what the start inspections to declare a location, we have that. we have declared location in start, declared location here. what is unprecedented here, which we negotiated and we got it, is this ability for us to be 80 to close out the i.a.e.a. process. the reason we are here today is that the i.e.a.e. could not get infinished. they would fight and go back and forth nothing closed it out. we have the ability through the joint commission here, to vote go to the u.n. security council, and mandate they give us access, and they haven't they are in material breach and we get snap back of the sanctions. so there's awe auto metalistty to this that doesn't agree in other agreements. >> i want to get to one other

question, then we will elaborate, thank you for the answer. the second thing that concern as lot of people, i think senator menendez brought up, was the negotiation of the five year, u.n. embargo goes away. it appears to me that that appeared late in the negotiations and was not something on the table originally, or even talked about, because this is a nuclear deal, why did that embargo get into the deal. >> the discussions of the embargo, began on almost day one, of the negotiations and they went on for two years. >> why in a hearing based on nuclear weapons and prohibiting iranians getting a nuclear weapon, would weway a sanction on exporting the commission alone? why would that be a part of the agreement. >> let me explain to you, it is a good question, and let me answer it. it was slid into the u.n.

resolution at the last minute. frankly. >> the arms embargo. >> and the missle, the arms embargo specifically was the last minute. then the u.n -- >> right. >> then the u.n. permanent representative susan rice, helped write that, or wrote a good part of and it she put it in. and, in fact, the iranians objected to it. felt that it was being rammed in them in the context of the nuclear agreement and it had no business being part of a nuclear agreement. it is conventional arms and they thought they had the right to do it. they have ignored it for all these years but they made it clear, from the get go, that one of the primary red lines was they had to get those sanctions lifted, we said no, we are not going to lift them, we won't give this -- look at what you are doing in

yemen, we won't lift it. the problem is we had three countries out of seven that were ready to lift it all together on day one and four countries that said no we need to keep it. so the compromise, ultimately was, recognizing that we had many ways of coming at the enforcement of activities on missiles and arms with specific resolutions for no arms. no arms to the houthis no arms to the shia in iraq. no arms to hezbollah, no arms to north korea. all of these are existing conditions that we can enforce. so we didn't think we were losing anything, in fact we won a victory to get the five and the eight to continue with them in the context of the nuclear resolution, where they believed they didn't belong in the first place. my time is up, correct me on one thing, you said at the

beginning it was on the table from the beginning. >> no, what was -- their demand was on the table from the beginning. >> their demand, and we said no from the beginning and frankly we knew this was going to come down to be probably the last issue. >> and then you said it was slid in at the end. >> at the u.n. by susan rice, when she first wrote resolution 1929, the armed embargo came into that resolution, at the very last minute. >> my only point, i am sorry i am cutting you off the inspection of those some satisfaction we didn't give away to put israel or the other middle eastern countries in jeopardy is a serious question that needs to be responded to, secretary you wanted to say something. >> i just have a small footnote to the issue of the country's without diplomatic relations not being a part of the team, just wanted to point out again that for

decades now all of the inspectors are trained have training here in the united states. we are very confident and a very very brad set of people, in addition, and i can get you the exact number, but right now i think we have about a dozen americans in the safeguards effort, and obviously they play a very critical role. >> i would love it if you would get me that information specifically. >> i will get you a list of all the mechanisms we have to prevent the arms from flowing. those are chriss call to me, and i think the american people. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will take a break, when we have a second round start can y'all make it through three more senators? thank you. >> thank you will chairman. and thank you for your service. to our country. we very much appreciate all your great work. secretary monothese, one of the assertions which is made,

is that in -- after 15 years that all bets are off. and that iran can then begin to enrich, theoretically, up to 90% if they want. which is a bomb grade material. could you deal with that issue? that is what happens in 15 years? what happens when iran announces that it would go past 3%? go past 5%? go past 20% in terms of it's enrichment, what is -- the law of regulation, the sense of the world community in terms of what they can do at that point to make sure that it was not a bomb making program that was now put in place? >> well, of course, senator

first of all whether it's 50 years or 20, or whenever, they will be required to report all their nuclear activity and clearly if they were to report that they were enriching every alarm would go off because there's no reason to do that. >> who would then happen. >> i would imagine there would be an extraordinary strong, and cohesive pressure. perhaps seances and perhaps as military response what would the response be? if irant started enriching to 60 50,%. >> everything i saw is they would be solidly with us in very very strong opposition. do you agree with that? >> totally. any anti-any nuclear weapon for iran.

i was go to say if they declared this alarm bells would go off if they didn't declare it, there would be still have is through these 25 years actually, the containment and surveillance on any manufacturing of centrifuges -- so once again they would need the entire supply chain covertly, which would be a difficult thing to carry off. >> we are going to take a quick break, we will be back with more live coverage on the iran nuclear deal.

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. welcome back, testimony continues. senator edward the democrat from massachusetts right now getting his turn, and act how the lifting of seances would effect politics. >> both in their public statements embracing this arrangement. for the countries to come together and be able to resolve some of the differences that have separated them. i know for a exact that the foreign minister of iran wants to engang with the g.c.c. countries. that this isn't the only country, the saudis have indicate add willingness to sit down so who knows are

that dialog goes but i can guarantee you the united states will do everything that we can to encouraging it, and to try to help find some kind of specification steps that we may be able to deal with yemen houthis and other issues. >> you spoke earlier about the saudis can you expand upon that? >> if there is a possibility going forward? is. >> generally what i would say is this, of course, all the countries in the region are apprehensive. because they see iran enganged with the houthis they see them enganged with the shia iraqi in iraq. they see them also fighting against isil. they awe see them in syria where they have made the most havoc supporting a sad and hezbollah, and hezbollah is obviously a threat to israel, and the region.

not to mention the support for hamas. these concern us deeply, and it concerns them. and that is precisely why we have come together, and are working on what i talked about earlier with senator gardner about the evolution of the camp david process that begins to fill out a new security arrangement, and a new understanding of how together we can push back against these activities. >> thank you. did you want to add anything? in terms of the likelihood there could be a break out from the legal regime we have in place that would not be detected early enough. >> no, a break out would be very quickly detected and then it's a question of the response especially in this first decade or so, i think we have -- and beyond the first decade, we have a very

comfortable period of time to do diplomatic responses. >> thank all of you -- >> thank you, then. thank you for your testimony, i continue to support a negotiated solution, and think it preferable to war. i think military solution in all likelihood will accelerate the possibility of them having military weapons of ending option ins etc. however, it does have to be a good deal, and i think that's the debate we have. secretary considerry i guess i would ask, is how would you describe the history of compliance with international agreements? would you say they are generally trustworthy or not? there's no trust built into this deal at all, it is not based on any concept of trust. >> i agree i think everybody understands that, the itoll la recent comments say america stops them from having a nuclear weapon, they

know it is not true. we have a lot of verbiage, already saying well so really it comes down to a good green, someone asked well, so the question then is compliance. and my question, and my i guess my problem is, that there's a great deal of yes dense being given to snap back sanctions as this way this lever to get them to comply. secretary lou talked about being a phased agreement. that's not how i read it, they do have to do some things and they are significant, reducing the amount of enriched uranium to a low level, and getting rid

of centrifuges. the problem is that -- the wording of the agreement then says the sanctions are simultaneously withdrawn. and the vast majority are but to me it is the initiation i am more worried about the continuing compliance roof that, and i think the argument would be that snap back sanctions will be that lever. i guess my preference would be more of truly a phase reduction or a step wide production over a many year period of the sanctions and mott the immediate release. was there discussion? was it ever our position that we shouldn't have simultaneous release of all sanctions but more step wise, or gradual reduction. >> well, this was obviously at the heart of the negotiation. which is why we drove such -- what we consider to be a very hard bargain with respect to what they needed to do. that is -- look, it was

always the fundamental equation of this we passed sanctions and our passage was specifically to bring them to the table to negotiate. so if that was the lar clearly when they came to the table they wanted the lever taken away. and so quid pro quo was always what restraints will we get what insight to their program. what long term commitments. they can't get a bomb, how do we fulfill president obama's pledge to close off the four path ways to a bomb. that's the exchange. and they get some relief from sanctions. now, their insistence for two years was obviously this motion, and all the way to the end, everything. all sanctions all the u.n., everybody sanes. well, we resisted that, we

didn't do that, it is not what happened. what we did was we wound up securing a one year break out time, going from two month today juan year. securing the safety and the research they could do on the next advanced wave. reducing the stock pile. locking it in on a low level that could front deuce a bomb. locking in their enrichment level. so in exchange for the things we have required them to do, which by the way are genuinely extensive. they have to undo piping and their electrical. they have to move things there's a huge amount of work. >> when that is done, i don't know whether it will be since months or a year, but when it is done, we lift the fundamental component of financial embanking sanctions that were the heart of what brought them to the table.

the point is that everyone is for the agreement, this will prevent them from having a nuclear weapon, and the ayatollah is saying the opposite. >> the ayatollah, and you are intel community, i urge you to connect with them,no decision. what he is doing is protecting his domestic turf. >> he is saying the opposite, he is saying that this is not true that this duh not stop us from acquiring a nuclear weapon. that troubles us. zarif said the same thing in march, when you came out with your statement, they were saying the opposite, it troubles us -- it troubles us that immediately iranians say the opposite. >> the supreme leaders quote is in this document. that iran will never go after a nuclear weapon, and the iranians happily put that in

and the intel community will tell you, they have made zero decision. >> what he said this week, the americans said. >> know -- >> and you know why because he doesn't believe the americans stopped us. he believes he stopped them. and he has declared the policy of the country is not to do it. so he is as a matter of sovereignty, and pride making a true statement. he doesn't believe the americans stopped them, he said they didn't want to get one in the first place. >> you are watching live coverage of the senator foreign relations committee, on the iran deal, senator rand paul of kentucky, again one of the vocal opponent whose was originally for negotiations with iran grilling senator kerry, i want to go to our

correspondent live, libby you will recall, that president obama during his interview with the u.s. times said will it be interesting to see what somebody like iran paul has to say about this, we heard what he had to say, what did you think. >> stephanie no real surprises but rand paul are asking the question, of does iran win on this? and what sort of verification does the u.s. to the other world powers that that iran will stick to it's end of any bargain that are part of this now we see folks like senator paul not just raising concerns here but also out on the presidential campaign trail, we also heard from marco rubio that was one of the more explosive lines and i want to give you a sense of the back and forth between rubio and secretary of state john kerry as he post add series of hypothetical questions. >> we will coordinate in

every possible way with israel with respect to israel's concerns. >> so if israel conduct as cyber attack are we blunted to help them defend themselves. >> no, i assure you we will be coordinating very closely with israel as we doen every aspect of israel's security that that's not how i read this. >> i don't see any way to be conflict with israel, with what we mite want to do there, i listened to a long list of your objections here, about it but there's no at terntive. that you or anybody else has prop posed. >> i sure have secretary kerry. >> and i am confident the next president of the united states will have enough common sense that if this is being applied properly, if it is being implemented they

won't just orb trayly end it. >> what about business that is go over to do business in iran, can these sanctions if they just snap back will these businesses really be in big trouble and members of the cabinet said yes if they snap back, there will be an issue with this. but the administration doesn't see that as a primary concern. republicans weren't the only one to homed his feets to the fire. we did hear bob menendez putting pretty heart. burr we did hear others supporting the administration asking some tough questions but not condemning these because they are hoping to pull over to it's side. >> yeah, these were largely substantive questions that the american people have about the deal as well. i want to bring in our

national correspondent jaime, good morning, actually it is good afternoon at this point, you have been listening to the hearing one thing you are hearing more is why president obama has nod meat it more explicit that if they do not comply with this deal that the military option is on the table why do you think we aren't hearing that well there's two points i would make, one is that the pentagon, the white house has made it clear all along they retain the option of a military threat, but you heard the president when he defended the deal, outlined why he thinks this is unpalatable option, and that's why you are not hearing them highlighting this you heard the secretary say what is your option, there's no other option of course the other option is increase sanctioned perhaps even a military response but the kind of option that is the pentagon is drawing up in

the event that u.s. wanted to set back the nuclear program involved strikes against deep facilities, it's the kind of thing that is not the kind of thing where you can launch a couple of strikes and then go back to business like the way israel attacks a site in syria. this would spark an all out war in the middle east and iran, despite the sanctions had a fairly capable military this would involve u.s. ships in the persian gulf, it would soldier an air fight, it would put the risk of lives of many troops and civilians as well part of this was to come up with a diplomatic solution. he showed today whys he the consummate diplomate. these negotiations that he conducted with the iranians are one thing now he is in these very emotional negotiations with members of

congress. and you saw that even when he was attacked and attacked directly, and grilled very very hard by some of these members of congress who are upset about the deal, maintained his composure compliments them for their seriousness of intent, and then drew on a large well of facts that he of course has been able to assemble so this is the kind of dialog that i think everyone needs to hear. not just members of congress, but the american public. because it is a very nuanced argument. and one thing about this coverage today is we heard a lot of the nuance, a lot of the details and the more arguments in defense of this deal let reese context wallize the military option. because rand paul who is the last speak they are we carries live here, some have

said that he favors the military option, isn't it also true that despite the fact that the american public probably does haven't the appetite for another war in that region? that there is no military plan on the table that would assure that iran could not develop a weapon? >> well, one of the arguments that the pentagon says. let's say they launch a series of air strikes. that by the estimate might set back the program two or three years. maybe. this deal, is designs to set the program back longer than that the joint chief has made the point, that look, just because we set it back once, doesn't mean we just strike and stop, that can be exercises over and over again. it involves great risk, and great instability in the region. i want to ask you about the conventional weapons that would be lifted after several years but that was also an issue that several senators

brought up did you feel that secretary kerry had a good answer as to why that was added? the lifting of conventional arms. >> he essentially said that would be down the road anyway, it appears that it was thrown in at the last minute as a sweetener but the secretary also said there's a long list of provisions and this is where the nuance comes in. one is arms going in, the other is arms going out and there was a lot of provisions that prevent those arms going to people, the u.s. doesn't want to see them go to. >> jaime mcintyre reporting life provision the pentagon, you have been watching live coverage of the senate foreign relations committee hearing on the iran nuclear deal, this is the first hearing that congress has having since the 60 day review period. for congress to review the deal, thank you for watching.

this is al jazeera. hello there. and this is the news hour, live from london. coming up. >> we set out to dismantle their ability to be able to build a nuclear weapon. and we have achieved that. >> trying to convince the critics. u.s. secretary of state sells the iran nuclear deal to congress. rising tensions at the border, tanks fire. turkey's drawn deep zero the conflict.