willingness to go along with some of the conditions that the united states and the other negotiating partners have set about preventing breakout capacity within a year, stopping short of being in a position to produce a weapon a year after the agreement is either expired or violated. that's key. the president said yesterday it needs to be double digit years in agreement and i think all of those substantive factors will be what determines whether it happens or doesn't. >> question, john harwood, as we watch this joint session, about something that prime minister netanyahu said to apac yesterday. he said israel has never been a bipartisan issue in this country. that we support israel on both sides. is there a risk that it will now be one? >> i don't think a lasting risk. it is a momentary problem and certainly the two sides are divided on -- the two parties

are divided on national security and this is one of those issues in particular that teases out that difference in a way that we're not accustomed to seeing on policy toward israel. but i would expect it to be a rather short-term phenomenon and not something that certainly creates a permanent rupture and not permanent damage. >> would you agree that israeli/u.s. relations are at a low, near a low? >> yes, sure. there's no question about that. and interestingly, you know, we had our nbc/"wall street journal" poll over the weekend and we asked about this. you saw extremely strong support for israel among older americans as you move younger and younger, each generation in succession, from 65 plus down to 50 plus and you go all the way down, less strong support for israel. so i certainly think that's something to watch. that could be a phenomenon of

younger people not paying as much attention to international affairs or not having the same kind of connection to the events that led to the creation of the state of israel. but i think that's something to watch and you do see a significant partisan split. two-thirds of democrats said that prime minister netanyahu should not have been invited under the circumstances and giving the speech and most republicans said it was okay, although you did have more than a quarter of republicans saying it was inappropriate. >> it is a joint meeting. i misspoke. i said a joint session of congress on the floor. john, have we heard anything from the candidates? i know this has been one of the hot button issue, hot potatoes in washington lately. any support or lack of support for prime minister netanyahu from the rand pauls, the ted cruzs? i think ted was at aipac yesterday from hillary clinton. >> i

administration for5n graham and john bolton, former bush administration official talking about getting into the race to counter rand paul and his world view.

>> interestingly among the names, there's been buzzfeed, for instance, compiling some of the -- some would say random guests today. alan dershowitz, michelle bachmann, mary hart of "entertainment tonight," pat boon, among others. of course, the house speaker spokesman said, quote, if taylor swift and katy perry did a joint concert at madison square garden wearing white and gold and black and blue dances accompanied by dancing sharks and llamas the only way you would have a tougher ticket. the theater around this is exceptional. >> no question about it. and chuck schumer, democratic senator from new york, said tickets were hotter than latkes. certainly you're going to have all of those 50 seats being surrendered by members of congress. there are multiples of those who would like to come sit in those seats. >> we're continue to watch. i'm trying to draw a line

between the theater fun to talk about but not as significant for what energy might do down the road on something like this. reports of the saudis raising prices on extra light crude oil by about a $1.40 a barrel. crude hasn't done a whole lot, around the $50 range. a lot to watch whether it's the nuclear armament story or overall energy story around the globe? >> you've got to think that if a deal is reached, that that is going to contribute to a sense of calm in -- or add a sense of calm in the region, not with standing israel's reservations. unless you have a tremendous new agitation, that is gined up against the deal, i would think that over the long run, that would calm the waters a bit, but we're going to have to wait and see when the deal is struck and what the exact nature of it is. >> we'll have to wait and see

when the prime minister arrives. we will take a short break. if he comes back earlier than expected we'll come right back. you're watching a live shot of capitol hill. ♪ at mfs, we believe in the power of active management. .. debate investment opportunities. which leads to better decisions for our clients. it's a uniquely collaborative approach you won't find anywhere else. put our global active management expertise to work for you. mfs. there is no expertise without collaboration.

breaking news. israeli prime minister netanyahu has made his way to capitol hill. you're going to see him enter the room in just a moment. not sure how much of this we're going to take full. we want to hear the top of the comments. the house speaker do a roll call. kayla tausche joins me at post nine. if you're curious, dow down about 92 points. we watch the markets as the nasdaq has given back about 33 pointsujñ#ñ after nasdaq 5,000 yesterday, but it is evident, kayla, that the world's attention will be focused on this for a little while, at least over next hour. . . >> packed room as you mentioned in the joint session on capitol hill. a star-studded guests, not just members of congress, audience

that pretty much is divided along party lines. this has been a divisive presentation on capitol hill among democrats and republicans, many democrats saying that they're siding with the president who continues to negotiate on his own with iran. >> that said, john harwood, a lot of the democratic leadership obviously in the y27zizroom. describe what a tactical move that is, deciding who stays and who is absent? >> well, look, democrats have gotten the lion's share of votes for a long period of time. that is the key constituency of the democratic party in terms of votes, certain states and in terms of financial contributions. republicans and for ideological reasons, it is becoming increasingly important to republicans. neither party is interested in snubbing the state

their jewish constituents in the united states. so some want to make a high profile point on foreign policy ÷ from these proceedings. elizabeth warren, interestingly, announced she is not going to go. she is somebody with a tremendous national following in the democratic party and somebody rising as a force in the democratic politics andsx:ú was siding with her president and the party interests there. but there are many more on the ground interests that affect rank and file members of congress and other senators.nk07 you're not going to see a widespread boycotting. you're going to see a sense of gestures by some people who want to make a particular point, many others won't want to. >> you're seeing a warm welcome, john and sara, back at the nasdaq for prime minister netanyahu as he shakes hands and comes into a crowd that is receiving him very well. i wonder where the american

public. is on this, on israel, on netanyahu, and on president obama and how they judge him for it. >> the nbc/"wall street journal" poll we did showed strong support for israel. when you askeds the question was it appropriate for prime minister netanyahu to accepts this from speaker boehner than the president, plurality 48% saying not appropriate, 30% said it was appropriate, that skewed heavily in a partisan direction, two-thirds of democrats said inappropriate, a little more than a quarter of republicans said that as well. so even amid strong support for israel you do have that reaction which has been conditioned by the news coverage of the partisan nature. >> high privilege and distinct honor of presenting the prime minister of israel, his excellence, benjamin netanyahu. qutó

speaker of the house, john boehner, president pro tem senator orrin hatch, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, house minority leader nancy pelosi, and house majority want to acknowledge senator democratic leader harry reid. harry, good to see you back on your feet. [ applause ]

i guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down. my friends, i'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the u.s. congress. [ applause ] i want to thank you all for being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. that wasqfw.cju my intention. i want to thank you, democrats and republicans, for your common

support for israel, year after year, decade after decade. [ applause ] i know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with israel. [ applause ]a2 the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has been above politics, it must

always remain above politics. [ applause ] because america and israel we share a common destiny. the destiny of promise land that chose freedom and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents, from harry truman to barack obama. [ applause ] we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. now some of that is widely known. [ applause ] some of that is5zdbx widelyp÷s?

like strengthening security corporation and intelligence sharing, opposing resolutions at the u.n. some of what the president has done for israel is less well known. i called him in 2010 when we had the caramel forest fire and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid. in 2011 we had our embassy in cairo under siege and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. his support for more missile intercepters during our operation last summer when we took on hamas terrorists. [ applause ] in each of those moments, i called the president and he was there. some of what the president has done for israel, might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and

strategic issues that arise between an american president and an israeli prime minister. but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. [ applause ]@m

because this capitol dome helped build our iron dome. [ applause ]5+5u thank you, america, thank you for everything you've done for israel. my friends, i've come here today because as prime minister of israel, i feel a profound obligation to speak to you about angwelz issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people. iran's quest for nuclear weapons. we're an ancient people. in our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the jewish

people, tomorrow night on the jewish holiday, we'll reí z th book of ester, we'll read of a powerful persian named eamon who plotted to destroy the jewish people 2500 years ago. but a courageous jewish woman queen ester exposed the plot and gained for the jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. the plot was foiled, our people were saved. today the jewish people face another attempt by yet another persian potent to destroy us. iran's supreme leader, ayatolla/

ha meneny, spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-semitism with the newest technology. he tweets that israel must be anile ney lated. he tweets. in iran there isn't freetw9ce internet but he tweets in english that israel must be destroyed. for those who believe that iraní threatens the jewish state, but not the jewish people, listen to hassan nasrallah, leader of hezbollah, save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. but iran's regime is not merely a jewish problem any more than the nazi regime was merely a jewish problem. the 6 million jews murdered by

the nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million killed in world war ii. so, too, iran's regime poses a grave threat not only to israel, but alsos to the peace of the entire world.!3i'y to understand just how dangerous iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime. the people of iran are very talented people. they're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. but in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots who imposed on them immediately of dark and brutal dictatorship. that year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for iran. it directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect iran's borders but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. the regime's founder, ayatollah

khomei khomeini, ortsed is followers to export the revolution throughout the world. i'm standing here in washington, d.c., and the difference is so stark. america's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. states colapsive across the middle east iran is charging into the void to do just that. iran's goons in gaza, lackeys in lebanon, revolution nary guards in the golan heights are clutching israel with three tentacles of terror. backed by iran assad is slaughtering syrians. backed by iran, shiite militias are rampaging through iraq. backed by iran, houthis are seizing control of yemen

threatening the strategic straits. along with the straits of hor muse that would give iran a second choke point on the world's oil supply. just last week near hormuz iran carried out a military exercise blowing upójjz a mock u.s. airc carrier. that's just last week. while they're having nuclear talks with the united states. but unfortunately for the last 36 years, iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock. and the targets have been allh too real. iran took dozens of americans hostage in tehran, murdered hundreds of american soldiers, marines, in beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american service men and women in iraq and afghanistan. beyond the middle eahe7ran attacks america and its allies throughw

network. it blew up the jewish community center and israeli embassy in buenos areese, it helped al qaeda bomb u.s. embassies in africa and attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in washington, d.c. in the middle east, iran now dominates four arab capitals, baghdad, damascus, beirut and sa na. and if iran's aggression is left unchecked more will surely follow. so at a time when many hope that iran will join the community of nations, iran is busy gobbling ups the nations. [ applause ] we must all stand together to stop iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror. [ applause ]

now two years ago, we were told to give president and foreign minister a chance to bring change and moderation to iran. some change. some moderation. government hangs gays, persec e persecutes christians, jails journalists and.'doxecutes even more prisoners than before. last year, the same which charles western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of the terrorist mastermind who spilled more american blood than any

other terrorist besides osama bin laden. i would like to see someone ask him a question about that. iran's regime is as radical as ever. it cries of death to america, the same america it calls as a great say tan as loud as ever. this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant islam and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of america. don't be fooled. the battle between iran and isis doesn't turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis are competing for the crown of militant islam. one calls itself the islamic republ republic, the other calls itself the islamic state, both want to impose a militant islamic empire. first in the region, and then on the entire world.

they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. in this deadly game of thrones there's no place for america or for israel. no peace for christians, jews, or muslims who don't share the islamist medieval creed. no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. so when it comes to iran and isis, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. [ applause ] the difference is isis is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and youtube, where iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs.

we must always remember, i'll say it one more time, the greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis, and let iran get nuclear weapons, would be to win the battle but lose the war. we can't let that happen. [ applause ] is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it would all be guarantee that iran gets those weapons, lots of

them. let me explain why. while the final deal is not yet been signed, certainñt8]w elemef any potential deal are now a matter of public record.aq&7 you don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. absent a dramatic change, we know for sure, that any deal with iran will include two major concessions to iran. the first major concession would leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. according to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be

demolished. thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed. because iran's nuclear program would be left largely3h3,1 inta iran's breakout time would be very short, about a year by u.s. assessment, even shorter by israel's. and if iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges is not stopped, that breakout time could still be shorter, a lot shorter. true, certain restrictions would be imposed on iran's nuclear program and iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors, but here's a problem. you see, inspectors document violations. they don't stop them. inspectors knew when north korea

broke to the bomb, they kicked off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. within a few years it got the bomb. now we're warned that within five years, north korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. like north korea, iran, too, has defied international inspectors, done that on at least three separate occasions, 2005, 2006, 2010. like north korea, iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. now i know this is not going to come as a shock to any of you. but iran not only defies y,e inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide and cheat with them. the u.n. nuclear watchdog agency said again yesterday, that iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. iran was also caught twice, not

once, twice, operating secret nuclear facilities, facilities inspectors didn't even know existed. right now, iran could be hiding nuclear

that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. because virtually all the restrictions on iran's nuclear program willbn expire in about a decade. now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. it's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. we all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. iran will then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs. iran's supreme leader says that openly. he says, iranbz plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000, or even the 19,000 that iran has

today, but ten times that amoud]x:ñ 190,000 centrifuges enriching urani uranium. with this massive capacity, iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks. once it makes that decision. my longtime friend john kerry, secretary of state, confirmed last week that iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. now i want you to think about that. the former sponsor, the foremosn sponsor of global terrorism, could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy. and by the way, if iran's intercontinental ballistic program is not part of the deal, and so far iran refuses to even

put it on the negotiating table, while iran could haves the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the united states, so you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions. one, leaving%7p3z iran with a v nuclear program. restrictions on that program, in about a decade. about a decade. [ it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, it paves iran's path to the bomb. so why would anyone make this deal? because they hope that iran will change for the better in the coming )ñgeyears. or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse. while i disagree. i don't believe that iran's

radical regime will change for the better after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years. and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. this deal would only wet iran's appetite for more. would iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy stronger. obbling up four countries right now, while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will iran devour when sanctions are lifted? would iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash to fund more terrorism? why should iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds? aggression abroad, prosperity at home? this is a question that everyone asks. in our region. israel's neighbors, iran's

neighbors, know that iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb. and many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. so this deal won't change iran for the better. it will only change the middle east for the worse. a deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal won't be a farewell to arms. it would be a farewell to arms control. and the middle east would soon be criss-crossed by nuclear trip wires. a region where small squirmishes can trigger big wars, would turn into a nuclear tinderbox. if anyone thinks, if anyone

thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again.ñu when we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous iran, a midwest littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen, i've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continue its aggression in the region and in the world. [ applause ] =ñv

before lifting those restrictions, the wiorld should demand iran do three things. first stop its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east, second -- [ applause ] second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. [ applause ] and third, stop threatening to

annihilate my country, israel, the one and only jewish state. [ applause ]hr"5ñ thank you. if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least, they should insist that iran change its behavior before a deal expires. [ applause ] if iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change its26?r behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [ applause ]

if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country. [ applause ] what about the alternative there's to this deal. iran's know how cannot be erased, nuclear program is so advanced the best we can do is delay the inevitable,iñh!is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do. well, nuclear know how without infrastructure doesn't get you very much. a race car driver without a car can't drive. a pilot without a plane can't fly. without thousands of centrifuges

tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities iran can't make nuclear weapons. [ applause ] iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. if iran threatens to walk away from the table, and this often happensekt in a persian bizarre call their bluff. they'll be back. because they need the deal a lot more than you do. by maintaining the pressure on iran and those who do business with iran, you have the>22wç poo

make them need it even more. my friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. 7ä this is a bad deal. very bad deal. we're better off without it. [ applause ] now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that's just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.tiw

a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure in such a short breakout time. a better deal that keeps the restrictions on iran's nuclear program in place until iran's aggression ends. a better deal that won't give iran an easy path to the bomb, a better deal that israel and it the neighbors may not like, but with which we could live literally and no country -- [ applause ] >> no country has a greater stake no country has a greater stake than israel and a good deal that peacefully removes

this threat. ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. we must now choose between two paths. one path leads to a bad deal that will, at best, curtail iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will lead to a nuclear armed iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war. the second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal that would prevent a nuclear armed iran, a nuclearized middle east, and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert frost to know, you have to live life, to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled. but it will make all the difference for the future of my

country. the security of the middle east and the peace of the world, the peace we all desire. [ applause ] my friends, standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. with us today, is holocaust survivor and nobel prize winner, ellie. [ applause ]

[ applause ] >> ellie, your life and work, inspires to give meaning to the words never again. [ applause ]

i wish i could promise you, ellie, the lessons of history have been learned, i can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [ applause ] not to sacrifice the future for the present, not to ignore aggression if the hopes of gaining an ill louisry peace, but i can guarantee you this, the days when the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies those days are over.

[ applause ] we are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. we've restored our sovereignty in our ancient home and the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage, for the first time in 100 generations, we, the jewish people, can defend ourselves. [ applause ] this is why as prime minister of israel, i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand alone, israel will stand. [ applause ]

but i know that israel does not stand alone, i know that america stands with israel. i know that you stand with israel. [ applause ] you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people, but of the human spirit, that refuses again and again, to succumb to

history's horrors. facing me, right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this chamber is the image of moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promise land, and before the people of israel entereds the land of israel, moses gave us a message that is still the resolve for thousands of years. i leave you with his message today. [ speaking foreign language ] be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them, my friends, may israel and america always stand together, strong and res absolute, may we neither fear or dread the challenges ahead, may we face the future with

confidence, strength and hope, may god bless the state of israel and may god bless the united states of america. [ applause ] thank you. [ applause ] g4j [ applause ]

[ applause ] thank you very much. thank you. [ applause ] thank you. thank you very much. thank you all. you're wonderful. thank you, america. thank you. thank you. [ applause ] thank you. >> that is the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu, talking to a joint meeting of congress, building an argument

that iran in his words have been hijacked by zealots for the past several decades, filling a void that is the chaos of the middle east, competing with isis and that this deal in the works to negotiate some nuclear security, is a very bad deal in his words. we're better off without it, urging the united states congress to essentially call their bluff as he put it. he says to defeatfg'$ isis, but iran get nuclear weapons, would be to win the battle but lose the war, adding we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. with all of that hard to draw causati causation, but the markets are close to session lows. dow is down 131, we have seen pretty visible move in crude oil, above $50 now, about 2% to the upside. the vix back above 14. john harwood, how is this going to be received? >> look, that was a very forceful speech, very well delivered by benjamin netanyahu.

this is somebody who knows america very well.e@x%%ma very . his argument had a lot of clarity to it. he said, know the alternative to this deal is not war, a much better deal, said the deal would not block iran's nuclear ambitions, it would pave the way for iran's nuclear ambitions. very well put together, well received on capitol hill. it's not going to be seen by a very large number of americans. it's a speech in the middle of the day. it will get coverage on the news tonight but we know that americans are watching news in decreasing numbers. the effect on public opinion is hard to gauge, but i think benjamin netanyahu did about as well as one could have hoped from his point of view. >> he was, john, denouncing the very deal that president and the secretary of state john kerry are in switzerland currently negotiating. do you expect his forceful words to have an impact on how those

talks proceed. >> i don't. remember, it's not just the united states, it's our partners in the p5 plus 1 including britain and france and others, that is going to proceed. those talks are gq÷a to proceed and rise or fall, i think, on their own merits. i don't think this speech in and of itself is enough to derail that deal, but it was a very good moment for opponents of the deal and benjamin netanyahu was voicing a lot of concerns that republican members of voice about the foreign policy it's naive, not forceful enough, and he seemed to think that the president had been taken in]ñ÷7 arguments that this deal would slow down iran and the administration's not going to heed his message but this adds a little static and interference to their end game efforts to get that deal. >> certainly adds static to

market sentiment. don't go far away. art cashin joins us people making comparison, i mean knew he had to give a powerful and forceful speech coming in. we were down close to 100 points before the speech began. a lot of that"góñ on concerns a china, also the fact that the utility average got clocked badly and that has often preceded a pullback in the industrials. i would say the atmospherics around the speech did have a bit of a negative impact as you noted perking up oil, the idea that the conflict may get a little bit deeper, despite what john believes and he's far more knowledgeable than i am. the markets here showed a little bit of concern that this could bleed to something else. >> people did say saudis raised

prices today, maybe wasn't all the speech. was it a contributor at all? is it? >> i would think maybe 10 to 15% on the end but, you know, the market was correcting all the way before he got to the podium. >> netanyahu alluding to the idea that further sanctions against iran and oil price squeeze could be the alternative to what he called a bad deal. could we see market effects down the line from things that he mentioned in the speech today? >> well, it could be, but i don't think saudi arabia overtly wants to look like they're doing the handwork of mr. netanyahu, but they might, in fact, be able to put further pressure on. the iranians are clearly hard pressed with oil at this level and while they don't have unrest in the street there is general discomfort that things aren't coming across as easily as they were. >> currently the worst day for stocks since january 30th that applies to the dow, the s&p and nasdaq both on a point and

percentage basis. john, everybody kept saying during the course of the speech the real trick is going to be when he stops criticizing this deal and says what we should be doing. was that as clear to you as you thought it should be. >> no. because it is no the clear at all that a, quote, much better deal could be negotiated. we don't know if iran is going to accept the terms of the deal as we understand it right now. i think we ought to acknowledge that we don't know exactly where this thing is going to end up, what all the provisions are going to be. i assume that prime minister netanyahu knows a lot about what it will be, buttr÷ probably not everything. so no, i -- that's the part that is difficult because we haven't seen a good path forward and this is why this problem hasslingered across multiple administrations without being resolved. there is a belief and i think that contributes as art indicated to maybe some of the movement in oil prices if you don't get this deal, we're

headed for one way or the other, for a hot conflict with iran and that's the alternative to everybody is trying to avoid. whether there's some other path to avoiding it that is not known. >> yeah. certainly art, we've talked, i don't know, for how long about a degree to which geopolitics have been smothered by a lot of other things, central banks earnings, the affection towards technology, this will bring that back into relief. >> doesn't take long to bring geopolitics into the game. i think we'll be talking about this the balance of the week along with things like china. are they slowing down more than normal. we'll hear about that later in the week and we have qe out of europe, lots of stuff. big menu here. >> it is a big week. it's easy to forget about geopolitics until you have a day like today when it is front and center. do you think we will be talking about this some time or now that this event is behind us, that the markets -- and washington

will be able to move on? >> we'll have to see if there is fallout from this. if it prompts any actions from iranians, if it prompts any action from isis. somebody might be opportunistic, the fact that the speech is over doesn't end it. >> john harwood in washington, thanks so much. let's get over to headquarters, ♪ >> okay. thanks so much. want to take you to our wall and show you what the markets are doing at this hour at the lows of the day. perhaps reacting to that rousing speech by the israeli prime minister before the joint session of congress. you do have the dow jones industrials down 127 points. it is the worst day for stocks since the end of january. you can kill the music. since the end of january. this is a day after, of course, when the major averages, at