the most serious threat iran obtaining a nuclear weapon which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more security. that's why the alternative no limits on iran's nuclear program, no inspections, and iran that is closer to a nuclear weapon the risk of regional nuclear arms race and a greater risk of war all that would endanger our security. that's the choice that we face. if we don't choose wisely i believe future generation also judge us hashly harshly for letting this moment slip away. realizing the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and

execution. but this deal is our best means of assuring that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. and from the start that has been my number one priority, our number one priority. we've got a historic chance to pursue a secure and safe world an opportunity that may not come again in our life times. as president and command center chief i'm determined to seize that opportunity. so with that i'll take some questions, and let me see who i'm starting off with. here you go. i got it. andrew beattie. >> thank you mr. president. yesterday you said that this was a chance for a new direction in relations with iran. what steps will you take to

enable a more modern iran, and does this deal allow you to more forcefully iran's stabilization in the region. >> if you don't mind this, because i suspect that there is going to be a common set of questions that are touched on that, i promise i will get to your question, but i want to start off just by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. i already did in my opening statement, but i want to reiterate it. because i've heard already some of the objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the united states and to our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon.

and so everything we've done over the last six and a half years has been designed to make sure that we address that number one priority. that's what the sanctions regime was all about. that's how we were able to mobilize the international community, including folks that we're not particularly close to abide by these sanctions. that's how these crippling sanctions came about because we were able to gain global consensus that iran having a nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody. that's the reason that iran's accounts were frozen and they were not able to get the money for oil sales. that's the reason why they had a problem operating in the international commerce. we worked around this narrow but profound issue the possibility of iran getting a nuclear

weapon. by the way that was not simply my priority, if you look back at all the debates that have taken place over the last five, six years this has been a democratic priority. this has been a republican priority. this has been prime minister bench benjamin netanyahu's priority. making sure that get a nuclear weapon. the deal by our allies, our partners the p5+1, achieves that goal. it achieves our top priority. making sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. we have always recognized that even if iran does not get a nuclear weapon iran still poses

challenges to our interests, and our values both in the region and around the world. so when this deal gets implemented we know that we will have dismantleed the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program. we'll have brought their stock piles down to 98%. we'll have significantly reduced the number of centrifuges that they operate. we'll have installed unprecedented inspections regime, and that will remain in place not just for ten years but for, for example on the stock piles will continue for 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon, and now will be subject to an additional protocol a more

vigorous inspection and monitoring regime that lasts imperpetuity. we will have disabled a facility like iraq from allowing iran developing blew tomorrow yum that--yum--plutonimu from being used for a bomb. we'll put the inspections along the entire supply chain so that uranium was diverted into a covert program we would catch it. so i can say with confidence, but more importantly nuclear experts can say with confidence that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. we'll have met our number one

priority. now, we'll still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. it's the funding of proxies like hezbollah that threaten israel and threaten the region. the destabilizing activities that they're engaging in, including places like yemen. my hope is that building on this deal we can continue to have conversations with iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile more cooperative to operate the way we expect nations in the international community today. but we're not counting on it. so this deal is not contingent with iran changing its behavior.

it's not contingent on iran suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. it solves one particular problem, which is making sure that they don't have a bomb. the point that i have made and i believe hard to dispute is that it will be easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate counter to our interests or our allyies' interests if they don't have a bomb. will they change their behavior? will they speak to gain more cooperation from them and resolving issues like syria or what's happening in iraq? we'll continue to engage with them although keep in mind

unlike the cuba situation we're not normalizing diplomatic relations here. the contacts will continue to be limited, but will retry to encourage them to take a more constructive path? of course, but we're not betting on it. in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue we'll be in a stronger position to work with our partners and european ally ies to bring iran around on those issues that are of concern. because this deal does not solve all those other problems that's an argument for rejecting this deal defies logic. it defies logic it makes no sense, and it loses sight of

what was our number one priority making sure that they don't have a bomb. >> mr. president, does it give you pause to see this deal praised as a great victory for iran or praised by those in tehran who still shout death to america, yet our closest ally in the middle east call it a mistake of historic proportions and here in congress the largest majority will vote to reject this deal. i know you can veto that rejection, but do you have concerns about the majority of people's representatives in congress saying that this is a bad deal? and if i could just ask you a quick political question, a very-- >> i think-- >> let me answer the question that you asked. it does not give me pause that

mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituents want to hear. that's what politicians do. and that's been the case throughout. you'll recall that during the course of these negotiations over the last couple of months every time the supreme leader or someone tweeted something out for some reason we all bought in to the notion well, the obama administration must be giving this or capitulating to that. well, now we have a document. you can see what the deal is. we don't have to speculate. we don't have to engage and spin. you can see what it says and what is required. nobody has disputeed that as a consequence of this agreement iran has to drastically reduce its stock piles of uranium cut

off it's plutonimum, the facility underground is converted, that we have an unprecedented inspections regime regime. that we have snap-back provisions if they cheat. the facts are the facts. i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now respect to congress my hope, i won't prejudge this. my hope is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts. not on politics. not on postureing. not on the fact that this is a deal that i bring to congress as opposed to a republican president. not based on lobbying, but based on what's in the national interest of the united states of america.

i think that if congress does that then, in fact, based on the facts the majority of congress should approve of this deal. but we live in washington, and politics do intrude. and as i said in an interview yesterday i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation. or misinformation. and that i welcome. in part because look, there are--there are legitimate real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with iran.

israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the hall the holocaust has financed hezbollah, as a consequence there are missiles pointed towards tel aviv. i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. i've said this to prime minister netanyahu, and i've said it to the israeli people. but what i've also said is that all those threats are compound in "f" iran gets a nuclear weapon. and for all the objections of

prime minister netanyahu or for that matter some of the republican leadership that has already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the american people about a better alternative. i'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about this is a bad deal. this is a historically bad deal. this will threaten israel and threaten the world and threaten the united states. i mean, there has been a lot of that. what i haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative? if 99% of the world's community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say this will prevent iran from getting a nuclear bomb and

you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does it's temporary or that because they're going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they'll cause more problems, then you should have some alternative to present and i vent heard that. the reason is because there are really only two alternatives here. either the issue of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through negotiation or it's resolved through force. through war. those are the options. now, you'll hear some critics say well, we could have negotiated a better deal. okay what does that mean? i think the suggestion among a

lot of the critics has been that a better deal, an acceptable deal would be one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic ability to eliminate every movement in iran. but we can eliminate them having

a nuclear weapon. that's what we've done. to go back to congress i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement number one to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two to explain specifically where it is that they think that this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they're right and people like ernie monesi, an mit physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force then those critics should say so. that will be an honest debate. all right. >> prime minister netanyahu said that you have an situation where iran can delay 24 days--

>> i'm happy to--that'sthat's a good example. let's take the issue of 24 days. this has been swirling today the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. now keep in mind first of all the world had 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities iraq, the uranium mines facilities that are known to produce centrifuges parts that entire infrastructure that we know about we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities. all right. so thin the issue is what if they try to develop a covert program? now one of the advantages of having innings inspections

across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. there are only so many uranium mines in iran. if, in fact, we're counting the number of uranium that is being mined, and then suddenly something is missing on the back end, they got some splaining to do. so we're able to track what is happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. but let's say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly, the iaea, the organization charged with implementing the monitoring nuclear activities around the world, the iaea will have the

ability to say that undeclared site we're concerned about. we see something suspicious. and they will be able to say to iran we wanting to inspect that. if iran objects we can override it. in the agreement we've set it up so we can override iran's objection. we don't need russia or china in order for us to get that override. if they continue to object we're in position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran is in violation and is cheating. as for the fact at a it might take 4 days to get to the site, the nature of nuclear programs and facilities, this is not something that you hide in a

closet. it's not something that you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere. and by wait if we identify an undeclared site that we're suspicious about we're going to be keeping eyes on it. so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that's going to be evidenced that we can then present to the international community. we're going to be monitoring that the entire time. by the way if there is nuclear material on that site you know, your high school physic physics will remind us that it will leave a trace and then we'll know that there was a violation of the agreement. the point is, jonathan that this is the most vigorous

inspection regime by far that has ever been negotiated. is it possible that iran tries to compete despite having this entire inspection verification mechanism? it's possible. but if it does first of all we've built in an one-year break out time which gives us a year to respond forcefully and we've built in a snap back provision really the only argument you can make in the mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining iran weapon that nothing willen

sufficient because they'll find some way to get around it because they're untrustworthy. if that's your view then we have to go back to the choice you made earlier that means that presumably you can't negotiate and what you're really saying is that you have to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. if someone wants to make that debate whether it's the republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu the israeli ambassador or others, they're free to make t but it's not persuasive. >> mr. president, i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic embargo. why did you decide to lift these. it's obviously emerging as a sticking point on the hill. are you concerned that arms from iran will go to hezbollah or hamas.

is there anything that you or the future president can do to stop that? could you step back a little bit, and when you look at this iran deal and all the other issues and unrest that is happening in the middle east what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year and a half? >> so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic issues is a real concern and has been a real concern to us. it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah, for example. or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that

gives us authority to interdict arms shipments. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution relate ed to iran's nuclear program. essentially iran was sanctioned because of what had happened it's unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. security resolutions about their nuclear program, and as part of the package of sanctions that was slapped on them, the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now under the terms of the original u.n. resolution, the fact is that once an agreement agreement--once an agreement was arriveed at that gave the

international community asure reasons that iran did not have nuclear weapons what i said to our negotiators was that given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities, let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missiles prohibitions. we got that. we got five years under this new agreement arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited, and we've got eight years for the prospective ballistic missiles. part of the reasons why we were willing to extend it over to five, let's say as opposed to a

longer period of time is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multi lateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arms shipments from iran and throughout the region. so we've had belts and suspenders buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities, these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse under five or eight years, but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and truthfully these prohibitions are not self-enforcing. it's not like the u.n. has the

capacity to police what iran is doing. what it does is give us authority under international law to prevent arms shipments from happening in concert with our allies and our partners. when you look at how hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to israel and many of our friends in the region. it's not because they were legal. it's not because some how that was authorized under international law. it was because there was insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those shipments. so the bottom line is i chair the concerns of israel, saudis, golf partners, about iran shipping arms and causing

conflict and chaos in the region. that's why i've said to them let's double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our inter diction capacity so fewer of those armed shipments are getting through the net. but the legal authorities we'll still posse. obviously we have our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues like support for hezbollah and those remain in place. in terms of the larger issues in the middle east, that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the next president is