Charlie Rose and Norah O'Donnell stayed true to form and badgered a Republican/conservative guest [1] on Monday's CBS This Morning – this time, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor over his criticism of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. Rose questioned the congressman's opposition to the proposal, which he labeled "dangerous." Rose asked, "Why isn't that a good deal to freeze things and delay?"
O'Donnell twice touted the deal as "positive," in an attempt to defend the White House's controversial diplomatic efforts: [MP3 audio available here [2]; video below]
NORAH O'DONNELL: Congressman, for the first time in a decade, we have halted Iran's nuclear program. There is a freeze. Also, for the first time, there will be daily inspections – unprecedented inspections of the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo. Can you say that that is positive – that development?
Cantor bluntly replied, "Well, first of all, since when do we trust Iran? Iran has demonstrated again and again it cannot be trusted. I believe that the attitude should be mistrust and verify." The CBS anchor repeatedly interrupted when the Virginia Republican tried to continue his critique:
REP. ERIC CANTOR, (R), MAJORITY LEADER: ...And what this agreement does, is it just allows Iran to continue with all that it has, in terms of centrifuges. It doesn't require any dismantling. It allows for the enrichment up to five percent, which used to be something that we wouldn't stand for. Iran could, once again, turn around tomorrow and throw away this-
O'DONNELL: But sir-
CANTOR: And the problem is, what we've done is we've given up on-
O'DONNELL: Sir, Iran – but as part of the deal – sir – but as part of the deal, Iran cannot install or-
CANTOR: What we've done is we've allowed the – we've allowed-
O'DONNELL: Start up new centrifuges, as – as you know, so it's not – it's not the final deal, as you're talking about, and I know there's a great deal of mistrust out there. But I wonder why there's not some acknowledgment that an interim step could lead to a bigger deal. Why isn't that somewhat positive – that you can push for what you want in the final deal?
CANTOR: There's two things that are wrong here, Norah – two things. One is we have now let the door open to sanctions going away. We have said that we will ease up on sanctions, and – which have taken years and years of progress for them to build and to be able to apply the kind of pressure that it did. And what we see also, is there's no requirement that we comply with the U.N. Security Council resolution – which the international community had united behind – which says we need to keep the pressure on Iran until it suspends its nuclear activity, and it suspends its enrichment activity. And we know, in this agreement, there's no requirement for Iran to dismantle its plutonium reactor; there's no requirement for it to dismantle enrichment facilities. So, we've got a real cost to us, as we are now opening the door to the weakening of international sanctions that have been in place.
Exactly a week earlier, O'Donnell, along with Rose, took a similar hostile posture [3] during in an interview of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. The two journalists went after the Republican politician on ObamaCare, the 2016 presidential race, and on immigration.
The full transcript of the Eric Cantor interview from Monday's CBS This Morning:
CHARLIE ROSE: House Republican leader Eric Cantor is the man responsible for bringing any additional sanctions to a vote in the House. He calls this deal a mistake.
Congressman Cantor is in Richmond, Virginia for a conversation that you will see only on 'CBS This Morning'. Congressman, good morning.
REP. ERIC CANTOR, (R), MAJORITY LEADER: Charlie, good morning.
[CBS News Graphic: "Cantor's View: GOP Leader On Iran Nuclear Deal"]
ROSE: You just heard the secretary of state say that this is good because it expands the time that Iran will have the capacity to make a nuclear weapon; there is more inspection; and there are some restrictions on enrichment – that which is enriched to 20 percent will have to be changed. Why isn't that a good deal to freeze things and delay?
CANTOR: Charlie, I think this – this deal – this interim deal with Iran is, in fact, dangerous. It is a deal which brings Iran closer to becoming a nuclear power. This deal that's been negotiated by the secretary of state, frankly, falls well short of the U.N. Security Council resolution, which called for no sanctions relief until Iran suspended its enrichment of uranium. And we see in this deal language – despite protests to the contrary – language which says that Iran will have some type of right to enrich, as of yet in – the language of the deal still to be defined.
Now, this is all contrary to the notion of what so many of us have been fighting for, which is to insist that we shouldn't pursue a policy of containment with Iran – that we should, in fact, insist that a country which has deceived the world – a country which has defied U.N. Security Council resolutions – can't be trusted. And we want that power in that country to dismantle – irreversibly dismantle – its nuclear stockpiles and not be allowed to continue enrichment. And I think-
[CBS News Graphic: "Iran Nuclear Interim Agreement: Iran Agrees To: -Halt enrichment of weapons-grade uranium; -Dilute current stockpiles; Source: Joint Plan of Action, Geneva"]
NORAH O'DONNELL: Congressman-
CANTOR: This deal falls short on all of those fronts, and I think it bodes very, very ominously for the region – and, in fact, U.S. security.
O'DONNELL: Congressman, for the first time in a decade, we have halted Iran's nuclear program. There is a freeze. Also, for the first time, there will be daily inspections – unprecedented inspections of the enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo. Can you say that that is positive – that development?
CANTOR: Well, first of all, since when do we trust Iran? Iran has demonstrated again and again it cannot be trusted. I believe that the attitude should be mistrust and verify. And what this agreement does, is it just allows Iran to continue with all that it has, in terms of centrifuges. It doesn't require any dismantling. It allows for the enrichment up to five percent, which used to be something that we wouldn't stand for. Iran could, once again, turn around tomorrow and throw away this-
[CBS News Graphic: "Iran Nuclear Interim Agreement: U.S. & P5 Allies Will: -Suspend some sanctions; -Allow Iran access to $6-7 billion, including $4 billion in oil revenue; Source: Joint Plan of Action, Geneva"]
O'DONNELL: But sir-
CANTOR: And the problem is, what we've done is we've given up on-
O'DONNELL: Sir, Iran – but as part of the deal – sir – but as part of the deal, Iran cannot install or-
CANTOR: What we've done is we've allowed the – we've allowed-
O'DONNELL: Start up new centrifuges, as – as you know, so it's not – it's not the final deal, as you're talking about, and I know there's a great deal of mistrust out there. But I wonder why there's not some acknowledgment that an interim step could lead to a bigger deal. Why isn't that somewhat positive – that you can push for what you want in the final deal?
CANTOR: There's two things that are wrong here, Norah – two things. One is we have now let the door open to sanctions going away. We have said that we will ease up on sanctions, and – which have taken years and years of progress for them to build and to be able to apply the kind of pressure that it did. And what we see also, is there's no requirement that we comply with the U.N. Security Council resolution – which the international community had united behind – which says we need to keep the pressure on Iran until it suspends its nuclear activity, and it suspends its enrichment activity. And we know, in this agreement, there's no requirement for Iran to dismantle its plutonium reactor; there's no requirement for it to dismantle enrichment facilities. So, we've got a real cost to us, as we are now opening the door to the weakening of international sanctions that have been in place.
[CBS News Graphic: "Lift Sanctions On Iran In Exchange For Restricting Nuclear Program: Support, 64%; Oppose, 30%; Source: The Washington Post/ABC News Poll; Margin of Error: +/- 3.5% Pts."]
ROSE: So, your alternative is keep the sanctions on – and if they do not lead to a stop and if Iran is close to a nuclear capacity – then launch a military attack?
CANTOR: Now, Charlie, I don't buy into this – what I believe is a false choice between war or a policy of appeasement – I just don't. I think that we could – with our influence diplomatically, economically – could continue to build the pressure, so we can protect our interests and our allies' interests. All we have to do is listen to our allies who are most proximate to the threat in the region – Israel; the Gulf, Arab allies that we have – who have been saying all along that any kind of deal with this regime in Iran is not worth the paper it's written on – that it's very, very dangerous for us to allow Iran to now have the ability to claim it has a right to enrich, which is contrary to all the U.N. Security Council activities of late and which we know-
[CBS News Graphic: "Iran Is A Threat That...: Can be contained, 58%; Not a threat, 20%; Requires military action, 14%; Source: CBS News Poll; Margin of Error: +/- 3% Pts."]
O'DONNELL: All right-
ROSE: Thank you, sir. Congressman-
CANTOR: I think Congress has spoken out and said it's unacceptable.
O'DONNELL: Majority Leader Eric Cantor, good to see you. Thank you for joining us.
— Matthew Balan is a News Analyst at the Media Research Center. Follow Matthew Balan on Twitter. [4]