sustain that vie toe? >> what's your biggest concern, congressman? >> i have two concerns. one is the iaea inspections. we were told this is any time anywhere. when you read the language as i understand it it's not any time anywhere. it's up to a 24-day process through this which the iaea has to go through in order to gain full access. secondly the addition at the last minute that would allow iran to export ballistic missiles to bad actors around the world. those are two two fundamental concerns that would have to be addressed for know support the deal. >> the conventional arms embargo is supposed to go away within five years but the ballistic missile embargo is supposed to go away in eight years. is that not good enough for you? >> no. in fact those bad actors will continue to exist. they'll morph, proliferation and this should not have been part of this deal. i understand the argument that the administration makes that china and russia weren't giving up on that.

that doesn't satisfy me. i think we should have been much tougher and should not have allowed that part of the discourse to enter into an agreement on nuclear weapons with iran. >> based on what you know right now -- and you're a good head counter in the house of representatives -- assuming almost all of the republicans in the house, and that's the majority vote against it the president vetoes that you need a two-thirds majority to override a veto, do you think the president will have enough democrats to back him to keep this deal alive? >> it's too early to say. this is why i fought so hard with others to have this 60-day review period so we could take the time necessary to make a judgment on the deal and not based on the politics of whether there would be a veto or not. my sense is based on my conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it will be very close in both the house and the senate. both on approving or disapproving the deal then a veto. the president needs 145 votes to sustain a veto in the house.

he needs 34 votes to sustain a veto in the senate. i believe in both chambers is itt will come right on the cus. >> and the white house is not assuming they have the votes. they believe it will be close, that's why we're seeing this activity on the part of the president, the vice president, his top national security advisors they'll spend the next 60 days working to make sure they have the votes to keep the deal alive. congressman, thanks very much for joining us. >> thank you, wolf. >> the iran deal will be a tough sell for president obama. joining us to discuss what's going on as we await the president of the united states, chief political analyst gloria borger chief congressional correspondent dana bash global affairs correspondent elise labott and fareed zakaria, host of fareed zakaria gps. the stakes are enormous and from what i'm told by administration officials they don't assume they have enough votes to get this deal through even if the

president vetoes it and they need a two-thirds override. they're working hard to make sure they have the votes. >> i don't think they can assume anything at this point and they're start to understand that they've got a -- they've got to make their case. that's why the president is coming out today to speak to the american public because very often a president will make his case on the bully pulpit talk to the american voters directly try to go around the congress to a certain degree. one thing i want to point out here about president obama is that he's been nothing if not consistent on this issue. we all recall from the 2008 campaign when president obama talked about direct engagement with our enemies, remember that? and hillary clinton, who was running against him in with 2008 chastised him and said "you can't do it, you're naive." >> not to mention john mccain. >> not to mention john mccain. but hillary clinton is now running for president and this has been a point of view that the president has had forever.

and i think nobody should be surprised he tried to get this done as part of his legacy and i think members of congress are going to have to confront right now is whether this president is farsighted as he believes he is or whether he's shortsighted adds many people like steve israel believe he is. >> fareed the israelis prime minister benjamin netanyahu, make nothing secret they hate this deal. it goes across the board in israel not just the ruling likud party but the opposition as well. but there's opposition from sunni arab states, whether it's the saudis, the emirates how big a problem will it be for selling this deal? >> i don't think as big as the united states congress. for a number of those countries, iran has been a strategic foe for decades. for them -- that not true for israel but certainly the gulf arabs, for them the nuclear deal

and the sanctions relating to the concern about nuclear weapons was a way to contain iran almost permanently, but, of course russia and china and even the europeans signed up for a permanent containment and sanctions policy against iran. they put those sanctions in place specifically to bring iran to the negotiating table to try to get it to make the concessions that largely it has made. so the saudis would have like to see iran deprived of its oil revenues in perpetuity. that's not likely to happen which is to say that that rivalry between the gulf arabs and iran between the saudis and iran will continue and is now in some ways more visible because iran will have access to more resources. >> do you think, fareed this is going to spur some of those very wealthy oil-rich arab countries to start moving towards developing some sort of nuclear capability themselves?

>> i think that's exaggerated. my own view that first of all they are well aware that the united states is going to provide them with security guarantees that's a much cheaper way for them to get them. just as when north korea went nuclear people predicted south korea would go nuclear, japan would go nuclear and both of them realized the u.s. was providing a security umbrella. there's also the reality, saudi arabia can buy nuclear technology from pakistan from france but if it were to have to develop nuclear weapons, that means having an underground indigenous capacity i have seen nothing in saudi arabia's scientific and industrial base that would suggest they could run a secret totally indigenous program hidden from the public eye. they can buy stuff, they can make very little. >> elise, there's a lot of concern by critics -- and you hear this all the time -- that iran is about to get a windfall

of about $150 billion in the frozen asset once those are lifted. that's iranian money frozen all of these years, but they'll get a windfall of $150 billion and then an additional in billions of oil revenues once that oil embargo goes away. they'll spend that money not necessarily on education or health care or infrastructure but give it to various so-called terrorist groups. that's a serious concern out there. >> it's a serious concern of the critics of the deal and why you see so much opposition on the hill to the arms embargo. it's pretty much not about the nuclear issue. that arms embargo was put in place because of the nuclear issue. it's larger things. if you look at the latest state department terrorism report iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism supporting bashar al assad in syria, hezbollah, hamas, and the concern is that they'll spend this money on the other activity. however, the president the making a big gamble that the

ayatollah khamenei and the leadership of hassan rouhani who was elected to improve the economy and get these sanss lifted is going to spend this money on their people going to sol identify the revolution. it's a big gamble. he may keep this regime in check for the next several years but when the deal is over are we going to have a fundamentally different regime or will they continue their terrorist activities. >> dana you're covering these republicans, a lot of republicans, 15 formally declared republican presidential candidates more on the way, john kasich as early as next week, the governor of ohio will jump into this presidential race. i take it all of them including rand paul, have come out firmly against this iran nuclear deal? is that right? >> they have. all the republican candidates are against it, that's one of the few uniting events in the very vast and very different aruba fields. to -- republican fields. what you're hearing on the republican campaign trail is not different than what you're

hearing on capitol hill. we knew other the months and months years of these talks about the broad parameters having to do with sanctions versus inspections but this arms embargo, the lifting of the arms embargo as you said to the congressman, five for conventional eight for ballistic. that is i'm told inside a meeting that joe biden had with congressional democrats a huge point of contention for what elise was talking about, the very real concern that iran, which is shiite and has been known to give arms to hezbollah and hamas, those who threaten israel will do that in a much more robust way and that the united states and its allies won't stop it. it's a last-minute move it seems that even some of the president's closest allies on this are saying it was very bad. >> the administration keeps talking about the "trust but verify" reaganesque phrase and a lot of opponents are saying you

can't do that. you can't trust and verify. and by the way you've already going to allow by lifting the arms embargo however gradually, you're already giving something away about that it's a very different situation from the way reagan was. >> they no longer say "trust but verify" they say "don't trust but verify." that's the new expression. >> but this is why the u.s. had to give up on this point, really, the russians, the chinese, even the french and germans are looking to sell weapons to iran and what they're saying is listen you wanted to keep the nuclear issue very separate from iran's other activities in the region. so this arms embargo, if you're opposition to lifting it now has nothing do with nuclear issues. >> let's get afareed's thought on this. the president of the united states will be walking in momentarily into the east room of the white house. he'll open with a statement then answer reporters' questions. we're told this news conference could go on for 45 minutes, maybe as long as an an hour. we'll have live coverage of the

whole thing. fareed one of the big question ss that critics say is this 24-day note i have f notification by the iaea that iran is cheating trying to hide something, they will have 24 days that notification before inspectors can go in and the argue system that within 24 days you can hide a lot of stuff. what do you make of that? >> it is the weakest part of the deal. i think deal in general is quite remarkable in being comprehensive and intrusive and going all the way back to uranium mines. the 24-day inspection process, the multilayered inspections process is the weakest part of the deal. the compensating fact is that you now have extraordinary technology that allows you to figure out what's going on before you get to the site so you can raise suspicions. and because -- the overall

context is one in which you know what's happening at the mines. you have cameras and inspectors in each of these major facilities in places like that. you would be tipped off to suspicious activity. i think if you pick that one element of the deal yup, it's not ideal. but you talk to experienced iaea inspectors and they will tell you with today's technology there's a lot you can do to compensate for that weakness. >> and another criticism, and jim acosta is our man at the white house in the east room getting ready for this news conference with the president, another criticism, i've heard if you go through the detail jim -- and i wonder how the administration responds to this they point out all the inspectors that the iranians will allow to come in from the international atomic energy agency will have to be inspectors from countries that have formal full diplomatic relations with iran. meaning the united states will not be allowed to have any

inspectors that go into iran to take a look because the u.s. does not have full diplomatic relations with iran. what does the administration say about that? >> that was a concession made during this negotiating process and it's essentially because the iranians don't trust the americans to do a credible job of inspections so what you'll see unfold i think, wolf is yes you're going to have a daily routine inspection of the known sites that have been a part of the iranian nuclear lexicon for some five or six years now. the question becomes what happens with these suspicious sites and that's where you get into a cat-and-mouse game. there's been a lot of talk and the israelis have been demanding this notion of any time anywhere access to sites around the country. administration officials have set that's a myth, there's no country on earth that will allow international inspectors to go anywhere at any time it's not going to happen so you have to see unfold here is this negotiated process and it's going to get frustrating not

only for the white house but other partners who are part of this deal. there may be moments in the coming months where these inspectors are not getting access to these sites, these possible military sites where there may be nuclear activity suspected of occurring. the inspectors may not get automatic immediate access to those sites. and that's when the games begin and you hear from administration official what is they don't want to go is get back to flashback to 10 12 years ago before the iraq war got started and there were inspectors trying to get access to sites and the iraqis were saying no you can't have access to these sites. but wolf what you'll hear from the president when he comes in here in a few moments -- and hopefully it's a few moments from now -- is the president will walk through the arguments he laid out yesterday which is if you don't have a deal what happens next? if you don't have a deal, the president will say, the two to three month breakout time the iranians currently have gets shrunk to zero.

then all of the activities that the israelis and republicans are worried about about supporting terrorism, the houthi rebels, the assad regime that becomes much much worse because you have potentially a nuclear state in tehran. so that's anningment you will hear from the president that it's much easier to keep a lid on iran. that's why hillary clinton when she was on capitol hill you heard her say this is an important first step to keep a lid on the iran nuclear program. the question becomes for hillary clinton and this white house is as goes this iran nuclear deal as go these inspections and the cat-and-mouse games that may follow so go not only the prospects for this white house and the legacy of this presidency but potentially hillary clinton's candidacy. can you imagine, wolf, she's trying to run for president and you have these iranians throwing up roadblocks and playing games with international inspectors over these iranian nuclear

sites. it could be a big headache for the democrats over the remaining months of this president. >> yesterday hillary clinton in her initial reaction to the deal when she met with reporters issued a lukewarm statement saying it was important. later in the day after she had more briefings she issued a lengthy written statement much more robustly endorsing this agreement. elise elise, what is the administration saying? you're talking to the negotiators who were directly involved about some of these problem s problems as far as inspections 24 days $150 billion than eased up if for iranians to spread their money around. what are they saying? >> well, they have an answer for everything. on the inspections issue it's not really -- ultimately it turns out to 24 days but iran has 14 days to comply with the request. if they don't reply, it goes to a committee. by the time it's going to a committee for another seven days or so then it starts to be like, listen, if you're not going to

comply those sakss will snap back right away. >> but they will have 24 days for which they can move -- >> correct, but by 24 days if those inspectors aren't getting in then you start to get about the snapback. >> well they have to go in in 24 days. >> exactly. but look any time anywhere was never possible. you would have to have a lot of inspectors on the ground all throughout iran to be any time anywhere there was always going to be some sort of managed access. that's what they're calling it. listen it's as fareed said and secretary kerry said yesterday. you need to have access to all areas of the fuel cycle. so if iran is cheating in one area it's not going to be possible for them to cheat in all areas without people knowing about it. i think the issue of whether iran is going to cheat under the cover of night and no one will know about it is a little overblown. there will be signs if iran is cheating and what u.s. officials

say is they understand all of the criticism but if the u.s. two walk away and they warned congress yesterday, if congress ends this agreement and block this is agreement, allies will walk away from the u.s., the lust never be able to reimpose the kind of sanctions that have brought attorney this point. and so you have iran walking away, a breakout state and then there are no sanctions to do anything about it. >> stand by. we're waiting for the president of the united states to walk into the east room of the white house. let's take a 60-second break. we'll be right back. you pay your car insurance premium like clockwork. month after month. year after year. then one night, you hydroplane into a ditch. yeah... surprise... your insurance company tells you to pay up again. why pay for insurance if you have to pay even more for using it? if you have liberty mutual deductible fund™ you could pay no deductible at all. sign up to immediately lower your deductible by $100. and keep lowering it $100 annually, until it's gone.

then continue to earn that $100 every year. there's no limit to how much you can earn and this savings applies to every vehicle on your policy. call 1-888-865-2166 to learn more. switch to liberty mutual and you could save up to $423. call liberty mutual for a free quote today at 1-888-865-2166. see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. ♪ once again we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. we're waiting for president obama to walk into the east room of the white house. he's holding a news conference. obviously on the agenda atop the agenda, the iran nuclear deal that was negotiated and signed agreed upon yesterday, the president will open up with a statement, we assume the

statement will be on the iran nuclear deal. he'll make the case why this is critically important for the us its allies the entire world. the reporters' questions could be on the iran nuclear deal but they could be on other subjects as well. we expect the news conference to go on for about 45 minutes to an hour. let me quickly go back to jim acosta our senior white house correspondent. any indication why there's a delay? it's supposed to have started about 20 minutes ago. >> no indication for the delay, wolf. and i have to tell you, i would assume this president is going to be in a hurry to go through this news conference because he's got a big schedule ahead of him for the rest of this week. he's been talking about this issue of criminal justice reform. he was talking about it yesterday in philadelphia in front of the naacp. he heads to oklahoma later on this afternoon to talk about it there he'll be the first sitting president to visit a prison tomorrow. is so there's an incentive to

get out of here as quickly as possible. but in terms of this news conference, this reminds me of what we saw after the midterm elections where the president, his back was up against the wall and he knew the questions would be coming fast and furious and as i recall and you recall during the news conference the president had pretty much a pat answer for just about every question that came at him. i'm wondering whether or not the president is going to have something very similar in store for these reporters that essentially what we heard yesterday, what we've been hearing from the vice president, other administration officials over the last 24 hours that once the public sees the deal. once concerned democrats and republicans see this deal the more they'll like it. i suspect we'll hear the president echo that message when he gets in here hopefully within a few moments from now. >> maybe there's something going on some sort of crisis delaying the president. we'll find out soon enough. stand by. dana bash on capitol hill the republicans who are speaking publicly they're at least skeptical if not down right

opposed to this deal. are there any republicans who are at least willing to give the president -- have an open mind to give the president the benefit of the doubt? >> not that i've heard so far. it doesn't mean they're not out there. they're not running to the microphones to say "i support president obama" which probably shouldn't surprise any of us. . i raise the question because of the political division here in washington. you would think on a national security issue like this there could be some sort of bipartisan or non-partisan approach. >> well that's a good point. unfortunately for the president the bipartisanship seems to be against this approach and this is one of those issues where you have more democrats than you would think. steve israel who you just interviewed earlier, he's a huge supporter of president obama and the democratic agenda. he spent two cycles getting democrats elected to the house. he's skeptical and sounds like he won't support this. that gives you a perfect example of how you're right, this doesn't fall on party lines but that's talking more about the

democrats. so the key question is going to be -- and as steve israel said to you very clearly -- probably ultimately if the president -- assuming the president gets something on his desk saying we don't support this congress won't allow this to happen it's going to be whether or not there will be votes to override his veto. that's at this point the big question. >> it would be a huge humiliation for the president if he were overridden. >> >> let's not underestimate the impact of the fact that bibi netanyahu has come out and said this is historically a mistake in no uncertain terms and that there are going to be members of congress who say, you know, we're not going to know the results of this gamble for many years, why do i want to put my stake with president obama on this when we don't know an answer definitively. will they go out on that limb with the president? they have to get reelected, the president does not have to. >> let's talk about benjamin

netanyahu. >> very quickly. the president is about to begin. >> i mean listen for all his speech and coming here to congress and trying to warn against the deal he was really not a factor in these negotiations. in fact i think it hurt him. i think he would have had a tougher deal had he been a silent visible partner that room trying to get a tougher deal than making a grandstand which i didn't think helped the deal in the end. >> maybe not the deal but he got reelected and you well know because you were in israel. >> the president will be walking over to the microphone momentarily, within the next few seconds supposedly. the reporters will be seated. the president will come in as once again he'll open with a statement and then he'll call on reporters. he's got a list of reporters. he goes into these news conferences, now, with a list of reporters he's going to call on. in the older days as i remember having been a former white house correspondent you would raise your hand and try to get the president's attention. all these reporters now know they may or may not be on the list of reporters who will be questioned.

once in a while the president could deviate and call on someone he spots but usually at these news conferences the order of the reporters are scripted. i want to get a final thought from fareed in advance of this news conference. fareed as someone who has studied this very closely, what would you like to hear from the president as he makes his case? >> i think what he should remind people of is that five seven years ago we had a situation where iran was building thousands of centrifuges. there was some partial sanctions, mostly u.s. very new european no u.n. sanctions. >> hold on fareed. i have to interrupt you because the president has walked in. he's beginning this news conference. >> please have a seat. good afternoon, everybody. yesterday was a historic day. the comprehensive long-term deal we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent iran from

obtaining a nuclear weapon represents a powerful display of american leadership and diplomacy. it shows what we can accomplish when we lead there afrom a position of strength and principle, when we are unite the international community around a shared vision and we resolve to solve problems peacefully. as i said yesterday, it's important for the american people and congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal. that process is now under way. i've already reached out to leaders in congress on both sides of the aisle. my national security team has begun offering extensive briefings. i expect the debate to be robust and that's how it should be. this is an important issue. our national security policies are stronger and more effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands. and as i said yesterday, the details of this deal matter very much. that's why our team worked so hard for so long to get the

details right. at the same time as this debate unfolds, i hope we don't lose sight of the larger picture. the opportunity that this agreement represents. as we go forward, it's important for everybody to remember the alternative and the fundamental choice that this moment represents. with this deal we cut off every single one of iran's pathways to a nuclear program. a nuclear weapons program. and iran's nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. without a deal those pathways remain open. there would be no limits to iran's nuclear program and iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal we gain unprecedented around-the-clock monitoring of iran's key nuclear

facilities and the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection regime ever negotiated. without a deal those inspections go away. and we lose the ability to closely monitor iran's program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program. with this deal if iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences. nuclear-related sanctions that have helped to cripple the iranian economy will snap back into place. without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel. with little ability to reimpose them. with this deal we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. without a deal we risk even more war in the middle east and other count flies the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs threatening a nuclear arm's race in the most volatile region in

the world. even with this deal we will continue to have profound differences with iran. in support of terrorism, its use of proxies to destabilize parts of the middle east. therefore the multilateral arms embargo on iran will remain in place for an additional five years and restrictions on beacon hill p ballistic missile technology will remain for eight years. in addition the united states will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's ballistic missile program and continue to deepen our partnerships with the gulf states and our cooperation with israel. but the bottom line is this -- this nuclearkeclear deal meets the security interests of the united states and our allies.

it prevents the most serious threat -- iran obtaining a nuclear weapon -- which would only make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. that's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure. it's why the alternative concern no limits on iran's nuclear program, an iran closer to a nuclear weapon, the risk of regional nuclear arms race and the greater risk of war, all that would endanger or security that's the choice that we face. if we don't choose wisely i believe future generations will judge us harshly for letting this moment slip away. now, no one suggests this deal resolves all the threats that iran poses to its neighbors or the world. moreover realizing the promise of this deal will require many years of implementation and hard work. it will require vigilance and execution. but this deal is our best means of assuring that iran does not

get a nuclear weapon. and from the start that has been my number-one priority our number-one priority. we've got a historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world, an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. as president and as commander in chief i am determined to seize that opportunity. so with that i'll take some questions and let's see who i'm starting off with. here we go i got it. [ laughter ] andrew andrew andrew beatty afp. >> reporter: thank you, mr. president. yesterday you said the deal offered a chance of a new direction in relations with iran. what steps will you take to enable a more moderate iran and

does this deal allow you to more forcefully counter iran's destabilizing actions in the region aside from the nuclear question? thank you. >> andrew if you don't mind just because i suspect that there's going to be a common set of questions that are touched on, i promise i will get to your question. but i want to start off just by stepping back and reminding folks of what is at stake here. and already did in my opening statement but i want to reiterate it because i've heard already some of the objections to the deal. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave throat the united states and to our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. and so everything we've done over the last six and a half

years has been designed to make sure that we address that number-one priority. that's what the sanctions regime was all about. that's how we were able to mobilize the international community including some folks that we are not particularly close to to abide by these sanctions. that's how these crippling sanctions came about because we were able to gain global consensus that iran having a nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody. that's the than iran's accounts got frozen and they were not able to get money for oil sales they made. that's the reason they had problems operating with respect to international commerce because we built that international consensus around this very specific narrow but profound issue. the point of iran getting a nuclear weapon. by the way, that was not simply

my priority. if you look back at all the debates that have taken place over the last five six years, this has been a democratic priority. this has been a republican priority. this has been prime minister netanyahu's priority. it's been our gulf allies' priority is making sure iran does not get a nuclear weapon. the deal negotiated by john kerry, wendy sherman, ernie moniz, our allies our partners the p5+1 achieves that goal. it achieves our top priority -- making sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon. but we have always recognized that even if iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon iran still poses

challenges to our interests and our values both in the region and around the world. so when this deal gets implemented we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program. we will have brought their stockpiles down to 98%. we will have significantly reduced the number of centrifuges that they operate. we will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime and that will remain in place not just for ten years but, for example, on the stockpiles will continue to 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon and now will be subject to an additional protocol, a

more vigorous inspection and monitoring regime that lasts in perpetuity. we will have disabled a facility like the iraq facility from allowing iran to develop plutonium that could be used for a bomb. we will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that's enriched and we will have put in place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if europe was diverted into a covert program, we would catch it. so i can say with confidence but more importantly nuclear experts can say with confidence that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. we will have met our number-one

priority. now, we'll still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. its funding of proxies like hezbollah that threaten israel and threaten the region. the destabilizing activities that they're engaging in including in places like yemen. and my hope is that building on this deal we can continue to have conversations with iran that incentivize them behave differently in the region to be less aggressive less hostile, more cooperative, to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave: but we're not counting on it. so this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior. it's not contingent on iran

suddenly operating like a liberal democracy. it solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don't have a bomb. and the point i've repeatedly made and i believe is hard to dispute is that it will be a lot easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies' interests if they don't have the bomb. so will they change their behavior? will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like syria or what's happening in iraq to stop encouraging houthis in yemen? we'll continue to engage with them although keep in mind that

unlike the cuba situation, we're not normalizing diplomatic relations here. so the contacts will continue to be limited. will we try to encourage them to take a more constructive path? of course. but we're not betting on it. in fact having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position to work with israel work with the gulf countries, work with our other partners work with the europeans to bring additional pressure to bear on iran around those issues that remain of concern. but the argument that i've already been hearing and this is foreshadowed before the deal was announced that because this deal does not solve all those other problems that that's an argument for rejecting this deal. defies logic. it makes no sense. and it loses sight of what was our original number-one

priority which is making sure that they dent have a bomb. john carl? >> reporter: mr. president, does it give you any pause to see this deal praise bid syrian dictator assad as a great victory for iran or praise bid those in tehran who still shout "death to america" and yet our closest ally in the middle east calls it a mistake of historic proportions? and here in congress it looks like a large majority will vote to reject this deal. i know you can veto that rejection but do you have any concerns about seeing a majority of the people's representatives in congress saying that this is a bad deal? and if i can just ask you a quick political question -- >> john i think -- >> donald -- >> let me answer the question you asked. it does not give me pause that

mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. that's what politicians do. and that's been the case throughout. you will recall that during the course of these negotiations over the last couple of months every time the supreme leader or somebody tweeted something out for some reason we all bought into the notion well the obama administration must be giving this or capitulating to that. well now we have a document so you can see what the deal is, we don't to speck latheulate or engage in spin you can see what it says and what is required and nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement iran has to drastically reduce its stockpiles of uranium, is

cut off from plutonium, the fordow facility that is underground is converted, that we have an unprecedented inspections regime that we have snapback provisions if they cheat. the facts are the facts and i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now, with respect to congress my hope -- i won't prejudge this -- is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts. not on politics not on posturing. not on the fact that this is a deal i bring to congress as opposed to a republican president. not based on lobbying but based on what niece the national interest in the united states of

america. and i think if congress does that in fact based on the facts the majority of congress should approve of this deal. but we live in washington and politics do intrude. and as i said in an interview yesterday, i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation. and that i welcome. in part because look there are -- there are legitimate real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with iran.

israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the holocaust, that has financed hezbollah and as a consequence there are missiles that are pointed towards tel aviv. and so i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. and i've said this to prime minister netanyahu, i've said it directly to the israeli people. but what i've also said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon. and for all the objections of

prime minister netanyahu or for that matter some of the republican leadership that's already spoken none of them have presented to me or the american people a better alternative. i'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated and this is a bad deal. this is a historically bad deal. this this will threaten israel and threaten the world, threaten the united states. there's been a lot of that. what i haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative? if 99% of the world community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say this will prevent iran from getting a nuclear bomb and

you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does it's temporary or that because they're going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they'll cause more problem s then you should have some alternative to present. and i haven't heard that. and the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here. either the issue of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force. through war. those are the options. now you'll hear some critics say "well, we could have negotiate a better deal." okay. what does that mean? i think the suggestion among a

lot of the critics has been that a better deal an acceptable deal would be one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that and the international community does not take the view that iran can have a peaceful nuclear program, they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. but we do have the leverage to make sure they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done.

so to go back to congress i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they're right and people like ernie moniz, who's an m.i.t. nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong. and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. >> reporter: mr. president, prime minister netanyahu said that you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before giving access to military

facilities -- >> i'm happy to -- that's a good example. so let's take the issue of 24 days: this has been i think, swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. keep in mind first of all, that we'll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities. fordow natanz iraq their uranium mines facilities that are known to produce centrifuges, parts. that entire infrastructure that we know about we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those now, one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain is that

it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. you know there are only so many uranium mines in iran and if in fact we're counting the amount of uranium that's being mined and suddenly some missing on the back end, they got some explaining to do. so we're able to track what's happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. but let's say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly the iaea the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world, the iaea will have the ability to say that undeclared site we're

concerned about. we see something suspicious and they will be able to say to iran and to be able to go and do that. i can not object. we can override it. in the agreement we've set it up so we can override iran's objection, and we don't knee russia or china in order for us to get that override and if they continue to object we're in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran is in violation and cheating. as for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such -- this is not something you hide in a closet. this is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off

somewhere, and by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we're suspicious about, we're going to be keeping eyes on it so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is and that's going to be something that will be evidence if we think some funny business is going on there, that we can then present to the international community. so we'll be monitoring that the entire time, and, by the way, if there is nuclear material on that site you know your high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace and so we'll know that in fact there was a violation of the agreement. so the point is jonathan that this is the most vigorous inspection and verification a

regime by far that has ever been negotiated. it is possible that iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire verification mechanism. it's possible but if it does, first of all, we built in a one-year breakout time which gives us a year to respond forcefully and we've built in a snapback provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the u.n. to put the sanctions right back in plas place and so really the only argument that you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they would find some way to get around it because they are

untrustworthy. and if that's your view then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. that means presumably that you can't negotiate, and what you're really saying is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program, and if somebody wants to make that debate whether it's the republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu or the israeli ambassador or others they are free to make it, but it's not persuasive persuasive. carol lee. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. why did you decide -- agree to lift those even with the five and eight-year durations? >> right. >> it's obviously emerging as a sticking point on the hill and are you concerned that arms to iran will go to hezbollah or hamas, and is there anything that you or a future president can do to stop that?

and if you don't mind i wanted to see if you could step back a little bit and when you look at this iran deal and all the other issues and unrest that's happening in the middle east what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year and a half? >> so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us has been a real concern to us and it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah, for example, or sending weapons to the huthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that gives us authority to interdict

arms shipments by irans. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution related to iran's nuclear program. essentially iran was sanctioned because of what had happened and its unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. resolutions about their nuclear program, and as part of the sanctions that was slapped on them the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now, under the terms of the original u.n. resolution the fact is that once an agreement -- once an agreement was arrived at that gave the international community assurance that iran didn't have

a nuclear weapon you could argue, just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missiles prohibitions should immediately go away but what i said to our negotiators was given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions and we got that. we got five years in which under this new agreement arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited and we got eight years with respect to ballistic missiles. but part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only for five let say, as opposed to

a longer period of time is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multi-lateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arm shipments from iran throughout the region and so we've had belts and suspenders and buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities. these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years, but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and truthfully you know these prohibitions are not self-enforcing. it's not like the u.n. has the

capacity to police what iran is doing. what it does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms shipments from happening in concert with our allies and our partners. and the real problem, if you look at how, for example hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to israel and many of our friends in the region it's not because they were legal. it's not because somehow that was authorized under international law. it was because there was insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those shipments. so the bottom line is carol, i share the concerns of israel saudis gulf partners about iran shipping arms and causing conflict and chaos in the

region and that's why i've said to them let's double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity so that fewer of those arms shipments are getting through the net, but the legal authorities we'll still possess, and obviously we've got our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues like support for hezbollah, and those remain in place. in terms of the larger issues in the middle east obviously that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the president, the next president, is that we are on track to