in light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists in the united states argue we have to take military actions against the soviets to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. but the young president offered a different vision. strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. but he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign equatedircles that security with a perpetual war footing. , he promised strong, principled american leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace. not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but

on a gradual evolution in human institutions. on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements. help guide ourld ship of state through some of the most perilous moment in human history. with hannity at the helm, the cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully -- with kennedy at the helm, the cuban missile crisis was resolved peacefully. new agreements were forged, a nonproliferation treaty that prevented weapon that prevented countries from acquiring nuclear weapons while allowing them peaceful nuclear energy. the salt and start treaties which bound the united states and soviet union to cooperation on arms control. every conflict was averted. but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe and we created the

to win the cold war without firing a shot at the soviets. agreement now reached between the international community and the islamic republic of iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy. after two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. iran's off all of pathways to a bomb. it contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program. as was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. it certainly does not resolve all of our problems with iran.

it does not ensure a warming between our countries. but it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. as such, it is a very good deal. today, i want to speak to you about this deal and the most consequential foreign-policy debate our country has had the invasion of iraq. -- as congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection over the vast majority andhe world, between now the congressional vote in september, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal. backed i tens of millions of dollars in advertising. by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. commentarympanying sounds familiar, it should.

for many of the same people who argued for the war in iraq are now making the case against the iran nuclear deal. when i ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to said americai war't just have to end that , we had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place. it was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy. a mindset that put a premium on unilateral u.s. action over the painstaking work of living international consensus. a mindset that exaggerated threats be on what the intelligence supported. leaders did not level with the

american people about the costs of war, insisting we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. and of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive. while dismissing those who disagreed is weak. even appeasers. of a malevolent adversary. more than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade iraq. our troops achieved every mission they were given, but thousands of lives were lost. tens of thousands 100. -- tens of thousands wounded. that doesn't count of the lives lost among iraqis.

nearly a trillion dollars was spent. byay, iraq remains gripped sectarian conflict and the emergence of al qaeda in iraq has now evolved into isis. greatesty, the single beneficiary in the region of that war was the islamic republic of iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, saddam hussein. i raise this recent history because now more than ever, we need clear thinking and our foreign policy. i raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the iranian nuclear program. that program has been around for decades, and dating back to the shop's efforts with u.s. support in 1960's and 70's to develop nuclear power.

the theocracy that overthrew the shop accelerated the program after the iran-iraq war in the 1980's, a war in which saddam hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect and iran's nuclear program advanced through the 1990's despite unilateral u.s. sanctions. when the bushing ministration took office, iran had no centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb. despite repeated warnings from the united states government, by the time i took office, iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to show -- too slow, much less halt its program. among u.s. policymakers, there has never been disagreement on the danger opposed by an iranian

nuclear bomb. republicans alike have recognized it would spark an arms race in the most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. it would embolden terrorist groups like has bola and -- like hezbollah. unraveladly, it could the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend. then is not whether to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how? even before taking office, i made clear that iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch. and it has been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible

military options on the table to achieve that objective. but i have also made clear my preference for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the issue. not just because of the cost of war, but because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and drupal resolution. -- durable resolution. and so in 2009, we let the iranians know a diplomatic path was available. path.ailed to take that our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility. argued iran's in trenches since -- in transit gins showed the futility. but it was our willingness to negotiate that rally the world to our cause and secured

international participation in an unprecedented framework of sanctions. , unilateral u.s. sanctions had been in place for decades but had failed to pressure iran to the negotiating table. what made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new un security council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements from nations like china and india, japan and south korea to reduce their purchases of iranian oil as well as the imposition by our european allies of a total oil embargo. winning this global by and was not easy. i know. i was there. in some cases, our partners lost aliens of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. but we were able to convince

them that absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war with major disruption to the global economy and greater instability in the middle east. words, it was diplomacy, hard, painstaking diplomacy, not saber rattling, not tough talk that ratcheted up the pressure on iran. with the world now unified beside us, iran's economy contracted severely and remains about 20% smaller today than it would have otherwise been. no doubt this hardship played a role in iran's 2013 elections. when the iranian people elected a new government, the promise to -- they promised to improve the economy with an engagement with the world. a window had cracked open.

iran came back to the nuclear talks. after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal -- a deal that rolls back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium and froze the progress of its program so that the united states come in china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france and the european union could negotiate a comprehensive deal with out the fear iran might be stalling for time. here just to remind everybody that when the interim critics, theunced, same critics we are hearing from now called it a historic mistake. iran would ignore

its obligations and warned sanctions would unravel and iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. wrong.tics were the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade. it stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of his advanced -- of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections increased. there was no flood of money into iran and the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. workct, the interim deal so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader record. think about that. it was once proclaimed as a historic mistake and it's now

held up as a success and the reason to not sign the comprehensive deal. so keep that in mind when you assess the credibility being made against diplomacy today. this bike the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. our diplomats, led by secretary of state john kerry, kept our coalition united, our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, worked tirelessly on the technical details. in july, we reached a comprehensive land of action that meets our objectives. under its terms, iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. , like any party to the nuclear proliferation treaty is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreements -- the agreement strictly

defines the matter under which its program can proceed, ensuring all pathways to a bomb are cut off. here's how. under this deal, iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. the core of its heavy water reactor will be pulled out, filled with concrete and replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. the spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country and iran will not hold any new heavywater reactors were at least 15 years. iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. as soon as this deal is implemented, iran will remove two thirds of its centrifuges. for the next decade, iran will not in rich uranium with its advanced centrifuges. iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed

facility which is deep underground, for at least 15 years. 98% of itset rid of stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs for the next 15 years. those 15 years have passed, iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon. in fact, this deal shuts off the type of covert path iran pursued in the past. 24/sevenl be monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities. for decades, inspectors will have access to iran's supply chain from the mines and mills to the centrifuge production facilities. understand why this is so important. cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one

building or a covert facility. it would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. no nation in history has been able to pull off such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. and under the terms of the deal, inspectors have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in iraq -- in iran. and finally, iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. before getting sanctions relief, iran has to take significant, concrete steps like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stock piles. if iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. we will not need the support of other members of the un security council. america can trigger a snap back on our own. on the other hand, if iran

abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, instead of -- the incentive to avoid snap back will grow. this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated. and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented , with the exception of the israeli government, has expressed support. the united nations security council has unanimously supported it. the majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts supported. -- support it. 100 ambassadors who served under republican and democratic presidents support it.

i have had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for american security is not one of those calls. it's not even close. unfortunately, we are living through a time in american politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism. evaluate by headline grabbing soundbites. and so before the ink with even dry on this deal, before congress even read it, a majority of republicans declared their villain opposition. -- their fear lent opposition. lobbyists and pendants were transformed into armchair nuclear scientists, disputing the assessment of experts. challenging the findings.

offering multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why congress should reject this deal. but, if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. so let me address a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal. first, there are those who say the inspections are not strong enough because inspectors cannot go anywhere in iran at any time with no notice. inspectorstruth -- will be allowed daily access to iran's key nuclear sites. if there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in iran, inspectors will get that access even if iran objects. access can be with as

little as 24 hours notice and, while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take 24 days, once we had identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in. and by the way, nuclear material is not something you hide in the closet. [laughter] it can leave a trace for years. if iranom line is cheats, we can catch them and we will. second, there are those who argue the deal wasn't strong enough because some of the limitations on iran's billion nuclear program expire in 15 years. let me repeat -- the prohibition on iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. relatedon weapons research is permanent. inspections are permanent.

it is true some of the limitations regarding iran's peaceful program last only 15 years. but that is how arms control agreements work. the first salt treaty with the soviet union lasted five years. the first start treaty lasted 15 years. situation, 15 or 20 years from now, if iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures the united states will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond, and the same options available to stop a weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options. on the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now.

by killing this deal, congress would not merely pave iran's pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it. third, a number of critics say the deal isn't worth it because iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. clear -- the international sanctions were put in place precisely to get iran to agree to constraints on its program. that's the point of sanctions. any negotiated agreement with iran would involve sanctions relief. sanctionsment against relief is an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. upis true that if iran lives to its commitment, it will gain access to $56 billion of its own money, revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

but the notion that this will be a game changer, with all this money funneled into iran's pernicious activities, mrs. the reality of iran's current situation. partly because of our sanctions, the iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure. raised theers have expectations of their people that sanctions relief will improve their lives. even a repressive regime like iran's cannot completely ignore those expectations and that's why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the iranian people. this is not to say sanctions relief will provide no benefit to iran's military.

let's stipulate some of that money will flow to activities we object to. we have no illusions about the iranian government or the significance of the revolutionary guard and the cuts force irane kudz supports groups like hezbollah and groups that threaten us any interest of our allies, including proxy groups who kill our troops in iraq. destabilize our gulf partners. but iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. they engaged in them before sanctions, and while sanctions were in place. in fact, iran engaged in these activities in the middle of the iran-iraq war, a war that cost

them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. the truth is iran has always down a way to fund these efforts. whatever benefit iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could hose with a nuclear weapon. -- it could post with a nuclear weapon. effort wereere's no sanctions relief turns iran into the nation's dominant power. iran's defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our gulf allies. their conventional capabilities will never compare with israel's to israel'sitted military edge helps guarantee that. the last several years, iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support it only ally in the arab world, bashar

al-assad, even as he has lost huge chunks of his country. hezbollah has suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. and iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to il innd to the threat of is iraq. contrary to the alarmists who think iran is on the verge of taking over the middle east or even the world, iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. the ruling regime is dangerous and repressive. we will continue to have sanctions in place on their support for terrorism in violation of human rights. we will continue to insist upon the release of americans detained unjustly. we will have a lot of differences with the iranian regime. but, if we are serious about confronting their destabilizing activities, it is hard to

imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. check thee need to behavior we are concerned about rectally by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons shipments that go to groups like hezbollah, by training our special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like yemen. all of these capabilities will make a difference. we will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal. and, by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat opposed by -- by isil.-- posed

final thing you may hear is that there is a better deal to be had. we should get a better deal. is repeated over and over again. it's a bad deal. we need a better deal. [laughter] one that relies on they promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and in definite set of sanctions. to squeeze the iranian regime harder. this argument are either ignorant of orion society or they are just not being straight with the american people. are not going to force iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure.

even those aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. that is what the critics are calling a better deal. government iranian or the iranian opposition or the iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty. moreover, our closest allies in europe or asia, much less china or russia certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another 5, 10, 15 years according to the big tates of the u.s. congress. their willingness to support sanctions in the first endingas based on iran its pursuit of nuclear weapons, not based on the belief that iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power.

it certainly was not based on a desire for regime change in iran. as a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. instead of strengthening our position, some have suggested, rejection would result in sanctions unraveling. if, as has also been suggested, we try to maintain unilateral , wetions, beef and them up would be standing alone. the foreignctate economic and energy policies of every major power in the world.

in order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world's largest banks. we would have to cut off countries like china from the american financial system. since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy and raise questions internationally about the dollar's role as the world reserve currency. why's part of the reason many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived. happen,more likely to should congress reject this deal is iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any constraints or inspections required by this deal. walk away from this agreement

and you will get a better deal -- four iran. iran. [applause] now, because more sanctions won't reduce the results the critics want, we have to be honest. congressional rejection of this deal leaves any u.s. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option -- another war in the middle east. i say this not to be provocative. i'm stating a fact. without this deal, iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities. it's breakout time, which is

already fairly small could shrink to near zero. thatanyone really doubt the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? and as someone who does firmly believe iran should not get a nuclear weapon and has wrestled with this since the beginning of my presidency, i can tell you alternatives to military action will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports. so let's not mince words. the choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.

irony -- as i said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. supposition.st my every estimate, including those from israel he analysts suggest military action would only set back iran's program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal. it would likely guarantee inspectors are kicked out of iran. it is probable it would drive iran's program deeper underground. it would certainly destroy the international unity we have spent so many years building.

now, there are some opponents, i have to give them credit, they are opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. in fact, they argue surgical strikes against iran's facilities will be quick and painless. but if we have learned anything from the last decade, it is that wars in general and wars in the middle east in particular are anything but simple. [applause] the only certainty in war is human suffering. uncertain costs, unintended consequences. we can also be sure the americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less than 1% of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to

war. as commander-in-chief, i have not shied away from using force when necessary. i have ordered tens of thousands of americans into combat. bedsideet by their sometimes when they come home. actionordered military in seven countries. times when force is necessary. if iran does not abide by this deal, it is possible we do not have an alternative. but how can we in good conscience justify war before we have tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, the has been agreed to by iran, that is supported by the rest of the world, and that preserves our options if the deal falls short?

how can we justify that to our troops? how can we justify that to the world? or to future generations? end some of that should be a lesson we have learned from over a decade of war. on the front end, ask tough questions. subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis. resists the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war. worry less about being labeled week and worry more about hitting it right. -- getting it right. recognizing resorting to force might be tempting in the face of rhetoric on the part of iran. it is offensive. it is in cindy or a. -- it is incendiary.

we do take it seriously. but super powers should not act impulsively in response to talks or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. just because iranian hardliners chant "death to america" doesn't mean that's what all iranians believe. [applause] in fact, it is those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. it is those hardliners chanting "death to america" who have been most opposed to the deal. they are making common cause with the republican caucus. [laughter] [applause] the majority of the iranian people have powerful incentives

to urge the government to move in a different, less provocative direction. incentives strengthened by this deal. we should offer them that chance. we should give them that opportunity. it is not guaranteed to succeed. but, if they take it, that would be good for iran, good for the united states, good for a region that has known too much conflict. it would be good for the world. and if iran does not move in that direction, if iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. by agreements pursued kennedy and reagan with the soviet union, those agreements, those treaties involved america accepting significant constraints on our arsenal.

riskier.they were this agreement involves no such constraints. the defense budget of the united states is more than 600 billion dollars. iran's is about $15 billion. our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement we make. i have stated iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. i have done what is necessary to make sure military options are real. and i have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position. so let me sum up. when we carefully examine the ,rguments against this deal none of them stand up to scrutiny. that may be why the rhetoric on

the other side is so strident. beuppose some of it can ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made a disaster, a surrender, you are aiding terrorists, you are endangering freedom. on the other hand, i do think it is important to acknowledge another, more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or least skepticism to this deal. that is a system -- a sincere affinity for our friend and ally , israel. someonenity that, as who has been a stalwart friend to israel throughout my career, i deeply share. when the israeli government is opposed to something, people in the united states take notice.

and they should. blame israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like iran's. which includes leaders who have denied the holocaust. embrace an ideology of anti-semitism. facilitate the flow of rockets that are rained on israel's orders -- israel's orders or pointed at tel aviv. it is such a dangerous neighborhood. israel has to be vigilant. insists it cannot depend on any other country, even its great friend, the united states, for its own security. seriouslye to take concerns in israel. partly due tos,

american military and whichigence assistance, my administration has provided , israelcedented levels can defend itself against any conventional danger, whether from iran directly or its proxies. on the other hand, a nuclear armed iran changes that equation. that is why this deal ultimately must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that.eal does exactly i say this as someone who has done more than any other president to strengthen israel's security. and i have made clear to the israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. already, we have held talks with

israel on concluding another 10 year plan for u.s. security assistance to israel. areas enhance support for like missile defense, information sharing and interdiction, all to help meet israel's pressing security needs. and provide a hedge against any additional activity iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief. listened to the israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger post by a nuclear-armed iran for decades. in fact, they helped fellow many of the ideas that led to this deal. -- they helped develop many of the ideas that led to this deal. so to israel and the israeli people, i say this -- a nuclear-armed iran is far more dangerous to israel, to america, irano the world then and that benefits from sanctions

relief. i recognize prime mr. netanyahu disagrees. disagrees strongly. i do not doubt his sincerity. but, i believe he is wrong. i believe the facts support this deal. i believe they are in america's interests and israel's interests. as the president of the united states, it would be an obligation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it with atemporary friction dear friend and ally. i do not believe it will be the right thing to do for the united states, i don't believe it would be the right thing to do for israel. [applause]

over the last couple of weeks, i have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. i have yet to hear one. are i have heard instead the same types of arguments we have heard in the run-up to the iraq war. iran cannot be delisted pneumatically. we can take military strikes without significant consequence. we should not worry about with the rest of the world thinks because once we act, everyone will fall in line. more military threats will force iran into submission. we can get a better deal. i know it is easy to play on people's fears. to magnify threats.

any attempt at diplomacy to munich. but none of these arguments hold up. didn't back in 2002 and 2003, and they shouldn't now. [applause] the same mindset, in many cases whored by the same people seem to have no compunction with led to aeatedly wrong war that did more to strengthen iran, more to isolate the united states than anything we have done in the decades before or since. it is a mindset out of step with

the traditions of american foreign-policy, where we exhausted diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth. peace is not the absence of conflict, president reagan once said. it is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. president kennedy warned americans not to seek -- not to andconflict as inevitable, communication is nothing more than the exchange of threats. apply -- it is time to apply such wisdom. the deal before us doesn't bet on iran changing. it doesn't require trust. it verifies.

and requires iran to forsake a nuclear weapon. just as we struck agreements with the soviet union at a time they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities, eight genuine x essential threat -- a genuine x essential threat. we live in a complicated world. on which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating opportunities for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history. world of persistent massts, a world in which violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all we

hold dear. in this world, the united states of america remains the most powerful nation on earth. and i believe we will remain such for decades to come. but we are one nation among many. and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional is not the mere fact of our military might. since world war ii, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try to bind nations together in a system of international law. led an evolution of those human institutions president kennedy spoke about. to prevent the spread of deadly

weapons, to uphold peace and security, and promote human progress. we now have the opportunity to hold on that progress. we have built a coalition and held together through sanctions and negotiations, and now, we have before us a solution that prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war. as americans, we should be proud of this achievement. and as members of congress reflect on their pending decision, i urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote you will cast. if congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just

constraints on iran positive program or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. we will have lost something more precious -- america posco debility as a leader of diplomacy -- america's credibility as a leader of diplomacy and the anchor of an international system. heref. kennedy cautioned more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. but it is so very important. it is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife. americans, contact your representatives in congress, remind them of who we bestremind them of what is

in us and what we stand for. a that we can leave behind world that is more secure and peaceful for our children. thank you very much. [applause] we have been listening to president barack obama speak in washington, d c in support of the nuclear deal. they: the president calling policy -- his final word to american citizens, saying call your congress folks and urge them to vote for this deal. joining us from our washington bureau is our world affairs contributor and former defense secretary, bill cohen. you were listening to the president's speech. did he sell it well enough to the public to get this deal done?

bill: that remains to be seen. i thought he made a pretty powerful presentation. it was very presidential and very lawyer like. i could see him standing before a jury and what a good attorney usually does is to take the beuments that are going to surfaced against your client and case and systematically dismantle them. i think that is what he tried to do today. it is not new material he offered, but he did it in a way that evened the discussion out in a more calm and reflective manner by saying let's look at this very carefully. let's not take action before we think about it, let's scrutinize the facts here and see if we can get it right before we get it wrong and submit to the notion we are somehow weak. i think you made a pretty strong case. it may come too early because you're are going to see a break take place and you have congressmen and women going to israel. do on theirers

representatives who lobby them in a different fashion. i think this is setting the ground rules for the debate you will that i think have to do it multiple times over before it has a real impact. pimm: thank you very much. former defense secretary, ill cohen reporting from washington on president obama's speech. betty: one of the lines that struck us that got a lot of applause is when he said if we don't do this deal and we want a better deal, it will be a better deal for iran next time around. we will have more on the bloomberg market day, coming up. ♪

>> it is 10:00 a.m. in san francisco and 1:00 a.m. in hong kong. >> this is bloomberg market day.

president obama defends the nuclear deal saying that it would ea historic mistake to squander this opportunity. >> the u.s. tax code, we will target -- talk with the former ceo. mark: and if google search determines the next president, it will be donald trump. we will find out what users are asking about other candidates. mark: welcome to bloomberg market day on this wednesday, august 5. let's check wall street. stocks moving higher on stronger corporate earnings news and the institute of supply management that service