the west following 35 years of strained relations. here to break down all of the details. brett hume kick its off with us. jenna said he will try to convince the american people about the details of the deal. is it the people or the congress that are really the targets of this new's conference brit? >> i think is both. he doesn't have that high of a hill to climb in congress. he only has 1-third to climb in congress if they reject. it would burden every democrat going into next year including the nominee for president who is likely to be hillary clinton. he will be trying to sell it to everybody. >> there are signs it is unpopular even among the

democrats how tough of a sales job does he have here? >> to avoid having a big vote against it he could veto if it comes to that. he's got to make an argument that this is a good deal. the best argument interestingly enough is that i can think of from the deal is better than alternative with no deal. but you are basically saying, this is not's good deal but it is better than nothing and that is not a strong sales pitch. >> opponents say we had iran on the ropes and sanctions were byting and why now let them off of the floor now? >> that's the argument of course. and the counter argument to that yeah look. their economy was in bad shape

and they wanted sanctions lifted but the covert nuclear program which we are trying to put a halt to was proceeding the pace. despite the sanctions and this deal freezes that program if it works as advertised in place for a time. that's the case that would be made here. there are plenty of arguments on the other side as well. >> freezing it for a time ten years. in the world of international politics and especially nuclear proliferation ten years amounts to nothing. and in the morning announcement he made from the white house, talking about the deal he said intrusive inspections unannounced will be part of this. but the language as far as we have seen it. iran suggest that get a month for inspections.

>> we are talking about undeclared sites. there would be a lot of monitoring equipment set up in the facilities that we know about and where iran agreed to allow that. if we get suspicious about other sights there is a some what cumbersome process to bring about an inspection there and it would not be anywhere any time. but if iran resisted, it would be submitted in a committee and there would be a vote and be 21 days. 21 days is not a long enough time to hide all nuclear activity and are thes say it is enough time and defeats the idea of the time here. >> this is jenna here this is a historic week. whatever side of the issue you are on this is historic and more than three decades and not

dealing with with iran and there we have it and folks on all sides and corners. i spoke with proponents of the deal off air. and generalizing what they say and i will do that just for the purpose was our conversation listen, the critics of this plan are political opponents of the president. this is really down to party lines and i bring it to you now wondering do you believe that the criticism of this deal is in danger of looking too political to the danger point of the white house and saying the political opponents of the deal and that is the only people who are against it or is there something about this that goes across party lines? >> there is something that goes across party lines? robert men endez is a critic of this deal and numerous other democrats that are critical of

the deal. it is not just opponents of the president. they certainly are against it and i think that argument is not a strong one because of the facts that say otherwise. what do you expect the president to do today? it is opaque and difficult to read. we are not all nuclear scientist happily. and in some cases, i wish i had more background in that. how does he approach the topic and speak to the average american? what does he think he does? >> he suggested that the status quo was unteinable. and it is a break through because iran doesn't proceed in the way it has been. it opens up a now chapter or opportunity. and i don't know what he will say with the new chapter with

iran and potential future cooperation. iran is an implacable foe. and we heard about the rallies and death it america crois that persist up to the end of this negotiation. and so i don't know he will go there. down in his heart, though jenna he believes that a new relationship in which iran becomes a partner in a kind of detante with the united states is possible. and that's what he's reaching for. and some of the strongest sanctions in which the president now boast on iran were imposed over his objections back in 2011. he would have vetoed those and passed by overwhelming votes 111

in the senate and one where are four in the house. and he incorporates them in. >> how different will the numbers in congress if that is done again today? you think we would have a similar dynamic with the actual deal? >> it remains to be seen. no body really knows. i can say, jenna, if it was a treaty or a boipding on future presidents which this deal is not, it would have no chance of being rat foyed in the senate. that requires a two-thirds vote in favor of of the deal. and the president did it as an excutive agreement which does not require the same treatment as a treaty and if the president hadn't gone along with the corker bill that created the 60

daytime, followed by a vote congress would have little or no say at all. >> you are talking about the possibility of a rejection from congress. you suggested at the outset because he needed a relatively small number of senators on his side and congressional approval and ability to veto any congressional disapproval make its all but a done deal? >> that's what the numbers make it look like jon. you consider the president trying to hold 34 members of his own party in the senate, and a third of the house if he got them. he would certainly have to have a distinct majority of democrats. i don't know if he would get any republicans in either house. maybe a couple but not very

many. it would have to be an overwhelming majority of democrats and presidents can normally get it. but there is bipartisan opposition and plenty of democrats is against it. israel is a factor in the votes of many members and it will be interesting to unfold. odds favor him, but it is not guaranteed. >> brit stick with us and we'll go out the west coast. >> the deal and philosophy behind the foreign policy is part of it as well. motorcycle mike singh is director of foreign affairs and michael, we do have a hint of what the president may say today. he had a long interview with the new york times yesterday with the columnist and we are getting

our shot ready in the white house. one of the things they address whether you can divorce iran from the state sponsor of terror. the president said it is not measuring whether it changes iran or solving every problem that is traced back to iran or eliminate all of the activities around the globe. we are measuring the deal about whether or not iran could get a nuclear weapon and he said they cannot now. what do you think of that? dealing with iran on this specific issue and pushing terrorism and americans imprisonned there or otherwise? >> jenna, i think there is an inherent asynmetry. the deal doesn't ask anything of of the iranians on nonnuclear issues and doesn't ask them to limit the ballistic missile

program or terrorism or cooperative in syria and iraq for example. and yet the sanctions relief that iran is getting is much more comprehensive. five years regardless of iran's behavior the embargo will be lifted and the sanctions on missiles will be lifted and the head of the rev lougzary source will be limited. that is troubling to our alloys in the region and the matter of hundred billion dollars or more that will flow to the iranians and allies in the region will be used for regional activities and the administration said no it is domestic priorities. it is a reversal by the united states. decades of trying to counter iran's activities and push back on iran this will facilitate the iranian role in the region.

and the president said don't judge it on who iran changes. the fear is the opposite that it will fuel opposite. >> how valid is that fear? >> it is very valid. we started this process in 2005 and 6 and looking for a shift from the iranians and persuade the irans that the cost outweigh withed the benefits. that was the purpose of the process. there is nothing in the agreement that makes them do that and nothing in their behavior that suggest the conjectory. we have sewn more iranian misbehavior in yemen and syria. they have resources and free of the sanctions and nothing to suggest their behavior will change. >> michael, they will not have a nuclear weapon and we will

insure that through this deal you say what to that? >> folks will try to put it in cosmic terms. the choice between diplomacy and war. i think that is war wrong. the nuclear of the deal is on its own merits and there are strong elements. for example, the limitation of low enriched uranium stock pile and that is tronning but there are more troubling elements than strong in this thing. and one troubling element is that iran will keep the elements in the fut and you are enhance that nuclear weapon's option and research and development on more advanced centerifuges. it is phased out in 8- 15 years down the rod. it seems not far down the road.

one big question once the sort of 8 or 10 years come along and sanctions are lifted and no more constraints on the nuclear program. what is our policy and what do we do at that point to deter iran from developing nuclear questions. >> and what about the time frames. and was there a reason to choose that time period. you could stand by for us though. we are hearing from the president. we are still waiting a sign from the white house that he is coming. they have a party there waiting for him and a lot of questions. and we have some of our own friends in the room as well. >> kevin cork is in the east room waiting along with the rest waiting for the president to emerge. any word on why he is late? >> no word yet. that is not uncommon.

i have seen circumstances where it is 30 minutes late. and we are waiting for the two minute warning. this is an interesting opportunity for the president. it was so- called proclamation from the pulpit and today is a chance to preach the sermon not only the american people but people around the globe in which the deal can and cannot do and it is fair to it say and one of your guests menninged, it would be closely watched in israel. and one other nugget to point out. there is criticism that the president's choosing legacy over logic. trying to get involved in a deal with the iranians we are talking about a nation that has a long-standing and well deserved rep advertising for breaking international deals looping the way. and what i got back from the white house, they say it is better than alternative number one and number two, because

there are so many switches in the deal they will keeping a closer eye on the regime. it should be an interesting conversation as the president steps up eventually. >> and what about the skeptics in the rom. the press corps is ready to but the heads with the president on if it is deserved are you hearing rumblings about concerns over the deal? >> clearly there is a lot of experience here in the room. and so when you talk to the journalist that cover the white house for a great deal of time they are listening carefully to language. and sometimes in broadbrush they hear the consumption for the public. but what they are looking at is getting down in the details and making a rigorous study of what the deal says but as we wait

for the congressional leaders to look at what is in the deal we'll have more questions. it is also fair to say there is skepticism here because the experience is not only for this administration but previous administrations dealing with the irans is no sure thing. they don't expect this thing to be a broadbrush and everything is perfect and we moved on and forgot the past. this is another step in making sure that the iranians are doing what they are supposed to do to reaerp the sanctioned relief. jon. >> we are waiting for the president. kevin, thank you very much. and back to our discussion with brit hume. >> that's okay. we are trying to figure out the different sides of the story to continue to explore as we await the details from the president.

we have been able to speak with one of the few western journalist who are are able to actively work in iran and one of his big stories was a washington post correspondent who is remaining on prison. he was appearing in court and his family was not able to see him and he is up to 365 days behind bars for what iran is claiming is nefarious activities in their country. his last story was american baseball catching on in iran that is a big quiet. i am looking at our chat and twitter feed as well. what about these americans that remain jailed in iran and we know that they are there. and we heard from the administration and secretary kerry that we are just focusing

on on the nuclear deal and not focusing on the americans in prison. what do you think about that? what about those separate issues. and do you expect a surprise we might so the americans go free? >> it is possible that iran will release the captives as a goodwill gesture in the agreement. it is understandable that the administration would argue look if we bring nonnuclear matter such as the american hostages in the negotiation, that is hand the iranians another card to play. we'll turn them over but you have to do x to seek a further concession from the u.s. and the alwill lies. and you can understand that argument. and the problem with it is when it got down to it iran was

trying to get the conventionial arms embargo and regular weres and the kind you use to arm terrorist and the rest. they were trying to get that embargo lifted and that is outside of the perview of a nuclear negotiation and they got that. it is hard for the administration to make the case we'll keep it clear of other issues when they allowed the iranians to bring in a big one. the administration's position on this is tough. >> one of our viewers have a question: why is the president always late? you want to steak a stab. >> it is typical of some presidents. i covered president bush 41 and he was prompt. and bill clinton was never prompt. and i know president bush 43, was prompt to the point where he would show up early and this

president has a more easygoing way of sticking to his schedule. something could have arisen that he has to deal with. and there is certainly more crimes against humanity than keeping the journalist. we are here vamping and doing the best we can. >> we have to tell them what is going on. we expected the president 20 minutes ago. but there is a lot to the deal and different angle and it is interesting thing and we have bret baier sitting by as well. and brit i would love your thoughts on this. because the deal is so many pages and detailed what do you think of the president coming out 24 hours and confidence to answer all of the questions that are out there technically and otherwise. does it surprise you it is this

early? >> no i mean there is momentum and public interest in the announcement that hit the head lines tis historic and no question about that and a big departure and he's proved and conversant with the details. that doesn't mean he will answer every technical aspects of the deal. he will probably not get those questions and much of those in the room are regular white house correspond apts and they are not on the nuclear beat. bret baier anchor of special report is with us. we are two minutes away. this deal legitimizes iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and how does the white house fight back against that criticism.

>> happy to be here to help vamp in brit's words and called in from the bullpen. i want to say, the reason that the president is out here to do the hard sell. you had biden meeting with democrats and sign on with hillary clinton on the deal. and it is an uphill battle because there is concerns about whether or not iran will be trusted. those biggest inspections that is managed access with the iranians controlling the switchless also the arm's embargo. and ballistic weapons. and that was not a part of the deal in the beginning. and the bottom line here the u.n. and eu sanctions will erase. whatever happens on capitol hill only deals with the u.s. side of

things. this deal is moving forward no matter if capitol hill shuts it down or not. and the approximate president will make a pitch to the public today. >> with the vice-president there was a concerted effort to get congress on board? >> they have talked privately with members we are told and met with them and tried to lay out the plan. and we'll start a series of hearings led in the senate and in the house about the details of the plan that will take us over the 60 day period and probably a vote in september. >> all right. still waiting for the president. we were given the two minute warning. >> this has happen many times before. >> that doesn't always mean much does it brett? >> no. i covered bush 43 and we had to be on our toes and he was there

early and you didn't get give your report because he would walk out on you. president obama, who knows what he's dealing with. but he is delayed. nperhaps a st-minute phone call from benjamin netanyahu. >> what is the reaction from the saudis? >> cautious. united arab emrates put out a statement congratulating iran and i think all of these nations are absorbing the details. the gulf nations they are making a decision how to deal with iran going forward. >> let's hear it from the president bret baier. >> good afternoon. everybody. >> yesterday was historic day. the comprehensive long- term deal we had achieved with our allies and partners to prevent

iran from obtaining a nuclear party shoes american leadership and diplomacy and we accomplish when we lead from strength and principle and unite the international community around a shared vision and we resolve to solve problems peacefully. as i said yesterday, it is important for american people and congress to get an opportunity to review this deal. that process is under way. we have reached out to congress on both sided of the aisle and our national security team has offered extensive briefings. i expect robust debate. national security policies are stronger and effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy

demands. our team worked hard to get the details right. at the same time as the debate unfolds i hope we don't lose site of the picture. as we go forward it is important for everybody to remember the alternative and the fundmental choice that this moment represents. with this deal we cut off every single one of iran's pathways to a nuclear program, a nuclear weapon's program. and iran's nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. without the a deal those pathways would be open and no limits to the nuclear program and iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. with this deal we gain unprecedented a roubd the clock of iran's key nuclear facilities

and comprehensive inspection the regime ever negotiated. without a deal those inspections go away and we lose the ability to closely monitor iran's program and detect covert nuclear programs. if this deal if iran violates its commitments. there will be consequences. nuclear sanctions that will help cripple the iranian economy will snap back in place. without a deal the regime would unravel. and with this deal we have a possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. without a deal, we risk more war in the middle east and other countries will be compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs and threatening

a nuclear arms race in that region of the world. even with this deal we'll have profound differences with iran. use of terrorism and destabling the middle east. and there forethe arm's embargo will remain in effect for five years and missile for eight years and in addition the united states will retain our own sanctions with iran's missile program and human rights violation and continue our cooperation with israel and deepen our partnerships with the gulf states. the bottom line is this this nuclear deal meets the national security interest of united states and allies and prevents iran getting a nuclear weapon

and make the other problems that iran may cause even worse. this deal makes our country and world more safer and secure. and the alternative, no limits on iran's nuclear program and inspections and iran closer to a nuclear program and a risk of nuclear arm's race and risk of war all that endangers our security. that's the choice we face. future generations will judge us harshly for letting the moment slip away x. no one suggests that the deal resolves all of the threats that iran poses to the neighbors or the world. moreover realizing that the deal will require implementation and hard work and vigilance and execution. but this deal is our best means was assuring that iran will not

get a nuclear weapon and from the start, that is my number priority. we have a historic chance to pursue a safer and secure world and an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetimes. as president and commander in chief i am determined to seize that opportunity. that i will take some questions. and let me see who i am starting off with. there you g. i got it. andrew beaty. >> thank you, mr. president, yesterday you said the deal offered a chance in new direction with iran. what steps will be take to

moderate a more moderate iran and does the deal help you stabilize the region aside from the nuclear question. >> andrew i don't mind. i suspect there is a common set of questions, i promise i will get to your question. i want to step back and remind folks of what is at stake here. i did it in my opening statement. i heard the objections to the deal already. the starting premise of our strategy with respect to iran has been that it would be a grave threat to the united states and our allies if they obtained a nuclear weapon. and so everything that we've done over the last six and half

years is designed to make sure we address that number one priority. that's what the sanctions regime was all about and that's how we were able to mobilize the international community including some folks that we are not particularly close to to abide by the sanctions. that's how the sanctions came about. we were able to gain global consensus that iran having a nuclear weapon would be a problem for everybody. that's the reason iran's accounts were frozen. and that's the reason they had problems operating with respect to international commerce. we built that consensus around the narrow and profound issue. the possibility of iran getting a nuclear weapon. by the way, it was not simply my

priority. look back at all of the debates over the last 5 or 6 years, this is a democratic priority and republican priority and prime minister netanyahu's priority making sure iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. the deal negotiated by john kerry and the partners and p5 plus one achieves that goal. it achieves our top priority making sure that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. but we have always recognized that even if iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon iran still poses challenges to our

interests and our values both in the region and around the world. so when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program and brought their stock piles down to 98 percent and significantly reduced the number of centerifuges and installed an inspection team and that will be on ten years and on the stock piles continue to 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community it will not develop a nuclear weapon and that will be subject to a additional protocol a more

vigorous inspection and monitoring regime that lasts impertuity. we'll have disabled the iraq facility from allowing iran to develop plutonnium that could be used for a bomb and greatly reduced the stock pile of uranium that is enriched and put this place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if iran diverted in a covert program, we would catch it. i can say with confidence and nuclear experts can say with confidence, that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. we'll have met our number one

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

iran act being like a liberal democracy. it solves one particular problem which is making sure they don't have a bomb. and the point i repeatedly made and i believe hard to dispute, is that it will be a lot easier for us to check iran nefarious activities and push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interest or allies interest if they don't have the bomb. and so will they change their behavior? will we seek to gain more cooperation from them in resolving issues like syria or what's happening in iraq to stop encouraging hooties and yemen? unlike the cuba situation we are

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

which is making sure they don't have a bomb. john carl. mr. president, does it give you a pause to see the deal praised by syria as a great deal to iran and yet our closest alloys call its a mistake. i know you can veto rejection, but do you have concern about the people's representatives in congress saying it is a bad deal and if i can ask you a quick political question: a quick one. donald. >> let me answer the question that you asked. it does not give me pause that mr. assad or others in teheran

may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constitencies want to hear. that's what politicians do. and that's been the case throughout. and during the course of the negotiations, every time the supreme leader and everybody tweeted something out and we bought in to the notion the obama administration must be giving this and now you have a document and you can see the deal and we don't have to engage and spin. read what it says and what is required. and nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement, iran has to drastically reduce the stock piles of uranium and cut off from plutonnium.

and the facility that is underground is converted. that we have an unpres dept -- dented inspections regime. the facts are the facts and i am not concerned about what others say about it. with respect to congress, my hope i will not prejudge this. my hope is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts. not on politics not on posturing, not on the fact that this is a deal that bring to congress as opposed to a republican president. not based on lobbying but based on what is in the national interest of the united states of america. and i think that if congress

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

israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaims that israel shpt exist and denied the holocaust and financed hesbollah and missiles are pointed to tel aviv and so i think there are good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. and i said it to prime minister netanyahu and said it to the israeli people and i also said that all of those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon. and for all of the objections of prime minister netanyahu or for

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

arguing that either it does not or that even if it does it is temporary and because they are going to get a wind fall of their accounts being unfrozen that they will cause more problems, then you should haveab alterpative to present and i haven't heard that and the reason is because there are only two alternatives here. either the issue of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon resolved dimromatically new negotiation or it is resolved through force, through war. those are the options. now, you'll hear critics say we could have negotiated a better deal. what does that mean? the suggestion among the critics

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

done. so to go back congress i challenge those who are objecting this agreement to number one read the agreement before they comment on it. number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think that the agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they are right and the experts are wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong. and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military forces those critics should say so and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> prime minister netanyahu said you have a situation that iran can delay 24 days. >> i am happy, that is a good

example. let's take the issue of 24 days this is swirling today, and the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. keep in mind first of all, we'll have 24- 7 inspections of declared nuclear faces. iraq their uranium mines and facilityies that are known to produce centerifuges and parts and that entire infrastructure we know about, sophisticated 24- 7 monitoring of those facilities. so then the issue is what if they develop a covert program? one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain, it makes it

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

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

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

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

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

stop that? i wanted to see if you could step back a little bit and when you look at this iran deal and all of the other issues and unrest happening in the middle east what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year and a half? >> so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us has been of real concern to us. and it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah, for example. or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that gives us authority to interdict

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

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

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

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

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