have heard both sides, and i think it's just -- after 35 years of no diplomatic relations and a lot of unfamiliarity with both sides for both of the societies and the power structure, i think the iranian and american societies and power structures are starting to know each other better. >> there are a lot of young people in iran they are the ones that elected this president. how much hope do they have that this will mean a different iran beyond the nuclear issue? >> there's a lot of hope in iran. like you were saying there is a huge young population 70% is under 35 years old. and their hopes and dreams are not very different than the american dream. they are tired of being isolated -- >> do they hate america? >> the majority doesn't. the majority of iranians want to

open up to the world, including the u.s. and that was one of the platforms like you said. iranians definitely don't want to be a second iraq. that is something that a lot of regular iranians were afraid of. but they are in general not anti-american. they are definitely not anti-american kind of life and this is something that the hard liners are trying to project. and they know it resinates all the way through, the u.s. senate -- >> well it is the same here. sort of the loudest voices take up the most air. all right. stand by. we are standing by right now, because the armed services committee of the senate has taken a temporary recess.

we are covering the iran nuclear deal hearing, and there are several key cabinet members that are trying to sell the deal to congress. we earlier heard from ash carter who says the deal will keep iran from getting a nuclear bomb. >> on iran this new deal when implemented will place significant limitations on iran that will effectively cut off its pathways to the fissile material for a nuclear bomb. but it's also important to note that it places no limitations -- let me repeat that -- no limitations on what the department of defense can and will do to pursue our defense strategy in the region. >> i want to go back out to capitol hill and our libby casey, who has been listening to these hearings. libby, i understand that the white house has embarked on a pretty active crusade to try to convince key democrats that this

is a good deal. what have they been doing to that effect? >> we will see house democrats go to the white house this afternoon, stephanie. they are also doing a lot of outreach, though sending teams to capitol hill trying to have conversations. president obama even golfing with house democrats. house democrats are crucial to the white house strategy because it is expected that the house and senate do pass in september as soon as they come back, as soon as this 60-day window rolls out, it is expected for them to pass a -- a vote disapproving of this negotiated deal. it is expected then for the white house to veto that. the real question is will the white house be able to hang on to more than a third of either the house or senate to prevent a veto override and -- and while the house republicans yesterday were especially aggressive,

really pushing secretary kerry some very heated and frankly exasperated exchanges, house democrats on the flip side may be the place that the white house can make the most inroads everyone from leader nancy pelosi on down, we saw yesterday a couple of house members, democrats come out and say they do support this deal and so that is a place the white house is focused. i want to pick up on something you were just talking about. iran and the u.s. aren't in isolation. we heard jack lew tell the house panel that rouhani's future in iran may depend on being able to pull off this deal in a successful way. the treasury secretary talking about how sanctions have been successful in bringing iran to the negotiating table, and pointing out that rouhani as a reformed leader needs to put his money where his mouth is and

show he is following through on this. so we're hearing from top officials that they believe iran does have incentive to commit to its end of the bargain, and you hear secretary carter and others promising that if iran reneges on its deal that the u.s. will know and will be able to act on it stephanie. >> that's a great point libby. i want to bring in our guest on that. if this deal were to be scuttled by congress; that this would basically empower the hard liners in iran. would it be the end of the rouhani administration in some ways? >> the rouhani administration will definitely be very weak. this was one of the main promises like you mentioned when he was elected that he will resolve this nuclear case and open up to the world, which is

what the administration is desperately trying to do. they just ininvited the french foreign minister and the french president has invited the iranian president to go to france. so rouhani is opening up to europe. and this is a sign of making a return back to the west. they are opening up to europe. economic ties will be reestablished, and once that door opens, it's just going to be so much -- so powerful for the rouhani administration and the reverse, if it doesn't go through, it will really weaken this administration and the moderate politicians. >> and the counter argument is the hard liners are empowered by this deal, because the sanctions are lifted the banking

institutions are able to be reintegrated into the world, and some of this $50 billion winfall do go to the more hand line elements of government including the revolutionary guard. >> that's a good point. we can't see iran as a unified body but it's definitely not two countries, so everyone will get some benefit out of what is coming but we should pay attention that the hard liners the armed guards are the ones who had been given priority during these tough times of sanctions. it's the ones who could least afford to be impacted by sanctions that were impacted by sanctions. the health industry has been impacted even academia sports arts culture, you name it. a lot of what you don't think was the main target of sanctions have been targeted.

and that's why people have put a lot of hope on the moderate government to pay more attention to the economy and civilians as opposed to the armed forces and revolutionary guards. >> i want to bring back in libby casey. this basically allows iran to get increasing leverage to fund its terrorist approximate sises, whether it be hezbollah, which operates in bashar al-assad's favor in syria, whether it be in iraq where iraq happens to be on the side side as the u.s. in fighting isil but the general idea that he raises about the sanctions falling, empowering iraq. >> that's right. senator mccain saying this enhances iran's deterrence of the u.s. not the other way around.

administration officials aren't not denying that. but they say the focus has to be on making sure that country does not get a nuclear weapon because if it does gain that capability and create an arsenal, it will have even more power in the region in terms of what it does with its money and military might. so the administration trying to make a difference there? -- in trying to parse out these issues. we have the defense secretary addressing brood concerns about the region. but john kerry's repeated mantra is let's make sure they don't develop nuclear weapons capability. >> and sanctions against members of the revolutionary guard have not been lifted human rights sanctions have not been lifted

there are other methods on constraining iran's influence in these areas. i want to get to the political question here because as you said congress will go on recess -- they will go back to their constituencies from the public opinion polls i have seen they seem to be all over the place on where the american people feel they should fall on this deal. >> they do seem to be all over the place. members of congress will be taking cues from what their constituents are saying back home. the house will be gone for almost six weeks. it's a big gap in this crucial 60-day window. the white house will presumably keep doing outreach with democrats in the senate and house during that time. that's not going to stop just because the recess is happening. >> libby casey from capitol hill. thanks libby. we're going to take a quick

break. you are watching live coverage of the senate armed services committee. we'll be right back.

>> my name is imran garda. welcome back. you are watching lye coverage of the senate armed services committee hearing on the nuclear deal with iran. you can see that the senators are back in the chamer after a brief recess and they will begin testimony and q&a's soon. there is the chairman the very powerful senator john mccain. he brought up issues earlier that will frame the debate. the broader military implications the geopolitical challenge that he says iran presents presents. he has key questions about the

arms embargo being lifted as part of the deal. let's listen in now. >> is there any other statements that would like to be made we'll begin with questions and then have five minutes. secretary carter the issue has arisen that there have been side agreements made between the iaea and iran that apparently the congress has not been made privy too. and could i ask that since this iaea agreements -- side agreements have to do with -- with the weapons program programs of the iranians and the inspection and verification of those programs will we in congress receive the information

concerning those side agreements? order to make a judgment as to the degree of verification? >> chairman i think it's important that the content of those agreements and the manner in which they provide for verification of the nuclear undertakings iran is making in this agreement, and the procedures of the iaea be known to the congress. i can't speak for the actual specific documents themselves. i'm sure secretary muniz or secretary kerry can, but it's important, and obviously a very indication is an important part of any agreement. let me ask secretary muniz if he wants to add anything. >> thank you, ash. i could certainly add. first of all, to be honest sir, i would not call them side agreements in the sense that the

agreement is that iran must cooperate for the iaea to complete its process on pnd, then the iaea as is standard negotiates a -- safeguards a con if ied -- confidential agreement with the country. >> those protocols are very important. because we know the devil is in the details. >> all i can say -- first of all i personally have not seen those documents -- >> which is astounding to be honest with you. that's absolutely astounding. >> all i can say is that the agreement requires their cooperation with the iaea and this is the standard practice of the iaea who's independence is critical to all of us. >> what is critical to all of us

is that we have verification of the inspections on iranian activities, because they have a clear record of cheating. >> we agree. >> so we agree -- all of us i believe -- that we should see those instruments of verification otherwise how can we make a judgment as to how these agreements can be verified? with a country who has a long record of cheating. >> the iaea will of course take the information that iran must provide by october 15th and complete their report and at that time i think we will understand the iaea's confidence in their -- in their a very indication measures. building up i might say on a very long history of this. >> so we are then dependant on the confidence of the iaea not the actual a very indication.

i don't think many of us would agree with that process. general dempsey you said quote under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. now we are seeing after five years a relief of sanctions on convention alarms and of course eight years ballistic missiles. how does that comport with the terms of this agreement with the statement that you made before the committee? >> well it won't surprise you chairman to know my recommendation was to keep pressure on iran for as long as possible, and that recommendation was made and then entered into the negotiating process. i will say i think time works for us as well as iran in this regard so with the agreement made and having had the opportunity to give my advice i support it. >> do you secretary carter

belief that iran will change its behavior as a result -- if this agreement is finalized? and have you seen any indication of that? >> i have not, mr. chairman and speaking just from my own judgment i don't foresee that or have any reason to foresee that. that is why it's important that the agreement be a verifiable. that's why it's important that iran not have a nuclear weapon and why it's important that we keep doing everything we need to do. defend our friends and allies all of the things we're doing. we need to keep doing those things, and the agreement doesn't limit us in anyway. obviously if iran changes its behavior that would be a welcome thing. >> i see no reason to foresee

it, and i see them now with about 50 or $60 billion now to pursue those activities. they are doing it now with the assets that they have. one can only imagine what they might be doing with 50 or 60 billion additional dollars. look i just would like to say again, i know that the witnesses have very busy schedules, and i am -- i am grateful that you sought to testify before the committee today in order to help us understand this issue, and i thank you. senator reid. >> thank you very much. secretary carter you indicated in your statement that the united states has not given up any of its military options with respect to the region and the iranians, and i would presume also it has not given up any military and national intelligence operations with

respect to iran and those intelligence operations i would presume would be focused in great detail of potential violations of this treaty. is that your sense too? >> yes. not going into detail here certainly we have intelligence activities focused on the iranian nuclear program, but we have on everything else they are doing, malign activity cuds force, ballistic missiles arms transfers, the whole thing. >> and secretary muniz i understand that general clapper yesterday indicated that he is confident, i think is a reasonable explanation of the intelligence's community's ability to detect any significant violation of the treaty with or without the direct contact with iaea. is that a fair judgment in your

mind? >> yes, the cia deputy director the [ inaudible ] intelligence agency head all made statements. clapper in particular said we would have far greater incite with the agreement, and i would add that far greater incite will persistence shally forever. >> general dempsey, in your military assessment what is more effective in delaying or stopping the nuclear program at this time or in the future a military strike or this agreement? >> first i would like to point out that the military options remain. >> right. >> secondly i think a negotiated settlement provides a more durable and reduces near term risk which buys time to work with regional partners to address the other malign

activities. but there are about five military implications. if you would allow me. >> please. >> the first is it does reduce the risk of a near term conflict with iran over their nuclear program. secondly, another military implication is we have to sustain those options. they have to be preserved into the future. third, there is clearly the opportunity for iron to use some of the revenue that they have gained for malign purposes and that bares watching and collaborating with our regional partners including israel. fourth this will require us toth our relationships in that start of the world, and fifth, we should and will maintain our forward presence. those are the military implications. >> the gcc in terms of the military expenditures roughly double what the iranians spend and has the capacity of even

going much higher. is that a fair assessment? this >> double is probably the average, certain countries far more than that. >> and one of the factors that we're going to have to work with, with our allies in the region is making sure those resources are focused and can deter or defeat any aggression by the iranians and that's the whole point, i think of the collaboration that you are undertaking? in >> we have a series of initiatives with the israelis and the gcc, to better position ourselves to address those other malign activities. >> so we have a situation developing where the resources are available, we're trying to reorganize in collaboration with the regional partners so they are much more effective to respond, so essentially we're not ignoring these hostile threats by the iranians on the

ground, indeed we're in a sense amping up our activities. >> my responsibility is to articulate risk and provide options to our elected leaders and how to mitigate them. and this does cause us to have to increase our military. we have to pay more attention to the malign activities. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman i right now am in the middle of one of the largest bills of the year and i haven't been in on all of this fun. so i read what happened yesterday, secretary kerry in the "washington post." president obama promised his nuclear deal with iran would not be based on trust but rather unprecedented verification. now it turns out the verification regime is based on trust after all, trust between

iran and the iaea that apparently no one, including the obama administration has seen. and it goes on to say it turns out only two parties, the iaea and iran get to actually see it. however -- well and then further in the u.s. news and world report it says by law the administration is required to provide congress with the contents of the nuclear deal and all related matters and annexes. do you agree with that analysis of the law, what your requirement is. >> senator let me just say to clarify on the earlier part of the question. congress will be fully briefed on this -- on this agreement in a classified session, and indeed one of our key negotiators, the day-to-day lead

negotiator wendy sherman and ernie muniz was likewise briefed on it. it is standard procedure -- there are 189 countries that have an agreement with the iaea -- >> my question is are we entitled to all of the related materials -- >> correct. those that are part of the agreement per se. this is my reference and we -- no country has access to the confidential agreements directly of the iaea -- >> country -- yeah. i don't mean to interrupt you, but my time is limited here. i can't imagine that this wouldn't be a part of what we would all be briefed on. now, yesterday when congressman poe asked the question secretary rice has said she has seen the deal and is going to share it with congress. now let me ask the question if you have seen it?

>> senator national security advisor rice has not seen it. >> she said she did yesterday -- >> no she has been briefed on it. the exact quote is that she has seen -- she has been briefed on it. she hasn't actually seen it. >> i'll give you her quote. it says she says she did see it. she did evaluate it. she said she did six days ago she had seen it and reviewed it and that congress will get to see it in classified session. >> senator you are quoting congressman poe -- >> who is quoting her -- >> and i corrected him with her direct quote which we took from public record. her quote says that she has been briefed. >> i have not seen that -- because i don't think that she did correct that. that was specific on something

that -- >> the white house press briefing directly -- >> the hill magazine had something about that and that was prior to the time it was six -- seven days ago today, secretary kerry that we have a confidential classified briefing, right? and i would say this in classified session you can't say what was said but was that addressed at all? >> it was. it was addressed -- it was -- a question came up about it. and the answer was given that of course congress will be briefed with respect to the contents and of course you need to be briefed. everybody needs to be briefed. >> my point is mr. secretary that that was a classified session where we were in a position to be briefed at that time. and we weren't? >> i don't think we had the full material to brief. i didn't have it anyway. but we are prepared and i think wendy sherman is going to be briefing shortly on that

senator. but what we can provide is the actual road map that the iaea put out. and the iaea has issued a full road map of what their expectations are. >> i understand that but i'm talking about the secret document -- >> it's a confidential agreement. it's being postured as this -- it's a confidential agreement which is the standard procedure of the iaea. and we have lived with the iaea senators, and relied on the iaea for years and years, and historically they iaea always creates what is called a comprehensive safeguards agreement, which they negotiate with the country. and that is not shared with the world. there are reasons it is confidential it has to do with what you can get out of that country, but we do get briefed on it. we're aware of it. secretary muniz has actually made recommendations to