"Was is a big week for foreign policy news the president announced last weekend that there was a secret plan for a summit with Taliban leaders at Camp David but he was cancelling the secret summit because of Taliban bomb attack in in Kabul eighteen years after we invaded Afghanistan the country remains riven by fighting between a us-backed government and a revived Taliban control swath of the country the trump administration has been trying to reach a deal with the Taliban would allow us to withdraw troops. The president surely saw this potential summit is a great way to look like a peacemaker but according to news reports the Taliban was unwilling to come to Camp David without first receiving concessions to discuss that and also developments related to Iran were joined by jared blank. He's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and and when he was at the State Department Jarrett worked on the Iran nuclear agreement before that he was the acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan focusing on Afghan security elections and peace hi jared. Thank you for joining us thank you so this was also a big issue at Thursday's democratic debate. We've been in Afghanistan for so long is their way to withdraw our troops. While ensuring that Afghanistan does not become become a haven for international terrorist organizations like it was before nine eleven. I think that there is certainly a better policy to pursue in Afghanistan any policy that is going to have risks associated does he hid inside. Get a little hesitant about the word insure but the idea that the United States needs to have fifteen thousand or eight thousand or frankly one thousand troops in Afghanistan in order to pursue what are fairly limited counterterrorism objectives. I think just doesn't hold water so what what do we look for in these as negotiations with the Taliban which had been going on obviously not at Camp David for a substantial period before trump was trying to have this high profile meeting. What are we looking for? Is there a productive conversation station for us to have their that would allow us to do what you describe and reduce that footprint so I think there's absolutely a productive conversation and I think in fact productive conversation was underway with the US a special envoy investors all my house odd until president trump decided to make a drama out of it last weekend the conversation sort of breaks breaks into two levels. They're they're multiple wars being fought enough Ghanistan. One of them is approaching twenty years old. It's war between the United States and the Taliban the second is forty years. It's a civil war between Afghan factions. What investor House has managed to do have bandaged do with to lay out a framework to resolve the core security purity issues of the war between the United States and the Taliban so they get what they want which is a timeline for withdrawal? We get what we want which is a commitment that they ah will police the territory they control against internationally focused terrorist groups and also commitment to start negotiations with the government of Afghan the sand and others to try to end that long civil war which is important to us for a variety of reasons. That's not exactly the sequence that we'd worked on the Obama Administration. It's not the ideal sequence but the concessions that the United States made to get to that sequence are perfectly sensible and are reasonable way to approach a bringing this thing to an end rich. What do you make of that well? I just a very skeptical this I understand the exhaustion and frustration with the the Afghan war but I think the promising to you with Taliban as soon as you get zero those commitments they've made MIS importantly to police their territory against terrorists completely. Go out the window there. There's no the way they're going to comply with that. A why would they and sort of the the clever a case for this deal within the administration among hawks kind of want to tiptoe around trump more than did national security adviser John Bolton did was to say give give trump is his deal and they'll be this annex to the deal that has always conditions and the Taliban has has to meet that they won't meet and that'll allow us to do an offramp before we get to zero and end up at eighty six hundred but the very fact of the the deal affects the situation on the ground and if everyone really thinks we're going to zero. That's a that's a huge benefit to the Taliban. I think we just go to the the monopoly effective troop level. A lot of people think it's eighty six hundred. I'm not an expert in this area and stick there because I don't think there's a good way to WHO police Afghanistan against international terrorists without having some presence there and there are Ansari Benefits of having a presence there which is that you can so you have an eye into Pakistan and you can raid Pakistan as necessarily which is why we got bin Laden. We wouldn't have gotten bin Laden. If we weren't Afghantistan journey. What are you? What do you say to that? How do you enforce the terms of this agreement? If we have taken most all of our footprint out of the country well I think I would make two points. The first is to respond to what which is described is kind out of the clever case that will will lay out this troop drawdown time line but whether or not we ever completed depend on conditions on the ground and what I would say that is of course that's the case and of course the Taliban everyone else news that's the case the United States has announced repeated withdrawal timelines and we haven't followed them through so US leverage just pure military leverage before you get into other forms of leverage remains until the very end us gets decision points all along the way away in terms of the broader case of can you eventually imagine going zero again. I think the answer there is clearly. Yes and you do it in one of two ways either either you do it because there's been a peace settlement amongst Afghans which is obviously the most desirable outcome both for us for the Afghans which creates kind of a a government where power is distributed officially more-or-less as it is right now unofficially that kind of balanced government government in Afghanistan would be heavily dependent on international financing and we would have again leverage to make sure that they abide by their commitments including a counterterrorism commitments which which we shouldn't exaggerate how difficult how complicated these would actually be for them. The other alternative is that the deal doesn't take place in which case the Afghan civil war tragically continues but it can continue from the US's perspective with a dramatically lower commitment commitment so with funds for partners and probably some offshore military resources that would be needed now and again in counter-terrorism circumstances but the idea idea that it is that the US has sufficient security interests in Afghanistan to demand eighty five hundred or frankly five thousand one thousand troops odd infinitum not to mention forty five or fifty billion dollars a year. It just isn't borne out Christine. What did you make of the discussion about this at the debate on Thursday because you you heard candidate saying that they want to get troops out of Afghanistan but but lots of people want to get troops out of Afghanistan and the president wanted to President Obama wanted to and and so this seems like something that a lot of politicians have have expressed as a goal or made a commitment but it is so far lewd people to find a way to actually get it done yeah? I think that's that's right. I thought that actually was with Warren made a really good point in the debate on Thursday night when she said that you know we're not going to bomb our way out of terrorism. We're not GONNA bomb our way out of Afghanistan or any of these conflicts in the Middle East. We've tried that for literally decades at this point and perhaps we need to try something new and I think you know experts. and intelligence experts and military professionals can debate the best way to draw down troops to do so effectively to broker peace in some way up but I really think that the majority of Americans are tired. This has been an endless conflict that we didn't necessarily sign up for and I think that there is a strong appetite for beginning to leave it hopefully in a way that ensures the safety of our troops on the way out and that ensures or helps to ensure because that yes is not guaranteed a more stable country but people are ready to go. Can we talk a little bit about what happened with Iran this week. I'm frankly confused by what has happened with Iran so I mean first of all president trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal he imposed sanctions on Iran. They're describing their policy on Iran a maximum pressure policy to squeeze Iran financially and bring it to the table but now we're concerned that Iran is violating the agreement that we have already withdrawn from the Europeans are even more concerned about this and now president trump is flirting with a French proposal Rosal to extend a fifteen billion dollar credit line to Iran the purpose of which would be to ease some of the financial difficulties they face under our so-called maximum pressure sanctions and and then if we gave him the credit line the the trade would be that they would have to stay in compliance with the deal that we have withdrawn from Jarrett can can you explain to me what the possible purpose of this approach could be well to the extent that I think we understand discussions that underway between Paris Washington in Toronto and I don't want to exaggerate how much which we do I think the French proposal is an effort to provide a safe face saving way for president trump toback down without acknowledging that he's backing down now so in addition to pulling out of the JCP way the Iran nuclear deal a president trump withdrew all of the waivers for Iranian Lonnie and oil sales the sanctions waivers for oil sales. He took those waivers all the way down to zero where previous administrations had left the waivers that sort of you know higher level some level of income for the comedy I think the friendship concluded our others concluded that trump is unlikely to reverse that policy an issue oil sales waivers again but maybe there's a way to get kind of an equivalent amount of revenue to Iran in the fifteen billion dollar line of credit is kind of equivalent to a period of oil revenue for the for for for the Iranian National Oil Company and so the idea would be they get that back that revenue it's a little bit of a return to new. JCP We kept on behalf of the United States done in a kind of backwards way and as you say in extreme new they resume their compliance with the deal. I think actually what trump wants. It's more even than their resumption of compliance with the deal is a meeting with President Ronnie Right. I mean as we saw again with the let's get ludicrous situation with the Taliban"