of the embargo because of the impact that would have on changing cuba . Sen. Flake no doubt. The embargo, or the blockade as they call it, has been used as a scapegoat for the failures of socialism or decades now. So although they say they want it all to be lifted, whenever we make moves in that direction, we usually see behavior on the cuban government side that makes us step back and it shouldnt. It should make us move forward more quickly. I applaud the Obama Administration for moving forward on this. It is the right thing to do. It is already making lives better on the cuban side. Particularly when the president lifted restrictions on cubanamerican travel in 2009. It went from 100,000 visits a year to about 400,000, within a year. Also, money has been invested with family members in cuba. Family members in cuba have been able to lead better, richer lives. And the number of people in cuba that are working outside of the state environment with private businesses has increased substantially. That is a good thing. It spells relief for a lot of people. It also spells trouble for the government if they want to continue a socialist government going ahead. Charlie with respect to the future of the relationship, do you think when the castro brothers leave the scene, that you will see democracy in cuba . Sen. Flake i dont think it will be immediate, but i do think it will accelerate. A lot of that depends on how much we open it up and how much we continue to push and allow activity between cubans and americans to go forward and develop. But i do think it will accelerate. But it is not going to be immediate. Charlie may i turn to immigration for a moment . Senator flake sure. Charlie what is happening in your party with respect to immigration because of recommendations and the presence of donald trump . Senator flake we are a good year out of serious political activity. Not a year out, but a ways out. Could fool New Hampshire and iowa. [laughter] senator flake we still have a while before they actually vote in those caucuses and primaries. I think by that time, hopefully, some of these statements and these policies, if you want to call them that, from mr. Trump will be a faint memory. Certainly, it is not a serious policy to talk about building a wall and forcing the Mexican Government to pay for it or imposing fees and tariffs, like he has talked about doing. It runs from insensitive to laughable, frankly, some of these policies that have been advocated by mr. Trump. Charlie then why is he leading the polls . Senator flake when you have so many candidates and have 20 , you have a plurality. But that will no longer be the case as the field narrows and people start really thinking we dont need to just think about a primary, but winning a general as well. Nobody can talk seriously about winning a National Election when you use rhetoric like mr. Trump is using. And i think the broader electorate on the republican side understands that. As we get into next year, it will be a more serious debate. Charlie could you support donald trump if he was the republican nominee . Sen. Flake i will support the republican nominee, and i dont think it will be mr. Trump. Charlie it is a pleasure to have you on this program. Sen. Flake thanks for having me on. Charlie stay with us. Charlie Justin Leverenz is here, director of emerging equities at oppenheimer funds. Top holdings include companies owns a portfolio with assets over 40 billion. Top holdings include companies located in china, india and hong kong. Nearly 7 of developing markets are invested in russian stocks. I am pleased to have Justin Leverenz at this table for the first time. Welcome. Justin thank you very much. Charlie you and i met at a conference and had an opportunity to talk about the world as you see it. Has the definition of emerging markets changed . Should all the bric countries be considered emerging markets . Brazil, russia, india, china . When does china become something other than an emerging market . It is not a new society. Justin my fund is deliberately called the developing markets fund, not an emerging markets fund. We are talking about 90 of the worlds population, being a part of the world. What unites it is institutions which arent as stable or robust as the developed world, which is largely the United States, europe, japan. Charlie you are talking about justin sociopolitical institutions, rule of law, Different Levels of political engagement, institutions that ferment development. And its a pretty generous bunch, in many dimensions. Some are very welldeveloped, like eastern europe. There is a big difference between warsaw and bombay in terms of levels of affluence. There is a very big difference in terms of the commodity orientation of these geographies. We have some who, in the last 12 months, suffered enormously because of the drop