broken there are clear and large divisions about what details of this deal might look like and whether it should even exist, tamron. >> right now, we are hearing orrin hatch and the speaker read names of the escort committee. i think kelly o'donnell is standing by she is not with us just yet, but it is interesting, kris that our first read team talks about the success and failure of benjamin netanyahu's speech even before it begins. obviously bringing great attention to the impact that this nuclear deal the u.s. is trying to strike with iran could potentially have but also we know the anger associated with it some 50 potential, 50 democrats boycotting the speech and the effect this could have on not the relationship with israel and the united states but the relationship with the administration. >> yeah, this is nothing, if not extraordinary. first of all, you have what the white house calls breach of protocol, but you have the leader of another country coming on to the floor of congress in the middle of negotiations as

you know john kerry has been meeting with his iranians counter parts today, trying to make progress on this deal, and right in the middle of it the leader of another nation standing in front of congress making his case against the administration. so this is extraordinary, even potentially unprecedented. while again, the white house has been trying to ratchet down some of the rhetoric surrounding it trying to move forward as they are today to make progress on this deal there are an awful lot of questions hanging out there. one of the things we are watching for very carefully that we heard from john kerry today, he is concerned about how much will be revealed about a deal that's still in progress and being negotiated. >> let me bring in kelly o'donnell, she's standing by. kelly, talk about the atmosphere leading up to the lawmakers entering. what did you hear and see? >> reporter: i am inside the chamber, tamron above and to the left of where the prime minister will be making his address. we have been watching in the last hour or so members of the

public, from around the country filter into the gallery seats, which are above the chamber. a strong showing of members of congress. there are only a handful of remaining open seats. some of those are for those members who will be escorting benjamin netanyahu into the chamber. outside the capitol, i watched protests for and against his presence today, so there has been a very heightened sense of security. it seemed as if every u.s. capitol police officer on the force was on duty today. lots of security as you would expect, for this type of event with a head of state. and then i've seen a lot of the former members coming back that is also something we see, and there's a real sense of expectation now about what is the message, how far will benjamin netanyahu go, how forcefully will he make his case and we will watch to see what the reception will be especially from democrats who raised some concerns. again, i am looking across the

chamber, i see lots of democrats here. we have been told roughly 50 publicly acknowledge not wanting to attend for reasons of concern about protocol political timing for the israeli elections, and concerns about how the president may have been slighted by house speaker john boehner by not following the normal rules. >> kelly, some of those not attending are democrats who are jewish. there was a head line of whether or not some of these members such as senator al franken, for example, would be in precarious situation by not attending. >> reporter: i have not seen al franken, i have seen richard blumenthal, senator widen who is jewish, senator norm coleman who is jewish works a lot with aipac now. you have somewhere around ten members of the senate who are jewish, and they may feel a stronger need to be here but i don't think it goes just to

personal faith. i think there are much larger politics. but those considerations are important. for members, part of the decision is how does this play in your home state and district. what are the concerns of the people you represent. so that filters into some of the decision as well. >> kelly, let me bring in our "newsnation" panel as we await the speech. columnist from "the washington post," eugene robinson senior washington correspondent for politico anna palmer. eugene i will start with you. josh earnest said the president didn't watch netanyahu's address at aipac yesterday, will not be watching today. if the plan was to influence negotiations taking place as we speak, is this a failure for prime minister netanyahu? >> well it kind of depends, to tell you the truth. frankly, i think there's limited impact he can have on what happens in the negotiations going foormd in the

negotiations, that's happening elsewhere. he can change or potentially change the climate in washington and the way those events that are happening in the negotiations are perceived here. but i don't think he can materially impact the u.s. negotiating position as far as we know it certainly not the iranian negotiating position as far as we know it. it will be interesting to see how much of what he knows he reveals in his speech. >> and anna you are there as well. bring you in noted by the first read team domestic politics versus what we are seeing here how is this playing out in israel. >> this is a political play by netanyahu. he is up for re-election. i think it is seen as powerplay to help him at the polls. certainly seeing it really turn into a political, where you have almost 50 democrats boycotting the speech. certainly you're going to have republicans and democrats fight about what's said the fact that

he is here that a lot of democrats have been vocal, including senator warren today coming out, saying she wouldn't attend because they see it as speaker making powerplay against obama. >> at aipac, perhaps that was the big reveal and not today, the tone heard from the prime minister carefully chosen words to the reassure those watching and in attendance, that he was not attending, not trying to upstage the president or devalue this president as some perceive the actions to be. >> and i think those words were aimed as much for the audience at home in israel as for the audience here because polls show -- >> let me pause, let me interrupt you here as we listen

in. eugene, being met with great applause. do we expect a big reveal of a different kind than we saw yesterday in his speech? >> different sort of tone tamron. >> different tone, different choice of words. or will this be much the same. >> even though i don't think he will come to congress and attack the obama administration. i don't think he will have a pit bull kind of tone from him.

i think he will layout his case perhaps in great detail as to what he sees as an existential threat to israel from the prospect of an iranians nuclear weapon and he will argue for his position in the negotiations that iran shouldn't be left with capacity to potentially make a nuclear bomb as opposed to what seems to be the american position, under no circumstances can iran develop a nuclear bomb. >> eugene we know this is described as political football. secretary kerry said that was his concern. i believe susan rice referred to it as potentially destructive. this happened because of invitation by the speaker of the house, without the white house being consulted. is there pressure for the prime minister to pay that off for lack of better description. >> yeah there is some pressure for him to repair whatever

damage has been done. however, as the president, as president obama said in his interview with reuters, he does not see there having been any permanent damage to the relationship, and we have to remember there have been moments before when there seemed to be fairly serious ruptures in the u.s., israeli relationship. in fact it is an enduring relationship that will continue despite. >> we saw senate minority leader harry reid greet the prime minister. anna, you are there as well. the expectations were very high. i think chris jansingkris jansing said extraordinary the number of times he addressed congress combined with the week of rhetoric before it throwing in these extras here but we know that he also refused or declined is a better way to describe it to meet with key senators democratic senators who wanted to meet with him.

>> i think what you're seeing here is netanyahu and the israel relationship is something that's been bipartisan for years, but is certainly something where you have a lot of senate democrats that are very upset the way the speech came about and don't want to be used as pawns. they wanted to have private meetings to meet with him, and you're seeing this back and forth play out in the backdrop of his speech that we are about to watch. >> anna thank you very much. let me take you now to the speech. >> members of congress i have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the prime minister of israel his excellency benjamin netanyahu.

>> speaker of the house, john boehner, president pro tem, senator orrin hatch, senate majority leader mitch mcconnell house minority leader nancy pelosi, and house majority leader kevin mccarthy. i also want to acknowledge senator democratic leader harry reid. harry, good to see you back on your feet. [ applause ]

i guess it is true what they say, you can't keep a good man down! my friends, i'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the u.s. congress. [ applause ] i want to thank you all for being here today. i know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. i deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political. that was never my intention. i want to thank you, democrats and republicans, for your common support for israel year after year decade after decade.

[ applause ] i know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with israel! [ applause ] the remarkable alliance between israel and the united states has always been above politics it must always remain above

politics. [ applause ] because america and israel we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. israel is grateful for the support of america's people and of america's presidents from harry truman to barack obama. [ applause ] we appreciate all that president obama has done for israel. now, some of that is widely known. [ applause ] some of that is widely known like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-israeli resolutions at the u.n.

some of what the president has done for israel is less well known. i called him in 2010 when we had the caramel forest fire he immediately agreed to the request for urgent aid. in 2011, we had our embassy in cairo under siege. again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment. or his support for more missile intercepters when we took on hamas terrorists. in each of those moments i called the president and he was there and some of what the president has done for israel might never be known because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an american president and an israeli prime

minister, but i know it and i will always be grateful to president obama for that support. [ applause ] and israel is grateful to you, the american congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including iron dome. [ applause ] last summer millions of israelis were protected from thousands of hamas rockets because this capitol dome helped build our iron dome.

[ applause ] thank you, america. thank you for everything you've done for israel. my friends, i've come here today because as prime minister of israel i feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people. iran's quest for nuclear weapons. we are an ancient people. in our nearly 4,000 years of history many have tried repeatedly to destroy the jewish people. tomorrow night on the jewish holiday of purin, we will read

the book of esther. we will read of a powerful persian advice roy who plotted to destroy the jewish people some 2500 years ago. but a courageous jewish woman, queen esther exposed the plot and gained for the jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies. the plot was foiled our people were saved. [ applause ] today, the jewish people face another attempt by yet another persian poet entate to destroy us. iran's supreme leader spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred

of anti-semitism with the newest technology. he tweets that israel must be annihilated. he tweets. in iran there isn't exactly free internet but he tweets in english that israel must be destroyed. for those who believe that iran threatens the jewish state but not the jewish people listen to the leader of hezbollah, iran's chief terrorist proxy. he said if all the jews gather in israel it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. but iran's regime is not merely a jewish problem any more than the nazi regime was merely a jewish problem. the six million jews murdered by the nazis were but a fraction of 60 million people killed in

world war ii. so too, iran's regime poses a grave threat not only to israel but also to the peace of the entire world. to understand just how dangerous iran would be with nuclear weapons we must fully understand the nature of the regime. the people of iran are very talented people. they're heirs to one of the world's greatest civilizations. but in 1979 they were hijacked by religious zell otts that put on them a dark and bruteal dictate orship. that year they drachtd a new resolution. the guards were to protect the borders but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. the regime founder, ayatollah khomeini told them to export

the revolution throughout the world. i am standing here in washington, d.c. the difference is so stark. america's founding document promises life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. and the states are collapsing across the middle east. iran is charging into the void to do just that. iran's goons in gaza revolutionary guards in the golan heights are clenching them with three reigns of terror. backed by iran shiite militia rampaging through iraq. backed by iran houthis seizing control of yemen, threatening strategic straits at the mouth of the red sea. along with straits of hormuz

gives iran a choke point on the world's oil supply. last week near hormuz iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock u.s. aircraft carrier. that's just last week! while they're having nuclear talks with the united states. but unfortunately for the last 36 years, iran's attacks against the united states have been anything but mock. and the targets have been all too real. iran took dozens of americans hostage in tehran murdered hundreds of soldiers marines in beirut, is responsible for killing and maiming thousands of american serviceman and women in iraq and afghanistan. beyond the middle east iran attacks america and its allies through its global terror network. it blew up the jewish community center and the israeli embassy

in bu an owes air east, helped them bomb embassies in africa. even attempted to assassinate the saudi ambassador here in washington, d.c. in the middle east iran now dominates four arab capitals baghdad, damascus beirut and sanaa. if it is left unchecked, more will surely follow. at a time when many hope that iran will join the community of nations, iran is busy gobbling up the nations. we must all stand together to stop iran's march of conquest subjugation and terror. [ applause ]

now, two years ago we were told to give president and foreign minister a chance to bring change and moderation to iran. some change. some moderation. his government hangs gays persecutes christians jails journalists, and executes even more prisoners than before. last year the same who charms western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of the terrorist master mind who spilled more american blood than any other terrorist besides osama bin laden. i would like to see someone ask him a question about that.

iran's regime is as radical as ever. its cries of death to america, the same america it calls the great satan as loud as ever. now, this shouldn't be surprising because the ideology of iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant islam. that's why this regime will be an enemy of america. don't be fooled. the battle between iran and isis doesn't turn iran into a friend of america. iran and isis are competing for the kraun of militant islam. one calls it a military republic, the other an islamic state. both want to impose a militant islamic empire first in the region then on the entire world. they just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. in this deadly game of thrones,

there's no place for america or for israel no peace for christians jews or muslims who don't share the islamist they created. no rights for women, no freedom for anyone. when it comes to iran and isis the enemy of your enemy is your enemy. [ applause ] the differences that isis is armed with butcher knives captured weapons, and youtube. iran could be soon armed with inter continental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. we must always remember i'll say it one more time the greatest danger facing our world

is the marriage of militant islam with nuclear weapons. to defeat isis and let iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle but lose the war. we can't let that happen! [ applause ] but that, my friends, is exactly what could happen if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by iran. that deal will not prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons. it will all but guarantee that iran gets those weapons, lots of them. let me explain why.

while the final deal hasn't been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. you don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. you can google it. absent a dramatic change we know for sure that any deal with iran will include two major concessions to iran. the first major concession would leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb. breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. according to the deal not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left

spinning. thousands more would be temporarily disconnected but not destroyed. because iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact iran's breakout time would be very short, about a year by u.s. assessment, even shorter by israel's. and if iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges is not stopped, that breakout time could still be shorter, a lot shorter. two, certain restrictions would be imposed on iran's nuclear program, and iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. but here's the problem. see, inspectors document violations they don't stop them. inspectors knew when north korea broke to the bomb but that didn't stop anything. north korea turned off cameras, kicked out the inspectors. within a few years, it got the

bomb. now we are warned that within five years north korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. like north korea iran has defied international inspectors in 2005 2006 2010. like north korea, iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras. now, i know this is not going to come a shock, as a shock to any of you, but iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide and cheat with them. the u.n.'s nuclear watchdog agency the iaea said again yesterday that iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. iran was also caught caught twice, not once twice, operating secret nuclear facilities facilities that

inspectors didn't even know existed. right now iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about. the u.s. and israel. as the former head of inspections for the iaea said in 2013 he said if there's no undeclared installation today in iran, it will be the first time in 20 years it doesn't have one. iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. and that's why the first major concession is a source of grave concern. it leaves iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. that concession creates a real danger that iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal. but the second major concession creates an even greater danger that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal because

virtually all of the restrictions on iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade. now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life but it is the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. it is the blink of an eye in the life of our children. we all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many many nuclear bombs. iran supreme leader says that openly. he says iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000, or even the 19,000 that iran has today, but ten times that amount. 190,000 centrifuges enriching

uranium. with this massive capacity iran could make fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision. my long time friend john kerry, secretary of state confirmed last week that iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires. now, i want you to think about that. the foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons, and this with full international legitimacy. and by the way, if iran's intercontinental ballistic missile is not part of the deal and so far iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table,

iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far corners of the earth, including to every part of the united states. so you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions. one leaving iran with a vast nuclear program, and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb it paves iran's path to the bomb. so why would anyone make this deal? because they hope that iran will change for the better in the coming years. or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse. well i disagree. i don't believe that iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. this regime has been in power for 36 years and its veracious

appetite would grow. this would only whet iran's appetite for more. would iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? if iran is gobbling up four countries now while under sanctions, how many more countries will iran devour when sanctions are lifted? will iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism? why should iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds aggression abroad prosperity at home. this is a question that everyone asks in our region. israel's neighbors, iran's neighbors, know that iran will become even more aggressive and

sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and been given a clear path to the bomb and many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. so this deal won't change iran for the better it will only change the middle east for the worst. a deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet. this deal won't be a farewell to arms, it will be a farewell to arms control. and the middle east would soon be chris crossed by nuclear trip wires. a region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinder box. if anyone thinks if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again.

when we get down that road we'll face a much more dangerous iran, a middle east littered with nuclear bombs, and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare. ladies and gentlemen, i have come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. [ applause ]

before lifting those restrictions the world should demand that iran do three things. first, stop its aggression against neighbors in the middle east. [ applause ] second second stop supporting terrorism around the world. [ applause ] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel the one and only jewish state!

[ cheers and applause ] thank you. if the world powers are not prepared to insist that iran change its behavior before a deal is signed at the very least they should insist that iran change its behavior before a deal expires. [ applause ] if iran changes its behavior the restrictions would be lifted. if iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be lifted. [ applause ] if iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act

like a normal country! [ applause ] my friends, what about the argument that there's no alternative to this deal that iran's nuclear know how cannot be erased that its nuclear program so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do. well nuclear know how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. a race car driver without a car can't drive, a pilot without a plane can't fly, without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities iran can't

make nuclear weapons. [ applause ] iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil. [ applause ] if iran threatens to walk away from the table, and this often happens in the persian bazaar call their bluff. they'll be back because they need the deal a lot more than you do. [ applause ] and by maintaining the pressure on iran and on those who do business with iran you have the power to make them need it even

more. my friends, for over a year we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. well this is a bad deal. it is a very bad deal. we are better off without it. [ applause ] [ cheers and applause ] now we are being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. that's just not true. the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal!

[ applause ] a better deal that doesn't leave iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time. a better deal that keeps restrictions on iran's nuclear program in place until iran's aggression ends. [ applause ] a better deal that won't give iran an easy path to the bomb. a better deal that israel and its neighbors may not like but with which we could live literally. and no country -- no country has a greater stake, no country has a greater stake than israel in the good deal that peacefully removes this threat. ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful

crossroads. we must now choose between two paths. one path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail iran's nuclear ambitions for awhile but it will lead to a nuclear armed iran whose unbridlesed aggression will inevitably lead to war. the second path however difficult, could lead to a much better deal that would prevent a nuclear armed iran a nuclearized middle east and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity. you don't have to read robert frost to know you have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the middle east and the peace of the world, the peace we all

desire. [ applause ] my friends, standing up to iran is not easy. standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. with us today is holocaust survivor nobel prize winner elly wheezel. [ applause ]

elly your life and work inspire us to give meaning to the words never again! [ applause ] and i wish i could promise you, elly that the lessons of

history have been learned. i can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. [ applause ] not to sacrifice the future for the present. not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory piece. but i can guarantee you this. the days when the jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over! [ cheers and applause ]

we are no longer scattered among the nations powerless to defend ourselves. we have restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. and soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage, for the first time in 100 generations, we the jewish people can defend ourselves. [ applause ] this is why, this is why as prime minister of israel i can promise you one more thing. even if israel has to stand-alone, israel will stand.stand alone, israel will stand. [ applause ]

but i know that israel does not stand alone. i know that america stands with israel! i know that you stand with israel! [ cheers and applause ] you stand with israel because you know that the story of israel is not only the story of the jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history's horrors. [ applause ]

facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this chamber is the image of moses. moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the promise land. and before the people of israel entered the land of israel moses gave us a message that steeled our resolve for thousands of years. i leave you with his message today. be strong and resolute neither fear or dread them. my friends, may israel and america always stand together strong and resolute, may we neither fear or dread the challenges ahead and face the future with confidence and strej and hope. may god bless the state of

israel and may god bless the united states of america. [ cheers and applause ] [ applause ] >> a standing ovation for the nearly 40 minute speech from israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. let me bring in msnbc's chris matthews a lot to get to but in a word or two, bad deal is what we heard from the prime

minister repeatedly throughout this speech. your first impressions, chris? >> well you know he's very good. he was very good at charming democrats as well as republicans with the old testment references to the story of queenester we grew up and powerfully bringing back the story of the holocaust and keeping history alive with regard to the holocaust. he did all of that right except in the end he never explained his alternative. no deal is better than a bad deal. what is his deal? what does he want us to do except reject what the president is offering. so far the president is the only game in town in terms of delaying the nuclearization or weaponization of iran. there is no other game on the table here. i did think there were two darn many smiles in that room today, too many people seeing this as a political game. why were they smiling? this is not a game. this is about a threat to israel and us. what do we do about it?

as i said the president has a plan. i don't know what netanyahu's plan is, he's up for re-election. this will help him. >> the alternative was never laid out in great detail, the potential plan that benjamin netanyahu says is out there, says the plan does not block the path to the bomb but paves a way for the 36-year regime that will not change. he did discuss sanctions but also noted under the sanctions in place now, there is more than enough money into that regime in iran. >> how long can we sustain these sanctions? what country in the world -- he didn't mention a single one willing to sustain tougher sanctions or to sustain these sanctions. he never mentioned the real world out there. never ever forget he was the one -- he talked about the countries in which iran has influenced baghdad, the war he talked us into. the reason baghdad is under control of the shia and iran is

he pushed that. and he never mentioned that. being a hawk all the time takes away some of your credibility, always being a hawk. >> i know you're going to continue our coverage but let me bring in lloyd doggett, one of the 50 who did not attend the speech. thank you so much for your time. picking up on what chris talked about, the applause ovations but what i think chris and others are pointing out, where is the scrutiny? what is the alternative? what is your reaction to the speech? >> i think it was a strong speech. i think the prime minister accomplished his first objective which was to appear strong to help his desperate attempt to get re-elected in two weeks. it was a pep rally for that re-election. secondly by the way, the speaker handled this over 60 democrats chose not to participate. we need a bipartisan commitment. i would agree with the prime

minister that we all stand with israel. but what we don't stand with is is this rejectionist approach. he made clear he is against any achievable agreement with iran. he thinks that unless there's complete total and unconditional surrender by iran he really is not offering any alternative but war. i think he tried to kind of suggest there was a middle ground, but he's really suggesting that every alternative being considered is unacceptable to him. so today is not the end of this discussion, if the administration is successful and surely, we all hope they are, then this will be a continuing battle here in washington. i think the prime minister was wrong when he encouraged the invasion of iraq. he was wrong at the united nations. i believe he's wroeng clearly about the temporary and interim agreement with iran and i

believe he's wrong today. we need to do what susan rice said distrust and verify. this is not an agreement based on trust. it is dependent on rigorous verification intrusive inspection to ensure that we get the kind of protection that our families need but not rejecting any middle ground. >> congressman, you heard at the beginning of the remarks, the prime minister deeply regrets that some see this as political. and to your note regarding the option of war, also in those remarks saying there's a better deal and it doesn't have to end in war. but the picture painted by benjamin netanyahu is one that he even called a nuclear nightmare where he sees not only israel as being threatened but the entire world and destabilization -- further destabilization of that region. with that said your colleagues who today many of them stood in

applause of this speech and no alternatives. what concerns you regarding the administration and potential that this -- the damage this speech may have? >> i think the administration has done a very impressive job. they have a tough job, the iranians have not been reasonable in their approach. we need to be sure that the only agreement we achieve is the one that protects our families. that's the first test. the pep rally that just occurred and very harsh view that there's no way to achieve agreement is -- adds additional challenge but the prime minister while saying that war is not the only alternative is really saying it is. you'll recall that i think one of the few good steps in foreign policy that the bush administration made was in 2008

when they objected to israeli action by themselves against iran. it would be a mistake to use military force. i don't believe that war will provide uts the protection that we need. and so we need to strive to see is there a ver fibl agreement we can have a one-year breakout period protection for over a decade, is very strong protection. how will we be any better off if there's the possibility of hidden sights embalming them in an attempting to have inspectors there on a regular basis with verification. i can't see the reasoning of the prime minister. we'll be more secure if we pursue the approach the administration, despite all of the hurdles being raised if the administration can be successful. >> texas congressman, thank you for your time. greatly appreciate it. that does it for this edition of

"news nation." right now "andrea mitchell reports." are you there? i think we are -- >> thanks so much tamron it's a big day as you've been seeing here on msnbc. right now, taking aim at iran, benjamin netanyahu tells congress to call iran's bluff and walk away from what he says is a bad nuclear deal. >> at a time when many hope that iran will join the community of nations, iran is busy gobbling up the nations. this is a bad deal. it's a very bad deal. we're better off without it. [ applause ] >> we will talk with two top senators and u.s. ambassador to israel. pushing back president obama challenges netanyahu's claim and warns congress against sabotaging the nuclear talks. >> i'm less concerned frankly with prime minister netanyahu's

commentary than i am with congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before they are completed. >> good day, i'm andrea mitchell on capitol hill where israel's prime minister benjamin netanyahu just competed a controversial speech hammering home his passionate opposition to any potential nuclear deal within the white house and iran that leaves them the ability to enrich uranium. the atmosphere inside the chamber was electric. defied white house criticism from some of the leading military leaders who say the public challenge to the white house policy could make an iran deal even more likely. kelly o'donnell was in the house chamber during the speech and joins me now. kelly, what was the atmosphere? we saw right away that he gave a shout-out to harry reid the democratic leader who had been injured in a fall and that was an automatic standing ovation fr