g any nuclear facility. this eliminates kind of a loop whole where one could do something covertly and then say, oops we were planning to notify. they must do this now in a planning stage. so that's another thing that we have beyond 25 years. the iaea will be permitted to use advanced technologies including things like real time enrichment technology. if the international community suspects iran is trying to cheat, the iaea can request access to any suspicious location. much has been made about a 24-day process of ensuring access. i would say that i would say unlike secretary kerry, i did say the words any time anyplace

and a member of your caucus acknowledged that the full sentence was any time anywhere in the sense of a well defined process with a well defined end time. so i'm pleased we have established that. the iaea can request access to any suspicious location with 24 hour's notice under the additional protocol. the deal was not change that baseline. the issue if there is then agreement is not reached, then when the iaea requests access this 24-day clock will -- will start. the -- and this is a new tool a finite time a new tool for resolving disputes within what we think is a short period of time. and short is defined because of our confidence in environmental sampling that we will then be able to have to implement to detect microscopic traces of

nuclear materials even after attempts are made to remove the evidence of -- of -- of activities with nuclear material. and iran's history provides a god -- good example. in 2003 the iaea requested access. it was denied. negotiations dragged out for six months, but even after that long delay, environmental samples revealed nuclear activity even though iran has made a substantial effort to remove and cover up the evidence. and we have in addition conducted our own experiments to verify the ability to detect very, very small traces of uranium. the agreement will be implemented in phased as has been said already. some 10 years, 15 years, 20, 25 years, and as i described the key transparency measures that stay beyond 25 years, of course

as long as iran is in the npt, and if they are not, every alarm bell will go off, and appropriate actions will be taken. i want to acknowledge the tireless work of the negotiating team lead by my colleague, secretary kerry. the u.s. multi-agency delegation worked together seamlessly and they displayed remarkable cohesion out there this complex endeavor. the continued collaboration, and cooperation, among the leading nations, in particular the p5 is really crucial to ensuring that iran complies so as to avoid the reimposition of a major international sanctions regime. it is based on science and

analysis carried out largely by our scientists and engineers. just to respond to ranking members criterion, iran will be further from a nuclear weapon capability all the time with rather than without this agreement. so again, thank you for the opportunity to be here. look forward to the discussion. >> thank you very much. secretary lou. >> thank you mr. chairman. thanks for the opportunity to speak today about the joint comprehensive plan of action. a foreign policy decision of this significance deserves thorough review. i'm confident that a full and fair debate will make it clear that this deal will strength our national security and that of our allies. this constitutes the most effective sanctions regime in history. the measures have clearly

demonstrates the costs of flouting international law. today the iranian economy is about 20% smaller than it would have been. the united states government stood at the forefront of this effort across two administrations. together we established a web of far-reaching u.s. international sanctions that ultimately persuaded iran's leadership to come to the table, prepared to roll back its nuclear program. international consensus and cooperation is vital. the world's major powers have been and remain united in preventing a nuclear-armed iran. that unity of purpose producedfour tough resolutions in many countries, and secured adherence to u.s. sanctions by countries around the world. the point of the sanctions was to change iran's nuclear

behavior. accordingly once it is verified that iran has completed key steps to roll back its nuclear program, phased sanctions relief would come into effect. there is no signing bonus. to be clear, there will be no immediate changes to u.n. e.u. or u.s. sanctions. only if iran fulfills the necessary nuclear conditions will the u.s. begin suspending secondary sanctions on a phased-in basis. sanctions that target third-party countries doing business with iran. if iran violates its commitments once we have suspended the sanctions, we will be able to promptly snap back both u.s. and u.n. sanctions. and since that requires an

affirmative vote from the u.n. security council the united states has the ability to force these reimposition of those sanctions. we'll maintain significant sanctions that fall outside of the scope of the nuclear deal including our primary u.s. trade embargo. iran will continue to be denied access to the world's largest market, and we're maintain powerful sanctions for supporting hezbollah, it's backing of the assad regime its missile program and human rights abuses at home. several hezbollah leaders were targeting the group's front countries and facilitators and we will not relieve sanctions on iran's revolutionary guard corps, or senior officials. some argue that sanctions

lifting is premature. i understand the concern. but iran's ties to terrorist groups are exactly why we must keep it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. the combination of those two threats would raise a nightmare scenario a nuclear armed iran would be a far more menacing threat. we need to address them in turn. jcpoa will address the nuclear danger freeing us and our allies to check their activities more aggressively. walking away from this deal would leave the world's leading sponsor of terrorism with a short and decreasing nuclear-breakout time. we must always understand what sanctions relief will really mean to iran. iron's $100 billion in restricted foreign reserves which many fear will be directed for nefarious services constitute's the country's

savings. after sanctions relief we estimate they will only be able to access about half of these reserves. because $20 billion is committed to projects with china, and 10s of billions are non-performing loans to iran's energy and banking sector. iran can't simply spend the using resources as they will be likely needed for financing of imports. the president was elected on a platform of economic restoration. he faces over half a trillion dollars in pressing investment requirements and government obligations. iran is in massive economic hole from which it will take years to climb out. meanwhile we will aggressively

target any funds used to fund hezbollah and others. backing away from this deal to escalate the economic pressure and try to obtain a broader capitulation from iran would be a mistake. even if one believed that it was a better course, that choice is not available. our partners agreed to impose costly sanctions on iran for one reason, to put a stop to its illicit nuclear program. if we change our terms now, and insist that those countries escalate sanctions, they would balk. and we would be left with neither a nuclear deal nor effective sanctions. so it's unrealistic to think that additional sanctions pressure would force iran to

capitulate. the joint comprehensive plan of action is a strong deal with phased relief only after iran fulfills its commitments to roll back its nuclear program, and a powerful snap back built in later if they break the deal. blocking their access to a nuclear bomb is the overriding goal. thank you and we look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you all very much. again, you are watching live coverage of the iranian nuclear deal being discussed in a senate hearing of the foreign relations committee. that was treasury secretary jacob lou issuing his opening statement. they are addressing the diplomatic scientific, and issue of sanctions when it comes

to the iran nuclear deal. next members of this committee get to ask those three cabinet members their concerns. we'll be right back with more on al jazeera america. ♪

welcome back. before we take you back live to the hearing room at the senate let's take a closer look at what is in this nuclear deal. it contains what is being described as a snap-back clause meaning sanctions will be returned if they don't agree with the nuclear program.

this deal would lift the convention alarms embargo after eight years. it will stay for eight more years, once the deal goes into effect. tehran will also have the right to challenge a u.n. request to visit iranian nuclear facilities, we have also heard mention of that in the hearing this morning, as it pertains to those 24 days that iran would have to comply to open up for example military facilities. also bans on economic cooperation with iran will be lifted in all fields that includes investment in oil and gas. iran will retain the right to enrich some uranium but not enough to make a nuclear weapon. let's check in with libby casey live on capitol hill. we heard them address some of the broader concerns that congressional members have. from what you are hearing, are

we going to see minds changed at the end of this hearing? >> i think that's doubtful. but we're hearing from the top democrat on this committee, also saying that he has got some tough questions, so it's not as though republicans are doing the hard press and democrats are giving a thumbs up. ben carden says we need to have clarity on breakout time and understand whether inspections are robust enough to deter iran from cheating. both sides plan to ask tough questions. obviously republicans using far more critical language. we heard senator corker say he believes administration officials have been fleeced in this process, and he said that last night's presentation by administration officials frankly left him depressed stephanie. he also had words of praise for the energy secretary, he said he is trying to help him understand

the details of this related to nuclear capabilities. and what we're hearing so far is a tone of getting into the nitty-gritty. they do seem to want to get at some of the fine details, and the panel before them should be able to answer those questions, because we have representatives on three brood points. obviously secretary kerry knows how to talk to congress about this. and then we have secretary lou who can provide answer about the financial ramifications and just how the sanctions fit into this picture, stephanie. >> thank you. we're joined by an iranian american journalist. what are your thoughts on the hearing thus far? >> stephanie, i think what secretary kerry, again, emphasized that this is not just a u.s. deal with iran that the

u.s. has other world powers in its team so the u.s. stepping back from this would be a great disadvantage for their public image. and it mirrors what the president of iran has been saying. he had a famous speech when he said when we say we won, it means that we scored three times, but we took also two goals. so i think what both sides are trying to make their critics understand, is that we made some con -- concessions but we also gained some points. so this is not the perfect deal for either side. and i just see a very complete mirror image of the iranian match list hard liners in what is happening with the opponents

in the congress. >> thank you. i just want to mention one other thing, which is that the white house set up a dedicated twitter account called with -- with the twitter handle@the iran deal as this hearing is taking place live right now, they are live tweeting what they are calling fact checks on some of the criticisms of the deal. let's step back in now to the live hearing. >> -- and we have a 25-year markable incite which is an access and monitoring tracking of their life of the uranium cycle, so from the mining the mills, the yellow cake production the gas if indication the centrifuge out in to the waste, they will have the ability to appropriately monitor that every step of the way.

so if we have x-amount of raw material coming out, and some is diverted and we don't see it going where it should go to we'll have extraordinary incite into this. under the protocol and iaea process for civil nuclear programs, we -- all of the facilities are declared because it is a civil nuclear program. as such there is literally 24-7 visitation in those sites. they are not even request sort of situations. . it's only for the undeclared facility about which you have a suspicion, that you have to go through the other process. they are living by the npt -- or allegedly they are going to live by the npt, and so that's what we have to make sure they are doing. i might add under the interim

agreement, which by the way a number of people called an historic mistake and tragedy, and you heard all of the same rhetoric you heard now, those same people asked us to keep that in place two years later, because it has worked and iran has lived up to every component of that over the course of the last year. they reduced the 20% uranium, undid iraq and so on and so forth. so we will have this level of incite, which i think is not being understood enough. nothing ends at 15 years. simply the size of the stockpile limitation ends and the enrichment, they can enrich further, but we'll have incite. if you start to enrich up around the 20%, you are talking about the tehran research reactor or a

few other things but there's no rationale whatsoever for enrichment above that and we would have incite into that program to instantly know if they are starting to go somewhere else. and we would be able to respond. and so the fact is the break-out team never goes down to a level below which we can respond, and i think ernie can speak to the full breadth of this scrutiny. >> mr. chairman may i ask one note, because it's kind of -- what could be a collateral benefit of this agreement, is that going to the uranium supply chain, the safeguards i want to add that this is something that the iaea really wants to have much more broadly, and so this would actually be a first in moving towards cradle to grave.

>> there are some other firsts that unfortunately we cannot talk about. and i would say to mr. secretary, yes, people have said that they would rather keep japo in place than move to something worse, that doesn't mean that people particularly liked it in the first place, but on comparison so i just want to clarify that. senator. >> thank you mr. chairman. you know it's -- senator carden made a statement that i really agree with and that is that we really need to leave emotion without of this. this should be done in a very non-emotional way. but that doesn't mean we have to leave common sense out. we have gone from the mantra of no deal is better than a bad deal, and i have heard everybody say that a couple of few weeks ago, and now we have gotten toe the point where, well you have

to accept this or else it is war. the mantra has changed dramatically. and all i can say after reviewing this even in a cursory fashion, anyone who believes this is a good deal joins the ranks of the people that are most naive in the world. when you are dealing with these people, with the history of cheating, anyone who can say this is a good deal -- i know the just case is well it's not perfect. well, word perfect shouldn't even be used in a sentence with this agreement. one of the most disappointing things in the closed hearing yesterday, is we have been told we have no choice in this because we have gone from the position where we started, where we had iran isolated and they were viewed on thor world stage as a pariah. if we don't go along with this we're told the other negotiator

negotiators will go along with this, and the united states will be isolated and we will be the pariah on the national stage. just think about that. where these negotiations have taken us from the -- from a situation where we had iran exactly where we wanted them to now if we don't go along with this, then we're going to be the isolated and pariah character on the national stage. well, look the other thing that was so important was verification. we have to have verification. everybody said this is the number one thing. everyone here knows there is a site called parchen, and parchen was a subject of these negotiations, and it was designed to ensure that their nuclear ambitions are only for peaceful purposes. how in the world does parchen fit that? parchen was designed and operated as an explosive testing place, where they designed a

detonation trigger for a nuclear weapon. parchen stays in place. does that sound like it's for peaceful purposes. let me tell you the worst thing about parchen, what you guys agreed to was, we can't even take samples there. they are going to be able to test by themselves. even the nfl wouldn't go along with this. how in the world can you have a nation like iran doing their own testing? now i know secretary monese who is one of the brightest guys i know, has told us we're going to be able to watch it on tv and there's a good chain of custody for the samples that will be taken. are we going to trust iran to do this? this is a good deal? this is what we were told we were going to get, when we were told that don't worry, we're going to be watching over their

shoulder and we're going to put in place verifications that are bullet proof. we're going to trust iran to do their own testing? this is absolutely ludicrous. well, the one thing that bothers me incredibly about this is the billions of dollars that iran is going to get. we have been briefed on the fact that while they have been in this horrible financial condition, and we have gotten them to a horrible financial condition, one of their national priorities has been to support terrorism. they have supported hezbollah, hamas, the houthis with financial aid, military aid, every kind of aid there is everything we're trying to do in the world has their fingerprints on it trying to do us in. so these billions of dollars are going to be put back in their hands within i'm told about nine months. and again, we were told yesterday, it doesn't matter what we do.

congress do your little thing, it doesn't matter because we don't have control over this money. actually it was the other people sitting at the table who has control of the money, and no matter what we do they are going to release the billions of dollars. well, i got to tell ya this is a very heavy lift when you sleep at night, and you say i'm going to vote to release 100 billion whatever it is knowing a portion of that money is going to be directly transferred to people who are going to be trying to kill americans and trying to kill innocent people and -- and that are trying to kill our allies. to say this is -- to be able to walk away from this and say that this is a good deal is ludicrous. with all due respect, you guys have been bamboozled, and the

american people are going to pay for that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator boxer. >> can we respond at all to any of that? [ laughter ] >> my time is up mr. chairman. i suspect we're going to hear lots of response to that. >> well isn't there time built in for answers or comments? >> i'm more than glad for you to take a moment answer to. i want to make sure this gets a full and fair hearing. >> yeah the comment was made that -- what is it naive if you think this is a good deal. this is an article there the "washington post." i urge you all to read it. how the iran deal is good for israel according to israelis who know what they are talking about. i urge you to read it. it says here a host of prominent members of the country's security establishment have some out at various stages of the negotiations and supported the

obama administration's efforts. in an interview with "the daily beast" the former head of israeli top domestic security agency suggested that israel's politicians were playing with fear. he praised the deal. i don't think he is naive. former chief of the mosad, israel's spy agency hailed obama's victim. senator you said we had them exactly where we wanted them. 19,000 centrifuges? enough material for 10 to 12 bombs. is that where we wanted them? what was the purpose of this sanctions? >> to dismantle their operation. >> let me just finish. i was chairman when we passed those sanctions and our purpose was to bring them to

negotiations. so we have negotiated and i guarantee you for the first 15 years, you have unbelievable restraints that make it impossible to make a bomb. so at the end of 15 years, you have ever pop shun that you have today. your decision is whether you want those 15 years to be right now or take the 15 years and figure out whether or not this is going to work. in that is really the choice. i don't know what you mean by we had them right where we wanted them. to what end? >> before i turn to senator boxer, since we gave you time. i do want to say that i think iran has done a masterful job in giving you a talking point with the 19,000 centrifuges. 10 of which are operating, but we all know they are antiques. they are antiques. and so we all talk about the number of centrifuges, but this deal lace out their ability to continue research and

development on the r3bs, the r4s, the r6s -- and in year eight they can implement that -- >> for a peaceful program. >> let me finish. they said the r8 is their future. the r1 is an antique. it is slow. they want to get rid of those. so they did a masterful job in getting the west and other countries to focus over here on something that is of no used to them. while they are able to draft an agreement that allows them a pathway to continue soft indicated development on something that they can put in a covert facility and enrich in levels and pace that they never imagined, so with that secretary boxer. >> mr. chairman if i may add, i must say that every element of the r&d program is rolled back in time.

the fact is they right now have -- they are very active in all of these areas, and it is significantly delayed, so that's a fact. all right. >> and it is a fact in year eight, they are given the time -- >> i'm sorry -- >> that's why the president said in year 13 there is zero breakout -- >> but, sir, it is an incorrect characterization, i apologize for saying that in year eight they are an industrial activity. it's a small cascade that they can start to do years after their current plans. >> and many people thought it was going to take that long for them to even have the capacity to do that. so as i mentioned from a critical path standpoint they have been brilliant. >> are you ready for me? [ laughter ] >> okay. colleagues put me down as someone who thinks iran is a bad

and dangerous ak -- actor. and so that's why i believe we need to curb their nuclear ambitions. i think it's essential, and i don't think the american people want another war, and at the end of the day, i know some disagree with this i think that's -- at the end of the day, that's really the option. which everyone tiptoes around. now you know -- i support the right of my colleagues to say anything they want but you sat there and you have heard two of my colleagues go after you with words that i'm going to repeat you were fleeced, one said. the other said you have been bamboozled. so putting aside the fact i

think that's disrespectful and insulting, that's their right to do. there are other ways to express your disagreement but that goes to your core as a human being, and your intelligence and i think you are highly intelligent. so let me ask you, and if you could just answer yes or no. i know it's hard for you, secretary kerry to do so. [ laughter ] >> because we're senators and it's not our way, but then i can get through the rest of my list. so my colleagues think that you were fleeced, that you were bamboozled. that means everybody was fleeced and bamboozled. almost everybody in the world. so does the united kingdom support this accord? >> yes. >> does australia, one of our strongest allies support this accord? this >> yes. >> does germany support this accord? >> yes. >> does france support this

accord? >> yes. >> does new zealand support this accord? >> i haven't seen their statement. [ laughter ] >> well, they are on the security council, are they not? and they voted for it. >> oh in the vote yes. all 15 members -- >> either by voice or support. >> yes. >> did jordan voice their support? >> yes. >> did spain did nigeria, did lithuania? yes. >> yes. >> yes. you get the drift. if you were bamboozled the word was bamboozled. that's ridiculous. and it's unfair and it's wrong. you can disagree with aspects of this agreement, but i think we need to stay away from that kind of rhetoric. now i have the agreement right here and i have read it and one thing that i was surprised as i sat down to read it i thought, you know, will i be able to understand this

document? it's very understandable so i want to say -- cite a couple of things in here. iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. that's one phrase. another one is and that's -- this one is number 16 iran will not engage in activities including at the r&d level that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device a nuclear explosive device including uranium or plutonium, and that's in this accord. so one of the things i want to do is send out a message to iran not to the people of iran who i think are really good people but to those folks there that are so dangerous, and that is you said it real clearly, and if you don't live up to it

i guarantee you, the consequences will not be pretty and i think that's an important message that has to go out, because they signed it and they said it and the whole world is watching them. secretary kerry i authored the u.s. israel strategic partnership act, and the u.s. israel enhanced cooperation act, so proud of that and president obama signed both of those. and it means that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our closest ally and we know israel does not like this agreement. i'm very glad you -- you read those comments of the shinbet person, because there is division, it is quiet, but there are some who think this was the way to go. so -- so i would hope as someone who has stood so -- i was going to say tall but it's hard for

me to say that -- sits so tall for this relationship with israel, at the end of the day, i think this relationship is going to be even more strengthened and i want to get your view on that because i know that ash carter went to israel. do you have anything to report about that meeting and how that went? >> well, secretary carter went with the intention of laying out and beginning a dialogue in great detail which he did with the defense minister of israel and they had, i think almost a day-long meeting, in which they discussed the many ways in which we are prepared to work with israel, understanding the -- obviously understanding the very dangerous dynamics of the region right now, so -- and secretary carter went up to the golan heights to review the threat is currently from isil daesh, and so forth. these are all things that we are

prepared to push back on in any number of ways and we also believe there's the potential for a new alignment in the region. i will be going to speak with all of the gcc members, to talk about the ways that the gulf can come together with israel and others in a more -- in really a new alignment -- >> i want to press you on that because we were reading about saudi arabia's words today in the press, and i just enlist -- i don't have -- haven't had time to check it out and i wanted to ask you, do you believe the saudis are supportive now, despite the fact they view iran as a regional adversary. >> i believe they will be supportive with this. i met with the foreign minister a few days ago, he indicated that they were prepared to support it if certain things were to happen those things i believe are going to happen.

so i anticipate that. i don't want to be accused of being the person -- you know saying the choice is military or otherwise. the chief of the mosad also said, quote, anyone who followed events in iran in recent decades has to admit that they never believed that iran would agree to discuss these issues let alone agree to the measures imposed on them, the alternative would be military strikes, which would likely not be success, he said. so we're not alone in describing what the choice is here and -- and i think senator, there's a real potential to have a change in the middle east. there's also a potential to have a confrontation. >> right. >> this does not end --

secretary kerry quoting a former mosad chief who supports the nuclear deal. it has been a relatively tame hearing so far. that may be able to change. marco rubio is set to speak next as well as a democrat who opposes the deal robert menendez. we'll be right back. ♪ this is a great place to work. not because they have yoga meetings and a juice bar. because they're getting comcast business internet. comcast business offers convenient installation appointments that work around your schedule. and it takes- done. - about an hour. get reliable internet that's up to five times faster than dsl from the phone company. call 800-501-6000 to switch today. perks are nice. but the best thing you can give your business

is comcast business. comcast business. built for business. back live to the hearing on the iran deal. senator marco rubio, speaking now. >> reporter: -- examples are endless. it begins by allowing a

perception to be creating, that we were pressing for anywhere any time inspections, and now denies that that was ever promised. there was a perception created among by colleagues that we were pressing for any time inspections. then the snap-back sanctions i think are also hollow. we have this complicated 24-day process that iron is going to test and exploit over and over again. they realize once the international sanctions are gone as your iranian counterpart has said. he also bragged that incremental violations of the agreement would not be prosecuted. no matter what happens, iran will keep the more than billions of dollars it will receive up front, basically as a signing

bonus. they will be able to continue to develop long-range ballistic missiles that know only one purpose, for nuclear warfare. so all of these are revealed of lies when they are developing a long-range rocket that is capable of reaching this room in the future. the deal also allows the arms embargo to end. on terrorism this deal provides billions possibly hundreds of billions to a regime that directly threatens the interests of the united states and our allies, and nothing holds iran to account on human rights. the iranian regime is being rewarded for its atrocious human rights record. i know you said you brought up the american hostages in all negotiations, and we thank you

for that. but for the families this deal has brought no new information regarding their loved ones whereabouts, this deal does nothing for the washington reporter who's brother is here today. you met with an iranian official who when pressed on jason's case lied to the world. this was nothing for the marine corps sergeant who dictated a later that said quote, secretary kerry sits politely with iranians shaking hands, and offering long concessions, as iran holds hostages. the only people this deal does anything for directly are the iranian officials who hate israel and seek to wipe the jewish state and its people from

the planet. who want to continue to help assad slaughter the syrian people. i do not fault you for trying to engage in diplomacy and striking a deal with iran. i do fault the president for striking a terrible deal with iran. i hope enough of my democratic colleagues can be persuaded to vote against this deal. but even if it narrowly avoided congressional defeat the iranian regime and the world should know this deal is your deal with iran meaning this administration. and the next president is under no moral obligation to live up to it. the majority of this congress does not support this deal and the deal could go away the day that the president leaves office. and if you today are accompanying, after this deal is

signed, go into iran and build a manufacturing facility, and then iran violates the deal obviously do the sanctions apply against that facility moving forward? if a company goes into iran now after this deal builds a manufacturing facility of any kind? they build car batteries, and then iran violates the deal and the sanctions kick back in. will that facility be able to continue to operate without facing sanctions? >> senator, if a company acts to go in to do business with iran while the sanctions are lifting that would be permitted. if the sanctions snap back they would not be able to continue. >> the reason why it's important, it's important for companies anywhere in the world to know whatever investment they are making in iran they are risking it. they are betting on the hope

that iran never violates the deal and the next president of the united states does not reimpose u.s. congressional sanctions. i have one more specific question about the deal. there's a section titled nuclear security, and the document states that those who negotiated the deal with prepared to cooperate with iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines. there's a provision 10.2, cooperation through training and workshops to respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage as well as to maintain effective nuclear security. here is my question, if israel decides it doesn't like this deal and it wants to sabotage an iranian nuclear program or facility, does this deal obligate us to help iran defend itself against israeli sabotage or the sabotage of any other

country in the world? >> the -- i believe that -- that refers to things like physical security and safeguards. i think all of our options and those of our allies and friends would remain in place. >> i guess that's my point. if -- if israel conducts an air strike against a physical facility, does this deal require us to help iran protect and respond to that threat? >> no. >> it does not? >> no. >> the -- the purpose of that is to be able to have longer-term guarantees as we enter a world in which cyber warfare is increasingly a concern for everybody, that if you are going to have nuclear capacities you clearly want to make sure that those are adequately protected. but i can assure you, we will

coordinate in every possible way with israel. >> so if israel conducts a cyber attack against a iranian nuclear program, are we obligated to help them? >> no, i assure you will be coordinating very very closely with israel. >> that's not how i read this. >> i don't see anyway possible that we will be in conflict with israel with respect to what we might want to do there, and i think we have to wait until we get to that point. but i do think, senator, i listened to a long list of your objections here about it but there's no alternative that you or anybody else has proposed -- >> i sure have secretary kerry. >> and i am confident that the next president of the united states will have enough common sense that if this is being complied with they are

not going to arbitraryily end. i cannot see somebody just arbitrarily deciding let's go back to where we were where they are completely free to do what they want without any inspections, input, constraints, incites, i don't think any president would do that. >> the status quo is already in violation -- before you signed this deal iran was in violation of restrictions including things they agreed to in the past. >> and this brings them back into compliance. they have to live up to it and if they don't, every option we have today is on the tail. so we don't lose anything here. the way the lose is by by -- rejecting the deal because then you have no restraints, no sanctions, no incite, no inspectors, no reduction of their stockpile, and if you want to just

conveniently forget the fact that they had enough material to build 10 to 12 bombs, that's the threat to israel. if you go back to that without any alternative other than what -- you know, most people think is going to be the alternative, which is confrontation. nobody has a plan that is articulated that is reasonable as to how you are going to strengthen this do something more, when the supreme leader of iran and the president of iran and others believe they have signed an agreement with the world, and the rest of the world thinks it's a good agreement. if if you think the ayatollah is going to negotiate again with an american. that's fantasy. you will never see that because we will have proven we're not trustworthy. you can't deal with anybody. and that's going to undo a whole bunch of efforts and a whole bunch of things that matter to people in the world.

that's what is at stake here. >> thank you, mr. secretary, just to ensure that i have appropriately addressed the situation, i want to refrain and way we have been fleeced, and not make that anything that's directed at any individual. i do want to say, one of the ways we have brought them into compliance is that we have agreed to let them do what they are doing, and actually agreed to let them do it on an strie strieal -- industrialized basis. >> but senator, we're not alone in this folks. the bush administration proposed the exact same thing. this is not something that president obama just sort of dreamed up and thought was a good idea. in june 12th of 2008 president bush through condoleezza rice who signed the memorandum with

the p5-plus-1 said in return to iran doing things with their nuclear program, here is what we were willing to do recognize their right to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. that's all we were doing. treat iran's nuclear program as that of any other party to the npt, once confidence is restored provide technical and financial assistance for peaceful nuclear energy including the state-of-the-art power reactor, support for r&d and legally blinding fuel activities. improve relations with iran and support iran in playing an important and constructive role in international affairs. work with iran and others on regional security. reaffirmation of the obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force. cooperation on afghanistan. steps towards normalization of trade and economic relations,

energy partnership, civil aviation cooperation, assistance in iran's economic and social development. all of that was offered by president george w. bush june 12th, 2008, but it didn't happen. because iran was not -- >> you are filibustering here. the one element that you left out that they did not agree to -- >> was stopping enriching. >> allowing them to enrich. so if i could -- >> but -- >> senator menendez. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me start off by saying that i appreciate the enormous work and arduous quest you have been in pursuit of. and i think that no one would want to be applauding you more than i who has been following iran since nearly 20 years ago. and as one of the authors of the sanctions regime that are recognized to have brought iran

to the table. but the deal enshrines for iran and commits the international community over time to assisting iran in developing an industrial-scale nuclear power program, complete with industrial scale enrichment and while i understand that the program will be subject to iran's npt obligations, i think it fails to negotiate iran's history of deception and violations of npt, and it will in the long run make it harder to demonstrate that iran's program is not in fact being used for peaceful purpose, because iran will have legitimate reasons to have advanced centrifuges and an enrichment program. we will have to demonstrate that it's intention is duel use, and not justified by the nuclear power program. that's a much more difficult burden.

mr. secretary you have always been skeptical about sanctions. i know you sort of embrace them here today. but when you were chairing of this committee, when the administration was vigorously vigorously arguing against it your comment was to -- so what you are really saying is that there is a very blunt instrument, which risks adverse reaction as opposed to a calculated effort. so in that hearing i remember i had to come back because i didn't expect that even the question of the amendment was going to come up and they were there trying to excoreiate the effort. so let me ask, under the

sanctions heading of the agreement, paragraph 26 says and i quote, the united states administration acting with the support of the president and the congress we refrain from reintroducing sanctions it has ceased applying. so secretary lou i read that to mean we cannot reintroduce or re reimpose the existing sanctions. is that right? >> senator we have been very clear that we retain our right and we will if we need to reimpose sanctions for reasons that are not nuclear if they live with the nuclear agreement -- >> i'm talking about existing nuclear sanctions which expire

here. if snapback provisions of the sanctions are to be an effective deterrent of the iranians breaking the agreement will the administration support reimposing the sanctions? >> so let me be clear that the -- sanctions that are being lifted if iran complies if they comply we said we would not reimpose nuclear sanctions if they lived with the nuclear agreement. >> i know, but my point is this if you are going to snap back you have to snap back to something. so if you are not snapping back -- >> senator -- >> let me finish mr. secretary. please, don't eat up my time. i'm sorry with all due respect. if the sanctions that extire next year, 2016 and we don't

reauthorize it there is nothing, at least in that context to snap back to. so why don't you say that the administration supports under all of the same provisions including the president's wavers, the reauthorization of those sanctions, so the iranians know if they violate, that the snap back will also include snap back to what the congress passed. >> senator what i said earlier is right now the sanctions remain in effect we have a regime in effect. if iran complies, we will lift sanctions, and it's prematured to talk about extending a law -- >> this expires next year. iran's limitations go out eight years. so i don't understand how we ultimately have a credible belief that snap back means something if in fact you are not