tomorrow i'm ali velshi "on target," beyond the deal, president obama has the votes to push the iran nuclear pact through. critics are not letting up. i'll press former c.i.a. director james woolsey on why he says it's worse than worthless. why one expert says fears of an economic meltdown in china are way overblown as soon as this week congress is expected to vote on a resolution disapproving the nuclear agreement that president obama's administration as well as five other governments

negotiated with iran. the deal with lift sanctions in iran in return for inspections in the controversial nuclear programme, and is meeting fierce oppositions from the republican side. from members of congress, to former vice president dick cheney. >> along with a pathway to a nuclear arsenal, several agreements would provide iran with funds and weapons the regime would use for the support of terror. the dominance of the middle east, and the furtherance of tehran's efforts to threaten arab regimes and prevent the united states from defending allies and our interests in the persian gulf and behind many will be valid. i'll discuss some later in the show. a number of president obama's democratic allies have come out against the iran nuclear deal on similar grounds. we'll discuss some concerns in a few moments. as the debate - it's as much

about political prospering. the president secured enough support in the u.s. senate for the deal. 41 senator at last count, enough to keep the resolution against the deal from coming up for a vote. if the resolution disapproving the deal does go to a vote, the president has enough support to veto it, and to defeat any attempt by congress to override him. for more on the state of play, let's go to libby casey in washington. 41 senators are on board. president obama doesn't face danger of the iran deal ratified by the united states. he's not out of the woods. we don't know how this will unfold. there's a lot of procedurural questions. 41 is the magic number that the white house was eager to hit. it means democrats have enough votes, if they want to, to filibuster and prevent republicans from taking a

disapproval vote. that would avoid the white house having to veto something. it was a messy optic that come after that. democrats would like to avoid shooting it down. they accused republicans of playing politics for many years, using procedure to their advantage. democrats are pushing for three days of debate and one clean vote. there's no reasons for republicans to go along with that, they won't hit it and are willing to let the democrats squirm a little as they figure out how to make this look good for their side. what we have heard from the top republican in the senate is that debate begins tomorrow. he wants every senator present. he wants them there. he doesn't want a moment where you see the senator addressing an empty chamber. he wants them accounted for and missing. he wants to see a discussion. i think many senators are on

board. i think it's worth reminding the audience that the president has presented the deal from iran as a type of deal that does not need to go to congress. republicans are taking issue, which is why there's a vote in the first place, and it may not look good for president obama and supporters of the deal to filibuster or get to a point were there isn't a vote. >> absolutely, democrats got on board saying congress should have a role in this. even those that support the white house say they shouldn't be cut out. they believe they are the representative of the people, and want a say in this. we have seen the democrats come out. we are waiting on one. maria cantwell. we saw a democrat come out against it. as everyone has been lining up and the votes counted. that 40 when we hit today was a

crucial number. both the house and the senate have to vote to disapprove to get a bill to the president's. so if one body backs down, the white house gets a win. >> that looks like what will happen. thank you for that. let's suppose, as libby says, the president's opponents in congress get their way. if the united states demand that iran renegotiate the terms of the agreement. the other parties, britain, france, germany, russia bulk. iran spent years negotiating with all six countries, agreeing to curbs on the nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. other countries, including u.s. allies might tell the u.s. to go it alone. if congress were to stand in the way of ratification, meaning america could end up in the position of maintaining sanctions on iran, while the rest of the world breaks them. still, there are those nagging

concerns that iran's regional influence, which is considerable. is about to grow with the nuclear deal. iran considers itself a superpower in the middle east and wants the world to give it the respect it thinks it deserves. despite agreeing to curbs on nuclear ambitions, the regional influence is bound to grow as sanctions are lifted and economic isolation ends. >> it's time for american leaders, some european leaders to realise that iran is a major player. they should develop, the same way they develop china. why not iran. if they decide to do that, then they will encourage forces within iran that are willing and able to accommodate western interests. one thing that iran is eager to help the west with is

confronting i.s.i.l. iran and the u.s. backed the iraqi government in the war against i.s.i.l. fighters. but in neighbouring syria, where i.s.i.l. controls territory, iran and the u.s. work at cross-purposes. that's because they back omsing sides in syria's 123i8 war. -- civil war. in fact, in almost every contentious area and issue facing the middle east, syria, israel, yemen and the flow of oil to the world, iran and the u.s. are on opposite sides. nowhere is that more apparent than in the strait of hormuz, a narrow waterway that connects oil traffic between the waters of the gulf and the indian ocean. at its narrowest .21 miles separates rain from the countries of the arabian peninsula on the other side. let me give you an idea of how

much of a choke point there is. across the strait there's american installations in arab countries. iran considers it a threat and says it will mine the strait. it has done it before. american navy has been escorting ships, and have started doing it for other vessels. iran has many ways of wielding power and influence in the middle east. and uses the soft power of hearts and minds living in the region. iran has a natural soft power in the hearts and minds of the shia population, in this part of the world and internationally. it's like the vatican. iran uses military and soft power to give backing to the parties in conflict zones throughout the middle east. in lebanon. iran has backed hezbollah in a fight against israel. the iranians become a life line

for the embattled president, and they lend crucial political and military support to the iraq's shi'a-dominated government. iran has weighed in on the site of rebels. triggering a sectarian war. with sunni dominated saudi arabia. while these developments may alarm the u.s. and allies, voices inside iran say it's not willing to use the influence in cooperation to solve the seoul the problems in the u.s. >> today iran is a major player. the islamic revolution has influence. there are a lot of different areas where iran can play a prominent role in sorting out different conflicts. resolving outstanding issues. particularly in dealing with

peace and security in the region. that's where i'm going to pick up next e former c.i.a. director james woolsey picking up leaders, genocidal imperialists threatening the existence of the united states. i'll push to explain why he's convinced the nuclear deal could be made worse. and why the argument has to do with electromagnetic pulses.

talking tonight about the iran nuclear deal, and why critics are not giving up the fight, including james woolsey, the former director of central intelligence. he chaired foundation for defensive democracies, a think

tank in washington focussing on national security and foreign policy. the deal with iran weakens the united states's commitment to its allies, israel and saudi arabia. he says that it gives iran the capability of cobb taining a nuclear -- containing a nuclear weapon and makes the u.s. vulnerable to an attack wiping out the u.s.-trick grid. he joins me from washington. thank you for being with us. the agreement is worse than worthless. how do you say that? iran has great to regularly scheduled inspections to prove the nuclear programme is not developing a nuclear weapon, that may not meet a standard. how is that worse than worthless? >> first of all, it's - what is the word. lying. i would not trust a word that the iranians say on this issue. >> there's no deal you would have had with them, right? >> well, there are imaginary

deals, but they would be deals with a country that negotiated, like, say denmark, rather than one that was perpetually lying and cheating, as iran has for some time, and would, i think, on this deal, was it makes it easy for them. >> you were the head of c.i.a. i guess you know a lot about countries that don't deal honestly, they are not honest brokers. i guess i'm trying to get to the point if there was a negotiated settlement. is there a settle analyst with iran short of defeating them in war. if you can't trust what they have to say, is there a deal in support. >> the iranian people is a great people. there could be an agreement with iran, with another government. iran, with this government, i think, is virtually unimaginable that we could have a reasonable deal. it's not what they want. what they want is to have nothing disturb efforts toward imperialism in the middle east.

and they want as much money as possible to use in terrorist - they are a leading terrorism country and sponsor in the world. and they want to continue working very hard on the nuclear weapon technology, because the weapon technology, and the technology for peaceful nuclear power are very, very similar up to - up to the end of assembling a weapon. they want to make sure that that work of theirs, which is, i think, in reality focussing heavily on a nuclear weapon programme. is not interfered with. given those objectives, a chance they could deal with the united states that was a reasonable one, i think, is virtually nil. now president obama has been, in my view, very lax in terms of

not pressing them, for the restrictions in the interests of the united states, the west and the other people. >> let me ask about your warnings about an electro magnetic pulse. sounds fanatic call. most people that argue this argue about the effect on saudi arabia, and the distant effect that iran has by sponsoring terrorism. you are saying iran might possess or gain capability of doing something to america's grid. tell me about that. >> it's possible to generate an electromagnetic pulse, by detonating a nuclear weapon in orbit. it does not have to be a weapon targeted in the united states, doesn't have to re-enter. it was simply put into orbit. detonated. let's say someone up above a

country or region, that the country that controls the weapon wants to seriously damage. so it is a serious problem across the board. north korea, for example, has had a crazed ideology and a nuclear capability, but a long-range missile putting something into orbit. >> let me ask you about this. different situations. north korea, with the exception of its patronage from china, is cut you have from the rest of the world. there's a reality that the rest of the negotiating parties would not go away with further sanctions, doesn't that as a former c.i.a. doesn't that affect your decision making here. >> your assumption is wrong. iran and north korea were very closely together on nuclear technology, and on missile tech.

>> one is engaged with the rest of the world. iran trades with the rest of the world. iran is not a hermit country. that's the difference. >> it's totalitarian genocidal imperialist. >> that imports things from around the world. people that do business with the rest of the world. >> there's a little business. they do business. >> whatever you'd like them to be, it's misinformation for you to say that. >> it depends how likely you... >> i understand. that pressure that the west brought on iran was done, including the swiss banking sanctions. there was a fear the regime could crumble. >> it has to do with the resolution of the american

government. they have caved on such issues as not transmitting to the west, a full agreement. which they were obligated to do. as a result, the agreement that they negotiated, the iranians, with the inspectors, has not been submitted to the house or senate in the united states, and, therefore, the treaty or agreement is not underactive review as far as the law is concerned. let me ask you this. you talk about how it's not going to be good for the allies, the saudi leadership is on board with this. why? >> the saudis spoke diplomatically, but i think you would find that if you talk to the real decision makers off the record, that they are extremely worried about iran's nuclear programme, and they should be. the iranian parts of the

institution in iran, particularly the revolutionary guard that runs iranian policy in iranian nuclear work is definitely troubled for the saudis as well as virtually other countries in the region. >> good to talk to you. thank you for talking to us. former director of the c.i.a. from 1993 to 1995, and is now chairman of the foundation for the defense of democracies. just ahead - stop worrying about a meltdown in china, i speak to an expert putting too much weight on data. he'll explain why movie ticket sales are more important than the demand for electricity. >> good evening, i'm antonio mora. coming up after "on target" on al jazeera america, despite opposition to the iran nuclear deal in washington, more senator are coming to the obama administration side. making it nearly impossible for

congress to pass a deal rejecting it. hillary clinton says something she never said before about a private email server. >> and a fire flares up inside a passenger plane in los angeles, sending thousands scrambling for safety. that and more at the top of the hour.

new trade data from china is raising a concern about the country's economy, the government said tuesday that exports fell for the second consecutive month, adding to fears that wiped out trillions of dollars. let me give you perspective. china's gross domestic product, that's the biggest marchure grew -- measure that grew at a 7% rate. that is strong, but it's the weakest economic growth since 2009. the question, of course, is

where does china's economy go from here. i spoke about that with niklas, a senior fellow, and expert on the chinese economy, arguing that there's not enough evidence to conclude that china's economy is slowing. i asked why he doesn't consider weak economic data a bad omen. here is what he toed me. >> you have -- told me. >> you have to look at the background. the economy has been slowing, it's been slowing gradually, and there's strong elements of positive growth in the economy, particularly in the service sector where growth was 8.5%. too many are looking at industrial growth. >> let me underscore what you are saying

we think of china as a manufacturing place, and evidence pointed to the fact that manufacturing is slowing down. >> you are making the point that we are looking at the wrong metric. >> it's not the wrong metric, manufacturing is 35% of g.d.p. and services 50% of g.d.p. the growth in the service sector is more important than growth and manufacturing. >> how about trustworthy, whether it's the service sector or the industrial sector. something that worries people is we often rely on third party anecdotal information. when the chinese are worried about doing things like reducing the value of currency, it must be serious. >> the company that owned - it's a private company that owns the largest chain of movie theatres in china, over 1700 screens. they reported that their sales

from tickets. people buying tickets to go to the movies grew by more than 40% in the first half of this year. that's a very good example. people are very well clothes and fed in china, they spent the money on entertainment. tourism and other things. >> which is the sign in your opinion, the sign of a prospering economy. they are spending money on things like coming to movies, and i know that a movie theatre uses electricity. and a measurement that we use is that electricity output is not growing. >> yes. electricity output is barely moving ahead. the industrial sector uses about six times more electricity per unit of output than the service sector does. >> i don't agree with you on all the points. but one thing that they can

agree on is the idea that the stock market can correlate with their growth. if you invested in the stock market you'd have made no money. in the last year or so, when growth is slowing somewhat. you invest in the stock market. unlike the habit in the west. where stock markets it's not the case in china. >> stacks don't trade on fundamentals. it's a casino. liquid itty driven. the fundamental point to nut in mind is 80% of invest juniors are retail investors. a long position is overnight. they don't have the big investors, insurance funds, pensions, looking at the market or the companies in the market,

when they make decisions, and this retail driven market leads to a lot of volatility. >> in a retail driven market. you talk about the fact that people in the consumption authority go to the movie, eat out. in a retail investor market, wouldn't the downturn have a negative wealth effect? >> it could have a small one. less than 10% of chinese households have any exposure to equity, on a year over year basis, the market is ahead, correcting more than 40%. but a year ago, you would have made a tonne of money in china, that's how rapid the run up was. i think the wealth effects are likely to be small. >> let's say you are right, we are looking at some of the wrong indicators, and are not giving them adequate weight. there's the issue of debt.

richard wrote about this. credit was given for predicting a financial crisis. they quoted them as staying it's vulnerable. china's debt is 282% of g.d.p. more than the united states. are rogof and others wrong to worry about the debt situation in china? >> yes, i think they are wise to worry about it, but it is low. the credit in the system is coming from banks. and the systematically important banks are not borrowing in the wholesale market. they are financed from deposits, the deposits are sticky. there is not going to be a liquidity problem like at the lehman crash in the united states in 2008. the so-called seventh stop, when the creditors wouldn't roll over the credit to the firm, and the firm collapsed.

there's no big systematically important financial institutions in china that have that leverage and reliance on wholesale money markets. >> good conversation. thank you for joining us. nick is a senior fellow at the peterson institution for economics. that's our show for today. i'm ali velshi. thank you for joining us. protecting the deal. senate democrats give the president a big former policy win, securing the votes needed to keep the iran nuclear vote alive. >> kim davis released from custody. >> i want to give god the glory his people have rallied. >> freedom for kim davis, the kentucky county clerk gaoled for refusing to issue marriage licences