very hard to reach militarily accelerating advanced centrifuges that shorten the time span in which they can achieve breakout capacity, and they would be able to maintain that the reason that they ended negotiations was because the united states was operating in pad faith and blew up the deal -- in bad faith and blew up the deal. and there would be some sympathy to that view around the world which means that the sanctions some sympathy to that view around the world and that means the sanctions that we have in place now would potentially fray, because imposing the sanctions are a hardship to the countries around the world. they would love to buy iranian oil. and the reason they have hung in there despite economic interests, we have shown we are trying to solve the problem and avert a military show down. in that context, there is no

good argument for us to try to undercut undermine the negotiations until they have played themselves out. if iran does not say yes. and if they cannot provide assurances that lead myself and david cameron and others that they are not obtaining a nuclear weapon we'll explore our options and i will be the first one to come to congress and said we need to tighten the screws. i said we'll leave all options on the table. congress should be aware if the diplomatic sanctions fails that the risk and likelihood that it ends upon as a military confrontation is heightened and congress will have to own that as well and that will have to be debated by the american people. we may not be able to rebuild

the kind of coalition we need in that context if the world believes that we were not serious about negotiations. so i take this very seriously and i don't question the good faith of folks who think it is helpful, but it is my team at the table. we are steep in this stuff day in and out, we don't make these judgments blindly. we have worked on this 5, 6, 7 years and consult closely with allies like the united kingdom in making assessments. i am anding congress to hold off because our negotiators and partners assess that it would jeopardize the possibility of resolving, and providing a diplomatic solution to a difficult and long- lasting national security problems that we have faced in a long time.

and congress needs to show patience. so with respect to the veto, i said to my democratic caucus colleagues yesterday that i will veto a bill that comes to my desk. and i will make this argument to the american people as to why i am doing so and i respectfully request them to hold off for a few months to see if we have a possibility of solving a big problem without resorting potentially to war. and i think that is worth, worth doing. we'll see if, and how persuasive i am. if i am not persuading congress i promise you, i will take my case to the american people on this. >> i think the big picture is clear. the sanctions that america and european union put in place have

had an affect. that pressure led to talks and these talks have a prospect of success and i would argue with the president how much better is that than the other potential outcomes and that is what we should focus on. yes, i have contacted a couple of senators this morning and may speak to 1 or 2 this afternoon as british prime minister not to it tell the american senate what they should do, that wouldn't be right. but as a country standing alongside america in the vital negotiation that it is the opinion of the united kingdom that further sanctions at this point will not help to bring the talks to a successful conclusion and fracture the international unitty that has been valuable in presenting a united front to iran. i say this as someone who played quite, i think a strong role in

getting europe to sign up to the very tough sanctions, including oil sanctions in the first place. and i simply make this point. the sanctions have had an affect. if you do an interim deal and discuss with the the iranians any of these things, the sanctions will fall apart and pressure will disa pate. that is shown to not be true. the pressure is still there and as the president said if the iranians say no and there is no deal, we'll sit down and work out what extra sanctions to put in place. we are united in a simple thought which is a deal that takes iran away from a nuclear weapon is better than iran having a nuclear weapon or military action to prevent. it as i do what i can in as one of the countries negotiating i would. >> it is it i think the way the

president put it i wouldn't disagree with it. it is it hard to know what the iranian thinking is about this. i am the first british prime freedom in 35 years to meet with an iranian president and it is it hard to know what they are thinking. there is a chlor offer there which is to take iran away from a nuclear weapon and conclude an agreement that is beneficial. and that is what should happen. we have a question in nick robbins from the bbc. >> prime minister, with extra security put in place for the jewish community and also for police officers, would people be right to conclude that the threat of the attack in streets of britain is imminent. and mr. president, you posed of the threat of fighters coming back from syria. do you worry that it is it a legacy of the united states and united kingdom to the effect

stand on the sidelines of syria's bloody civil war. and forgive me on the comedy. you agree is it time to "speak to the plan? >> we face a very serious extremist terrorist threat in europe and in america and cross the world. and we have to be vigilant in terms of that threat. we have to strengthen police and security and make sure we do everything that we can to keep our country's safe and that involves long- term patience disciplined approach. there is no single simple thing that needs to be done. it means closing down the ungoverned spaces that terrorist work in and works against isil in iraq and syria and the narrative that is perverting the religion of islam and working

with our partners and try to prevent terrorist a strosities from taking place. and it means all of these things. it is a long patient hard struggle. i am convinced we will come through and overcome it and because in the end the values of freedom of democracy and having open and tolerant societies, these are the strongest values there can be. and in the end, we'll come through. but like the challenges that our countryies faced in the past it takes patience and hard work. your question of imminence. we have system in united kingdom where terror levels are set, not by politician and they judged the thet is severe and that means in their words that an attack is highly likely and if there is imminent threat of attack it goes to critical. but it is their decision and not mine. my responsibility is to marshal

everything we have as a country. and i think it is good that the police are stepping up patrols. i met with the jewish leadership counsel this week. we already provide through their security and community security trust to provide government money to protect the jewish schools. we have to it recognize in fighting terrorism as we found in britain before, you cannot simply rely on policing and security. it is a job for everyone and a role that we will have to play in vigilance in making sure we keep our community safe. >> with respect to syria and the connection to foreign fighters there is no doubt in the chaos and in the vacum that is created in big chunks of syria that that's given an opportunity for foreign fighters to both come in and come back out and i chaired

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

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

recruit young people, this matacicized and widespread and it is penetrated to communities around the world. i do not consider it as an extential threat. it is one we will solve. we are stronger we are representing values that the vast majority of muslims believe in in tollerance and working together to build rather than to destroy. so this is a problem that causes great heart ache and tragedy and destruction and we'll defeat. we can't just defeat it through

weapons. one of the things we spoke about, how do we lift up those voices that represent the vast majority of the muslim world so that that counter narrative against a nillism is put out there aggressively and anymorely as the messages coming out from these fanatics? how do we make sure we are working with local communities and faith leaders, and families whether in a neighborhood in london, or a neighborhood in detroit, michigan so that we are, you know, we are innoculating ourselves against this kind of ideology? that is a slow plodding systemic work. but it is work that i am confident we are going to be able to accomplish particularly

with strong partners like the united kingdom doing it? on the economy i would note that great britain and the united states are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of the other countries are having problems and so we must be doing something right. major garrett? >> thank you mr. president and good afternoon prime minister good afternoon to you sir. questions to about this of you. i want to make sure we heard your message to congress and in the context in the iranian negotiations. other than you sending a message to iran if the sanction talks fail that war footing is the next likely alternative for this country and those of us alive with us in the common pursuit and atrocities in paris and

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

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

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

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

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

this seriously. during my president so we have worked with the recognition that not only do you have foreigners that may be trying to hatch plots in europe, but that given a large immigrant populations it is important to reach out to and work with local communities and to have a very effective intelligence and counter terrorism cooperation between the united states and europe. there's no doubt that the most recent events has amplified those concerns, i think one of the things that i learned over the last six years is that there's always more we can do we can always do it better. we learned from mistakes each

incident that occurs teaches our professionals how we might be able to prevent these, the next time. and you know, i am confident that the very strong cooperations that exist with europe will get that much better in the months and years to come. (inaudible) >> here's where i actually think that the europe has particular challenges and i said this to david. the united states has one big advantage in this whole process and it is not that our law enforcement and our intelligence services et cetera are so much better, although ours are very, very good and europeans recognize we have capabilities

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

enforcement, military approaches to these problems, but there has to be a wreck -- recognition of the ties and a french african and french values and sense of opportunity, that is going to be as important if not more important over time solving the problem. and i think that there is a wreck on recognition in europe. with respect to the issue of intelligence gathering and encryptions, this is a challenge that we have been working on since i've been president. obviously it was amplifyied when

mr. snowden did what he did. it is off of the front page of the news but we haven't stopped working on it. and we are in dialogue with companies and systemically worked throughways we can meet privacy concerns and also meet the very real concerns that david and i identified and my fbi director jim combe identified social network and that is the way they are identified. they are good at it. and when we have the ability to track that in a way that is legal, conforms with due process and rule of law and prevents oversight, then that is

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

and the companies want to so that as well. they are patries -- patriots and they have families and we have to work through the technical issues. not so much that there is a difference in intent but how to square the circle on the issues is difficult and we are working with partners like great britain and the united kingdom and also in dialogue with companies to make that work. >> on the iranian issue, i want to as what the president said. to this point, you can't characterize if there is a deal the pressure is off iran and if there is not a deal new pressure applied to iran even if there is a deal, the key will be transparency and verification and making sure the country is not developing a nuclear weapon

and that is repeated pressure. and that is important and i point out to what ak said we have major disagreements with what the iranians have been doing. britain has suffered for the way the embassy and staff were treated in that country. we approach it with a huge amount of skepticism and concern, but the goal of an iran without an nuclear weapon makes the talks worthwhile. your question is if this is a turning point for europe. i would argue that we turned some time ago. maybe britain in particular because of the appalling attacks that took place in 2005. there are attacks elsewhere in europe. since i have been prime minister there is one major plot every year of a significant nature that we have managed to

intercept and stop and prevent. and so the awareness of the scale of the challenge we face is absolutely there across the government, across parliament and the different political parties and police and intelligence services. i think there is an opportunity for countries in europe less affected to work with them, and make sure we share knowledge and skills. because when you say the turning point is making sure your legislation is up-to-date and police and security services have the cap anlts they need and programs that challenge extremist in it a way that is deradicalized and in your communities and means doing all of that. i grat agree with what barak had to it say about integrating in the societies. it was a mistake in the past when some countries treated different groups and religious

groups as separate blocks rather than building a strong home together. that's what we should do and what our policy is directed to. and as we are, a multiracial multiethnic society of huge opportunity where in one generation can come to the country and be in the cabinet and served in the highest level of the armed forces and sits on the benches of judge. i have somebody in my cabinet just like that in two generation his family went from arrive nothing britain and to sitting. that is vitally as combating unemployment and poverty. here is the determining point, you can have tragically people who had all of the advantages of integration and opportunities and get seduced by the poiseinous narrative. we have seen people who went to

syria and threaten us back at home who had every opportunity and advantage in life in terms of integration. and so let's never lose sight of the enemy that is the narrative poisoning islam. and recognizing that we help ourselves in which we have societies of genuine opportunity and integration in our communities. but never lose sight of the real heart of the matter. as for the issue of the techniques necessary for the intelligence services to keep us safe. all i would say and the president had a good discussion about this earlier, i don't think either of us are enunciating a new doctrine. i am sorry to disappoint you. a simple approach to this we have sent lessons or television or mobile or contacting each

other on the internet, it has been possible in both of our countries with extremist and in my country by a signed warrant from the home secretary to listen between the terrorist to stop. we are not asking for back doors, we believe in clear front doors through legal processes that should help to keep our country's safe. and as technology develops and the world moves on try to avoid the safe havens for terrorist to talk to each other and that is the goal that is so important. i am in no doubt, having been prime minister four and half years have sewn how our intelligence services work. the lives get saved. and there is a connection between that and the capabilities of our intelligence within the law is to defend our people. i think the final question is

from itm. >> robert moore ite news. there is a security alert with the jewish community in britain, can i be clear is that based on specific intelligence and should people be concerned about their daily activities this weekend and dow regard a terrorist attack to britain soil inevitable. mr. president, you say there is a dialogue underway with the american tech companies. dow share the prime minister's view that the current threat environment it swings the pendulum from privacy to counter terrorism and this area of private encrypted communications is a dangerous one potentially in terms of letting dialogue with the terrorist groups. >> this is the issue we face. the level is seta as severe and

set by independent expert organization so that people can have full confidence that they are not done for any other motive than looking at the evidence that is there about terrorist threats and set the level accordingly. when the level as it is set the at severe, that means the authorities believe that an attack is highly likely. if we believed it was imminent it would move to the the next level which is critical. and we clearly do face a very real threat in our country. in recent months as i discussed with the president, we have had a number of attacks averted on british police officers. that is a threat picture. and regularly reviewed and regularly updated and shouldn't be moved unless there is evidence to do so. in terms of the protection to the jewish community and indeed other communities and indeed the police officers themselves, this is based on what has happen in

france on the whole picture that we see and it is sensible precautionary measures to make sure we do what we can to reassure the communities. communities who are all too aware of the threat they face. it is it a bigger challenge for us. i think one of those moves sights in paris is seeing so many people holding up a sign. i am a cop, i am a jew. i thought that was moving that people wanted to stand together with a community that was singled out and singled out for no other fact than they were jewish. it is important to speak with and stand up for the communities to give them protection they deserve. >> obviously in the wake of paris, our attention is heightened but i have to tell you over the last six years threat streams are fairly

constant. david deals with them it every day and i deal with them every day. our ct counter terrorism professionals deal with them every day. i don't think it is it a situation in which because things are so much more dangerous the pendulum needs to swing. i think we need to find a consistent framework, whereby our public has confidence that the government can both protect them and not abuse our capacity to operate in cyberspace. because this is a whole new world as david said the laws that might have been designed for the traditional wiretap, have to be updated. how we do that needs to be debated, both here in the united states, and in the uk, i think

we are getting better at it and striking the balance better. i think that the companies here in the united states at least recognize that they have a responsibility to the public, but also want to make sure that they are meeting their responsibilities to the customers, that are using their products. and so the dialogue that we are engaged in is designed to make sure that all of us feel confident that if there is an actual threat out there, our law enforcement and our intelligence officers can identify that threat, and track that threat at the same time our governments are not going around phishing in

the text that you are doing on your smart phone. i think that is something that can be achieved. there are situations where there are hard cases but for the most part those who are worried about big brother, sometimes obscure or deliberately ignore all of the legal safe guards that are put in place to assure people's privacy and make sure that government is not abusing the powers and on the other end, there are times when law enforcement, and those of us whose job it is to protect the public aren't thinking about those problems because we are trying to track and prevent a particular terrorist event from happening and it is useful to have civil libertarians and

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

and despite having a social media address or e-mail address, that we, we can't penetrate that, that's a problem. and so that's the kind of dialogue we have with the companies. part of it is a legal issue and part is a technical question, but over all, i am actually confident that we can balance these imperatives and we shouldn't feel that because we seen a horrific attack in paris that suddenly everything should be going by the wayside. we have unfortunately this has been a constant back drop and i think will continue to be for sometime to come. we have to make sure we don't overreact but remain vigilant in

our responsibilities there. thank you very much everybody. appreciate it, thank you. >> president obama and prime minister david cameron wrapping up a joint press conference just a few moments ago. the it lasted an hour and as usual, each world leader received two questions, although those questions had layers and which it times they covered more topics than what the questions allowed. we'll bring in our special report anchor bret baier. a lot of those questions focused on iran and i am curious your reaction to the press conference and the leaders had to say. >> the biggest news focus on iran and the president vetoing legislation coming from congress that added sanctions on iran as negotiations are continuing. he said it is less than 50- 50

that the negotiations with iran and the nuclear program can be successful but he said it would be detrimental to the extreme to have sanctions coming out of the capitol hill at this time. it is interesting that the british prime minister is lobbying senators and making calls to prevent them from moving forward with sanctions. you have democrats and republicans saying they want to move forward and pass this through congress including new jersey senator bob men endez. >> how rare is it that a world leader would call on law makers on this issue? >> it is very rare. i don't remember a time when on a specific piece of legislation that is pending, that another world leader has made several calls to senators to influence. he said it was a simple information about how great britain feels about it but clearly it is having the affect

that the administration wants to prevent the sanctions from moving forward. i think that iran deal and the administration and president put so much hope that that potentially can come through, that they want to see it through, even though a lot of critics say the pause while they are negotiating is falling in the iranian's hands. >> it is interesting to note that the prime minister fielded questions of the head of mo5 and mentioning that a terrorist attack is imminent and so much news out of europe and i am curious on the position of the two issues, yes, iran is a number one state sponsor of terror and the president underscored that but we are dealing with a developing story in europe right now and the priorities that the journalist placed on the question i wonder if more is going on in the

background than we are aware of? >> i think the british prime minister said the group that makes the determination of status in the security of the home land there has that level at severe which means that an attack is highly likely in coming days and weeks and if it is imminent it is one notch up to critical. clearly the cells that are around europe, and this matacicizing as the president calls it is a major thing. note the tenor and tone the britain prime minister used radicalism and death cult and islamic terrorist that perverted islam, and numerous times, the president referred to it as violent extremism and made a case of moderates step up, it is interesting that he calls it violent extremism.

>> that is a big topic for special report. and thanks for standing by with us, we appreciate it. >> thank you, jenna. >> no matter what you call it or the source may be. the americans are plenty nervous of the prospect of terrorism coming to this country. how are the political leaders handling and we have our political panel tanningedingeding -- standing by on the other side of the break. n work better on pain than tylenol arthritis. so why am i still thinking about this? how are ya? good. aleve. proven better on pain. push your enterprise and you can move the world. ♪ ♪

but to get from the old way to the new you'll need the right it infrastructure. from a partner who knows how to make your enterprise more agile, borderless and secure. hp helps business move on all the possibilities of today. and stay ready for everything that is still to come.

you're driving along, having a perfectly nice day, when out of nowhere a pick-up truck slams into your brand new car. one second it wasn't there and the next second... boom! you've had your first accident. now you have to make your first claim. so you talk to your insurance company and... boom! you're blindsided for a second time. they won't give you enough money to replace your brand new car. don't those people know you're already shaken up? liberty mutual's new car replacement will pay for the entire value of your car plus depreciation. call and for drivers with accident forgiveness, liberty mutual won't

raise your rates due to your first accident. switch to liberty mutual insurance and you could save up to $423 dollars. call liberty mutual for a free quote today at see car insurance in a whole new light. liberty mutual insurance. >> so having herd the leaders of great britain and the united states talking about the issues of the day let's bring in our panel. colby is national report of the post. and michael warren writer for the weekly standard. all of the sudden in this country, there is a great of concern about terrorism, according to at this time pugh research center. the top public priorities for president obama and congress

terrorism ranks at 76 percent the economy which is noramly the number one concern is 75 percent. michael, this is a president who spent time talking about the scourge of terrorism and the troubles with iran those are two issues that he bashed the bush administration and six years later we are trying to handle them. >> in 2008, barak obama was running against the bush administration and shift the paradigm away from terror talk and pull troops out of iraq and afghanistan and don't engage in enhanced interrogation and diplomatically with iran. that's what he ran on and what we have had. around the world the terror threat is high as it has been. and the enemies are emboldened and our friends are attacked.

the paris attack is an example. and the polls are showing that americans are concerned about terrorism. there is a fox news poll, that she that people are not plosed with the way president obama the dealing with isis and terrorism the polls speak for themselves. >> prime minister cameron is lobbying with the senators and also the president and our private company cans about encryption. can you explain that? >> what the prime minister wants the president to do is talk to companies like google and facebook and encourage them to work with the government and let the government crack encryption messages and they can see the information on line and media. the president is not fully on board with that. he would rather that the companies voluntarily work

together with law enforcement and what the president is balancing, is the sensitive issue between civil liberties and security. and you mentioned pugh research they found more same poll, that more americans, i think it's 39% think we have not done enough to protect ourselves and 37% say we have gone too far. >> very quickly, a look at a fox news poll regarding president obama's performance on terrorism, 39% say they approve 53% say they disapprove. if he doesn't get his arms around this, michael warren this could be one of the legacy issues of his presidency. >> this was asked about by one of those british journalists specifically about the legacy of president obama and david cameron not engaging in syria. i think the next two years,

president obama doesn't have much in the way of going for a domestic agenda there's really going to be a -- recently, i think underscore how dares the world is. >> we need to do a truncated show due to the news conference. and it's not a ticket you're upgrading it's your entire operations, from domestic to international... which means you need help from a whole team of advisors. from workforce strategies to tech solutions and a thousand other things. so you call pwc. the right people to get the extraordinary done. ♪ ♪ major: ok fitness class! here's our new trainer ensure active heart health. crowd: yayyyy! heart: i'm going to focus on the heart. i minimize my sodium and fat... gotta keep it lean and mean. pear: uh-oh. heart: i maximize good stuff like my potassium... and phytosterols, which may help lower cholesterol. major: i'm feeling energized already.

new delicious ensure active heart health supports your heart and body, so you stay active and strong. ensure. take life in.

. a big meeting in zraig. >> the republican national committee has decided what will be the debate schedule for the republican candidates of 2016. starting in august fox will host the first of the debates of the republican field however many there may be. fox business network will host the fourth. ours will be in ohio.

fox business news will be in wisconsin in november. there's also a possibility of an additional three debates in march of thereafter spread out across the country, all of this before the iowa new hampshire and the leadoff contests. these have been the subjects of great controversy in the republican party, as well as with the media because today are setting the rules, and that's is something that has not yet happened in the past deciding that there will be a fine night number of debates that will happen. that will be between august and march. if the candidates were to violate those rules and go to anything but the republican section debates, they could lose their delegates and have their names abandoned to put into nomination of 2016. we have the calendar ahead of us now, this is a very big deal it will give the candidates an opportunity to plan where as -- they came very fast and un unscheduled. it was a bit of a problem for them. the republicans are trying to take charge and make it more

orderly and hopefully take back the white house in 2016. >> so nine is the magical number? >> nine debates. they felt they had a few too many the last time around. >> as carl mentioned, double that. we are continuing to follow up on that news conference with the president obama and the prime minister of britain. both saying they believe that iran can be prevented from getting a nuclear weapon, more on that straight ahead. [ female announcer ] everyone has a moment when tomorrow becomes real. transamerica. transform tomorrow.

listen up... i'm reworking the menu. veggies you're cool... mayo, corn dogs...you are so out of here! ahh... the complete balanced nutrition of great tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals. 9 grams of protein... with 30% less sugars than before. ensure, your #1 dr. recommended brand now introduces ensure active. muscle health. clear protein drink and high protein. targeted nutrition to feed your active life. ensure. take life in. you heard the president and the prime minister in that news conference, the homeland security secretary also said we have entered a new phase in the war on terror and we must respond. >> a lot of news to get to today. >> thank you for joining us. >> hope you have a great weekend, everybody the real story with gretchen starts now.

>> we have the latest in the ongoing anti-terror operations. a christian funded -- two teams on the run in a multistate crime spree getting more and more brazen. i'm gretchen carlson. "the real story" starts right now. the war on terror, the new threats facing the -- and our european allies taking the spotlight in the white house today. president obama meeting with the british prime minister for the second time today. especially in syria where the president says u.s.-led coalition efforts have weakened isis. despite claims from critics that the terrorists are stronger than ever. >> systematically taking out their fighters.