Hey guys, I finally did it.
I published the book, it came out, Fool's Errand.
Time to end the war in Afghanistan.
It's at foolserrand.us, foolserrand.us.
It's on Amazon and paperback and in Kindle.
And I got a brand new blurb from Colonel Douglas McGregor.
He says he recommended it to be part of the coursework at the Army Command and General Staff College.
That's how much he liked it.
Great read, vitally important.
Brilliant achievement, he said.
So check that out, foolserrand.us.
Wall is the improvement of investment climates by other means, Clausewitz for dummies.
The Scott Horton Show.
Taking out Saddam Hussein turned out to be a pretty good deal.
They hate our freedoms.
We're dealing with Hitler revisited.
We couldn't wait for that Cold War to be over, could we?
So we can go and play with our toys in the sand.
No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
Today, I authorize the armed forces of the United States to begin military action in Libya.
That action has now begun.
When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.
I cannot be silent in the face of the greatest perpetrator bombings in the world today.
Bombs in the world today, my own government.
All right, you guys, Scott Horton Show.
I'm him, check out all the archives at scotthorton.org.
Check out the book at foolserrand.us.
And check out the institute at libertarianinstitute.org.
All right, on the line, I've got Trita Parsi.
He runs the National Iranian American Council.
That's niacouncil.org, niacouncil.org.
And he's got Reza Mirashi and Tyler Cullis and other guys over there helping him to try to wage peace between the United States and Iran.
Ooh, Iran.
Welcome back to the show, how you doing?
I'm doing well, how are you?
I'm doing good, I appreciate you joining us here.
And listen, of course, as you know, it's always a steep hill you've gotta climb.
Everybody knows that everything in the world is America's fault here, there, and the other place, but the Iranians, man, they just hate us.
They just hate us.
They're gonna kill us, they're gonna kill Israel, they're gonna kill everybody, and somebody's gotta stop them.
And I heard people say that about 1,000 times, so I know it's true.
And so that's the row you gotta hoe, and I know that you know that and that you're up to it.
So first of all, what's so damn good about the Iran nuclear deal that you think we ought to keep it in the first place, Trita Parsi, please?
Well, there's two scenarios, very negative scenarios, that just took off the table.
One is that the United States and Iran would end up in a military confrontation.
The other one is that the Iranians would have a pathway to a nuclear bomb.
Now, there's question marks whether they were really looking for a bomb or not, but when you talk about just having a pathway, it doesn't matter whether they had the intent or not.
And so I'm making sure that that opportunity didn't exist.
So that's the obvious thing, but there's additional things.
The nuclear deal brought the United States and Iran back on talking terms, because only by talking to each other could they resolve it.
And they were on talking terms.
So when 10 American sailors accidentally got themselves lost in the Persian Gulf and ended up inside of Iranian waters, and they got arrested by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, Kerry picked up the phone, called Zarif, spoke to each other five times that night.
By the second phone call, they had a deal.
16 hours later, the Americans were released, precisely because they could talk to each other.
They could diffuse the situation.
They could make sure that a mistake did not snowball into a conflict.
Now, Trump has been in power nine or so months.
Tillerson and Zarif have never had a one-on-one conversation.
They met for the first time yesterday at the UN at a multilateral meeting.
Imagine if we had another situation with American sailors getting accidentally into Iranian waters, and it was a bad standoff, and the Americans were apprehended.
How do we resolve it?
What, Trump is gonna tweet something angrily?
That's where we have lost.
We have lost the opportunity to be able to communicate and resolve issues.
We can regain it, but it requires some sincerity.
And right now, I don't think anyone, particularly after Trump's speech at the UN, would say that the United States is led by a person who has the capacity to be able to instill inspiration in the international community and be able to move forward with credibility and sincerity.
All right, now, so what it comes down to is in, what, about two and a half weeks or three weeks, Trump is going to decide, and it's up to him, whether to recertify to Congress that Iran is within the deal and that everything is going as planned.
And they keep admitting on and off the record, the official departments and everything, I don't know, under White House orders or in defiance of the White House, but all the departments seem to be making it clear that there's really no dispute whether Iran is faithfully adhering to the deal.
But the question is a matter of new interpretation.
In fact, even according to, well, I don't know, even according to Secretary Tillerson, well, you know, under the deal, peace in the Middle East was supposed to break out, and Iran never lived up to that, even though, of course, they've been in the middle of fighting on America's side against the Islamic State in Iraq for all this past time, certainly the whole time that this government, the Trump administration, has been in power.
So they only kind of half have a point there.
I mean, yeah, it's violent, but they're kicking ISIS out of Mosul, you know?
And with American help all along.
American Marines and American air power fighting on the same side in that same war with them.
So, you know, anyway, point being that there doesn't, I guess I wonder whether you think that they're gonna be able to, or I guess the question should be, do you think that Trump is really just jerking our chain at this point and that he really is going to have to end up certifying them?
Because that's too, you know, it's like George W. Bush, but even more clumsy and transparent, right?
Like, they're just not gonna be able to get away with pretending that Saddam is in material breach here.
They're clearly not.
Now, what they're gonna do is something different.
There's two reporting mechanisms.
There's a reporting mechanism by the IEA that inspects Iran's program.
It's constantly present there.
And they report as to whether Iran is living up to the deal or not.
They have now issued eight reports, all of them declaring that the Iranians are in compliance.
Now, because of the fight in Congress when this deal was passed, Congress requires that the president of the United States also, every 90 days, sends a report to Congress and certifies as to whether, not only if the Iranians are still living up to their end of the bargain, which you're absolutely right, he has no leg to stand on and to claim that they're not, but also whether the president continues to believe that the deal makes sense to U.S. national security and if it makes sense that the sanctions remain lifted or waived.
That's the loophole the administration seems to be looking at, to be able to go and say, okay, perhaps they're living up to the deal technically, but we don't think it is worthwhile to continue to have the sanctions waived because of Iran's other activities in Syria and Yemen and whatever else the Saudis are complaining about, because they're essentially the ones that seem to be writing some of these talking points at this time.
Then the matter goes to Congress and the Republican-led Congress has 60 days to decide whether to snap back, reimpose the sanctions.
And if Congress does that, even though the U.S. itself has admitted that Iran is in compliance, the deal would nevertheless start to fall apart or perhaps be right out killed because the U.S. is violating it by reimposing sanctions that were supposed to be lifted and were supposed to remain lifted.
All right, so now if America, so if Trump does refuse to, well, there's a couple of steps, as you're saying.
So he would have to refuse to recertify that they're within the deal to Congress.
But then it'd be up to Congress whether they wanna really destroy the deal at that point.
But then is it really clear that they would?
I mean, I know Congress is often pretty much under the sway of the Israel lobby and very hawkish on Iran issues no matter what.
But then I guess I also read a thing, I forgot who wrote it, it could have been you, saying that, well, geez, I don't know if they really wanna take responsibility for tearing the deal apart, because after all, it is a huge international multilateral deal signed by the entire membership of the United Nations Security Council.
And I don't know exactly, with the snapback of the sanctions on America's part, what effect do you think that would have on the rest of the members of the deal?
It seems like probably Britain, France, and Germany, and I don't know what Russia and China would do, but certainly Britain, France, and Germany would have an interest in trying to do everything they could to keep Iran in the deal with them anyway, right?
Would it be- Without a doubt.
Most of the other countries would like to keep it that way, and they're very nervous and upset about what the Trump administration is doing right now.
So it seems like they can say, as we've talked about, they never really were making nukes, and this whole thing has been a manufactured crisis, as Gareth Porter puts it, and a tempest in the teapot the whole time, and so maybe they would say, you know what, America, you can break the deal all you want, but we're still not making nukes, and we're still not giving you a pretext to attack us in such an obvious way.
I mean, after all, it would take them too long to make a bomb.
We'd bomb them first, so, you know?
But the issue is, if we bomb them first, then we have the disaster of having a war with Iran.
Sure, but I'm just saying, they wouldn't even, that's why I don't believe the Iranian regime is even interested in trying it.
I don't think they've ever seriously entertained the possibility that they were gonna try to get nuclear weapons, unless after the next war, you know?
So what the Iranians are planning to do is that once this 15 years is over, and they have restored confidence in the international community, they're gonna expand their program, but as they say, for a peaceful industrial energy program.
They'll just start doing that much earlier, but without the restrictions, and perhaps even without some of the transparency measures.
And that will be enough for the Israelis and others to start claiming, oh my God, the Iranians are rushing towards a war, and we'll go back to the hysteria that existed before this deal.
That's what the plan seems to be.
So, but when you asked about Congress, I think you're quite right.
There's clearly not a desire in Congress's end that they should make the decision, and then they will own the disastrous consequences.
So many of them would like to see the deal killed, but they would like to see Trump do it without their own fingerprints on it.
Now Trump is putting it in front of them.
Is that enough to get people to have second thoughts?
I mean, we've seen some Republicans break with the president on this.
Rand Paul is on record saying we should not do this.
We should keep the deal because the Iranians are complying.
If more Republicans do this, it could survive.
But remember, the vote in Congress is not gonna be as it was in 2015, in which the president back then only needed to have 40 votes.
If he had 40 votes, it would be filibuster proof.
Moreover, if they did manage to break the filibuster, he needed to have 34 votes in order to make sure that they would not be able to override his veto.
So defenders of the deal needed to get either 40 or 34 votes.
Defenders of the deal right now need to get 50 votes, or actually perhaps 51 votes.
That's a very different scenario, much, much more difficult.
And even if one or two Republicans break rank with the president, you may also have a couple of Democrats that will go and side with the president on this issue.
And remember, we have not seen the big donors in the party start picking up the phone yet, because the issue hasn't reached Congress yet.
But once it does, you're gonna have some very, very big donors pushing very hard to get this deal killed.
And I'm personally very worried that even those who do realize the disastrous consequences do not wanna do this, but they will cave to the big donors.
Yeah.
Well, you know, I don't know, I'm trying to think back and make the comparison to 2002 here all the time, and 2003, and see what we can learn.
And it seems like then, they basically, what worked was them saying, be afraid, and then let your fear blend from the guy with the beard to the guy with the mustache over there, and see if we can just hurry, and sort of buffalo everyone into this thing.
Before anyone really, well, I mean, Mohamed ElBaradei expressed his doubts, but there was certainly no time for opinion in America to form around any official kind of explanation that there really is no reason to believe Saddam Hussein is making nuclear weapons right now.
I mean, this really is bogus.
I mean, a lot of people knew that, but there was no real voice in D.C. making that argument, and strongly.
There was no real debate about that.
The debate had been reduced to, do we attack them now, or do we attack them later, after the inspectors have had a little bit more time to come up with nothing, and then we attack them anyway.
But so in this case, it just seems different.
The mood is different, everything's slower.
We just had a surge into Afghanistan, but it's not 60,000 troops like eight years ago.
Now it's about 6,000, because they don't want to push it too bad.
And then we see, I'm sorry, I'm trying to make a point here.
We see all these leaks, and statements, and official things coming out of the different departments saying Iran is within the deal.
Iran's within the deal, Iran's within the deal.
It's almost becoming the official narrative, just like Iran is making bombs, Iran is making bombs, was the narrative for so long, that I think we have consensus now, at least in major media, and in all of the official departments, and the European allies, and everyone, that no, they're not making nukes, that right now the deal is holding, and that, I'm just hoping, don't you think it'd be too transparent, right?
I gotta tell you, I'm on a book tour right now.
I'm touring the country, promoting my book on the deal, and on the negotiations, losing an enemy, Obama, Iran, and the triumph of diplomacy.
So I'm ending up talking to a lot of people that are curious.
And I would say that a big chunk of them, a majority of them are more internationalist leaning, they're probably not huge fans of Trump's foreign policy.
Yet I've been stunned to see how many people amongst these audiences that I interact with, actually are under the impression that Iran is violating the deal, falsely, of course.
And I think it's because Trump has been running around saying that Iran is a violation of the spirit of the deal.
Most people don't pick up what difference that is between the spirit of the deal and the deal.
No one knows what the spirit of the deal means, because no one has seen, or interacted, or had a chance to ask questions of this mysterious spirit that only Trump seems to know exists.
I've written a book about it, I never saw the text of the spirit.
Well, and most of the anchors don't know enough about it to explain the context at all either.
So it just sort of hangs, they report on what he said, but then they can't add, this actually isn't really right.
Exactly, so I've been stunned to see the number of people who actually have been left with the impression that there is a violation.
And I think that's very dangerous.
Because if Trump manages to frame this as, this is a bad and unfair deal and the Iranians are cheating, and the American public buys into it, he may very well end up getting the type of support that he needs in order to move forward with his agenda on this.
The reason why the proponents of the deal won in 2015, was to a very large extent because of the fact that President Obama managed to, in my view correctly, frame this as an issue about war or peace.
Because if the deal was killed, there was a very significant risk that there would be war.
All right, hang on just one second for me.
Hey guys, check it out, I got a new sponsor.
It's Hussein Badakchani, author of the new book, No Dev, No Ops, No IT, about how to run your high tech business correctly.
No Dev, No Ops, No IT by Hussein Badakchani.
It's on amazon.com.
Also check out The War State by Mike Swanson, a great history of the early rise of the military industrial complex after World War II.
And also check out Mike's great investment advice at wallstreetwindow.com.
Roberts and Roberts Brokerage Inc.
When you're ready to follow Mike's advice and buy yourself some medals, that's rrbi.co.
Rrbi.co, libertystickers.com for your anti-government propaganda.
3tediting.com if you want your book to read right.
Well you know, I don't wanna sound too fanciful about it or anything, but what you said about, at the beginning, about the importance of this deal and how it really took war off the table, and that means once they destroy the deal, it'll be back on for this threat, as you just say now, portraying it as war and peace.
I mean, I always hated that when Obama said that because it always seemed to me like, hey, I approve of you taking the last outstanding, gigantic, fake issue off the table, issue outstanding between America and Iran, that there's a nuclear threat from them so that we don't have to fight about that part anymore.
That's great, but you're just giving the so-called threat credibility when you frame it that way.
But then I see what you mean, that in fact, you know, fake or not, as long as they don't have this deal, they have less than this deal, just a safeguards agreement isn't enough, apparently.
Never was this whole 21st century long.
And so they really could ratchet things back up to that level of crisis.
Yeah, I mean, bottom line is that it's not to say that it would have been justified to go to war, but a very clear, logical analysis.
If their program continues, if we have exhausted diplomacy and it's been failed or it's been rejected, increasingly, the only other options left were to do nothing, which politically would be very difficult, particularly mindful of the pressure that existed, or to take military action.
So I think in that sense, it was a correct analysis.
I agree with you that even without a deal, it was really difficult to justify war because you didn't have a program that was about to build weapons.
But also from a political perspective, it was critical because most Americans don't pay attention to this.
The only time you actually get them to pay attention is right before there's a crisis, five minutes before 12.
So there wasn't a need to be able to really spell out in the starkest terms what was at stake in order for citizens to start calling their members of Congress and make sure that there was a balance against the massive mobilization that hardline groups, such as AIPAC and others, undertook in order to pressure Congress to kill this deal.
I mean, it was one telephone conference that Obama held where I think it was mostly progressive supporters.
10,000 people were on the phone.
To the best of my knowledge, that's the biggest telephone conference call that ever has been held.
And that was very much because there was a lot of concern and fear in the White House.
And I detail all of this in the book because the second to last chapter is about how this fight was won.
And I was part of the fight, so I had an insider seat to that.
I was very much because of a fear in the White House that the other side was more affected and mobilizing people because their supporters had been following this issue, whereas the vast majority of Americans had been following Paris Hilton and other things.
Yeah.
Oh, and this was the fanciful part I was gonna talk about, was the possibilities for peace, not if Hillary had won, but even just if Donald Trump wasn't such a chump, if he just saw that, if he wasn't such a prisoner of his own bogus rhetoric, which he must understand he's lying to a degree.
He knows he doesn't know anything about Iran.
He just wants to have a thing to, he wanted to have a thing to make a campaign issue about against, to run against the Democrats and to stake out the furthest quote best position in the Republican primary compared to his opponents.
So now here he is stuck with this.
But on the other hand, all he has to do is go to Tehran.
Like the Leveret said, go ahead and say, you know what?
The outstanding issue of their nuclear danger has now been, you know, I don't like, it's not the best deal ever, but geez, it's good enough, I guess.
And so maybe now we can move forward on trying to have a more peaceful relationship with Iran and cooperate with them on other things so that, hey, maybe someday we won't even care whether they have nukes or not because they're not even an enemy of ours.
You know, it's not like Lyndon Johnson invaded China to prevent Mao Zedong, who is probably the single craziest and most murderous man ever to exist from obtaining atomic weapons.
What are you gonna do?
The Chinese are gonna get nukes.
So, you know, we're, it seems like we're way a bridge too far here when in fact things could be so much better.
And I don't want to sound like, oh, Pollyanna, like, oh, we can just be best friends with Iran.
But on the other hand, why the hell not?
We get along fine with Mexico and America's got plenty of problems of our own, you know?
Yeah, and apparently we get along really fine with Saudi Arabia.
So on to your point, I think it's very valid.
I think there's serious problems that both sides have with each other, but there's no need to have it be this bellicose relationship with this bellicose language.
And, you know, even having conversations about, you know, risk of war.
I mean, it just doesn't have to be that way.
Whatever problems exist, some of them are containable and some of them actually are just, you know, not necessarily very serious or based on misunderstanding.
The way to resolve them is to pursue more diplomacy.
We have finally managed to resolve a problem with Iran and that was done through diplomacy.
Give me another example of a major problem the United States had with Iran that was resolved in other ways.
It's only that it has worked.
Even the hostage crisis was resolved through secret negotiation in the background that got it resolved.
So when Trump is talking about renegotiations and opening up the negotiation, that's complete nonsense.
Trump has no credibility to go to everyone else and tell them, hey, we want to renegotiate for a very simple reason.
Trump has not even lived up to the deal himself.
So for him to be able to say, let's have a new negotiation in which we apparently gonna demand more of the Iranians and offer less, it's ridiculous.
If he is clever, however, which I don't want to accuse him of being, he'd go there and say, okay, I'll respect this deal.
I'm gonna commit myself to it.
I have some problems with it.
I would like to see some additional changes on top of that, meaning that we can have another negotiation on other issues.
If those negotiations fail, the existing deal is not harmed by it.
It doesn't get affected by it, it still stands because it's still working.
So it doesn't need to be seconded.
But if we can achieve something else with additional diplomacy, great, let's try it.
Now we see that smart, mature leadership way of doing things and there would be a lot of openness to that.
It wouldn't be easy.
These other negotiations were very tricky.
I detail them in the book.
You have to use a lot of ingenious ways to get around some of the problems.
With the right type of commitment and competence, it was doable.
It's nothing says that other things can't be doable, particularly when we haven't even tried.
But what Trump is doing right now, he is really eliminating the opportunity for these things because the way he is behaving is not like a statesman.
He's behaving like a Manhattan real estate developer who thinks that he can get a better deal by being a bully, picking up the phone, yell and scream at subcontractors and essentially coerce them to do what he wants.
And that may be the way you do it in Manhattan when you wanna build a building.
I have no idea, I would never pretend to be able to know anything about that world.
But it's very clear that Trump doesn't know anything about this world that he's now entered because other countries, France, Russia, China, Iran, are not America's subcontractors.
Yeah.
Hey, you know what?
You know, it's not like I have any reason to argue as a partisan for Iran's point of view or be their defense lawyer or anything here.
But, and this does always come up, but it's always worth bringing up, I think, that the worst you could really accuse him of is taking advantage of America's choice, the USA's choice to overthrow Saddam Hussein and empower the Shiite supermajority in Southern, Southeastern Iraq.
And which, and in fact, for that matter, the choice to prop up the Dawa Party and the Supreme Islamic Council and those among the Shiite power brokers and warlords who were the closest to Iran.
That was really all George Bush is doing.
The Iranians were like, hey, all right.
I mean, what are they gonna do?
Say no to accepting losing one of their most bitter and most dangerous enemies next door in favor of a friendly government in Baghdad.
So yeah, they helped the Bata Brigade, but so did the USA.
And so you can't really criticize them too much for that from here.
You know what I mean?
And then the same thing for- Yeah, to your point, I think another way of putting it is look, if states pursue their own interests, the Iranians have done a lot of bad things and so have others.
One accusation in particular that I find really reflect the complete void of self-awareness in Washington, DC is when we accuse the Iranians of being the main destabilizing actor in the region, which essentially means that Saudi Arabia and everyone else is essentially innocent.
But most importantly, the most destabilizing event of the past 20, 25 years in the Middle East has not been anything the Iranians did, even if they may have tried, it was the invasion of Iraq.
And that was done by the United States and the George Bush administration, not by the Iranians.
Well, and listen, they've made major gains in terms of their, the Syrian state's dependence on their help, but that again is in reaction to American policy under Barack Obama.
And in fact, I don't think it's an exact one-to-one correlation and everything, but he basically explained to Jeffrey Goldberg, not even so much between the lines, but in the Atlantic interview as president, I Don't Bluff, where he's promising all pro-Israel people that, listen, when I say Iran ain't getting nukes on my watch, I mean it, but you gotta let me deal with them because I have a better way than threats here.
That was the thrust of the article, but they talk about Syria in there, and they agree that, that's right, Jeffrey Goldberg, taking out Bashar al-Assad would be a great way to bring Iran down a peg, and this seems just like in the New York Times.
It wasn't a scoop.
It was almost like a White House press release, their explanation of events in the New York Times about the war in Yemen, that, well, because of the Iran deal, which the Saudis were pitching a fit over, we had to placate the Saudis, quote, unquote, placate the Saudis by helping them wage this war against the new Houthi Saleh regime in Sana'a, and that, and then so, in order to, as he's making, as he's negotiating with Iran, and sort of kind of bringing them in from the cold or whatever, creating the opportunity for future better relations, as we've talked about, he kind of ameliorated that with our allies, placated our allies by doing these horrible policies in Syria and in Yemen, and then, so now that's why Hezbollah's fighting in Syria, and that's why the Iranian Quds Force is fighting in Syria, that's why the Russians are fighting in Syria, because America and Israel and Turkey and Saudi and Qatar backed the jihadi uprising there all this time, and so, I don't know if you've written a lot about that or had much a focus on that, but that's, right now, they're screaming their head off, saying America has to occupy eastern Syria to prevent there being this land bridge, a true geographic Shiite crescent from Iran through Shia Iraq through now Shia Iraq conquered Mosul and predominantly Sunni areas of Iraq that are now under the control, again, of the central state there, and now bordering with Syria and then on to southern Lebanon, and this is the big crisis that supposes why we have to back the Saudi side in this big war, and yet, it's all created by the war, whether we're fighting directly on behalf of the Iranians in Iraq or trying to check their power in Syria.
Yeah, I mean, one of the fundamental questions that are almost never answered in Washington, D.C., and certainly even less asked is, what really is the interest of the United States in adopting a hard hegemonic role in the Middle East?
What's the benefit of the United States being in eastern Syria for the sole reason of preventing Iran from having an imaginary land bridge, if that's the only way to block them?
What are we really achieving?
What is the cost, and what is the cost-benefit analysis that is so obvious that we actually don't need to have a debate about it, that we never actually have think tankers raise the question or lawmakers pointing this out?
It's been adopted as a given, whereas in reality, I would suspect the cost-benefit analysis would be quite horrific.
I'm not really sure what the United States has gained with the last 20 years in the Middle East.
Yeah, well, I think there's a, as we all keep finding out, there's a big difference between the national interest as citizens might imagine it versus the individual interests of the humans in charge of attaining that national interest, and their interests are often quite divergent from ours, as we can see in these wars over and over again.
Yeah, yeah.
All right, listen, man, I think you do some of the most important work in Washington, D.C., just in getting the truth out and working as hard as you do and organizing the others that you do into this great organization that you have here in the council.
Thank you so much, Scott, and thank you for what you do, and thank you for having me on.
And the book that you're touring is The Single Roll of the Dice, is that correct?
No, no, it's the new book.
The new book is called Losing an Enemy, Obama, Iran, and the Triumph of Diplomacy.
Just got out a couple of weeks ago, and it's a detailed account of what was going on in the negotiations.
I had access to both sides to carry to the reef.
Trying to explain what happened, why it happened, and also about the fight in D.C. afterwards in Congress.
Great, yeah, I really wanna read that.
Hey, listen, I'm sorry, I knew that.
I had seen that title before, but I'm looking at your Amazon page, and it's not on there.
So you gotta link those things up.
There's only Treacherous Alliance and Single Roll of the Dice there, so that tripped me up.
Where do you go to, you just search my name, or?
Yeah, I just typed in Trita Parsi, Amazon, and the first thing that came up is your Amazon page.
And it just has the two listed there.
So your book is on there, but you gotta connect it with your author page somehow.
I'm sure you just have to check the box.
I'm gonna try to figure that out.
Okay, that's awesome, I appreciate it.
All right, hey, listen, thank you again so much.
Talk to you soon, thanks so much.
All right, you guys, that's Trita Parsi.
The book, again, is Losing an Enemy, Losing an Enemy, about the negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal.
And of course, check out the National Iranian American Council, and they've got scholarly takes, think tank study type takes on all the sanctions and all the policies and all the negotiations and all the details and everything you need to know at niacouncil.org.
I'm Scott Horton.
Find all my archives at scotthorton.org.
4,500 something interviews going back to 2003.
Write about everything, la la la.scotthorton.org.
Read my book, Fool's Errand, Time to End the War in Afghanistan.
That's at foolserrand.us, and of course on Amazon.
Fool's Errand by me, Scott Horton.
And also, I run an institute, the Libertarian Institute, at libertarianinstitute.org.
Follow me on Twitter, at Scott Horton Show, thanks.
