updated as we learn more. back to our coverage this morning, though of the senate armed services committee hearing on the iran nuclear deal. libby casey is on capitol hill where she has been following it all morning. libby we have been watching this for hours now. what stands out to you the most? >> we're definitely seeing partisan lines drawn. tom cotton just had a round of questioning. a freshmen senator. freshmen usually listen more than they talk in the senate but not this guy. he is very critical of this negotiated deal and you heard some intense back and forth between senator cotton and members of the administration. senator cotton focusing on something we have heard a lot about this week. side deals, we calls them with the iaea deals between iran and

the iaea. the administration says this is standard procedure. there are confidential agreements reached between the iaea and countries, it's standard procedure, but senator cotton said who has seen it? has anyone on your team seen it? and basically the administration had to say we have not had access to this yet, but that is typical for this situation. senator cotton says he wants the u.s. congress to see a it wheren text. paul that's very unlikely because that's how things are done but you are getting at one of the arguments that republicans will used to push against the broader negotiated deal. frankly it's okay if republicans don't like this deal. the key group that the white house team has to win over are democrats and also the american people. we're seeing a full press by the administration. they will meet with house democrats at the white house today. president obama himself will talk to them and we're seeing the team make efforts behind the

scenes. secretary kerry had an off the record conversation with some journalists, trying to get his perspective out there to them. so the white house is trying to get more support for this deal paul. >> libby thank you. stand by we'll be coming back to you a little bit later, but right now let's go back to the hearing. >> -- certainly the risk of getting caught would be extremely high. >> senator tillis. >> thank you mr. chair. i want to get back to -- and chairman dempsey i'll start with you. i want to go back to what you said about the malign activities that i believe secretary carter said he has no reason to believe will change. the iran network, the cyber

terrorism, the weapon's trafficicing, we could get into all of the other things they are guilty of we can get into the ayatollah sending a tweet out. these people are evil people. and they are going to continue to expand in areas they think they can. they have violated 27 international treaties. they have violated some of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty. so they are dangerous. i understand why you would be concerned with the nuclear threat. so my question is if this deal goes through, what does our posture look like in the middle east and with our partners over the next two years? what looks measurably different to make shoes feel like we're in a position to make it untenable

for the iranian leadership to move forward with a nuclear weapon. >> i want to highlight when we talk about iran -- it's really the regime -- >> there's no doubt about it. >> it's not the iranian people. the iranian people there's some reason to hope that this could actually cause them to understand that there's a place for them in the international community. but how does our posture change? our posture changes on the basis of these areas in which we have agreed to work with our partners, both israel and the gcc nations. and we have a muscular posture in the region now. for the most part it may shift, but it will stay the same for the most part. >> the -- i'm trying to get my hands around the thought process that would make the saudis less likely to try -- to acquire

nuclear weapon. probably acquire nuclear weapon most likely from pakistan and a ballistic missile from china. why would any of the leadership in saudi arabia -- and then as a result of that you only need one to spark other nuclear proliferation. why on earth -- if we're talking about a nation that has violated a number of treaties and agreements the possibility that that could occur, and a nation having to be prepared to have their own deterrent, where is the logic to prevent them from having that capability themselves. >> the agreement doesn't limit what anybody else does. >> i understand -- >> but the logic -- i can't speak for any of these countries, but the logic is if iran is effectively prevented from having a nuclear weapon which is the purpose of this then that cause, at least for a

saudi arabia or an egypt, or a turkey to get their own nuclear weapon is removed and logic would suggest that -- i can't speak for the psychology -- but that is what logic would suggest. with respect to iranian behavior, i mean this comes down to a question of managing that risk because we see exactly what iran -- they say -- at least the leadership is thinking and the point is that it's better if they don't have a nuclear weapon than if they do. this is an effective way of ensuring that they do not have a nuclear weapon. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair. secretary carter some have suggested that military strikes against iran could be quick and effective without acknowledging the costs, consequences and risks that they might entail. can you talk about what the primary risk both to the u.s. and our allice would be if we

had to take that course of action? and could you speak to what would set iran's nuclear program back further, a military strike or this accord? >> well speaking generally, and not specifically, the two things that make the successful implementation of the agreement profferable to a strike is that the effects of a strike are temporary, and secondly that iran would, as i said earlier, respond to an american military strike upon iran and one needs to think through, then what the subsequent steps are, including the possibility that iran at that point would becomer reconcilably committed to getting a nuclear weapon. i say that's predicated upon the

effective implementation of this agreement. and effectively implemented stops iran from getting a nuclear weapon way beyond the 15 years. so we're comparing that situation, which is effective, complete implementation of this agreement to the military option. we also have to recognize that there may not be effective implementation of this agreement. we have to recognize there may not be any agreement, and that's why we're under instructions from the president to preserve and indeed we are improving the military option because temporary as it is and so forth, it needs to be there, because that's our fallback -- >> since we'rer is suing this accord under this accord do you think that that option gets more effective and stronger or

less effective over the course of implementation of this deal? >> as i indicated earlier from a purely technical and military point of view it gets marginally more effective, and the reason is we have a more complete understanding of where everything is that could be associated with our nuclear program that we might strike and have more detail about the nature of those things -- >> that's -- that makes perfect sense. secretary muniz i want to get to you, because i don't have a lot of time left. but can you talk about why it is so difficult to -- if you have a covert facility with enrichment occurred why it's so hard to sort of clean up the -- the signs of having uranium or for that matter plutonium at a facility like that? and would an undeclared facility

itself be a violation? >> on the second part absolutely. an undeclared facility would be a violation, and i think frankly, a stern -- a stern response would be in order. with regard to the coverup, there's not too much we can say in public but just to say that dealing with nuclear materials whether it's enrichment or looking at the characteristics of uranium in an explosive situation, for example, would tend to leave lots of very very small particles, difficult to clean up, but beyond that we could talk in classified environment. >> thank you both very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you gentlemen. one of the frustrations you are seeing here with the congress is we are reading it digging into it and yet when we have questions we seem to get these

spin answers. so i want to go back to the snapback provision. is there a term called the snapback provision in the agreement? >> i don't think it's -- >> no there suspect. the word snapback is not in the agreement. >> no but -- >> let me get to my next point. i think it would be helpful if you didn't use that term much. it's not in the agreement. i think in some ways it's deceitful, because it's an illusion and in many ways the provision in the agreement -- and i'll have my question. the snapback is more focused on the united states than iran. and as you know mr. secretary, those of us who were involved -- i was in the bush administration getting countries to economically isolate iran we did use leverage issing, hey, you either are going to be in their market or ours and that was effective. but if there is some kind of

snapback that was a slog. that wasn't a snap. that took years to get countries to divest out of the iranian economy. it will take years again. but there was a question i asked during the closed hearing, a number of senators republicans and democrats were not satisfied with the answer and it focuses a little bit on what senator ayot said. let's assume sanctions are lifted we get the 60 billion -- the -- iranians are looking at 150 billion. and this is a lot of american power including the unilateral sanctions that you mentioned secretary lou on the financial system an act of terrorism

happens. it's big. they kill more american troops. they blow up a consulate, i think it's likely they will do that in the next ten years. the congress is upset, the new president is upset, we reimpose sanctions. this is our power, and secretary lou, i'm glad you have talked about how this is power. we do have a lot of unilateral power with regard to sanctions. so then iran cites paragraph 26 of the agreement. and i'm going to read it. it says iran will treat such a reimposition of sanctions as grounds to cease performing its commitments. deal is over. they are cranking. their economy is cranking. we just sanctioned them for terrorism, and they with walk. they can legally walk from this agreement. so let me ask you this if we ever ever impose so-called snapback sanctions, isn't the

deal over? where am i wrong on that question? >> senator we would sthap signing shuns back because they violated the agreement -- >> i'm talking about -- i'm not talking -- >> let's talk about two different worlds -- >> answer the question. you didn't answer it in the closed setting -- >> you asked two questions. i'm taking them in order. the first set of questions was about the snapback. does it work? yes, it works. the u.n. sanctions were structured so they will go back into place. >> and they can walk. >> no if they violate the nuclear agreement. scenario two they blow up some facility take an act of terrorism, they do something non-nuclear, we have the right to put these kinds of measures in place. they are not nuclear sanctions at that point. they are terrorism sanctions at

that point. >> iran has stated it will treat such reimposition of the sanctions specified in annex 2 as grounds to cease performing its commitments. how am i not reading that correctly? >> annex 2 lists the nuclear sanctions -- >> the senator's time has expired. >> i'm happy to pursue this in greater detail. but we have not given away our ability to put these kinds of measures in place for non-nuclear purposes. if they don't live with the nuclear agreement they go back in violation of the nuclear agreement. >> i think the iranians have a different view. >> senator lee. >> thank you mr. chairman -- >> we're going to take a quick break and be right back with more live coverage of the senate armed services committee on the iran nuclear deal.

this is al jazeera america, and these are live pictures from the senate armed services committee hearing, holding a hearing on think iran nuclear deal. right now senator ted lee of utah was just asking questions. but now we're back to general martin dempsey. coming up we're expecting to hear from republican presidential ken dates, lindsey graham and ted cruz. let's get back to the hearing. >> -- that iranian ballistic missiles were quote, indeed going to be part of something that would have to be addressed as part of the comprehensive agreement, close quote. secretary kerry at the time was secretary sherman referring to lifting the u.n. embargo on

ballistic technology when she made the statement to the foreign relations committee, or did the united states intend to include restrictions on ballistic missiles. >> it does. it's under chapter 7, and enforceable, therefore under the united nations article 41. and there are restrictions within this agreement. and the defensive weapons are not covered be the embargo, so the s-300 is not covered anyway. >> i do have to ask you another question, secretary kerry, given the fact that one of the problems that we have got with iran one of the reasons why we're so concerned about iran getting nuclear weapons has to do with the fact that this is a roguish threat. a state that has made threats and taken aggressive actions towards the united states and her allies.

in light of the fact that that's the biggest reason why we're so concerned, why we're willing to enter into negotiation, giving iron a big economic benefit, why -- why on earth didn't we insist as a condition precedent to getting any deal at all? that iran for the love of god cease and desist from its terrorist ambitions, cease and desist from undertaking and funding acts of terrorism against the itself and her allies. >> as was mentioned earlier, look it would be great, and ideal if one could negotiate that i'm not sure how long it would take and given the imperatives that we had with respect to iran's 19,000 centrifuges, 12,000 kilograms of weapons fissile material equal to ten to 12 bombs already,

their mastering of the fuel cycle and their near imminent finishing of the iraq reactor, we felt that we had to keep this targeted on the greatest threat of all that you just defined, which is the potential of their having a nuclear weapon and if they are meaning to translate their slogans into policy then getting rid of the nuclear weapon is everybody's first imperative. we knew you could get tangled up one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. you can be fighting forever on the issue of sunni shia who is protecting whom and you will not get anywhere. that does not reduce our commitment as we have defined here again and again to push back on every one of those activities, but it's easier to

push back against an iran that doesn't have a nuclear weapon than one that does. >> senator mansion has one question. >> yes, very quick. i have read and i just want to go over this and just any reaction you may have. [ inaudible ] wrote and i read this in my local paper back home let's imagine the opponentsover the nuclear agreement with iran get their way. the united states congress kills it. what is the most likely consequence? one year iran would have more than 25,000 sign try fujs fujs -- centrifuges would increase and they would have breakout material within a week. in 2005 three european powers rejected the nuclear deal with iran with two years of negotiation. so what i would ask is if this collapse does this put them on an accelerated -- with their

intentions being shown already, does it put them on an accelerated path? >> we believe so. the president believes it. our intel community believes it. the intel community has made it clear to us that there is no return to negotiations with this ayatollah. >> between november 2012 and 2013 even when we had the noose around their neck they still produced 6,000 more centrifuges. so their determination is to do it no matter how much we had them strength led, correct? >> that is quite correct, yes. >> so they are determined. they are going to move forward? >> absolutely. they have declared they would go to hundreds of thousands of shrew. >> and you believe in the heart of hearts -- >> the one question is now

expired. senator graham. >> thank you. general, do you believe the iranians have been trying to build a bomb or nuclear power program for peaceful purposes? >> i believe they have a militarization aspiration. >> who is the commander and chief of the iranian armed forces secretary carter? who calls the shots? >> the supreme leader. >> who decides if iran goes to war? the supreme leader right? >> i believe so yes. >> who decides if they try to break out? the superpeople leader? >> yes. >> does the supreme leader religious views compel him over time to destroy israel and attack america? >> i -- i don't know. i don't know the man. >> let me tell you i do. i know the man.

i know what he wants. and if you don't know that this is not a good deal. could we win a war with iran? who wins the war between us and iran? who wins? do you have any doubt who wins? >> no the united states. >> we win. is it your testimony here that saudi arabia is okay with this deal, and they have committed to you they are not going to feel committed to get a bomb because of this deal? this >> no my testimony is that i can't speak for saad raub -- >> you have spoken for them. all over the american media. >> i have reported what they said. >> do you think they were lying to you? -- >> of course not. i [ overlapping speakers ] >> it's a little bit like what

does the ayatollah think and i only read what he says. >> who is your counterpart mr. muniz. >> mr. slahe. >> have you read what he said on july 22nd about the side deal? he said -- let's see we have reached an understanding with the iaea god willing, there will be very positive results. we do not accept the pnd arrangement. we don't agree with that. and we reject the concept. what kind of arrangement has he made to make him feel so positive? >> first of all i have not read it -- >> i'm going to give it to you. >> second -- >> you don't have to answer. would it be surprising to you that he is telling the iranian people don't worry about this side deal we're going to get a

good outcome. >> i assume what he is suggesting that there were no nuclear materials in parchin and this remains to be seen. >> i assume he feels we have reached an agreement that he's okay with. >> i would read it differently -- >> well we don't know what he means. and apparently we don't know what the ayatollah wants. he means they have reached an agreement where they don't have to worry about inspection. and i think the ayatollah will eventually gain a nuclear weapon. do our friends in israel agree with this. >> no. >> name one political party. >> political party? >> yes, people actually governing the country -- >> i didn't hear you say political party.

political parties are opposed. >> every political party in israel is opposed to this deal. so when you speak about israel and this deal it's not bb it's everybody. >> no senator, it's not -- it's actually not everybody. the former head of shinbet -- >> that's not a political party -- >> no but you said everything in israel -- >> your time has expired. i don't think we -- senator cruz. >> thank you, mr. chairman gentlemen thank you for being here. i would ask that your answers be brief because my time is lifted. the head of the forces has more blood of american service members on his hands than any living terrorist. under this agreement the sanctions on the general are limited. now secretary kerry said to the families of those men and women who were killed by the general we should apologize.

secretary carter i understand the joint personnel recovery agency has a classified list of roughly 500 american soldiers who were murdered by iranian ied's. i would ask secretary carter so that we can do what secretary kerry suggested that the defense department release that list to every member of this committee, declassify that list and release it directly to the service members families who were murdered by the general. >> i'm look into that and get back to you senator. >> senator, i never mentioned apology. i said we should thank for them for their extraordinary service. please don't distort by words. >> it's duly noted that you do not apologize -- >> that's not what i said. >> do you apologize or not? i don't want to put words in your mouth -- >> i thanked for their extoerd

neir service and i will remind them the united states will never take the sanctions off of the general. >> do you apologize or not? because you wanted to clarify that point? >> i said we thank them for their service, but we will not take the sanctions off of the general. >> secretary mun -- muniz i want to turn to another question. a nuclear weapon detonated in the atmosphere over the southeastern seaboard that could kill tens of millions of americans. on july 23rd you told the senate you hadn't read the commission on emp's and you didn't know what it was -- >> that is incorrect. i said i did not know this 2008 report. i said i quite familiar with the issue, and we all know about them. >> secretary muniz let me read

the testimony verbatim. >> please. >> senator are you familiar with the 2008 report. no i am not. do you know what an emp is -- >> that was about the report. if you read further in the testimony you have will see my explicit statement. of course i know about the issue. i happen to know something about nuclear weapons and various -- >> do you agree that an emp -- [ overlapping speakers ] >> -- hin obviously is a very potent weapon. it would kill tens of millions of americans -- >> that would depend -- >> but it could -- >> i said it is highly variable.