going back at underground facilities that are very hard to reach militarily accelerating advanced centrifuges that shorten the time spent in which they can achieve breakout capacity. and they would be able to maintain that the reason that they ended negotiations was because the united states was operating in bad faith and blew up the deal. and there would be some sympathy to that view around the world, which means that the sanctions that we have in place now would potentially fray because imposing new sanctions are a hardship on a number of countries around the world. they would love to be able to buy iranian oil. and the reason they've hung in there, despite it being against their economic interests, is because we have shown that we are credibly trying to solve this problem and alert some sort of military showdown.

now, in that context, there is no good argument for us to try to undercut undermine the negotiations until they've played themselves out. now, if iran ends up ultimately not being able to say yes, if they cannot provide us the kind of assurances that would lead myself and david cameron and others to conclude that they are not obtaining a nuclear weapon then we're going to have to explore other options and i'll be the first to come to congress and say, we need to tighten the screws. by the way, those aren't the only options that are available. i've consistently said, all options are on the table. but congress should be aware if this diplomatic solution fails, the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point a military confrontation is heightened. and congress will have to own that as well. and that will have to be debated by the american people.

and we may not be able to rebuild the kind of coalition we need in that context if the world believes that we were not serious about negotiations. so i take this very seriously. and i don't question the good faith of some folks who think this might be helpful. but it's my team that's at the table. we are steeped in this stuff day in, day out. we don't make these judgments blindly. we have been working on this for five six, seven years. we consult closely with allies like the united kingdom in making these assessments. and i'm asking congress to hold off because our negotiators, our partners those who are most intimately involved in this, assess that it will jeopardize the possibility of resolving a -- providing a diplomatic solution to one of the most difficult and long-lasting

national security problems that we've faced in a very long time. and congress needs to show patience. so with respect to the veto i said to my democratic caucus colleagues yesterday that i will veto a bill that comes to my desk. and i will make this argument to the american people as to why i'm doing so. and i respectfully request them to hold off for a few months to see if we have the possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war. and i think that's worth doing. we'll see how persuasive i am. but if i'm not persuading congress i promise you, i'm going to be taking my case to the american people on this. >> i think the big picture is very clear, the sanctions that

america and the european union put in place have had an effect that has led to pressure. that pressure has led to talks and those talks at least have a prospect of success. and i would argue with the president, how much better is that than the other potential outcomes outcomes? but, yes, i have contacted a couple of senators this morning. and i may speak to one or two more this afternoon. not in any way as british prime minister to tell the american senate what it should or shouldn't do. that wouldn't be right but simply to make the point as a country that stands alongside america in these vital negotiations that it's the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions or further threat of sanctions at this point won't actually help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion and they could fracture the international unity that there's been which has been so valuable in presenting united front to iran. and i say this as someone who played quite, i think, a strong

role in getting europe to sign up to the very tough sanctions including oil sanctions in the first place. and i would just simply make this point. those sanctions have had an effect. to those who said if you do an interim deal or even start discussing with the iranians any of these things the sanctions will fall apart, the pressure will dissipate, no one will be able to stick at it. that has demonstrably been shown not to be true. so the pressure is still there. if the iranians say, no there's no deal let's by all means sit down and work out the sanctions to put in place. we're united in a simple thought which is a deal that takes iran away from a nuclear weapon is better than either iran having a nuclear weapon or military action to prevent it. in the end, it comes down to that simple choice so i do what i can to help as one of the countries negotiating, sure i will.

>> [ inaudible question ]. >> the way the president put it, i wouldn't disagree with. it's very hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i'm the first british prime minister in 35 years to meet with an iranian president and it's very hard to know what their thinking is. but there is a very clear offer there which is to take iran away from a nuclear weapon and to conclude an agreement with them which would be mutually beneficial. that's what should happen. a question from nick robinson at the bbc. >> with extra security being put in place for the jewish community and also for police officers would people be right to conclude that the threat of an attack on the streets of britain is now all but imminent? mr. president, you've spoken of the threat posed by fighters coming back from syria. do you ever worry that this is a legacy of the decision of the united states and the united

kingdom to in effect stand on the sidelines during syria's bloody civil war? and if i may briefly, if you'll forgive me on the economy, you said you agree, is he right? is it time to stick to the plan? >> first of all, look we do face a very serious islamist extremist terrorist threat in america and around the world. we have to be vigilant in terms of that threat strengthen police and security make sure we do everything we can to keep our countries safe. and that involves an incredibly long-term, patient, disciplined approach. there is no single simple thing that needs to be done. closing down the ungoverned spaces the terrorist work in working against isil in iraq it means countering this poisonous fanatical death cult of a narrative perverting the

religion of islam, working together with our oldest and best partners to we share intelligence and security and try to prevent terrorist atrocities from taking place. it means all these things. and it is going to be a long, patient and hard struggle. we'll come through it and overcome it because in the end, the values that we hold to of freedom of democracy, of having open and tolerant societies, these are the strongest values there can be. in the end, we will come there. but it will take great discipline great patience, great hard work. we have a system in the united kingdom where threat levels are set by the joint terrorism system, not by politicians. the threat we face is severe. in their words, an attack is highly likely. if ever there is an imminent threat of attack it goes to the next level up, which is critical.

but it's their decision not mine. my responsibility is to make sure we marshal everything we have as a country in order to defeat this threat. it's good the metropolitan police have announced they'll be stepping up patrols. i met with the jewish leadership council earlier this week. we already provide through their security organization government money to help protect jewish schools. but i think this is -- we have to recognize in fighting terrorism, as we found in britain before you cannot simply rely on policing and security. this is a job for everyone. this is a role that we are all going to have to play in the vigilance and in making sure we keep our communities safe. >> with respect to syria and the connection to foreign fighters there's no doubt that in the chaos and the vacuum that's been created in big chunks of syria, that that's given an opportunity for foreign fighters to both

come in and come back out. and i chaired a u.n. security council meeting and we are now busy working with our partners to implement a series of actions to identify who may be traveling to syria in order to get trained to fight or to hatch plots that would be activated upon return to their home countries. so it's a very serious problem. the notion that this is occurring because the united states or great britain or other countries stood on the sidelines, i think is first of all -- mischaracterizes our position. we haven't been standing on the sidelines. it's true we did not invade syria. if the assertion is that had we

invaded syria we would be less prone to terrorist attacks, i'll leave it to you to play out that scenario and whether that sounds accurate. we've been very active in trying to resolve a tragic situation in syria. diplomatically, through humanitarian efforts, through the removal of chemical weapons from syria that had been so deadly. and now as isil has moved forward, we've been very active in degrading their capabilities inside of syria even as we're working with partners to make sure that the foreign fighter situation is resolved. but i think david's point is the key one. this phenomenon of violent extremism, the ideology the

networks, the capacity to recruit young people this has metastasized and it is widespread. and it has penetrated communities around the world. i do not consider it an existential threat. as david said this is one that we will solve. we are stronger we are representing values that the vast majority of muslims believe in, in tolerance and in working together to build rather than to destroy. and so this is a problem that causes great heartache and tragedy and destruction. but it is one that ultimately we're going to defeat. but we can't just defeat it through weapons.

one of the things we spoke about is how do we left up those voices that represent the vast majority of the muslim world so that that counternarrative against this nihilism is put out there as aggressively and as nimbly as the messages coming out from these fanatics? how do we make sure that we are working with local communities and faith leaders and families whether in a neighborhood in london or a neighborhood in do it, michigan -- detroit, michigan so that we are inoculating ourselves against this kind of ideology. and that's going to be slow plodding, systematic work. but it's work that i'm confident

we're going to be able to accomplish specifically when we have partners like the united kingdom doing it. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> on the economy, i would note that great britain and the united states are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of other countries are having problems. so we must be doing something right. major garrett? >> thank you mr. president. good afternoon mr. prime minister. good afternoon to you, sir. question for both of you, i want to make sure we heard what you were trying to say you clearly directing a message to congress in the context of iranian negotiations. were how also sending the message to iran that if the sanctions talks failed that war-footing is the next most likely alternative for those who

are allied with us in this common pursuit? and atrocities in paris, raids and threats in either belgium or the netherlands, is europe at a turning point in recognition of what its threats are and its own mobilization in terms of new laws security footing, larger budgets? and you both talked about cyber security there is a crucial issue for both countries, back doors and encryption to protect people and also privacy, i'd like your comments on that. thank you. >> i am not, repeat not, suggesting that we are in immediate warfooting should negotiations with iran fail. but as david put it simply if in fact our view is that we have to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then we have to recognize the possibility that

should diplomacy fail we have to look at other options to achieve that goal. and if you listen sometimes to the rhetoric surrounding this issue, i think there is sometimes the view that this regime cannot be trusted, that effectively negotiations with iran are point lessless and since these claims are being made by individuals who see iran as a mortal threat and want as badly as we do to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon the question then becomes, what other alternatives exactly are available? that is part of what we have to

consider as to why it's so important for us to pursue every possible avenue to see if we can get a deal. now, it's got to be a good deal not a bad deal. i've already shown myself willing to walk away from a bad deal. and the p5 plus 1 walked away with us. so nobody's interested in some document that undermines our sanctions and gives iran the possibility of whether covertly or gradually building up its nuclear weapons capacity. we're not going to allow that. and anything that we do any deal that we arrive at if we were to arrive at one, would be subject to scrutiny across the board, not just by members of congress but more importantly by people who actually know how the

technical aspects of nuclear programs can advance and how we can effectively verify in the most rigorous way possible that the terms of the deal are being met. so the bottom line is this -- we may not get there, but we have a chance to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. i should also point out, even if we get a nuclear deal and we are assured that iran doesn't possess nuclear weapons, we've still got a whole bunch of problems with iran on state-sponsored terrorism, their rhetoric towards israel their financing of hezbollah. we've got differences with respect to syria. it's not as if suddenly we've got a great relationship with iran. it solves one particular problem

that is urgent. and it solves it better than the other alternatives that might present themselves. so my main message to congress at this point is just hold your fire. nobody around the world, least of all the iranians doubt my ability to get some additional sanctions passed should these negotiations fail. that's not a hard vote for me to get through congress. and so the notion that we need to have additional sanctions or even the possibility of sanctions hanging over their head to force them to a better deal, i think the iranians know that that is certainly in our back pocket if the negotiations fail. with respect to violent extremism extremism, my impression is that

europe has consistently taken this seriously during the course of my presidency we have worked collaboratively and with great urgency and a recognition that not only do you have foreigners who may be trying to hatch plots in europe but that given large immigrant populations, it's important to reach out to and work with local communities and to have a very effective intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation between countries and between the united states and europe. there's no doubt that the most recent events has amplified those concerns. i think one of the things that i've learned over the last six years is that there's always more that we can do.

we can always do it better. we learn from mistakes. each incident that occurs teaches our professionals how we might be able to prevent these the next time. and i'm confident that the very strong cooperation that already exists with europe will get that much better in the months and years to come. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> here's where i actually think that europe had some particular challenges. and i said this to david. the united states has one big advantage in this whole process. and it's not that our law enforcement or our intelligence services et cetera are so much better although ours are very

very good. and i think europeans would recognize that we have capabilities others don't have. our biggest advantage, major, is that our muslim populations, they feel themselves to be americans. and there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition that is probably our greatest strength. it doesn't mean we are subject to the kinds of tragedies that we saw at the boston marathon. but that, i think, has been helpful. there are parts of europe in which that's not the case. and that's probably the greatest danger that europe faces, which is why as they respond, as they work with us to respond to these circumstances, it's important for europe not to simply respond with a hammer and law

enforcement and military approaches to these problems. but there also has to be a recognition that the stronger the ties of a north african or a frenchman of north african descent to french liberties, that's going to be important over time in solving this problem. and that's a recognition of that across europe. the last point i'll make and then i'll turn it over to david is with respect to the issue of intelligence gathering, signal intelligence encryptions, this is a challenge that we have been working on since i've been president. obviously was amplified when mr.

snowden did what he did. it's gone off the pages -- the front pages of the news. but we haven't stopped working on it. and we've been in dialogue with companies and have systematically worked through ways in which we can meet legitimate privacy concerns but also meet the real concerns that david's identified and my fbi director, jim comey, has identified. social media and the internet is the primary way in which these terrorist organizations are communicating. that's no different than anybody else. but they're good at it and when we have the ability to track that in a way that is legal conforms with due process, rule of law and presents oversight,

then that's the capability that we have to preserve. and the biggest damage that was done as a consequence of the snowden disclosures was, i think, in some cases a complete undermining of trust. some would say that was justified. i would argue that although there are some legitimate concerns there, overall the united states government and from what i've seen the british government have operated in a scrupulous and lawful way to try to balance the security and privacy concerns. and we can do better. and that's what we're doing. but we're still going to have to find ways to make sure that if an al qaeda affiliate is operating in great britain or in the united states that we can

try to prevent real tragedy. and i think the companies want to see that as well. they're patriots they have families they want to see protected. we just have to work through in many cases what are technical issues so it's not so much that there's a difference in intent. but how to square the circle on these issues is difficult. and we're working with partners like great britain and the united kingdom. but we're also going to be in dialogue with the companies to try to make that work. >> on the iranian issue, i won't add much to what the president said. i just think at this point, i don't think you can characterize it as if there's a deal the pressure is off iran and if there isn't a deal new pressure has to be applied to iran. even if there is a deal the key to that deal will be transparency and verification and making sure this country

isn't developing a nuclear weapon. that will mean repeated pressure even after a deal is done. and i would absolutely back up what barack says about recognizing that in so many other ways, we have some major disagreements with what the iranians have been doing. britain has suffered particularly from the appalling way that our embassy and our staff were treated in that country. so we approach with a huge amount of skepticism and concern. but the goal of an iran without a nuclear weapon makes these talks worthwhile. on the question is this a turning point for europe in terms of terrorism? i would argue that we turned sometime ago. maybe britain in particular because of the appalling attacks that took place in 2005. but there have been attacks elsewhere in europe. since i've been prime minister there's probably been at least one major plot every year of quite a significant nature that

we have managed to intercept, stop and prevent. so the awareness of the scale of the challenge we face is absolutely there across government across parliament across the different political parties in the police and intelligence services. i think there's an opportunity for countries in europe who perhaps up to now have been less affected to work with them and make sure that we share knowledge and skills because when you say -- the turning point is making sure your legislation is up to date making sure your police and security forces have the things they need making sure you're better integrating your communities. it means doing all those things. i very much agree with what barack says about the importance of building strong and integrated societies. i made a speech about this in munich a few years ago. it's a mistake in the past when

countries treated different groups and religious groups as separate blocs rather than trying to build a strong common home together. that is what we should be doing and that's what our policy is directed to. of course you need to have as i believe we are, a multiracial, multiethnic society of huge opportunity wherein one generation or two generations, you can come to our country and you can be in the cabinet, you can serve at the highest level in the armed forces you can sit on the bench as a judge. i've got in my cabinet someone just like that who in two generations his family's gone from arriving in brit ton sitain to sitting -- that's vitally important in combatting poverty. but here's the determining point. you can have tragically people who have had all the advantages of integration, all the economic opportunities that our countries have offered, who still get

seduced by this poisonous, radical death cult of a narrative. we've seen people who have every opportunity and every advantage in life in terms of integration. let's never lose sight of the real enemy here which is the poisonous narrative that's perverting islam. that is what we have to focus on recognizing that we help ourselves in this struggle if we create societies of genuine opportunity, create genuine integration between our communities. but never lose sight of the real heart of the matter. as for the issue on the techniques necessary for intelligence services to help keep us safe all i would say -- and the president and i had a good discussion about this earlier. i don't think either of us are trying to enunciate some new doctrine. the doctrine that i approach -- >> [ inaudible question ]. >> i'm sorry to disappoint you. but i take a very simple approach to this. ever since we've been contacting

each other by whatever means, it has be possible in both our countries, in my country, by a signed warrant by the home secretary, to potentially listen to a call between two terrorists to stop them in their activity. in your country, a judicial process. we've had our own -- we're not asking for back doors. we believe in very clear front doors through legal processes that should help to keep our countries safe. and my only argument is that as technology develops as the world moves on we should try to avoid the safe havens that can otherwise be created for terrorists to talk to each other. that's the goal that i think is so important because i'm -- i know some of these plots that get prevented, the lives that get saved, there's a very real connection between that and the capabilities that our intelligence services within the law use to defend our people.

i think the final question from robert moore from itn. >> yes. prime minister it's clear there's a security alert under way around the jewish community in britain. is that based on specific intelligence? should people be concerned about doing their daily activities this weekend? and do you regard a terrorist attack on british soil as almost inevitable? and, mr. president, you say there is a dialogue under way with the big american tech companies. but do you share the prime minister's view that the current threat environment is so severe that there does need to be a swing of the pendulum a little bit maybe from privacy towards counterterrorism and this area of private encrypted communications is a very dangerous one, potentially in terms of facilitating dialogue between terrorist groups? >> on the issue of the threat that we face as i said the

level has been set at severe that is set by an independent expert organization so people can have full confidence that these things are never done for any other motives than literally to look at the evidence that is there about toorgserrorist threats and to set the level accordingly. when the level is set at severe that means the authorities believe an attack is highly likely. if we believed it was imminent it would move to the next level, which is critical. we clearly do face a very real threat in our country. in recent months, as i was discussing with the president, we've had a number of potential attacks averted, for instance on british police officers. so that is the threat picture. it's regularly reviewed regularly updated. but it shouldn't be moved unless there is real evidence to do so. in terms of the protection to the jewish community and indeed other communities and indeed to

police officers themselves this is based on what has happened in france on the whole picture that we see and it is sensible precautionary measures to make sure we do what we can to reassure these communities, communities who are all too aware of the threat that they face. this is a bigger challenge for us. i think one of the most moving sights in paris was to see so many people holding up signs saying "i'm a cop" or "i'm a jew." people are standing out with a community that's been singled out and only because they were jewish. i think it's very important that we speak up and stand up for those communities and give them the protection that they deserve. >> obviously in the wake of paris, our attention is heightened. but i have to tell you over the

last six years, threat streams are fairly constant. david deals with them every day. i deal with them every day. our counterterrorism professionals deal with them every day. so i don't think there's a situation in which because things are so much more dangerous, the pendulum needs to swing. i think what we have to find is a consistent framework whereby our publics have confidence that their government can both protect them but not abuse our capacity to operate in cyberspace. and because this is a whole new world, as david said the laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap have to be updated. how we do that needs to be

debated, both here in the united states and in the uk. i think we're getting better at it. i think we're striking the balance better. i think that the companies here in the united states at least recognize that they have a responsibility to the public but also want to make sure that they're meeting their responsibilities to their customers that are using their products. and so the dialogue that we're engaged in is designed to make sure that all of us feel confident that if there is an actual threat out there, our law enforcement and our intelligence officers can identify that threat and track that threat at the same time that our

governments are not going around fishing into whatever texts you might be sending on your smartphone. and i think that's something that can be achieved. there are going to be situations where there are hard cases. but for the most part those who are worried about big brother, sometimes obscure or deliberately ignore all the legal safeguards that have been put in place to assure people's privacy and to make sure that government is not abusing these powers -- and on the other end, there are times where law enforcement and those of us whose job it is to protect the public aren't thinking about those problems because we're trying to track and prevent a particular terrorist event from

happening. and it's useful to have civil libertarians and others tapping us on the shoulder in the midst of this process and remining us that there are values at stake at well. and i think david and i welcome that kind of debate. the technologies are evolving in ways that potentially make this trickier. if we get into a situation in which the technologies do not allow us at all to track somebody that we're confident is a terrorist, if we find evidence of a terrorist plot somewhere in the middle east that traces directly back to london or new york we have specific information and we are confident that this individual or this network is about to activate a plot and despite knowing that information, despite having a

phone number or despite having a social media address or e-mail address, that we can't penetrate that? that's a problem. and so that's the kind of dialogue that we're having to have with these companies. part of it is a legal issue. part of it is a technical question. but overall, i'm actually confident that we can balance these imperatives and we shouldn't feel as if because we've just seen such a horrific attack in paris that suddenly everything should be going by the wayside. we have -- unfortunately this has been a constant backdrop and i think will continue to be for any prime minister or president for some time to come. and we've got to make sure that we don't overreact but that we

remain vigilant and are serious about our responsibilities there. all right. thank you very much, everybody. appreciate it. thank you. >> [ inaudible question ]. >> you heard a reporter shouting a few extra questions. but the president and the prime minister wrapped up their news conference. they spoke for a little bit more than one hour. the war on terror certainly escalating as a result of what has happened in paris and in belgium, elsewhere in europe over tphe past few days clearly dominating. and also iran developing a nuclear bomb. we have a lot to dissect. here in washington with me our chief washington correspondent, jake tapper, the anchor of "the lead." also with us our chief political analyst, gloria borger, our chief national correspondent, john king cnn national security commentator, mike rogers. also our national security analyst, peter bergen the

former cia operative bob baer our military analyst, mark hertling and jamie dutmer. jake what jumped out at you. >> the number of questions and lengthy answers about congress pushing forward a bill to impose more sanctions on iran if these talks -- these nuclear talks fall through was surprising i thought, although it's a big issue on capitol hill and a big issue in the white house. president obama issuing a public veto threat if that bill put forward not only by republicans but if democrats come forward, he said he will veto it. and the british prime minister saying he did indeed confirm that he is calling members of congress and not telling them how they should vote but that he opposes this legislation which he thinks will hurt efforts to get iran to walk away from any sort of nuclear weapons program that they're alleged to have. second point, i think the most

pointed question that there was for either of the two world leaders about terrorism was one from nick robinson of the bbc in which he said do you think in his terms, standing on the sidelines of the u.s. uk and other countries in syria, not getting more involved earlier on created this opportunity for terrorists with isis to be born and to thrive and to attack the west? and president obama saying that he rejected the idea a, that the u.s. and uk and other countries were standing by the sidelines, they were doing -- making many efforts. and, b, that that necessarily created the space and who knows what would have actually happened? both men condemning the terrorism in very stark terms. president obama referring to it as nihilism. the prime minister much more specifically identifying it as not only a death cult but

calling it islamist violent extremism, not the kind of language we normally hear from president obama. >> let me go over to gloria and john and mike rogers. let me play that little clip. here it is. then we'll discuss. strong words. >> first of all, look we do face a very serious islamist extremist terrorist threat in europe, america and across the world. we have to be incredibly vigilant in terms of that threat. we have to tlentstrengthen our police and security and make sure we do everything we can to keep our countries safe. and that involves an incredibly long-term, patient, disciplined approach. there is no single, simple thing that needs to be done. it means closing down the ungoverned spaces that the terrorists operate in. it means working against isil in iraq and series. it means countering this poisonous fanatical death cult of a narrative perverting the

religion of islam. it means working together with our oldest and best partners so that we share intelligence and security and try and prevent terrorist atrocityies from taking place. it means all these things. and it is going to be a long patient and hard struggle. i'm quite convinced we will come through it and we will overcome it because in the end, the values that we hold to of freedom, of democracy, of having open and tolerant societies, these are the strongest values there can be. and in the end, we will come through. but like some of the challenges our countries have faced together in the past, it will take great discipline great patience great hard work. >> both leaders promising they will win. they will defeat the terrorists but it's certainly going to be a long long struggle. >> right. and i think they kept coming back to this notion of the balance between privacy and security. and you know that that's been an issue on capitol hill since 9/11 and in this country since 9/11. and what cameron said that struck me is he said, we're not

looking for back doors as a way to get into your stuff. we're looking for legitimate front doors. and the president again made the point that if we can't read these encrypted e-mails and this is the main way that terrorists are communicating, then we're at a complete disadvantage. and i think both of these men who understand what liberty means are sort of saying, you have to take another look at it. the president mentioned snowden. and he said but we have to be able to understand who's talking to whom here. and even if it's encrypted, we have to figure it out. >> john what jumped out at you? >> the complexity in the calendar of these issues. i think there was some hope wishful thinking obviously, but certainly among the american people and maybe the global population and even some in politics who understand these issues in detail that after the raid that killed osama bin laden that somehow that was a turning point and we were on the

downhill in the war against terrorist groups. it's clear now we're not on a downhill. it's a different challenge. you have al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, you have al qaeda, isis, boko haram. now you have self-radicalized or smaller cells across europe and in the united states both leaders talking about how long this would take. because of that the separate challenges the different challenges and the complexity of the encryption issue and the technology issue and free speech. i think there was that moment where people had wishful thinking. and it's been obliterated again by the events -- >> mike were you surprised how forceful the president and the prime minister both were in telling congress right now, don't pass additional legislation in imposing the threat of additional sanctions against iran if these diplomatic negotiations fail hold your fire you can do that later but it will undermine this process and only set the stage potentially for military action? >> a couple of things in that,

wolf. these members have participated in the understanding of what iran was doing for years. and there's very senior democrats -- this tells me there's a bit of a no confidence with the president's negotiation team. remember they will get ongoing briefings i got as chairman ongoing briefings as to the very detailed concessions, nonconcessions things they were giving things they weren't giving. and there's been a host of problems with this. and part of it is the president's not done a great job in establishing relationships with either democrats or republican on the national security stage on these very tough issues. i think you'll see congress want to move forward and likely to move forward because, remember it started out as a secret negotiation in oman. i think that rattled our allies members of congress have relationships with those countries and those individuals. >> did you know about those negotiations in oman? you were the chairman of the house intelligence committee -- >> no, they didn't tell anyone. >> not even the chairman? >> they didn't tell our allies

who are in the region and have a lot at stake. that's what's happening in congress is this concern about where they're going, what concessions they're giving. and they believe they have to at least weigh in to make sure that there isn't problems after this -- >> very quickly, i want to get your thoughts because both of the british reporters specifically asked about security threats facing jewish schools, jewish institutions in britain right now in the aftermath of what happened to that kosher supermarket in paris. is there something out there that's going on mr. chairman because you just gave up your position that we need to know right now? >> again, the threat streams have been real the threat matrix how many different threats there are from different organizations has been very significant for over a year. what you see now and many would believe and argue, is there's a bit of a p.r. campaign in the type of targets of which they're hitting. they need to reboost their ability to sell their radical islamic vision and jihad.

and so to do that things that even though muslims would say, we condemn the killings at the magazine we condemn the killings at any jewish event, be it at a deli or a synagogue, that at least they can find some identification in their faith to those particular issues, even though they condemn them. i would worry about this because it clearly shows that they know they're walking into a problem with isis being so brutal using rape and murder and beheadings there's a wing of al qaeda, there's a wing of isis that understands they have to also realign their support from people they're going to recruit from and get money from. >> isn't there a competition going on between -- for recruits between the terrorist groups between isis and al qaeda in yemen? >> absolutely. if you notice, isis came out in the beginning and didn't take credit for the shooting on the magazine but said they were doing it on their behalf. and al qaeda came out with a formal video taking credit for it. that shows you that tension.

and it's about money, it's about resources, who gives money to which organization. and it's about people. >> stand by. everyone stand by. we're only just getting started. we're having full analysis of what we just heard from the president of the united states the prime minister of the united kingdom. much more of our special coverage coming up right after this. the traffic jam. scourge of 20th century city life. raiser of blood pressure. disrupter of supply chains. stealer of bedtime stories. polluter. frustrater. time thief. [cars honking] and one day soon we'll see the last one ever. cisco is building the internet of everything for connected cities today, that will confine the traffic jam to yesterday. cisco... ...tomorrow starts here. y'know what my business philosophy is, reynolds? >>no. not exactly. to attain success, one must project success. that's why we use fedex one rate®.

>>their flat rate shipping. exactly. it makes us look top-notch but we know it's affordable. (garage door opening) (sighs) honey, haven't i asked you to please use the.... >>we don't have a reception entrance. ship a pak via fedex express saver® for as low as $7.50. (son) oh no... can you fix it, dad? yeah, i can fix that. (dad) i wanted a car that could handle anything. i fixed it! (dad) that's why i got a subaru legacy. (vo) symmetrical all-wheel drive plus 36 mpg. i gotta break more toys. (vo) introducing the all-new subaru legacy. it's not just a sedan. it's a subaru.

our biggest advantage major

is that our muslim populations, they feel themselves to be americans. there is this incredible process of immigration and assimilation that is part of our tradition that is probably our greatest. we aren't subject to kinds of tragedies we saw at the boston marathon. that has been help. there are parts of europe in which that's not the case. that's probably the greatest danger europe faces. >> president of the united states speaking bluntly about the problems muslims have faced in europe referring to france and belgium, maybe the united kingdom. jake tapper the president was blunt saying muslims are a simulated in the united states for the most part but not necessarily europe. he says that's the greatest

threat that a lot of muslims can be recruited by al qaeda, isis or other groups. >> because they're alien eightatedlienated. we heard david cameron and his predecessor tony blare yesterday say don't assume the poverty, alien alien alien alienation. that's the problem. they the london bombings they were there, had all sorts of advantages and were not alienated. if you look at the tsarnaev brothers or others in this country, they didn't seem to be

individuals on the outskirts of society. yes president obama said that and there's truth to it. there's much more of the muslim population in europe than a simulating than here in the united states. you also heard david cameron push back on the notion that was alone enough. >> he did. peter bergden what jumped out at you from what we heard from the president and prime minister? >> the issue what the fbi calls going dark the idea law enforcement will no longer look at encrypted messages. this is in the wake of nsa revelations from the loss of billions of of income people concerned about privacy issues. as you know wolf a number of tech companies in the united states have talked about

encrypting information where there's no key to it. that is a big issue. the other thing that struck me wolf prime minister cameron said there's been one serious plot every year since he's been in office. he's been in office since 2010. depending on how you score, that's four or five. that's significant. >> he suggested this was not a game changer what's going on the past few days. he referred back to london in 2005 for the british that was the game changer. >> i think he's right wolf. i don't think this is an ex ex ex ex ex stinl threat to europe. for me the most important comment is cameron talking about syria, iraq nigeria, and on and

on. no one has offered a solution what we're going to do. this is a breeding ground for jihadi terrorism. we can't occupy those parts of the world. there's no solution in syria, iraq yemen. there's no government in yemen. what are we going to do about that? that's the root proshblem. neither addressed that. >> what do you think of the president's response when asked if u.s. and britain remaining on the sidelines in the war in syria has propelled isis new terrorist threat that exists in the middle east and now spreading? >> i disagree wolf. i think isis is just another name for the types of organizations that have been formatted in the area the last decade or more. i'd like to pile on the conversation peter mentioned in terms of the conversation regarding the number of threats, having served in europe seven of

the last 12 years before i retired. this was the -- the prime minister said he saw a threat a year. the president said something about having continuous threats on a daily basis. that's what i dealt with. every day there were some type of terrorist organizations. in 2011 we created a program called wolf spoerttter which looks at lone wolves and up and coming organizations. we shared that information with other governments. i'm sure this attributed to this event that occurred last night wolf. >> i want everyone to stand by. we're getting new information. general thanks very very much. i'm wolf blitzer in washington.

we want to welcome viewers in the united states and around the world. we're following the breaking news. we're getting word an 18-year-old woman has been arrested in uk on suspicion of terrorism offensive. a tweet from london metropolitan police says the woman was arrested at the airport near london. we'll bring you details as they come in. stand by for that. another worrisome development. other developments are happening now. authorities in belgium say terrorists may have been hours away from unleashing a plot to gun down police officers. they stopped them before they could strike. police killed two suspects arrested a third. 12 more suspects were arrested in raids overnight and four are now held by france. there could be as many as 20 terror cells ready to carry out attacks in france belgium, germ think and netherlands according to a western intelligence source. the source says cells could involve between 120