terrorism. one of the congressman brought up the fact that even with the release of $50 billion that that could get funneled into the irgc. what do you make of this debate? >> the word terrorism is a very loaded word. it stops conversation. when you look at really the data what was the terrorism, iran has in the past supported hamas. it doesn't give much support anymore. the saudis are more a supporter of hamas. >> you are saying there is a double standard. >> exactly. >> of course iran is accused of supporting hezbollah. >> okay. hezbollah is the closest, you could say of terrorism.

but there are not many countries that recognize hezbollah as a terrorist organization. israel and the united states does but most of the world doesn't recognize hezbollah as a terrorist organization. and however much they may mislike hezbollah and iran supports hezbollah at the moment you have to think in real politics. what is the alternative now in damascus? we may not like assad, or hezbollah, but the gentlemen in congress, would they rather have the jihadist caliphate in damascus? because if there was no hezbollah and iranian support for assad -- >> all right. let's put syria aside, because that's a very sticky issue to get into. other issues that have been brought up by congressmen and women in the chamber, is should it bother the u.s. that there

are still hard liners that don't believe that israel should exist, that there are still regular death to america rallies in tehran. >> there are those voices. but of course there are voices in america that call for the destruction of the islamic republic. you even heard a senator praising the iranian terrorist organization and calling for basically -- >> the mek. >> yes. >> a dissident organization. >> until very recently was a terrorist organization until recently by the united states. so he is praising them. so voices like that when they are heard in iran for the right-wing in iran that's basically proof for them that there are americans out to destroy the islamic republic. >> so there are hard liners on

both sides and they run out the real substantive debate. >> yes. and what actually the conversation misses is that the reformers -- you could say moderates in iran they are all for this agreement. it's not as if this agreement is signed this is going to strengthen the islamic republic and strengthen iran. even if they dislike the islamic republic they think there will be some reforms opening up because of this. when senators actually repeat what mek says they are basically supporting the extreme, basically terrorist organizations in europe. >> all right stand by. let's go back to the hearing where representative from texas, a republican michael mccall is

currently asking his questions. >> and that the united states will be pushing back on them. but look -- >> my final question this secret deal between the iae and iran -- >> there is no secret deal. >> we have never seen this. >> there is an agreement which is the normal process of the iaea where they negotiate a confidential agreement, which they do with all countries between them and the country, and that exists. we have briefed on it -- >> are you going to take to that the congress? >> we don't have it. >> have you seen it. >> we have been briefed on it. but can i say something. we hear well this agreement doesn't stop their terror this agreement is going to give them money, do this. what this agreement is supposed to do is stop them from having a nuclear weapon. i want to hear somebody tell me how they are going to do that without this agreement.

>> mr. secretary we're going to go to mr. william keating of massachusetts. >> -- they have the ability go enrich again. what is the next step for the united states? dmoeb is answering that question. >> mr. keating. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank our witnesses for being here and their hard work. three threads i'll throw out there. one of them there have been reports in the media that have surfaced that among our european partners in this there was reluctance and those reports centered on france in particular. i'm curious, and you can answer all three at the end. i'm curious what issues might of -- that you can detail that they might have had qualms about, issues that weren't addressed, and i want you to comment on those reports. number two, if you could comment about the cooperative actions of north korea and iran and how this might be impacted. number three, we have had witnesses before on this issue,

and they really were forceful including ambassador burns -- they were forceful in saying it is important that we send a strong military message should any agreement go forward. when it comes to the transfer of arms and other things you began to speak to this what are our strongest options that we still have as a country, and how we can act on this. and i'll give all three of you the remainder of my time so you can answer some questions and i won't be interrupting you. >> let me say quickly because i want my colleagues to have a chance to catch up here. but france in the final comments when they signed on to the agreement it was bastille day, and the prime minister said he

thought this was a strong agreement, and hoped it would have a positive impact the way that bastille day has an impact on france. with respect to north korea and iran this is a very different agreement from anything that ever existed with north korea. there are seven or eight major differences between the north korean agreement not the least of which is north korea pulled out of the npt and north korea already exploded a nuclear weapon and iran has not, and there are many differences, and i would rather lay them out on the record if we can. but this covers all possible nuclear-related activities the agreement with north korea did not. and we also have consent to the process of inspections. north korea did -- i mean there are a whole series of things.

on the military option i said it again, and again, president obama is the only president who has actually commissioned the development of a weapon that can do what is necessary to deal with the facilities at risk. and he has not only commissioned its design he has deployed it and made it clear that iran will not get a weapon and he is prepared any option necessary in order to achieve that. but his preferred option is a diplomatic solution which resolves this issue in a way that avoids the conflict that some people seem to be not even addressing which would be almost inevitable as a consequence of not accepting this deal. ernie. >> in terms of the first question about the dynamics with the e.u. or the other partners in general, first of all on the nuclear dimension side i should emphasize that i talked about our team but every one of the

six countries had technical experts involved and they had very robust discussions. we did not share our own classified calculations but make sure we were coming out in the sam place and to be honest in many areas we pushed the envelope and in some areas they pushed the envelope. and we were all very satisfied that this accomplishes the job of blocking nuclear weapons pathways. there are specific examples one could give in terms of additional infrastructure removal from centrifuge places in terms of 20% uranium issues but i think all six countries feel very very confident in our conclusions. >> congressman i think on the sanctions side we have very different systems here in the united states than the e.u. and the questions were we getting underscore the fact that we need to look at our system and their

system and understand they are different. they are not listing the argc for terrorist activities. if they do at the end of phase two delist for nuclear, the terrorist sanctions still stay in place. so people ought to understand what is actually going to be in place after its is in effect. and i think cooperation requires that we not distort what they are doing. they are not taking the rgc off of their terrorist list. >> judge ted powe of texas. >> thank you, gentlemen. i have received numerous questions from people in texas, and i will submit those for the record for you to answer. the -- secretary kerry -- this question is for you. following up on chairman mccall's comments about the

secret deal secretary rice said that she has seen this deal with the iaea and that it will be shared with congress. so if she has seen it have you seen it? >> i don't believe that susan rice national security advisor has seen it -- >> she said she did six days ago. she said she had seen it reviewed it that congress will get to see it in a classified session. my question is have you seen it? >> no i haven't seen it. i have been briefed on it. >> but you haven't read it. you haven't seen it. >> it's in the possession of the iaea. >> are you going to read it? >> we don't have access to the actual agreement. >> but secretary rice has access to it. >> i don't know about that. >> that's just what she said. i'm just going on what she said. is the policy of the

united states still that iran will never have nuclear weapons? >> yes. >> is it the policy of the ayatollah, if you can answer for him, that iran wants to destroy the united states? is that still their policy as far as they know? >> i think they have said death to america in their chants but i have not seen a specific -- >> well i take that mean that they want us dead. do you think it's their policy to destroy us? >> i think they have a policy of opposition to us and a great imthatty, but have no specific knowledge of a policy of iran to actually destroy us. i do know the rhetoric is beyond objectionable, i know we are deeply concerned with iran's behavior in the region.

deeply concerned with their past activities which is yours truly president obama felt -- >> reclaiming my time. i got your answer. [ overlapping speakers ] >> i'm reclaiming my time senator -- secretary. thank you. >> if they did want to destroy us they have got a much better shot of doing it if they had a nuclear weapon. >> next question is it our policy or our belief that after the deal whether the deal is approved or not, do we have a policy in the united states that we want expect desire a regime change by the people of iran? weigh in on our policy towards a regime change in iran? >> president obama was very outspoken for support of

transformation of iran around elections. our policy today is specifically focused on pushing back on their activities within the region that destablelize the region threaten israel and our friends and allies and that's where we are specifically gearing up to take a specific set of steps to will define a new security alliance in the region. >> i think the best hope for the world for safety including in iran is for the people of iran to have free elections and for the people of iran to really decide who their government should be in a free setting. let me ask you another question secretary muniz. this might be my last question. if i understand the agreement, the oil sanctions, which is prohibiting iran from exporting

oil, that's going to be lifted; is that correct? >> well if sanctions are aleved that would be among those relieved correct. >> under this deal that is one that will be relieved? >> yes. >> now being the secretary of energy, let me ask you this why are -- why is the united states lifting the sanctions on the exporting of oil on iran but we're not lifting the sanctions on america exporting crude oil? >> we don't have sanctions on our exports. we have a congressional law that in the 1970s restricted exports. >> do you support that law being changed. >> secondly -- >> you know that's the question. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. >> mr. chairman -- >> we need to go to david sisalini of rhode island. >> one of the more contentious

exchanges you just heard between the representative from texas and a visibly frustrated john kerry, i would say there. i want to go back out to libby casey who is covering the hearing from capitol hill. libby, i'm sure you have made the same observation that i have had, compared to the senate foreign relations committee, the members here already have staked out their positions. there aren't a lot of questions about the technical details, but more political statements regarding their view of iran in general, as being anti-american, out to destroy the united states. >> that's right, stephanie, and that's largely what we expected. oftentimes when officials come before the house, it is a more racous environment, and secretary kerry was afforded respect last week before the senate committee, a committee he

used to chair even as republicans had harsh criticism, talking about whether he and his team had been bamboozled or fleeced. here in the house, this is the way it usually is. and part of the frustration is that they have a very short window in which to ask questions. they only get about five minutes, and they have to decide are they there to get their side of things out, or are they there to truly get responses from the administration. and what we just heard from congressman powe is basically him trying to shut john kerry down so he could ask more questions. >> libby based on the few comments that secretary kerry has been able to make are you hearing anything that is materially different from what we have heard before? for example, the inspection on

military sites? or clarification on intercontinental ballistic missiles being sold to iran in the next eight years? >> i think he is repeating a lot of what we heard before but trying to emphasize that he believes this deal is -- is not the bad deal that so many of these house republicans are claiming it to be and he's talking both in terms of politics but also talking in terms of details, and it's not just secretary kerry of course. it's the whole team there. one important point that they made a little while ago, this was secretary muniz -- moon ease the 24-day window, 24 days can elapse. secretary moon -- mu neez made

the point that this was the first time we have had this restriction. it's a difference and improvement, and he said he believes it will allow inspectors enough time to do what they need to do and the administration is saying that iran won't be able to hide or cover up or erase the traces of what they have been up to stephanie. >> libby casey reporting from capitol hill. you are continuing to watch al jazeera america live coverage of the house of foreign affairs committee hearing on the iran nuclear deal. on the other side of this break, del walters will be taking over the reins of our coverage. keep it here. >> is there any reason to believe that iran --

♪ hello, i'm del walters in new york. we want to take you back in a moment to our continuing coverage of the house foreign affairs committee. they are listening to testimony right now on the iranian nuclear deal. the testimony so far in a word polite. the questions in a word contentious. i want to go back to libby casey. libby one of the themes is push back on how much money iran will receive once the sanctions are

lifted the treasury secretary saying it's not as much as people think. >> that's right. and important point that administration officials are also trying to make is that sanctions were put in place to get us to this very day. the sanctions were an incentive for the iranian government to come to the negotiating table. secretary kerry is saying that has been achieved so let's take advantage of this moment. and some republicans are pushing back and saying the sanctions are meant to cripple the economy in such a way that gives us the upper hand. so some debate over even what their very purpose is. we have been hearing a lot about how important the officials believe this deal is. i want to give you a sense of the tone that secretary kerry is

taking. >> everything that we have tried to prevent will now happen. what is worse if we walk away we walk away alone. >> reporter: secretary kerry telling these house members if they back away from this deal if the house and the senate vote to disapprove of this deal everything that we're trying to prevent will actually happen del. >> we just saw that combative exchange between the congressman from texas and the secretary of state. the president speaking from africa pointing out that politics in washington has not been this contentious in the past. is there a sense now that what we are seeing on the campaign trail is spilling over into the hearing? in other words the most outrageous statements will be the ones that make the headlines? >> really it's the statements

that have come from outside of the hearing room that have pushed the envelope the most. i'm thinking about the statement by mike huckabee comparing iran getting this deal to the holocaust. we're also hearing members of congress outside committees like ted cruz on friday pushing hard for an amendment that would remand that iran recognizes the existence of israel. while officials think it would be wonderful, but they say don't muddy the waters here. we have to stay focused on making sure iran stays nuclear-weapon free. hearing rooms are generally the place where yes, there is some mud thrown but it is by and large a chance to answer questions and get at the purpose. but of course we're also hearing some politics here in the hearing room frustration from

congress and frustration from the administration. and a lot of this boils down the five-minute window del. everyone wants their say. they want to go home to their constituents and say i held the administration's feet to the fire. they want to make youtube videos out of their q&a. and they have a very short window to do it and that raises the tension as well. >> libby casey in washington. stand by. professor is the public being well served so far? are they learning enough about this deal for the public to make a substantial decision as to what is and what is not in this particular deal? >> i think the format is good. it's good to have a representative of the government defending their -- basically their deal. unfortunately many of the congressmen haven't really done their homework. they haven't read the whole

document. >> what makes you say that? >> because they are asking questions that are actually clear-cut there. it's clearly written about -- questions about inspections and so on. and when they are asking questions that really sort of ignores the things that they have dealt with and it doesn't serve, really the american public to come and have 17 questions some journalist in israel has addressed or to the administration. it would be much more helpful if they had actually read the document. there are issues that should be raised and they have dealt on those issues rather than deal with things such as texas oil exports or cuban issues there are other important issues but this is an issue very focused on the nuclear agreement with iran. and if the congressmen had

actually spent the time dealing with that i think the american public would have actually been better served. professor stand by. we're going to take you back to washington now. this is the congressman from florida asking the questions of the panel. >> if the agreement is implemented will iran allow inspection at all of its military sites? this >> they have to if they don't they are in material breach of the agreement and we will snap back the sanctions. >> if the agreement is implemented do you think there's a significant risk that iran will cheat on the agreement and develop a nuclear weapon secretly. >> i don't think they are able to develop a nuclear weapon secretly. because our intelligence community tells us it is physically impossible for them to create an entirely covert secondary fuel cycle. and we have a sufficient

inspection mechanism that they can't do it. you can't make a bomb at 3.67% enrichment. you can't make a bomb if you can't go enrich and move forward without our knowing it and we have submitted and we believe with clarity that we will know what they are doing before they can do that. >> if an agreement is implemented is there significant risk that iran will adhere to it for a year let's say, and then pocket the 50 billion, violate the agreement and then go ahead and build a bomb. >> again, they can't do that because the red flags that would go off, the bells and whistles that would start chiming as a result of any movement away from what they have to do they have to live under this extraordinary restraint, and there are indeed

24-7 inspections, day-to-day accountability, live television with respect to their centrifuge inspection, and so forth, so it's not possible for them to make this decision and stiff us and if they just radically said we're going to change this whole deal, and we're breaking out of here then we have snap back of all of the sanctions with the full support of the international community which would then be absolutely in agreement that they have to do it and we have the military option if that was necessary. >> but briefly with a follow-up, isn't it true that they would then have $50 billion in their pocket that they wouldn't otherwise have. >> no doubt after one or two years they would. they have investments in their economy and they would be moving. here they are trying to attract investment from france germany, china, russia britain, all kinds of countries. is it your presumption that a country that has destroyed its

stockpile reduced centrifuges by two thirds totally stripped the ability to do fissile material that that country that is now trying to build its economy with a population of 50% of the country under the age of 30 who want jobs and a future is it your presumption that they are going to throw this all to the wind and go create a nuclear weapon after saying we'll strip our program down and won't? i don't think it is going to happen. >> what about after 15 years. is iran likely to build a nuclear weapon after 15 years? >> all i can say to you is that they can't do it without our knowing what they are doing, because after 15 years they have to live by the additional protocol, live by the modified code 3.1. they have to live with inspectors