here in the united states argued that we had to take military action against the soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. but the young president offered a different vision. strength in his view included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. but he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing. instead he promised strong, principled american leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace. a peace based not on sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human

institutions. on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements. such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perillous moments in human history. with kennedy at the helm the cuban missile crisis was he resolveed peacefully. under democratic and republican presidents, new agreements were forged. a non-proliferation treaty that prohibited nations acquiring nuclear weapons while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy. the salt and s.t.a.r.t. treaties which bound the united states and the soviet union to cooperation on arms control. not every conflict was averted but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe and we created the time and the space to win the

cold war without firing a shot at the soviets. the agreement now reached between the international community and the islamic republic of iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled diplomacy. after two years of negotiations we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. it cuts off all of iran's pathways to a bomb. it contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiateed to monitor a nuclear program. as was true in previous treaties it does not resolve all problems. certainly doesn't resolve all of our problems with iran. it does not insure a warming between our two countries but it

achieves one of most critical security objectives. as such it is a very good deal. today i want to speak to you about this deal and the most consequential foreign policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of iraq. as congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough, or, instead blocks it, over the objection of the vast majority of the world. between now and the congressional vote in september you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. and if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should. for many of the same people who argued for the war in iraq are

now making the case against the iran nuclear deal. now when i ran for president eight years ago, as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in iraq, i said that america didn't just have to end that war. we had to end the mind-set that got us there in the first place. it was a mind-set characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy. a mindset that put a premium on unilateral u.s. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus. a mind-set that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported. leaders did not level with the american people about the costs of war and insisting that we could easily impose our will on

a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history. and of course those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismisses those who disagreed as weak. even appeasers of a malevolent adversary. more than a decade later we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade iraq. our troops achieved every mission they were given but thousands of lives were lost. tens of thousands wounded. that doesn't count the lives lost among iraqis. nearly a trillion dollars was

spent. today iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict and the emergence of al qaeda in iraq has now evolved into isil. and ironically the single-greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the islamic republic of iran. which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of it's long-standing enemy, saddam hussein. i raise this recent history because now more than ever we need clear thinking in our foreign policy. and i raise this history because it bears directly how we respond to the iranian nuclear program. that program has been around for decades, dating back to the shah's efforts with u.s. support, in the 1960s and '70s to develop nuclear power. the theocracy that overthrew the

shah accelerated the program after the iran-iraq war in the 1980s. a war which saddam hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect and iran's nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990s, despite unilateral u.s. sanctions. when the bush administration took office, iran had no centrifuges. the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb that were spinning to enrich uranium. but despite repeated warnings from the united states government, by the time i took office, iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt its program. among u.s. policymakers there has never been disagreement on the danger posed by an iranian nuclear bomb. democrats and republicans alike have recognized that it would

spark an arms race in the world's most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. it would embolden terrorist groups like hezbollah, and impose an unacceptable risk to israel which iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. more broadly it, could unravel the global commitment to non-proliferation that the world has done so much to defend. the question then is not whether to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but how. even before taking office i made clear that iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch and it has been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options on the table to achieve that objective.

but lives made clear my preference for a peaceful, diplomatic resolution of the issue. not just because of the costs of war but also because of the negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable, and durable resolution. and so in 2009, we let the iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. iran failed to take that path and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility ad fordah. some argued that iran's intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. in fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped america rally the world to our cause and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial

sanctions. keep in mind unilateral u.s. sanctions against iran had been in place for decades but had failed to pressure iran to the negotiating table. what made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new u.n. security council resolution, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements from nations like china, india, japan, south korea, to reduce their purchases of iranian oil as well as the imposition by our european allies of a total oil embargo. winning this global buy-in was not easy. i know. i was there. in some cases our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate but we were able to convince them that absent a diplomatic resolution, the

result could be war, with major disruptions to the global economy. even greater instability in the middle east. in other words, it was diplomacy , hard, painstaking, diplomacy, not sabre-rattling, not tough talk, that ratcheted up the pressure on iran. with the world now unified beside us, iran's economy contracted severely and remains 20% smaller today than it would have otherwise been. do -- no doubt this hardship played a role in the 2013 iranian elections. when the iranian people elected a new government to that promised to improve the economy through engagement in the world. a window cracked open. the iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of

negotiations, iran agreed with the irinternational community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched-uranium and froze the progression of its program so that the p5-plus-one, the united states, china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france and the european union, could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. now let me pause here just to remind everybody when the interim deal was announced critics, the same critics we're hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. they insisted iran would ignore its obligations. they warned sanctions would unravel. they warned that iran would

receive a windfall, to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted, for the first time in a decade. its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections did increase. there was no flood of money into iran. and the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. in fact, the interim deal worked so well, that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. think about that. what was once proclaimed as historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not

sign the comprehensive deal. so keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. despite the criticism we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting comprehensive deal. our diplomats led by secretary of state john kerry kept our coalition united. our nuclear experts including one of the best of the world, secretary of energy ernie monizs worked tirelessly on the technical details. in july we reached a comprehensive plan of action that meets our objectives. under its terms iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. while iran like any party to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, insuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off.

here's how. under this deal iran can not acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. the core of its heavy water reactor in iraq will be pulled out, filled with concrete and replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. the spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country and iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years. iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched-uranium that could be used for a bomb. as soon as this deal simply meanted iran will remove 2/3 of its centrifuges. for the next decade iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. iran will not enrich uranium at previously undisclosed fordah

facility which is deep underground for at least 15 years. iran will get rid of 9% of its stockpile of enriched-uranium which is currently enough for 10 nuclear bombs for the next 15 years. even after those 15 years have passed iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon. and in fact this deal shuts off the type of covert path iran pursued in the past. there will be 24/7 monitoring of iran's key nuclear facilities. for decades inspectors will have access to iran's nuclear supply chain from iranian mines and mills where they get raw materials and to the production facilities. understand why this is so important. for iran to cheat it has to build a lot more than just one building or covert facility like

ford dow. it would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. no nation in history has been able to pull off such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. and under the terms of the deal inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in iran. finally iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. before getting sanctions relief, iran has to take significant, concrete steps like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stockpile. if iran violates the agreement over the next decade all of the sanctions can snap back into place. we won't need support of other members of the u.n. security concerns sill. america can trigger snap-back on our own. on other hand if iran abides by the deal and it is economy

begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snap-back will only grow. so this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives. this is strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. because of this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that is commented publicly, with the exception of the israeli government has expressed support. the united nations security council unanimously supported it. majority of arms control and non-proliferation perts support it. over 100 former ambassadors who served under republican and democratic presidents support it.

i've had to make a lot of tough calls as president. whether or not this deal is good for american suit is not one of those calls. it is not even close. unfortunately we're living through a time in american politics wherever foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism. illuminated by headline grabbing sound bites. before the ink was even dry on this deal, before congress even read it. a majority of republicans declared their virulent opposition. lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientist, disputing assessments of experts like secretary moniz. challenging his findings. offering multiple and sometimes

contradictory argument about why congress should reject this deal but, if you repeat these argue ments long enough they can get some traction. so let me address just a few of the arguments that have been so far in opposition to this deal. first there are those who say the inspections are not strong snuff because inspectors can't go anywhere in iran at anytime with no notice. here's the truth. inspectors will be allowed daily access to iran's key nuclear sites. if there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious, undeclared site anywhere in iran, inspectors will get that access, even if iran objects. this access can be with as little as 24 hours notice, and

while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we've identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in. and by the way, nuclear material isn't something you hide in the closet. [laughter]. it can leave a trace for years. the bottom line is, if iran cheats, we can catch them and we will. second, there are those who argue that the deal isn't strong enough because some of the limitations on iran's civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years. let me repeat, the prohibition on iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. the ban on weapons-related research is permanent. inspectionses are permanent. it is true some of the

limitations regarding iran's peaceful program last only 15 years but that's how arms control agreements work. the first "salt" treaty with the soviet union lasted five years. the first s.t.a.r.t. treatly lasted 15 years. in our current situation if 15 or 20 years fdom now iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the united states will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond, and the same options available to stop a weapons program as we have today, including if necessary military options. on the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now by killing this deal congress

would not merely pave iran's pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it. third, the number of critics say the deal isn't worth it because iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief. let's be clear, the international sanctions were put in place precisely to get iran to agree to constraints on its program. that's the point of sanctions. any negotiated agreement with iran would involve sanctions relief. so an argument sanctions relief is effectively argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. it is true that, if iran lives up to its commitments it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money. revenue frozen overseas by other countries. but the notion that this will be a game-changer with all this

money funneled into iran's pernicious activities misses reality of iran's current situation. partly because of our sanctions iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure. iran's leaders have raised the expectations of their people, that sanctions relief will improve their lives. even a rye press sieve regime like iran's can not completely ignore those expectations. that's why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the iranian people. now this is not to say the sanctions relief will provide no benefit to iran's military. let's stipulate that some of that money will flow to

activities that we object to. we have no illusions about the iranian government or the significance of the revolutionary guard and the quds force. iran supports terrorist organizations like hezbollah. it supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies. including proxy groups who killed our troops in iraq. they tried to destablize our gulf partners. but iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. they engaged in them before sanctions, and while sanctions were in place. in fact, iran engaged in these activities during the iran-iraq war. a war that cost them nearly a

million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. the truth is iran has always found a way to fund these efforts and whatever benefit iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon. moreover there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns iran into the region's dominant power. iran's defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our gulf allies. their conventional capabilities will never compare with israel's and our commitment to israel's qualitative military edge helps guaranty that. over the last several years iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the arab world, bashar al-assad. even as he has lost control of huge chunks of his country.

and hezbollah suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. and iran like the rest of the region is being forced to respond to the threat of isil in iraq. so contrary to the alarmists who claim that iran is on the brink of taking over the middle east, or even the world, iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. the ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. we will continue to have sanctions in place on iran's support for terrorism and violation of human rights. we will continue to insist upon the release of americans detained unjustly. we will have a lot of differences with the iranian regime. but if we're serious about confronting iran's destablizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than

blocking this deal. instead we need to check the behavior that we're about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyberattack or a ballistic missile. by improving theter detection of weapons shipments that go to groups like hezbollah. by training our allies special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like yemen. all of these capabilities will make a difference. we will be in a stronger position timely meant them with this deal. and by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by isil. now the final criticism, this is sort of a catch-all that you may

hear, is the notion that there's a better deal to be had. we should get a better deal. that's repeated over and over again. that's a bad deal. need a better deal. one that relies on vague promises of toughness, and more recently the argument that we can apply a broader, and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the iranian regime harder. those making this argument are either ignorant of iranian society or they're just not being straight with the american people. sanctions alone are not going to iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure. even those aspects that are consistent with peaceful

programs. that often times is what the critics are calling a better deal. neither the iranian government or the iranian opposition or the iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty. moreover, our closest allies in europe or in asia much less china or russia, certainly not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years, according to the dictates of the u.s. congress. of the u.s. congress. their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. not on the belief iran can't have peaceful nuclear power.

and certainly not based on a desire for regime change in iran. as a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. instead of strengthening our position as some have suggested, congress' rejection would result in multi lateral sanctions unraveling. if, as has been suggested, we try to maintain unilateral sanctions and beef them up, we would be standing alone. we cannot dictate the foreign, economic, and energy policies of every major power in the world.

in order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction for example, some of the world's largest banks. we would have to cut off countries like china from the financial system. since they are major purposes of our debt, such actions could trigger reactions in our own economy and raise questions about the dollar's role as the reserve currency. that is part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waved. what is more likely to happen is iran would end up with sanction relief and not required to follow the deal. the critics are right. walk away from this agreement

and you will get a better deal; for iran. [applause] >> because the sanctions will not produce the results protesters want, congressional rejection of the deal leaves any u.s. administration that is absolutely committed to iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option. another war in the middle east. i say this not to be provocative. i am stating a fact. without this deal, iran will be in a position, however tough the rhetoric may be to advance the capabilities. its breakout time, which is

already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? and as someone who does firmly believe iran must not get a nuclear weapon and rewrestled wh the issue since the beginning of my presidency, i can tell you alternatives to military action will be exhausted once we reject a solution the world almost unanimously supports. let's not mince words. the choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. maybe not tomorrow. maybe not three months from now.

but soon. and here is the irony. as i said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. that is not just my talk. analyst suggest rejection would set back iran's nuclear program by a few years which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal. it would likely guarantee inspectors are kicked out of iran. it is probably it would drive iran's program deeper underground. it would certainly destroy the international unity we spent so many years building. now, there are some opponents. i have to give them credit. there are opponents of this deal

who accept the choice of war. in fact they argue surgical strikes will be quick and painless. but if we learned anything from the last decade, it is that wars in general, and wars in the middle east in particular, are anything but simple. [applause] >> the only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain cost, and unintended consequences. we can also be sure the americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less than one percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.

as commander and chief i have not shied away from using force when necessary. i have ordered tens of thousands of young americans into combat. i have sat by their bed sides sometime when they come home. i have ordered military action in seven countries. the are times when force is necessary. if iran does not abide by this deal, it is possible we don't have an alternative. but how can we in good conscious, go to war without trying this first? a deal that is agreed to by iran and supported by the rest of the world and preserves our options if the deal falls short.

how can we justify that to our troops? how can we justify that to the world? or to future generations? in the end, that should be a lesson that we are learned from over a decade of war. on the front end ask tough questions. subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis. resist the conventional wisdom and the drum beat of war. worry less about being labelled weak and more about getting it right. i recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of rhetoric. it is offensive. it is something we take

seriously. but super powers should not act impulseively. just because iranians hard liners chant death to america does not mean that is what all iranians believe. [applause] >> in fact, it is those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. it is those hardliners who have been most oppose to the deal. they are making common cause with the republican caucus. [applause] >> the majority of the iranian

people urge the government to move in the opposite direction with incentives stregthngtstren this deal. we should give them that opportunity. it is not guaranteed to succeed. but if they take it is good for iran, it would be good for the united states, and it would be good for a region who has known too much conflict, and it would be good for the world. if iran doesn't move in that direction, if iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. you know the agreements pursued by kennedy and reagan with the soviet union, those agreements and treaties involved america accepting significant constraints on our arsenal.

they were riskier. disgrement -- the defense budget is more than $600 billion and iran's is about $15 billion. our military remains the ultimate backside to any security agreement we make. i have sated -- stated iran will never be allowed to maintain a nuclear weapon. let me sum it up here. when we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none of them stand up to scrutiny, that may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so

striking. i suppose it can be described as rhetoric that is all too familiar. everything that renders disaster or surrender; you are aiding terrorist and endangering freed freedom. on the other hand, i think it is important to acknowledge the motivation behind the deal. and that is a sincere ifinity to our friend and ally, israel. when the israeli government is opposed to something, people in the united states take notice.

and they should. no one can blame israeli's about having deep uncertainty about dealing with any government like iran which includes leaders to denied the holocaust, embraced ant anti-semetic behavior, send rockets pointed at tel aviv. in such a dangerous neighborhood, israel has to be vigilant. it rightly insist it cannot depend on any other country, even its great friend the united states, for its own security. so we have to take seriously concerns in israel. but the fact is, partly due to

american military and intelligence assistance which my administration provided at unprecedented levels, israel can present itself from any conventional danger whether from iran or from its process. a nuclear armed iran changes that equation. that is why this deal ultimately must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of superintendenting iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. -- and i have made it clear to the israeli government we are prepared to discuss deepening that cooperation further. we held talks with israel on concluding another ten-year plan

on concluding u.s. security assistance to israel and enhance support for missile defense, information sharing, all to help meet israel's pressing security needs and provide a hedge against any additional activities iran may engage in as a concept of sanctions relief. but i have also listened to the israeli security establishment that warned of the danger posed by a nuclear armed iran for deca decades. thy they helped develop many of the ideas that led to this deal. to friends of israel and the israeli people i say to this: a nuclear armed iran is more dangerous to israel, america and the world than an iran that benefits from sanctions relief.

i recognize that benjamin netanyahu disagrees and i don't doubt his sincerity. but i believe he is wrong. i believe the facts support this dea i believe they are in america's interest and israel's interest and as president of the united states it would be an obligation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally. i don't believe that would be the right thing to do for the united states or the right thing to do for israel. [applause]

>> for the last couple weeks, i have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to the deal to put forward a better alternative. i have yet to hear one. what i heard was the same types of arguments i heard from the run up of the iraq war. iran can't be dealt with diplomatically, we should not worry about what the rest of the world thinks, tougher talks and more military threats will force iran into submission, we can get a better deal. i know it is easy to play on people's fears, magify flethrea

and appear any diplomacy to munich. but none of these arguments hold up. they didn't back in 2002-2003 and they shouldn't now. [applause] >> the same mindset in many places offered by the same people who seem to have no problem with being repeatedly wrong. led to a war that did more to strengthen iran and more to isolate the united states than anyone we have done in the decades before since. it is mindset out of step with

the tradition of american foreign policy where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and piece in the cold light of truth. peace is not the absence of conflict president reagan once said. it is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. president kennedy warned americans not to seek conflict as inevitable, a combination as impossible and communication is nothing more than the exchange of threats. it is time to apply such wisdom. the deal before us doesn't bet on iran changing, it doesn't require trust, it verifies and

requires iran. just like we struck a deal with the soviet union when they were threatening us and proclaiming their commitment to destroying or way of life and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities. a genuine existential threat. we live in a complicated world. a world by which the forces unleashed are creating opportunities for our children that were not imaginable for most of human nature. it is also a world of persistent threats. a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold

dear. in this world, the united states of america remains the most powerful nation on earth, and i believe that we will remain such for decades to come. but we are one nation among many. and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional is not the mere fact of our military might. since world war ii, the de deadliest war in history, we used our power to try to bind nations together in a system of international law. we have led an evolution of those human institutions president kennedy spoke about to prevent the spread of deadly

weapons, to uphold peace and security. and promote human progress. we now have the opportunity to build on that progress. we built a coalition and held it together through sanctions and negotiations and now we have before us a solution that prevents iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war. as americans we should be proud of this achievement. as members of congress reflect on their pending decision, i urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, and consider the stakes involved with the vote you will cast. if congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on iran's nuclear program or the sanctions we are

pain-stake built. we will lose america's creditability as a leader of diplomacy. we will lose america's creditability as the anchor of the international system. john f kennedy cautioned here, more than 50 years ago at this university, that is pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. it is so very important. it is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife. my fellow americans, contact your representatives in congress, remind them of who we are. remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so we

can leave behind a world that is more peaceful for our children. thank you very much. >> the president talking for almost one hour about iran deal and why he feels, as you heard him say, the american people should contact their washington representatives and talk about how they feel about this deal. we have been monitoring this for the better part of an hour and we will bring it out to the catch. joining us is our one lucky guy. what are your thoughts about the president's comments today? >> i think his basic audience was he sees support among democrats crumbling and he is trying to turn it into a partisan issue and that is why he had the bush bashing and iraq war bashing and

in jfk. >> he said china holds so much of the debt and we cannot upset so it makes it a good deal. >> secretary john kerry said this would be the ultimate, and i am quoting him, screwing of iran if we don't get the deal. we will stay here for "outnumbered" on the web. we are back tomorrow. after the break, "happening now." now." y alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. they work fast and don't taste chalky. mmm...amazing. i have heartburn. alka-seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief.

test. test. test. test. test. rrn

thankshow may i help you?s list. i heard i could call angie's list if i needed work done around my house at a fair price. you heard right, just tell us what you need done and we'll find a top rated provider to take care of it. so i could get a faulty light switch fixed? yup! or have a guy refinish my floors? absolutely! or send someone out to groom my pookie? pookie's what you call your? my dog. yes, we can do that. real help from real people. come see what the new angie's list can do for you. i'm reworking the menu.

mayo, corn dogs... you are so out of here! ahh... the complete balanced nutrition of great tasting ensure. with nine grams of protein... and 26 vitamins and minerals. ensure. take life in. >> a fox news alert. 1 o'clock p.m. eastern time. the president making the case for the iran nuclear deal to the american public and also the world. it was a wide ranging speech that went item by item through the criticism of the deal and made a compelling argument for the deal. as you know and we have discussed, plenty of skeptics remain on this. one of the things that the president did address specifically the united states and the relationship to israel. we wanted to make sure we had appropriate reaction to the comments and also