wants to transfer this technical assistance to iran. this is the most recent issue that i think caught us by surprise. and i think the other element of surprise was the discovery that in the middle of this negotiation, one month ago, that iran had committed to transfer to hamas not just the funding to rebuild the 35 tunnels that had been built before under israel but also a new generation of rockets and weapons and most recently, the additional discovery or announcement that iran was going to transfer precision guidance systems to the 100,000 rockets and missiles that hezbollah has had it's just those all aimed right now at israel but not quite as effective, obviously, because of the iran dome. as they could be, if they had

these guidance systems. the fact that iran is willing to do this in the middle of negotiation, and to demand the up front payment of the signing bonus, which evidently they are going to use for this purpose is something that really drove the attention here of a number of members of congress over the last two days as this information surfacing. and i would like, i would like your comments, ray on this. general, you might have some insights as well. >> nick can talk about the conventional provisions in the u.n. because they were negotiated in the security resolution. as i understand it, those violation -- those embargoes have to do with iran's behavior and not the dispute going on at the time. irrespective of what happens to the arms embargo, and i think it is unfortunate that is not want

to be sustained, i ran has a fairly indigenous defense industry. money it uses can certainly enhance procurements and so forth. there is always going to be a problem of iranian transference of technology in other forms. obviously, under this particular prohibition, once it expires they have access to more sophisticated -- >> not only will they be able to export from their technology they have developed more easily to their allies, but also they are going to be able to import from russia and china the technology they need for icbms or surface to air weapons and so forth will stop ambassador burns? ambassador burns: mr. chairman, there is no question that the iranians were trying to split the p5 in the last week of the negotiations with this proposal. there is no way we could have accepted this.

i was trying to dive to the details coming over here. if we can't maintain these u.s. weapons embargoes for both import and export for five years, that is good for the united states. >> hold on. five years? in 10 years they're going to have the capability for undetectable nuclear breakout. 10 years plus under this agreement. why would we want to agree to five years and 10 years for that capability? why would the united states sign off on such an agreement, ambassador? >> i am not here to represent the administration. i am a private citizen. this is a painful trade-off. it is a trade-off that apparently our negotiators felt they had to make. how would we then were, when embargoes are lifted six, 7, 8 years from now? we will have to use the powered united states to prevent the sale to iran. iran has been violating the

other side of it. they have been giving alms to other groups throughout the middle east. >> very briefly, mr. chairman, i find it incoherent. in my prepared remarks, i tried to describe broad iranian behavior. there are lots of ways of stopping the nuclear program. we have dismissed the ballistic missile part and focused only on the nuclear. to get iran down to this agreement, we have simply taken a whole bunch of things off the table that we legitimately could have included. now, to get to the agreement the iranians are now walking back up that ladder and including as concessions to them things that they had refused to discuss with us into the negotiations. i do not understand why they ballistic missile sanction or the conventional weapon sanctions are even in an agreement on the nuclear program.

>> general, as i mentioned in my opening statement, the administration was once on the same page as congruence on this issue -- as congress on this issue of anywhere, anytime inspections. the iranians pushed back to their hard. i remember them boasting that they would not even be able to inspect the most normal military post in their dreams. now we are talking about something called managed access. it says inspectors will get access to critical sites only after consultation with the iranians, with the russians, with china will stop and, other world powers in this negotiation. we won it to get this -- he wanted to get this within 24 hours. that was the idea. inspectors could get in within

24 hours. with this agreement, if we're lucky, it would get inspectors access within 24 days after of a steps iran has insisted on. that is only predicated on the effect that we have agreement with russia and china in backing the access. so, my question here as you said in your testimony, we never believed that the iranians, and i -- at the declared facilities, would make its way into a weapon. we assumed that work would be done somewhere else, in secret as you said. how confident are you in any sort of managed access process that includes iran on the committee that determines whether or not we have access? >> mr. chairman, we have several issues. i already mentioned one about the conventional arms. snap back sentience. this is the one i am most

concerned about, because again, we have eliminated our margin of error. quote points. number one, i would never come to you and tell you that american technical means will be sufficient for verifying this agreement without an invasive inspection regime. i would not tell you it is ok, we know enough to give you sufficient morning. that really puts the weight of effort on the iaea's ability to go anywhere anytime. as suggested in my remarks, mr. chairman, we have taken that from the technical level. it needs to resolve. we have taken from the technical level and put it at the political level. i just think that is a formula for chaos, up use geisha and ambiguity, doubt and finally we are not going to be able to tell you for sure where the iranians are.

-- ambiguity should in -- >> this opinion highlights the greatest weakness of the agreement announced today. we are dealing with a country that has proven over and over again that they will not play by international rules. they have constantly deceived and delay to inspectors from the united nations. not from the united states. now we are taking a risk of making this trade where we and sanctions on them in return for them as sensual, temporarily, freezing their nuclear program if they, for the first time in three decades, actually do honestly what they say they will do. the one guarantee your hope that we have that they would do it is the any time -- anywhere and inspections. the agreement that came out today is the greatest

disappointment in this regard, because it is, basically, a highly bureaucratic process that goes at least 21 days during which iran can remove anything in violation of the agreement that they want to. i think this is the point. i urge this committee, members of the congress, focusing on the section of the agreement on access. this is one that i ran one hands down and the consequences for the overall agreement are devastating. >> thank you, senator. mr. ted deutch of florida. mr. deutsch: first of all, i want to thank the witnesses for a really thoughtful presentation. i hope it has set an important tone for a meaningful, serious condition for the crucial vote. -- discussion for the crucial

vote. my question about access, mr. chairman, and i appreciate exchange that just a place. ambassador burns, i would like to ask you. you gave an excellent presentation on what our negotiators were able to accomplish and the trade-off they needed to make. the skepticism you have about the agreement, i want to focus on one in particular. the goal in all of this, the goal of diplomacy, in reaching a deployment -- diplomatic solution, is to avoid military intervention. what i am trying to grapple with as we look at this, as we get into the details of this agreement, is what that looks like over time. and initially, you said it is really important that at the same time we move forward with his nuclear issue we pushed back against iranians in the middle east.

you detailed the many ways in which they have shown their influence throughout the region. there are terrorist infrastructure. i would ask, stemming back to the issue of resources when they codified d terms of their nuclear-related conditions, and have access to their frozen asset, whether it is $1 billion or $50 billion, if we acknowledge that they are going to invest in their own economy clearly some portion of the money will be to support what they are doing in the region. if the goal is peace short-term, is it likely the infusion of additional money will lead to less peace and more violence through their terror proxy? >> thank you very much, mr. deutsch. i would say the goal here for

the last 10 years has been to deny them a nuclear weapon through a means, possible. if not, we resort to military means. that is what the obama administration has tried to do. yes, it is a peaceful negotiation, but it is what we've tried to do. it is worth doing. that is how i understand what president obama's directive is here, and that is why i supported. the problem is we are dealing with two different iranian governments. i think generally reform and. a genuine reformer in their context. the foreign minister. that is even air. the government we have been dealing with and by anna. but there is another government. the commander of the revolutionary guard corps. that is an assertive, violent

administration. they are the people pushing into the middle east. i would assume that some of the money from sanctions relief is going to go to economic improvements because they have got terrible economic problems at home. they have to rebuild the economic infrastructure of that country. it has withered away and are sanctions. some of that will go into arms and supporting terrorist groups. at the same time, it is in our interest to support the nuclear agreement, it is definitely an hour interest use -- in our interest to strengthen our relation with russia and others. we have spent all of this time negotiating with one to get to an agreement only to see that government then hand off responsibility going forward to the other government that is wreaking havoc in the region. dr., let me ask you that.

>> i often hear that you can transact and arms agreement and maintain your pressure in iraq. i am not sure if that is possible. if you want to bring out the soviet experiments, i'm happy to go into that as well. the united states trying to discipline iran has been through economic sanctions. we never use military strength against him, and so on. this agreement stipulates that over a. of 10 years, the united states will unwind its history of sanctions. in this agreement, central-bank stations are to be waived. is that an aggression sanctions? is that a human rights ancient? it is a sanction that is going to be waived. what nick words wanted to do contain iran, is going to diminish.

soviet-arms was 1983. this was one of the most aggressive and soviet-american history. commentating -- revolutionary countries that are beneficiary to be more aggressive, the ability to the united states to enforce contain aggression, tends to diminish. >> i want to make sure i understand. the reference to our negotiations, you suggest we should use it as a warning sign? >> yes. i challenged the thesis you can maintain and arms agreement through a revolutionary state. >> thank you. florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to remind my good friend ambassador burns that while he says there are two governments, both are very much

active this past friday when they were chanting, death to america, death to israel. we would like to talk about these two separate entities, the hardliners and the moderates. but a have one goal in mind. and they say it. death to america. death to israel. and we ignore that. according to reports, the white house seems to have caved on almost every one of iran's demands. blowing past its own red lines on enrichment, centrifuges verifications, inspections sanctions relief, and on coming clean on asked nuclear ambitions and military dimensions. along the way, the administration has made excuse after excuse justifying every iranian violation of this interim deal in order to continue negotiations providing billions of dollars in sanctions

relief and it is set to provide billions more. and now, what will iran do with the additional sanctions relief and the influx of international investments that it is going to receive from this deal? it is going to continue funding its hegemonic invasions throughout the middle east, support for terrorism throughout the world, just as it has been doing in lebanon, syria, iraq. it is clear this deal is a far cry from every red line that the white house it self imposed. it is a lower threshold than the sixth -- then the six un security council resolutions. i read these resolutions, it is like a federal -- a fairytale. once upon a time, the world powers got together and said, this is what we are going to demand. the administration kept lowering the bar time and time again. defending its violation of the

iranians every step of the way. going legacy shopping. here is another item off the shelf. the iranian nuclear deal. people will be worried about whatever else is going on in the music industry in the film industry, nobody is going to pay attention. let's look at the shiny keys. the administration has also said it would only lift nuclear related sanctions. even though officials would never describe exactly how that was defined. now reports indicate the immunity -- the administration has caved to the sanctions that are nuclear-related. do you believe the united states and united nations should be lifting sanctions imposed on iran for its support to terrorism, including the arms embargo. and following up on chairman royce's exact point general hayden has pointed out that the iaea must be allowed to in --

allowed to inspect these military sites, etc.. it you told us, and your colleagues believe that weaponization would never occur at declared facilities and would be done in the secret facilities. it is now being reported the deal would allow suspect act committee at suspect sites to have access only after the p5 plus one consultation with the iranians! secretary chair has stated that inspecting iran's military sites, coming clean on possible military dimensions, is not even necessary because they united states full knowledge of iran's activity but many in the intelligence community including dia director michael when former director michael quinn, has limited and it will make it impossible. how can we expect them to give

access to suspect sites after consultation with p5 plus one countries? how hard is it to gather intelligence in iran? how can we have full knowledge of iran's a vivid ease without access to all of these sites? finally, mr. chairman, many supporters of the iran deal have been floating the fantastical idea that i really will change his behavior as a result of this agreement. become a better neighbor in a more stable middle east. how will lifting the sanctions and the influx of new money from the sanctions influence relief? they will have more money to be involved in its hegemonic ambitions. there is not enough time to answer all of the questions that i have, and not only the sanctions that the u.n. supported once upon a time, we are done with those. by this will just rip that one up. that is not happening. what about our u.s. sanctions?

we talked about what sanctions we would lift. but, there are some within our control. but there are so many executive sanctions that the president can lift. so many provisions he can wave. i know i am out of time, but greatly saddened, sickened, and frustrated over this deal. they queue, mr. chairman. >> chairman of california. >> thank you. let me first set the record straight. the sanctions, especially the secondary sanctions, are the only reason that iran made any concessions at all. those sanctions were imposed by congress over the executive branch. the executive branch had it wrong except for those occasions when the house had a right and sent ills over to the senate and then the president block them in the senate.

i am disappointed in this deal for all of the reasons that have been brought up. the arms embargo was not a nuclear sanction yet it is being wavered. the other will be wavered basically nine reasons were cited as to why we imposed it only one of them is nuclear. this sanctions relief is so complete that we are even going to import things from iran. not oil, but only the things we do not need them they cannot sell to anybody else. i think you are right in saying they're going to spend a good chunk of this money they're going to get for did best at purposes. that, in addition, they will spend it on graft and corruption. they are good at that. they're going to kill a lot of citizens. some of them deserve it, many do not. they will have a few billion left over to kill americans israelis, and work under mischief. a number of people talked about the health they would see a

change in the government. keep in mind the imposed sanctions to change the government on the theory that if you deprive the government and its people from economic benefit , you put pressure on them to change. now, we are going to shower them with money. ok, it is their own money. economic benefit is usually not the way to cause a government to lose its grip on power. general hayden brings up missile. i will simply point out you can smuggle a weapon inside a bale of marijuana. it is not the classy way to do it. obviously, iran wants an intercontinental ballistic missile and a have only one way to what -- one reason to want them, and that is to deliver a nuclear weapon. is it a good deal? did obama do a good job? it is there -- we're here in the

real world. we got a disappointing deal that has the full support not only of the american president, but also of the p5 plus one. imagine us going on a trip to italy and telling them that eni should not invest in iranian oilfields even though president obama thinks they should. we would have good wine, but i do not think we would achieve our purpose. so i think in the real world senator lieberman it points out we can and doors or reject this agreement. i agree with you except there's something else we could do. we could refuse to endorse it and refuse to adopt it. which is probably what we are going to do. but, i should mention, this deal must have some good points. the good points are in the first year. 90% of the stockpiles are being shipped out. two thirds of the centrifuges are being rough.

so, if we do not take any action in the first-year, we get all the benefits and the detriments of the first year. the 10th year of the deal is absolutely terrible. iran has free access to 10 times as many centrifuges or 100 times as many centrifuges each one 10 times stronger than it was before. our focus needs to be what do we do to prevent year 10. we can pass a resolution, we could bring up a resolution of approval. it would be voted down overwhelmingly. and then, in the future, congresses and presidents would be free to take action, hopefully before your 10. that would be the strongest statement against the agreement. what is more likely to happen, unfortunately, is we will have a resolution of does the approval. the veto is likely to be sustained. i think it will be sustained. and so we reach the same

position, congress agrees -- declares it does not like the agreement, does not approve of. we simply do it in the week most pitiful way, the final vote in a victory for those is important agreement when we do not get to -- two-thirds to override. i think this deal is going to go in force. what i would like, and i realize i am at a time, i hope the chairman will be indulgent. what advice do you give presidents next decade as to how to prevent iran from having an industrial-size enrichment program where, in the words of president obama, their breakout time would be almost zero? i will start with general hayden. general hayden: i'm sorry, mr. chairman i do not have a good answer to that question. this deal guarantees the reality. this deal is not finding on the

american people are future american presidents. so let's say i ran kind of lives within the deal for the next five years, is economically stronger another president can say, all options are on the table. what can a president due to make sure that this terrible year 10 does not go into force? any other witness have a response? senator lieberman. senator lieberman: the first thing i want to say is respectfully offered a somewhat different viewpoint about what will happen in congress. i am not prepared to say, based on conversations i've had with both chambers in both parties that this agreement will be approved or disapproved and a presidential veto will not be overridden. i think people's minds are open. they are concerned and will look at the agreement.

whether congress would override a -- an agreement by the president would depend on the specific terms of the agreement. now, we have seen the agreement and the fact that it legitimizes iran eventually as a nuclear weapons power, and even more important, the access, the inspection provisions are full of holes. they do not give us any help that this country which has constantly cheated and its international agreements will abide by the agreement here. so i think it is definitely possible that this agreement will be reject it by congress and the president's veto overridden. to me, that will be the best of all results. if it is not the latitude of future presidents i suppose will be expanded, if there is an initial rejection of the agreement and not if the president vetoes it and the veto is overridden.

because a future president can look back and ask for an imposition of sanction based on iranian behavior and based on a precedent the congress will set which is that both houses voted to reject. it will take 60 to vetoes the proposition. >> on page 60 it says it will be treated as any other -- >> and you have to have a president who demands than a puts all options on the table. tags i do think one path would be, is to suggest that after 10 years, all of the parties to this agreement, five plus one and iran, will vote whether to extend the restrictions. there is a president -- a

precedent for that. that has to be renegotiated in this particular >> the answer to that in my view is president obama does three things. reimpose sanctions if necessary, that is possible but difficult. retain the right to use military force. there is a strategy where this agreement can be implemented successfully. >> thank you for the distinguished witnesses. not only did the iranian government orchestrate death to america demonstrations of a few days ago, they hold americans.

your comments about how this falls short, ambassador burns, you mentioned it is not a perfect deal. who expected a perfect deal? that sounds like a strawman man argument. we hoped for a better deal, the issue of enrichment, they are off the table. now there will be enrichment allowed. that was a major mistake. in a statement of what i consider to be bad faith president obama vowed to block any congressional agreement to block this. it is day one and he is talking veto. why not persuade congress and the american people about its

content? manage access. one of several achilles heels. how does that to military sites? we want peace and nuclear weapons are the into this of peace. will this begin or ferment a nuclear arms race. ambassador burns, you talked about how this buys us 10 years. there are always some caveats allowed, including oil to china. now we have a situation where they are going to get huge infusions of cash. which will hurt obviously the region. a multiplier effect. force multiplier for terrorism. that is a serious problem.

the existential threat to israel, perhaps you'll want to comment on that. one of the key questions is whether or not the obama administration and the p5 plus one partners can be trusted to punish iran. what will happen? senator lieberman? senator lieberman: let me respond to the question about nonproliferation. this is going to be an ironic and painful result. an agreement to reduce the presence of nuclear weapons in the middle east, because it eventually allows a radical state like iran to get nuclear weapons, will in fact encourage other powers within the middle

east to invest in nuclear weapons capability. that is a -- that makes the middle east, which is already boiling, with various kinds of conflict, more literally explosive. officials within the saudi government have said to people if an agreement between the p5 plus one and iran enables iran to become a nuclear weapons power, they are no goodt going to wait until that happens. they are going to build their own capacity for nuclear weapons. i said this agreement has more risks for america and reward for iran than it should. it is not the good deal we all wanted. governments in the middle are making the same calculations. throughout the arab world and israel. they are going to take actions

based on that calculation. if we think it is a bad deal, i think they will think it is a terrible deal. it is their neighborhood. the result will be exactly the opposite of what was hoped for here. a more peaceful middle east. a more violent and explosive middle east. >> the more administration argues it is this deal or war the more you take off the table the ability of the u.s. to use military power. i don't think anybody believes that is a realistic option at the moment. i don't think they have believe that for more than a year or two. that does actually weaken our position in order to get the kind of behavior we want from the iranians.

>> let me ask about, any the report itself, the actual agreement. it's his iran intends to ship out all spent fuel. are the requirements in this for that? that is pretty weak. >> i understand it is a requirement. it is part of the deal. senator lieberman: i would say it is a good question and one that you and the committee will get answered when the administration comes before you. mr. smith: thank you. mr. meeks: let me first ask, i was listening to ambassador burns's kirsten moni --

testimony. one of the things he highlighted if the united states had walked away and we just said no and the other partners were trying to strike a deal, my first question i will ask to general hayden. do you think we should walk away even if that meant the disillusion of the p5 plus one in the unity we have had for the last 20 months? would you walk away from such a deal? general hayden: if we did that, it would dissolve the unity of the p5 plus one. that is a corner we have painted ourselves into. mr. meeks: it would make it difficult for the coalition to

hold together. the sanctions that have brought iran to agree to negotiations, when it was also an investor burns's testimony be pushed administration tried to get iran to negotiate and they would not at that time. there has been a tremendous, a change from what took place at the end of the bush administration because we did not have this outside unity with the p5 plus one but could relieve some of the pressure on iran. for me, the only thing i am looking at in these negotiations is what is the opportunity to stop iran from having a nuclear weapon? general hayden: i think the russians and chinese they did not want to be there in the first place.

it was a high level of skill to get them into the circle to pressure the iranians. there is greater hope with the eu the french and germans although we have painted ourselves into a corner. for those to be undone would make it very difficult. mr. meeks: the problem is, well the negotiations were going on we were not in the room. who was demanding what within the p5 plus one becomes important. i think it is important for members of congress, before we make a decision, talk to our colleagues in the p5 plus one to find out what their feelings are. where they are on this. it is important to talk to scientists not just the politics. to go to vienna. i would suggest members of this committee travel to vienna and talk to the iaea to see if what is in place, can they do the

inspections? well it prevent in their opinion as scientists, not just politically? i agree with senator lieberman to read this is a very important vote. i cannot leave it in a vacuum. i have another important vote, when we decided, talking about iran. there were questions then about whether wish to have diplomatic relations. should we debate. should we have verification? what happened at that point, we said no. there was imminent danger of iraq having weapons of mass destruction. i can room number -- i can remember. we took the case to the u.n. there were these weapons. i don't want to go back, but i

think we should learn a lesson because we are still paying for that. we didn't do everything we could first. if we did everything we could first, and they still had weapons, we could have done what we did anyway. here we are again with the opportunity. i agree, this is not perfect. i don't know any perfect bill that has ever been made in this united states congress. ever. not one. >> i agree. the question, and i think you have framed it, is is this deal good enough? that we should avoid sliding from that position into a position that any deal is better? mr. meeks: we have to keep in context that we are not dealing by ourselves. everything i hear, us.

forget about the other five partners to this deal. this is what the u.s. -- when you have negotiations, leadership, keeping this group together, that is leadership so we can get to this point. otherwise, we don't get here. this at least gives us a chance. shouldn't we at least look at it? the deal was struck this morning. we haven't talked to any scientists. we haven't gone to vienna. we have not talked to our partners. that is our responsibility in congress. as opposed to making a decision today. general hayden: the position we have is the fine print really matters. there is little or no margin for error. >> let's go to dana roebuck

of california. mr. roebuck thank you mr. chairman. you provide great leadership on this issue and others of significance. the agreement being discussed today is being held with an entity that holds for americans illegally hostage. we are preparing legislation that would allow to take non-iranian -- non-diplomatic iranian officials into custody until they return these americans who they are holding illegally. we will not do that because we don't want to make the

regime angry. we have refrained. the mullahs have already won a great deal by the elongated negotiation. we have been refraining from supporting the democratic elements in iran for fear it would upset the negotiations over the nuclear deal. we have already been a loser before the sukkot was it -- this supposedly agreement. does anybody know whether it includes an iranian agreement not to obtain a nuclear weapon from another source rather than building one on their own? >> i think the agreement

stimulates they are a member of the npt. mr. rohrabacher: the answer is yes, part of the agreement is the iranians have agreed not to obtain a nuclear weapon from somewhere else. >> it says iran will become a member of nbt. if it comes a member, it forgoes the option of having a nuclear websiteapon. it doesn't specify the source. >> it seems to me, iran has developed a lot of the nuclear capability it has today in violation of its obligations under the nonproliferation treaty. i am offering that as more evidence, takay is right. but they violated the npt

before. mr. rohrabacher: if we expect the same type of behavior as they have had with other agreements, they could easily -- even with all these other inspections, they could obtain a nuclear weapon from an illegal source. another question for the panel. we have people who know about u.s. intelligence with us today. are there nuclear weapons some countries or groups might be able to obtain on a market rather than having to build their own weapon? >> always watching the north koreans. we saw the north koreans told a plutonium reactor. just to spin off the reaction

senator lieberman is talking about with the sunnis, one possible scenario is the saudis will go to the pakistanis in order to get nuclear devices. mr. rohrabacher: so what we have is a situation where we have not refrained -- refrained from supporting the democratic elements. that is the real solution. get a democratically government in there. but we are actually undermining that opportunity over the last six years. the agreement may undermine it further. i thank you all for your testimony today. you have given us a lots to think about. i hope all of us do our duty.

i don't think it is a tough decision. it is clear this is a rotten deal. but we will keep an open mind to see if we can be convinced there are other benefits to it. >> karen bass. ms. bass: i have a questions that focus on the process and consequence of our actions. a couple have asked questions about partners from the other countries. i was wondering about the p5 plus one and wondering if they have a similar process. what happens at the u.n.? perhaps you could put it in sequence, ambassador burns. investor burns: the p5 plus one group was put together by the u.s. and britain. it has been the core of the international efforts. one reason i am supporting the president's initiative, if you

keep this group together, that is the pressure point. if the group to salts, we lose our leverage. the french, of course, the germans and british will have to go back and report to their parliaments. they are democratic countries. i am strongly assured president clinton -- putin doesn't have to worry about the duma. ms. bass: you have any since about france and britain? >> my sense is that in the main, the parliaments in public are strongly supportive of this. it is true in europe, almost across the board. the interesting country here is russia. we are sanctioning russia over ukraine. deservedly so. yet we are going to have to work with russia to keep them on our side here prevent the country that is weakest is china. the tend to be motivated by

commercial purposes almost to the exclusion of strategic thought. we have to worry about law and order in the middle east. it is a difficult coalition. you also have the purchase of iranian energy. japan, south korea, india. important we keep them in as well. there is no question that part of the implementation of this agreement will be there will be a new security council resolution that will put this new agreement and take away the sanctions. if the five permanent members are all in agreement, they will we need vote. they need nine votes to carry the resolution. it is a sure they will win that particular vote. ms. bass: you have any concerns those countries will exercise veto power? ambassador burns: there

is zero possibility any country will use the veto. ms. bass: if we override the veto, what do you see happening then? how does it play out? there are reports about people who want to make business deals. if we override the veto, what happens? ambassador burns: i think you will see the dissolution of the p5 group. the breakdown of solidarity around the world on sanctions. the commercial impulse of a lot of these countries to do business with iran will take over. iran will effectively be the position of getting sanctions really. they will not have constraints on their nuclear program. ms. bass: if we back off, how

will the rest of the world and p5 -- investor burns: iran will not be accountable. they will be able to proceed on the plutonium enrichment program. it it gets to the important question, what is the question? what is the best alternative for the u.s. we live in the real world in the middle 2015. i think it it is this deal. we can't go back and design a better process. i would disagree with senator lieberman and general hayden. if we are worried about proliferation, that the saudis or another country might want to compete with the iranians, the scenario for that is a breakdown of this deal. that leaves the iranians without constraints on their nuclear program. the way to reduce proliferation

and reassure allies is to -- ms. bass: let's say we want to to bring sanctions back again. how would you be able to bring them back. ambassador burns: the president and the secretary of state would want to reassemble a sanctions regime if iran had broken the agreement and was proceeding with nuclear research. ms. bass: one last question. whether it is 10 years if we get two-year eight or nine, based on your previous experience. it comes across like 10 years happens and everything goes back to normal. wouldn't a new agreement began to get negotiated around year eight or nine? investor burns: if you still have that pilot to laws and control, a radical government, you'd have to put together another sanctions regime.

he would be back in that game. ms. bass: thank you. >> we go to steve of ohio. >> i will begin with you if it is ok. prime minister netanyahu has referred to this agreement as a mistake of historic proportions. what position does this put israel in? senator lieberman: prime minister men yahoo! is better prepared to make a statement about this. this is a room full of friends and supporters. it is very clear based on the violent anti-israel rhetoric of the eye islamic republic of iran, their support for terrorist who threaten israel

including hezbollah and hamas the idea that the iranians would have a nuclear weapon in a foreseeable time assuming they keep their promises, is very threatening to israel. believe the israeli government to make its own decisions about what it can do to better protect itself. as you all know, the israeli political system is quite lively. a lot of opposition. from what i see the feeling about this agreement, the story about it in the weeks ahead, is shared across a broad spectrum of the israeli political establishment. to be more specific, herzog, the

leader of the opposition, has basically said the same things about an agreement. >> general hayden, let me turn to you. when you combine the lifting of the arms embargo and this agreement, shouldn't it be greatly concerning to us? the concern that intercontinental ballistic missile technology and information goes from russia to iran? that puts us directly in harms way from a nuclear armed iran somewhere down the rhone quest -- down the road? general hayden: it puts us in a position of being threatened by a more capable of iran. the senator talked about israel

and their position on nuclear weapons. there is another element. yesterday, iran was an international outlaw. today, they are not. that will allow the normalization of a host of relationships as you are suggesting. the iranians to grow in strength. the comment about, we need to work hard to make sure that does not happen because they are engaged in egregious paid your throughout the region is certainly true. but i do think for the rest of the world, this is welcoming this iran back into the family of nations. mr. chabot: two questions to you. one, isn't it likely that you are going to see a significant reaction by the gulf states and saudis?

they have to counter a much stronger iran with the weapons as a result of this? you are going to see in essence an arms race. given two weeks notice before you can inspect, you can move a lot of incriminating evidence with two weeks notice. wouldn't that be accurate? >> weather this -- my suspicion is they will try to match the saudi's capability. this has not happened in the absence of a deal. that is because of the confidence in the u.s. and its intentions to restrict the iranian nuclear program. this agreement says iran -- i would like to hear, and i have

never heard, a defense of the sunset clause. all i've heard is, if it is about to expire, we will have it try to not expire. you should defend why it should expire in 10 years. in terms of verification, the verification procedure will be in place once the iaea has evidence of activity. that is not a card you can plate every day. they will ask the iranian government to deal with it. i don't know what that means in terms of inspecting the military facility. i don't know the answer. it is not obvious to me. if there is a dispute, it will go to a committee. once that committee says, iran is wrong and the iaea should

have access, it will go to the security council. investor earns knows all about the security council. -- ambassador burns knows all about the security council. it can recommend national measures but they have to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. mr. chabot: during that long time, there are no inspections? mr. takeyh: no. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank the witnesses for the seriousness and the tone with which they have conducted themselves, as well as my colleagues. i hope this is a harbinger for

how we discussed this issues going forward. i know isaac for most of congress, we are just beginning to digest this. we are in no position to take a position. many of your comments have been thankful. that being said, i want to go back to a few areas of interest. ambassador burns talked about how the coalition is likely to unravel and we lose strength in terms of sanctions. there is another area which might change if we walk away from this. we are negotiating with iran before they have the nuclear program in place. what would negotiations be after that? how much more difficult would it he? that is an important question that has not been asked. >> i am one of your constituents

from westport, massachusetts. thank you for representing us. we have had a bitter experience with north korea that both general hayden and senator lieberman have been involved in. once north korea obtained nuclear weapons, it has become almost impossible to negotiate because they have the leverage. they have some protection from china as well. both president bush and president obama happened right to try to go at this any more direct way. try to stop renegotiations before they crossed the threshold. what president obama has been able to do is buy us 10 years. i agree with everyone here, we can't hope the armenians change. i bet they don't. we will have to go through these 10 years with lot of vigilance

and may be replayed this 10 years from now. we have bought ourselves 10 years. we do have international unity. even someone as cynical as president putin doesn't want iranian nuclear weapons. in an interesting way, the russians have not broken consensus despite the fact we're sanctioning them on ukraine. this is the time for negotiations. reflecting on the history of the 9/11 era, we should exhaust diplomacy. if it fails, we always have the military option. that is the proper sequence. >> one of my concerns was raised by ambassador burns. you addressed your opinion on this. the idea that this agreement would result in saudis and gulf states moving forward. they are at the one yard line to

getting to the nuclear program. there is no doubt in my mind going 99 yards, they are going to do it. if they are going to get it anyways, wouldn't any decision wouldn't they have done it anyway? is not any agreement that is going to make them go forward with their own nuclear programs. the absence of an agreement they are going forward anyway can at least i believe that. i think it is kind of a moot point about the other countries moving forward. any of their panelists have a view on that? if this becomes a reality, one way of or another, they are likely to come of that is your consensus? >> right now, they have not.

we go into the huddle with them. there is going to be a perception that we have not switched sides. we are no longer playing on their squad. mr. keating: i am sanction sensitive about going to the league for sanctions, being a fan of the patriots. the real concern is if the coalition unravels, that creates a problem. if iran violates how easy would it be to reconstitute the coalition for sanctions? mr. lieberman: i have a lot more confidence and tom brady then ayatollah khomeini. it has been great to have the p5 plus one together. it strengthened our position.

it talk about trade-offs i would rather have us reject a bad deal and run the risk of having the p5 plus one coalition dissolve them except a bad deal which will compromise our security and that of our allies. part of what has been lost is the iranians need a disagreement more than we did. -- needed this agreement more than we did. they are in more trouble economically. if for some reason the p5 plus one coalition falls apart we are still the economic superpower of the world. access to our banking system is still necessary for economic growth. we have the capacity ourselves to reimpose sanctions on them. mr. keating: thank you.

i yield back. >> you can watch the entire hearing at our video library. to c-span.org. >> up next on c-span, president obama talks about the iran nuclear deal. we will also hear from iran's president. later, reaction from congress to the agreement. >> federal reserve chair yellen will give congress an update on monetary policy. we will have live coverage tomorrow starting at 10:00 eastern. later, a house panel investigates allegations of corruption and bribery at fifa. we will hear from an investigative journalist.

>> book tv is television for serious readers. join us this saturday for all day coverage of the harlem book fair. with author talks and panel discussions featuring a historian and journalist. and on sunday, live from the nations capital for the national book fair. told by an in-depth program with second lady and senior fellow lynne cheney. >> president obama praised a

nuclear deal reached with iran and to begin making his case for the is or deal with the u.s., iran, and five other countries. he warned congress not to try to block the agreement. his remarks from the white house are 15 minutes. president obama: after two years of negotiations, the united states together with our international partners have achieved something that decades of animosity have not -- a comprehensive long-term deal with iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

this deal demonstrates that american diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change, change that makes our country and the world safer and more secure. this deal is also in line with a tradition of american leadership. it's now more than 50 years since president kennedy stood before the american people and said, "let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” he was speaking then about the need for discussions between the united states and the soviet union, which led to efforts to restrict spread of nuclear weapons. in those days, the risk was a catastrophic nuclear war between two superpowers. in our time, the risk is that nuclear weapons will spread to more and more countries, particularly in the middle east, the most volatile region in our world. today, because america negotiated from a position of strength and principle, we have stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in this region. because of this deal, the international community will be able to verify that the islamic republic of iran will not develop a nuclear weapon.

this deal meets every single one of the bottom lines that we established when we achieved a framework earlier this spring. every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off, and the inspection and transparency regime necessary to verify that objective will be put in place. because of this deal, iran will not produce the highly enriched uranium and weapons grade plutonium that can build a nuclear bomb. iran will remove 2/3 of its installed centrifuges, the machines to build a bomb and store them under constant international supervision. iran will not use is advanced centrifuges to produce enriched uranium for the next decade. iran will also get rid of 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium. to put that in perspective, iran

currently has a stockpile that can produce up to 10 nuclear weapons. because of this deal, that stockpile will be reduced to a fraction of what would be required for a single weapon. this stockpile limitation will last for 15 years. because of this deal, iran will modify the core of its reactor in iraq so that it will not produce weapons-grade plutonium, and it has agreed to ship the spent fuel from the reactor out of the country for the lifetime of the reactor. for at least the next 15 years iran will not build any new heavy-water reactors. because of this deal, we will for the first time be in a position to verify all of these commitments. that means this deal is not built on trust. it is built on verification. inspectors will have 24/7 access to iran's key nuclear facilities. iran will have access to iran's entire nuclear supply chain, its

mines, conversion facility, and its centrifuge manufacturing and storage facilities. this ensures that iran will not be able to divert materials from known facilities to covert ones. some of these transparency measures will be in place for 25 years. because of this deal, inspectors will be able to access any suspicious locations. put simply, the organization responsible for the inspections, the iaea, will have access where necessary when necessary. that arrangement is permanent. and the iaea has also reached an agreement with iran to get access that it needs to complete its investigation into possible military dimensions of iran's past nuclear research. finally, iran is permanently prohibited from pursuing a nuclear weapon under the nuclear non proliferation treaty which

provided the basis for the international community's efforts to apply pressure on iran. as iran take steps to implement this deal, it will receive relief from the sanctions that we put in place because of iran's nuclear program. both america's own sanctions and sanctions imposed by the united nations security council. this relief will be phased in. iran must complete key nuclear steps before it begins to receive new sanctions relief. and over the course of the next decade, iran must abide by the deal before additional sanctions are lifted, including five years for restrictions related to arms and eight years for restrictions related to ballistic missiles. all of this will be memorialized and endorsed in a new united nations security council resolution, and if iran violates the deal, all of these sanctions will snap back into place, so there is a very clear incentive for iran to follow through, and there are very real consequences for a violation.

that's the deal. it has the full backing of the international community. congress will now have an opportunity to review the details, and my administration stands ready to provide extensive briefings on how this will move forward. as the american people and congress review the deal, it will be important to consider the alternative. consider what happens in a world without this deal. without this deal, there is no scenario where the world joins us in sanctioning iran until it completely dismantles its nuclear program. nothing we know about the iranian government suggests that it would simply capitulate under that kind of pressure and support an effort to permanently push iran into submission. we put this in place to get a diplomatic resolution, and that is what we have done. without this deal, there would be no agreed-upon limitations for the iranian nuclear program. iran could produce, operate, and

test more and more centrifuges. iran could fuel a reactor capable of producing plutonium for a bomb, and we would not have any of the inspections that allow us to detect a covert nuclear weapons program. in other words, no deal means no lasting constraints on iran's nuclear program. such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world. it would also present the united states with fewer options to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i have been president and commander in chief for over six years now. time and again i have faced decisions about whether or not to use military force. the gravest decision that any president has to make. many times in multiple countries, i have decided to use force.

i will never hesitate to do so when it is in our national security interest. i strongly believe that our national security interest now depends upon preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which means without a diplomatic resolution, either i or a future u.s. president would face a decision about whether or not to allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or whether to use our military to stop it. put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the middle east. moreover, we give nothing up by testing whether or not this problem can be solved peacefully. if in a worst-case scenario iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today would be available to any u.s. president in the future and i have no doubt that 10 years or 15 years from now, the

person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the iranian program. for this reason, i believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal, but on such a tough issue, it is important that the american people and the representatives in congress get a full opportunity to review the deal. after all, the details matter, and we have had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details. and we are dealing with a country, iran, that has been a sworn adversary of the united states for over 35 years, so i welcome a robust debate in congress on this issue, and i welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. but i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. we negotiated arms control agreements with the soviet union

when the nation was committed to our destruction, and those agreements ultimately made us safer. i am confident that this deal will meet the national security interests of the united states and our allies, so i will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal. we do not have to accept an inevitable spiral into conflict, and we certainly shouldn't seek it. and precisely because the stakes are so high, this is not the time for politics or posturing. tough talk from washington does not solve problems. hard-nosed diplomacy, leadership that has united the world's major powers, offers a more effective way to verify that iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. now, that doesn't mean that this deal will resolve all of our differences with iran.

we share the concerns expressed by many of our friends in the middle east, including israel and the gulf states, about iran's support for terrorism and its use of proxies to destabilize the region, but that is precisely why we are taking this step. because an iran armed with a nuclear weapon would be far more destabilizing and far more dangerous to our friends and to the world. meanwhile, we will maintain our own sanctions related to iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, and its human rights violations. we will continue our unprecedented efforts to strengthen israel's security efforts that go beyond what any american administration has done before. and we will continue the work we began at camp david, to elevate our partnership with the gulf states to strengthen their capabilities to counter threats from iran or terrorist groups like isil. however, i believe we must continue to test whether or not

this region, which has known so much suffering, so much bloodshed, can move in a different direction. time and again, i have made clear to the iranian people that we will always be open to engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. our differences are real, and the difficult history between our nations cannot be ignored, but it is possible to change. the path of violence and rigid ideology, a foreign policy based on threats to attack your neighbors or eradicate israel -- that's a dead end, a different path, one of tolerance, and peaceful resolution of conflict leads to more integration into the global economy, more engagement with the international community and the ability of the iranian people to prosper and thrive. this deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction. we should seize it.

we have come a long way to reach this point. decades of an iranian nuclear program, many years of sanctions, and many months of intense negotiation. today i want to thank the members of congress from both parties who helped us put in place the sanctions that have proven so effective as well as the other countries who joined us in that effort. i want to thank our new voting partners -- the united kingdom france, germany, russia, china as well as the european union for our unity in this effort which showed that the world can do remarkable things when we share a vision of peacefully addressing conflicts. we showed what we can do when we do not split apart. finally, i want to thank the american negotiating team. we had a team of experts working for several weeks straight on this, including our secretary of energy, ernie moniz, and i want to thank john kerry, our secretary of state.

who began his service to this country more than four decades ago when he went off to war. he is now making this country safer through his commitment to strong, principled american diplomacy. history shows that america must lead not just with our might but with our principles. it shows we are stronger not when we are alone but when we bring the world together. today's announcement marks one more chapter in this pursuit of a safer and more helpful, more hopeful world. thank you. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america.

>> president obama will hold a news conference on the iran nuclear agreement tomorrow. he says he will veto any attempts by congress to block the deal. we will have live coverage on c-span three. the european union's foreign-policy chief and iran's foreign minister announced the agreement. the two leaders spoke about the agreement. this the rent is -- this event is courtesy of the english language channel. >> today is a historic day.

it is a great honor to announce we have reached an agreement. we delivered on what the world was hoping for. a shared commitment to peace, to join hands in order to make our world safer. this is an historic day, also because we are creating the conditions for building trust, opening a new chapter in our relationship. these achievements are the result of a collective effort. no one ever thought it would be easy. historic decisions never are. but despite all twists and turns in the number of extensions, hope and determination enabled us to overcome all the difficult moments. we have always been aware that

we had a responsibility to our generation and the future ones. thanks to the constructive engagement of all parties, the abilities of our team, we have successfully concluded negotiations and resolved the dispute that lasted more than 10 years. many people brought these difficult negotiations forward and we would like to thank them all, as we would like to thank the international atomic energy agency for its critical contribution, as well as the austrian government for the support and hospitality. thank you. we, the european union, and the foreign minister of the islamic republic of iran, together with the foreign ministers of the people's republic of china, france, germany, the russian

federation, the united kingdom the united states of america met here in vienna following several months of intensive work in different formats to negotiate the text of the joint plan of action based on the key parameters agreed on the second of april. we have today and agreed on the final text. the three eu countries and the islamic republic of iran welcomed the historic joint comprehensive plan of action which will ensure that iran's nuclear program will be faithful and mark a fundamental shift in their approach to the issue. they anticipate that full implementation of this plan of action will positively contribute to regional and international security.

iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapon. the joint plan of action includes a rant's own long-term plan with agreed limitations on the nuclear program, and it will use the comprehensive listing of old un security council sanctions, as well as multilateral and national sanctions, relating to the nuclear program, including access and areas of trade, technology, finance, and energy. the comprehensive plan of action comprises of five technical annexes on nuclear, sanctions, a joint commission, and in mplementation. these documents are detailed and specific. that is important because all sides wanted clarity so as to

ensure full effective implementation of the agreement. the plan is a balanced field that respects the interests of all sides. it is also complex, detailed and technical. we cannot fully summarize the agreement now, but the four main text and all its additions will be made public today and will be presented within the next two days by the e3+3. we know this deal will be subject to intense scrutiny. but we are announcing today is not only a deal -- it is a good deal. a good deal for all sides and the wider international community. this agreement opens new possibilities and a way forward to end the crisis that has lasted for more than 10 years. we are committed to make sure

this joint plan of action is fully implemented, counting also on the contributions of the international atomic energy agency. we call on the whole community to support implementation of this historic effort. this is the conclusion of our negotiations, but this is not the end of our common work. we keep doing this together. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. let me join her members of the press for her patients, perseverance and keeping us company during the difficult negotiations. as it has become our customary

former presentation, i will present exactly the same paper that she read in english and persian. don't worry, it is the same thing. [laughter] today is a historic day. it is an honor for us to announce that we have reached an agreement. through courage, political will mutual respect and excellent leadership and management, we have managed to obtain a conclusion to what the world was looking for -- a commitment to peace and the common effort for making our world a more secure place. today is also a historic day

because we are creating conditions for building trust and also creating a new chapter in a relationship. achievement is the outcome of collective effort. and no one could perceive this to be an easy task. such historic decisions are not easy decisions. but it is not only ups and downs. before these negotiations and the extension of these negotiations, we maintained our hope. this way, we managed the difficulties and hardships. in fact, we are responsible and were accountable to future generations.

and with respect to the commitments of the negotiating parties, we managed to successfully conclude the negotiations the dispute that has lasted more than 10 years. he managed to resolve this dispute. many, many people played a role in actually proceeding with this negotiation. we thank them all. at the same time, i wish to thank everyone for close cooperation. we also appreciate the austrian government for their hospitality. and the european union senior representative and the foreign minister of the eu, the minister for the islamic republic of

iran, china, france, germany written, and the u.s. -- britain and the u.s.. after months of theintense negotiations, we have come together in the enough to read out the text of this joint negotiation. the key points were actually agreed upon in switzerland earlier. today, we have reached an agreement. the islamic republic of iran speaking on this joint plan of action guarantees a peaceful negotiation of the nuclear program. it is indicative of the departmental change towards the

approach in this issue. we do welcome this plan of action. and the implementation will play a positive role in international peace and security. iran once again emphasizes that it does not seek nuclear weapons and is not after manufacturing or acquiring nuclear weapons. this plan of action includes certain limits, agreed limits to the nuclear program. also, the comprehensive listing of all sanctions -- lifting of all sanctions. that includes access to trade technology, and also financing and energy. the comprehensive plan of action

comprises the annexes of the nuclear issues, sanctions and peaceful cooperation, and also the setting up of the joint commission, and also the plan of action. so the documents are quite complicated. their specific and detailed. therefore, one cannot present a summary of the documents yet. the annexes will be provided to the public today. at a later date it will be presented. we know that agreements are going to be seriously

scrutinized. but we now think that it is not just an agreement. but what we're announcing today is not just an agreement. it is a good deal. it is a good deal for all the parties and the international community, as a whole. this deal will provide new opportunities, a step forward. in order to put an end to a crisis that has lasted for more than 10 years. we are committed to make sure that this plan of action is fully implemented, and we do count on the body for its assistance and help. we call on the international community to support this historic effort. this is the end of our negotiation.

but it is not the end of our common effort. we do jointly pursue this important responsibility. [applause] thank you very much. >> the iranian president spoke about the nuclear agreement reached between his country and the soap called p5+1 countries. in exchange for agreeing to curb its nuclear programs, iran will get relief from international sanctions. his speech is courtesy of iran's english-language news channel, press tv. [speaking foreign language]

>> just recited the verse from the holy koran. greetings to and salutations to the prophet of islam, prophet mohammad and his infallible

household and also the imam of the martyrs and the martyrs, particularly the nuclear martyrs. salutations to the imam of the time. may god expedite his reappearance. the month of ramadan is a month of blessings. it's a month of seeking proximity to god almighty. and this year's month of ramadan, what i heard -- based on what i heard, many people in their prayers in the night -- the grand night, they prayed to god almighty, praying for iran's

nuclear negotiating team in order to reach a good deal and to now -- i announce to the great nation of iran that god has accepted their prayers and has responded to their prayers. today we are in a critical juncture in the history of -- with respect to the history of our country and our revolution and also the condition that prevails in the region. in fact in the past 12 years, in fact witnessed illusions by the major powers and such illusions was spread by them in the global

community and for public opinion you see this page has turned and in fact a knew chapter has been opened. this new chapter is based upon the fact that the solution there are shorter roots with less costs in order to come up with solutions to the problems speaking of iran's important nuclear issue that on the one hand it had turned into political and international issue to the extent that it was raised that the u.n. in chapter

7 of the u.n. and there was several resolutions calling for sanctions against iran and on the other hand the issue had turned into a subject for spreading iraniphobia in the region and the world claiming that iran is after manufacturing nuclear weapons or w.m.d.'s and on the other hand you see that from the view of science and technology and development it was from the view of research and development and signs of progress. this was an important issue for us, and it had turned into a subject related to our national pride and dignity.

economically speaking. those imposing sanctions had sought to put us under pressure and that had created a difficult situation -- a difficult condition in society. as i had earlier said, the sanctions regime was never successful but at the same time it had affected people's lives. i am pleased that today after 23 months of negotiations by the islamic republic of iran with six world powers, today we have managed to reach a new point.

of course the month of ramadan has always been a month of blessing for the 11th administration and it's been a fateful month and the month of ramadan 1393 iranian calendar was the day for investiture and then we had the day for the old taking and today you see that today is the day for the deal

reached between iran and the six world powers concerning the joint comprehensive plan of action. in order to resolve this nuclear issue, we had to take the necessary steps in different sectors. from the political point of view we had to make the necessary political arrangements. from the view of the public opinion in order to know that to negotiate does not mean to just read out text, substatements. to negotiate means to bargain. it means you give money and you purchase your desired house.

after benefiting from charities, after negotiating we were after protecting our national interests and we were after engaging in a just bargaining process in order to maintain our national interests. we have always stressed that this is not going to be a win-lose negotiation. it's not -- i mean, it's not you see one side becoming a winner victorious, the other side becoming a loser. if it's a win-lose negotiation it's not going to be sustainable

agreement. we do not come up with a sustainable agreement. in order to attain a sustainable agreement, they should be a win-win situation for both parties, both sides. we did clarify that as our negotiators have been -- have started talks and negotiations 23 months ago in order to have an achievement in the course of negotiations, we were in need of domestic and national consensus. it is quite clear that politicians, associations, political factions, they do not share common views, but with respect to -- to items pertaining to our national interest and national security and national development such -- we see nuclear issues related to our national security, it's related to national development and also it's related to our national interest, so you see that fortunately in this free

democratic atmosphere prevailing in our society, we managed to reach a consensus in this regard. the path of negotiations before this, basically from the very beginning, imagine this problem, 12 years ago, i think it might be 12 years ago based on the view of the leader of the islamic revolution, the path of negotiations, from the very first day, and we have been negotiating since 2003 in tehran or the capital cities of neighboring countries or the

european capitals. we have been witnessing these negotiations and we continue the talks. the course of the 2013 presidential elections, our people expressed views and explicitly said that we want an administration that would actually protect the nuclear achievements of the country along with protecting peace and also contributing to the country's development and also obtaining public welfare. this was the path that the 11th administration pursued. of course the great nation of iran is a symbol of courtesy and

logic and rationality from the very first day on the day of the ceremony, i said the west can interact with us provided that it sets aside and eliminates the approach of intimidation and threats and instead the west should choose the path of dignity and respect. once we obtained today was a deal within the framework of that comprehensive joint plan of action, it has its roots in iran's interaction and also dignity shown by the people of

the group. in the case of the absence of these parameters, we would not have been able to come up with any achievement. in the meantime, in order to gain success in the course of negotiations, we had to be able to actually improve our economy under sanctions and in the condition of stagflation. when we started the negotiations, we had an inflation rate above 40% and our economic growth rate was minus 6.8%. but in the course of negotiations by improving our economic conditions, we managed to contain inflation and we came up with a positive economic growth, this was the strongest

message conveyed by the 11th administration. strongest message sent by us to the p5+1 countries. at the same time, what mattered the most was the steadfastness and patience and resistance shown by the courageous nation of iran. and today with the grace of god has been the year of steadfastness and resistance and at the same time brought about victory and success for us and this was an indication of people's steadfastness and resistance. such a resistance, steadfastness brought the other party to the negotiating table.

in the course of these negotiations we were pursuing four objectives. the first objective was to protect our nuclear capability and technology and even nuclear activities. to continue such activities inside the country. the second objective was to actually put an end to the inhumane and tyrannical sanctions. the third objective was to address all the resolutions that, from our point of view those illegal resolutions we were after annulling all these illegal resolutions issued by the u.n. security council. and the fourth objective was to

actually take the nuclear out of chapter 7 and out of the u.n.c. and based on the deal reached today and based on the joint comprehensive plan of action all the four objectives have been obtained. of course in the past 23 months in order to observe the redline and at the same time gain our objectives, you are aware that an extraordinary effort was made by iranian diplomats, lawyers and the economists and also nuclear scientists continue. on the initial date of the negotiations, the other party told us that during the period of limitation based on the deal has said that period of

limitation could be eight years. the period of limitation they said that iran should have only 100 is centrifuges after continued discussion and debate, they came up with a figure of 1,000 centrifuges. after a great deal of resistance they said that they will agree with 4,000 centrifuges. something that cannot be changed anymore, but today the deal was reached and based on this deal we have 6,000 centrifuges, 5,000 will remain and all these centrifuges in that time will continue their enrichment activity. they said that your limitation period must be set for 20 to 25 years. later they said 20-plus 10 years. and said that 20 years must be the final viewpoint, but this figure was reduced to 10 -- was

reduced to 10 years and in the course of the final negotiations, the figure was reduced to eight years. concerning research and development, they said that research and development must be only about i.r. 1. only concerning i.r.1. it was a ridiculous statement. it was illogical because we already had i.r.1 and it was

operating. the research and development did not make any sense. later they said it's going to be maximum i.r.2 and eventually they said it must not go beyond i.r.8. and what islamic republic of iran, was seeking was i.r.6 and i.r.8 and we won a deal, so the deal, limitation of the deal the -- it would be injected into i.r.8 and today we have attained such a deal today. regarding our reactor can remain in iraq, but heavy water has no meaning there. it is meaningless. but we have reached a deal today and based on this deal reference has been explicitly made to heavy water and that

iraq reactor will be completed with heavy water based on the deal. they said it's really been difficult to hear the name of fordo, do not name it and we will -- we won't hear it. then they said that -- they said that there should be no centrifuges in fordo, and also it's going to be a resent sent for sustainable isotopes. after several months of bargaining they said that one cascade should remain in fordo. 154. let me tell you that there will

be centrifuges in fordo, and part of that will be allocated to r&d concerning sustainable isotopes. regarding the annulment or lifting of sanctions, they said that the sanction also not be lifted at once and they said that the sanctions several months -- we will gradually lift the -- they said we are not going to lift the sanctions. do not speak of lifting of sanctions. they said the sanctions have to be first suspended and then in years to come if the iaea gave a positive report then we -- the sanctions would be lifted step by step. today i announce to the great nation of iran that based on this deal on the day of implementation of the deal, all