josh: i'm josh green. mark: and i'm mark halperin. "with all due respect" to the skeptics -- i told you so. ♪ josh: welcome to america's favorite game show, "let's make a deal." today's contestants are heriran. first off, congress. what are the odds that congress stops the president deal with iran? josh: they are pretty low because of how the process was put in place. there was a big deal that gave congress a chance to review it but unless they can override a presidential veto, come up with 66 votes in the senate, they will probably not be able to

stop it. while there will be a big political fight about it, it does not look to me like the fight will be in -- like the deal will be in jeopardy. mark: there are democrats who are fence sitters who say they want to read the deal. the key is schumer, senator from new york, who has been a skeptic of the deal on the merits. it's possible that if schumer came out against, you could have trouble sustaining the be no in the senate. while there will be a lot of back-and-forth, unless something really drastic happens, this deal will go through. josh: there's room for 13 democratic senators to defect and for this deal to pass. the other wildcard, though remember what happened in 2009 with obamacare, it was moving along, and suddenly, there was this grassroots irruption. you never know. mark: the strongest argument the president has -- you and i talked about this -- is if the deal goes down, the president has already started make the

case -- the repercussions are extreme. the president is now powerful enough and popular enough that it will work. i don't think there's a chance they can rally against him. josh: not only the fact that you would essentially need them to do your bidding, but the process falls apart. next up, hillary clinton visited capitol hill to meet with senate democrats and gave a hillary clinton minute with the press to talk about the iran deal. clinton: this deal will have to be enforced vigorously relentlessly. we have in the agreement the access or inspections and the

transparency that was absolutely necessary, but we have to treat this as an ongoing enforcement effort. we still have a lot of concern about the bad behavior and the actions by iran, which remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism, which does go after and undermine governments in the region, that poses an existential threat to israel that unfairly, unlawfully confines and tries americans on trumped up charges -- that had behavior is something we have to address -- that bad behavior is something we have to address. mark: normally, when she straddles, i think it's a huge loser for her, but in this case, she could not be set up better. lots of democrats are straddling.

she has a bit of a higher burden to sustain because she was part of the administration. and she is talking about it in an authoritative way. she does understand the issue coming through. josh: doesn't she have an added advantage in that a lot of this deal will depend on who the next president is? they will have the discretion to crack down if they violate or stonewall, and clinton is known for being more hawkish than obama is -- she can say she's going to be the one who's going to be in charge of this and she will make sure they do not violate this agreement? mark: and she can say that while still supporting the deal. normally, this is a carefully thought through -- i'm sure there were lots of conversations and conference calls to get her this position, but i don't think straddling on this issue hurts her. i think it helps her, and she has a lot of cover, not just from chuck schumer and other democratic senators, but a lot

of people in the country who i think will adopt a wait-and-see attitude. josh: and this is an issue you want it to be thought through. third up, republicans -- their reaction has been protectable, but that does not mean it's not good tv. here's a sampling of how your 2016 gop candidates feel. >> the president has taken the world's most destabilizing power, one of our chief antagonist, a country that has killed hundreds of americans in iraq, and he has guaranteed they will become a nuclear nation. >> we have rewarded bad behavior with this deal. they have never been willing to talk about releasing american prisoners, and i have now gotten -- they have now gotten what they want. what does that tell to them? bad behavior pays. >> this is the equivalent of if a kid in your neighborhood is shooting out your windows with a 22, you turn around and give him a shotgun and make it even easier for him. i have no idea what the president is thinking in this. it has to be one of the most outrageous, irrational decisions

that are u.s. president has made in relationship to foreign policy. >> we have given them legitimacy in the international community something they deeply wanted and they've done basically nothing in exchange for that. they come out of this a much much stronger and i believe more fear he alleged -- more very elect -- more virulent state. >> they are laughing at us and -- in iran. we have four people in prison that should not be. why could they not make that part of the deal? josh: even rand paul, who has been more open to talks with iran in the past, said this on twitter this afternoon. "the proposed agreement with iran is unacceptable, and i will vote against the agreement. the deal is bad because, one sanctions released precedes evidence of compliance, and two, iran is left with significant nuclear capacity." jeb bush, scott walker, and marco rubio also called the deal dangerous. how much will republican candidates drive this debate cap a mark: they will drive the debate taking turns to see who can beat up president obama the most, but

i do not think they will influence democrats in congress or public opinion. they are all a dishing who could be the president and hillary clinton the most. the possible exceptions are the senators cruz, graham, and rubio. who am i missing? rand paul, ted cruz, marco rubio. there will be a lot of competing voices. i don't think they will dominate. josh: it is so overheated. how do you, as a democrat decide what team to line up with? mark: i totally agree. there is such a lack of nuance in these statements, as many democrats are pointing out. these people are denouncing a deal they have not read, have not seen, and while it is certainly the popular position in the republican party, i agree

with you -- they are hurting the run chance of getting what they want. they are all in the same place. every one of the 16 republicans running for president is saying the exact same thing. we called our resident polling expert to try to get a sense of public opinion. first, this is a topic very hard to pull on. most americans do not understand the nuance of nuclear negotiations, and so they tend to retreat to their partisan corners. a new poll was taken before negotiations included to ask people if negotiations were a good idea. republicans, only 38% thought talks were a good idea. about half of independents and over 60% of democrats thought it was. that suggests again this is really a partisan issue. president obama, as we said,

needs congressional democrats in some numbers to block and keep a veto-proof majority from taking place. given that this is largely a partisan issue, given that the president is going to prey on that, does public opinion matter here, or is this just an inside game and the president holding the hands of congressional democrats? josh: as we saw with obamacare public opinion can matter, but the question is if these opinions are deeply held or can be swayed. mark: you have united states senators who do not understand the deal, let alone ordinary people. josh: true, but if these are not firmly held convictions, particularly if there is a wave of anger and recrimination from her publicans, americans thinking to themselves maybe this is not such a good deal and applying pressure to some of these senators, i have a hard time believing that will happen because most of the public opinion polling shows the majority of americans do support public diplomacy with iran on nuclear issues.

mark: the other thing he points out is that the president is more popular now both in terms of actual numbers, but victories on trade and the victories in the supreme court. he's having it a bit of an upright. some are calling it the best week or so of his term in office. that makes it less likely that he even has to worry about public opinion. more on iran in this big deal coming up. two bens, two marks, and a single josh coming up after this. ♪

mark: our guest tonight is the ceo of a group called united against nuclear iran, which advocates for -- the name speaks for itself. former ambassador mark wallace. as you said before we went on the air come along agreement not fully thought through, but there are points that have raised concern already. we talked earlier today with an rosen, asked him to make the case on some of these disputed points.

the first is there's this issue of enough access to look at nuclear sites to determine if iran is in violation. rosen: the deal has 24/7 access, and the entire supply chain is covered in the inspection regime. they would have to have an entire covert supply chain if they wanted to develop a nuclear weapon, not just one site. then, the deal allows for -- and this is permanent -- the iaea to see what it wants to see, when it needs to see it. if we have suspicions about a site inside iran, we can go to the iaea and say we want an inspection, and if iran objects to that inspection, if they say no, we can overrule them. if we and our european allies demand that inspection, and that will take place on a timely basis. mark: inspections are at the

heart of any deal like this. is he factually correct, and does that comfort you? wallace: it does not look correct to me, and perhaps i was just glossing over the agreement, but it contemplates a very arcane process. iran has the right to challenge the dispute resolution system, and power goes to the p5 plus one, including russia and china to overrule objections. i think there is a provision there, and we look forward to the provision's explanation of this. maybe there is a better explanation, but the language so far definitely raises concerns. mark: if her and cheats or stone walls, will -- if iran cheats or stone walls, will they be able to establish the regime? wallace: i think there are questions about that. the arcane notice explicitly means you need the support of russia and china, two of the biggest potential trading partners with iran, so i think you would almost injected

hacking to a united nations-like process to reassemble some of the architecture of free framework agreement. mark: this framework can together because it was supposed to be a prelude to a diplomatic agreement. if that falls apart into because of cheating or stonewalling, how difficult will it be to get powers to come in. maybe congress will do that, but how hard will it be to get russia and china to say we are with you and will go back to square one? wallace: as a former diplomat of the yuan, i will tell you nothing snaps back or snaps back quickly, so i will tell you i am skeptical, but the reality is we are in a different world right now. we are at $50 a barrel oil. even when oil was $110 a barrel, the iranian currency was devalued to the tune of 70% or

80%. even with american sanctions alone, that could put the iranian economy under great stress, and iran should be cautious that united states alone -- hopefully not -- could impose sanctions back on iran. mark: we talked about the issue of iran having access to more currency, and how they will use the money and might they use it in ways that will be so deleterious to american interests that it might not be worth a deal. listen to what he said. rhodes: we expect they will continue to undertake activity that we have very strong objections to. the point is that will be far more dangerous if they had a nuclear weapon. they will get relief from the nuclear-related sanctions, but let's remember those sanctions were put in place to achieve this deal. at the same time, we think they are far more likely to invest the resources they get and their economy, which is in terrible disrepair, a huge government that they have to pay down.

mark: he concedes that iran will have more money, but he says it is worth -- not having them have nuclear weapons is worth it, and he says basically the money will be spent more on the economy. wallace: if history is any president, iran has been engaged in proxy was around the middle east without this money and an economy in peril. i think they will be much more able to empire built in spite of their perceived and real enemies with this money in hand. iran lost leadership has always been willing to sacrifice its own economy for its hegemonic ambitions in the region. ask the iranian people of 2009 when tens of thousands poured into the street. they were always ready to let their people suffer second empire built first. mark: do you think this is a substantial downside? wallace: of course. all the revenue generated by business as sanctions are relieved, it will embolden the regime that is already emboldened in the region, and it does not take that much money to

fund has below and hamas -- to fund has below -- to fund hezbollah and hamas. mark: under the steel, you will not have them under an iranian nuclear umbrella. wallace: one of the early supporters of the deal is bashar al-assad, who came out and said it was a victory, which means he is expecting presumably iran to be stronger and more capable of supporting him. i think that is problematic. we should not delude ourselves. the agreement is absolutely worthy of our close scrutiny but let's be serious -- if iran is receiving a huge injection of financial wherewithal, we know what it is doing. mark: your republican presidential candidates have been extra ordinarily negative characterizing this as one of the worst things the united

states has ever done. is it possible those who want to defeat the deal can get enough votes to override a presidential veto? wallace: you put some pulling up on your screen before. i think it is possible. it is the most important consequential agreement, if you will, since the end of the cold war. this is a day of sweeping rhetoric on both sides with a lot of hyperbole. now we are going to get into the brass tacks, and it will be very well litigated. i think you will see the american people be able to weigh in, and the reality is it will force both people -- force people on both sides of the aisle to deal with reality rather than rhetoric. i think the american people will be educated. mark: thanks for joining us. you have heard someone for the deal and someone against it. when we come back, someone right on the fence. ♪

mark: joining us now from capitol hill to react to the deal with iran is the ranking member of the senate foreign relations committee, the democratic senator from the state we call maryland, ben cardin. thanks for joining us. we want to get into the specifics of what is going to happen next. you've got people like lindsey graham, jed pushed -- jeb bush thoughtful people think about national security, people in the administration who are supporters of this deal. it seems a bit odd that you got some people saying this is the worst thing that could ever possibly happen to the united states and other people saying it's a great day for america. how could it be so black and white? senator cardin: it took tw to negotiate the agreement. -- took two years to negotiate the agreement. and people have not even read the document.

we need to understand the document, and we need to have the public hearings, and let's hear from the people. let's try to understand the terms and then reach a conclusion on if this will prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state. mark: how soon will the senate start holding hearings on this? senator cardin: we anticipate hearings will start next week, that we will have two weeks of hearings, that we will hear from individuals who were directly involved in negotiations including secretary kerry, and that we will have public panels that will allow us to get outside views as to the terms of the agreement. we hope to take two weeks in hearings. we have 60 days for our review. we want to make sure it is complete. mark: people are looking to see where you will come down on this.

people obviously looking at your colleague from new york, senator schumer. with your discussions with him how do you compare how you are looking at this deal as to how he is? senator cardin: i cannot speak for other members of the senate, but i do know any of us want to make the right decisions for other members of our country. let's see what happens. let's look at the process and not prejudge. i think senator schumer feels the same way, that he wants to look at this agreement. senator cardin: so you are truly undecided? you could end up opposing this deal in the end? senator cardin: i have not made up my mind because i have not reviewed it yet. there are areas that have been identified that i need further clarification. there are areas i will be asking tough questions. mark: based on what has been made public about the deal already, what are your areas of concerns? senator cardin: we need to make sure there is rarer for case --

there is no trust. we know they will try to cheat. therefore, the inspection regime, the snapback of sanctions, all are very important. access to the military sites -- a very, very important. some of the issues we'll be looking at very closely, but there are others. mark: do you consider this a great day for the world, a great day for the united states or no? senator cardin: i think preventing iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power is critically important for the safety of that region and u.s. national security interests, so i hope that we are a little bit closer to that goal, but i want to reserve judgment until after i've had a chance to review the agreement. mark: people talk about this as a legacy achievement. how momentous are these deliberations and vote compared to other things you been asked to cast a vote on? senator cardin: this is near the top. there's no question this foreign policy challenges one of the

great policy challenges of our time, and how we handle iran and their nuclear ambitions are very much critical to our foreign policy, our national security. this is a very, very important moment for the global community and certainly for the united states. mark: senator, thanks for joining us. we appreciate it. coming up, our big guest on the show tomorrow. we will tell you who that will be after this word from our sponsors. ♪

mark: tomorrow, right here in this very studio, clinton adviser jennifer pulmonary will join us to talk about all kinds of stuff. her story on bernie sanders, who had lunch today with hillary clinton and a bunch of other senators, and we're told hillary clinton treated him with great respect. we will talk with jennifer palmieri. until tomorrow, we say sayonara.

♪

>> the u.s. and iran making history, but will the deal lead to increased cyber spying? ♪ emily: i'm emily chang. this is "bloomberg west." we will look at how nasa got incredible images of the dwarf planet and talk to some experts in space exploration. plus, micron is i'd to the tune of $23 billion. should micron hold out for a better offer? amazon is