they have a nuclear snapback. we have a sanctions snapback. the question is that if someone enters into a contract in the next year, when the sanctions are relieved, everyone expects be relieved -- can that contract continue on. in other words, it was put in place in the free time. can it continue on if sanctions are put in place afterwards? that is a great area -- grey area. i realize it is not the biggest issue. it does great concerns about people rushing in now to establish contracts, which we see happening now with europe. mr. szubin: if you are talking about snapback and the leverage if countries to enter into contracts, and then have them protected by snapback, we would have a very weak snapback indeed. what we have, and is not gr obviously,clear -- when sections are lifted, the business that is allowed by that lifting can occur. if sanctions are snapped back, sanctionable. are if there's any doubt, i want to remove it here today. have a corker: can we letter from the other parties that agreed to that? if you can get the other parties, i

on snapback, he would snapback sanctions if iran cheats. you mentioned that the alternative will be more sanctions to get iran back to the negotiating tables. do you really think china, russia, the other people will sign up to that to more sanctions? would you think they would return to the negotiating table? >> my problem was that we didn't have to have an agreement now. iran was becoming more compliant because of the impacted sanctions we're already having. we had an option to continue with the sanctions until such times as iran was willing to accept and agreement more to our liking, but we decided not to do that and i i leave that open. if you look at the difficulty that there often is when sanctions are willing applied, in the same scale ahead, i think i made the two points, one is will sanctions have equal impact once iran has lifting of restrictions on to the present time and the untreating of financial assets both sanctions be an effect in the future, and secondly, will western and other governments will be willing and democratic gov

and then snapback, we find a major violation. we go forward on snapback. it is now year 4 of that contract. i understand that grandfathering will not affect 1, 2, and 3. what they made in the first three years, they keep. is the contract terminated in year 4 for the next six years, or does the contract continue? this is a important question as senator corker said, not the most important question, but we need an answer. there was a "new york times" article where people had different views. when a new york spokesman refused to give an answer. that is why i am glad you are here to clarify. what happens in year 4, 5, 6, 7, is that contract terminated? sec. szubin: i want to make sure i am exactly answering the question. sanctions don't terminate a contract. they don't have the authority to anull a contract between parties. what u.s. sanctions do in that circumstance you are describing is they say any future transactions, whether it is future investment by wheel committees, future derivation of profits, future expansion is sanctionable. that is what the sanctio

i want to talk about snapback sanctions on their effectiveness.ions were not stopping iran from advancing their nuclear program. the only alternative to this deal is more. yet he has also said that snapback sanctions will be the punishment if they violate this deal, and that punishment will be effective. it seems to me logically contradictory to say the economy which is currently struggling is not going to be deterred by sanctions the conventional military get stronger and snap banks tough snapback sanctions would be effective. could you help me explain that inconsistency? >> i would be happy to try. i do not presume to speak for the president are what he intended with his remarks ii think the point he and others have made is that throughout the period from 2005 to 2010, 2011 and a wry continue to add to its enrichment program, its stockpile command centrifuges. the sanctions replacing and heavy thumb on the scale, and ultimately had a determinative impact in terms of how iran behaved with the election of raw honey in their approach at the negotia

if we ever try to apply that, is what is called a nuclear snapback.he way the deal is structured, they can immediately just say, if you add sanctions, we are out of the deal. the leverage ships to them. the p ndp, i think most of us call it the previous military dimension, we know they were involved. bearingy, that has no per the agreement. the witnesses say, if we don't deal in this it won't implement. but according to the agreement, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether sanctions are removed or not. and yet that was such an important piece for everyone to know. anytime anywhere in sections. last night we had witnesses being, i never said that. that has been a part of the mantra from day one. a part of their mantra. anywhere, anytime. now we have a process that they are declaring is 24 days. we know that is not right. iaea hasns after the found violations that they are concerned about, and then you give a wrong time to respond to that, and by the thymic cakes and there is a 24 day process. but it could be months. as we know, in laboratories when yo

i want to talk about snapback sanctions on their effectiveness. the president has said that sanctions are not stopping iran from advancing the nuclear program. he says that the only airplane the tip is war because sanctions would not stop around from advancing their nuclear program. he is also said this would be the punishment if they violate this deal and it will be effective. it seems to me contradictory to say that the economy was that is currently struggling it is not going to be deterred by sanctions. at some indeterminate time in the future, if they are stronger in their conventional military, that snapback sanctions would effective at that weight. could you help me explain that inconsistency? mr. szubin: i would not resume to speak for the president or what he was intending with his remarks. i think the point he and many others have made this throughout the timeframe from 2005 to 2011, while we were ratcheting up sanctions, it has enrichment program. it continues to stockpile as it centrifuges. the section of losing very heavy thumb on the

they have all of the sanctions they can walk away so it is a nuclear snapback and we have the sanctionsut if somebody enters into a contract over the next year when the sanctions are related, they will expect them all to be relieved regardless of what the report says can that contract continue on in other words it was put in place during the free time. can it continue on if the sanctions were put in place afterwards? that is a gray area and i think that it is a detail but i think that it does create concerns about people rushing in to establish contracts that we see happening right now with europe. >> i don't think that is an unimportant issue and i wouldn't describe it as a detail at all i think it is pretty central a few are talking about snapback and the leverage that we have the companies could enter into contracts and have them protected against the snapback with a couple weeks back in deed and we would intend we were not going to let that happen. they understand this as well. obviously when the sanctions were lifted that can occur. if the sanctions are snapback come any inspection

that we now have where, in essence, the united states on its own can implement snapback.y guess is the other countries, as you've stated before, wouldn't come along. so, we've got to decide which way it is. i know you speak with a degree of disdain about our regional partners when you describe their reaction to this deal. well, one of the things that we have to remember is if we actually dealt with dismantling their nuclear program, they wouldn't be responding in the way that they have. not only has this not occurred, but in addition, we are lifting the ballistic missile embargo in eight years. i have no idea how that even entered into the equation at the end, but it did. we are lifting the conventional weapons embargo in five years and in a very cute way with hortatory language in the agreement, unbelievably, we are immediately lifting the ballistic missile testing program. so, i'd have to say that, based on my reading, i believe that you have crossed a new threshold in u.s. foreign policy where now it is the policy of the united states to enable a state sponsor of terro

snapback mechanism, which is really only part of what an ultimate snapback scenario can look like. under the u.n. snapback mechanism, one of parts could bring allegations that there's some breach of the jcpoa, after which there be a 15-day review by the joint commission, which is made up of the parties, and then concurrently there will be a 15-day review, either from the ministers of foreign affairs, advisory board comprised of the member doing the accusing and the accusee as well as one independent member. after that, the parties -- the accusing party can, if it determines that material breach occurred it can cease performing its commitments under the deal and/or refer it to the u.n. security council after which if there's been no -- there will be a vote or there needs to be a vote on continued sanctions relief implementation and if after 30 days there's no vote on continued sanctions, relief implementation, the prior u.n. security council resolutions will snapback. that's sort of a doomsday scenario. you know, doomsday scenario's not the right word. if all of that occurs, that me

if we ever try to apply that, is what is called a nuclear snapback. the way the deal is structured, they can immediately just say, if you add sanctions, we are out of the deal. the leverage ships to them. the p ndp, i think most of us call it the previous military dimension, we know they were involved. bearingy, that has no per the agreement. the witnesses say, if we don't deal in this it won't implement. but according to the agreement, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether sanctions are removed or not. and yet that was such an important piece for everyone to know. anytime anywhere in sections. last night we had witnesses being, i never said that. that has been a part of the mantra from day one. a part of their mantra. anywhere, anytime. now we have a process that they are declaring is 24 days. we know that is not right. iaea hasns after the found violations that they are concerned about, and then you give a wrong time to respond to that, and by the thymic cakes and there is a 24 day process. but it could be months. as we know, in laboratories when

to do i think snapback will work? they share a common interest i believe they would support a setback if they were identified and verified but that mechanism is not tested that takes into the alternative it is a magnificent deal? not so sure but what are the alternatives? that they are extremely limited with limited efficacy the two alternatives that some have suggested if we reject the deal to impose unilateral sanctions to force iran back to the table i think it is unclear with either russia or china or others to continue sanctions then they will work for the same reason that there is the possibility of military action that should be on the table as an option. absolutely to take steps against iran would only set the program back three years and would not terminate the iranian nuclear effort we have to realize where it is iran now? we are blocking their pathway to a bomb. but that is the best option available and for this i will support the deal with my vote. >> please advise both sides of time remaining. >> republic

been very clear he would snapback sanctions if iran chooses to continue with that theme. imagine the alternative alternative would be more sanctions to presumably get iran back to the negotiating table. do you think china, and russia, the other p5 will sign up for that? do you think they will return to the negotiating table? >> my point was we didn't have to have an agreement now. iran was becoming more compliant because of the impact of sanctions were already having. we have an option to continue sanctions until iran was willing to accept an agreement or to our liking but we decided not to do that. i leave that open for debate as to why that occurred. if you look at the difficulty that there often is when sanctions are being applied in the timescale ahead i think i need to point. one is will sanctions have equal impact once iran has had a lifting of the restrictions and the freezing of financial assets. both sanctions affected in the future. secondly, will western another government be willing to reapply sanctions and they have large financial vested interest that they d

on snapback, he would snapback sanctions if iran cheats. you mentioned that the alternative will be more sanctions to get iran back to the negotiating tables. do you really think china, russia, the other people will sign up to that to more sanctions? would you think they would return to the negotiating table? >> my problem was that we didn't have to have an agreement now. iran was becoming more compliant because of the impacted sanctions we're already having. we had an option to continue with the sanctions until such times as iran was willing to accept and agreement more to our liking, but we decided not to do that and i i leave that open. if you look at the difficulty that there often is when sanctions are willing applied, in the same scale ahead, i think i made the two points, one is will sanctions have equal impact once iran has lifting of restrictions on to the present time and the untreating of financial assets both sanctions be an effect in the future, and secondly, will western and other governments will be willing and democratic gov

sure into friday we saw the dollar snapback. today the euro and the u.k. pound in the japanese yen weaker against the greenback. lauren: the yield 2.16%. in politics, a major controversy of republican presidential candidate and person's comments on muslims. during an interview on "meet the press," ben carson was asked if candidate face faith should matter. he believes islam is consistent with the constitution. here is his answer. >> i would not advocate that we put a muslim in charge of this nation. i absolutely would not agree with that. nicole: has rivaled donald trump is also asked the question. here is his answer. >> i can't say it can't say i do something at some point that can happen. we will see. it is something that could happen. trying to meanwhile, carly fiorina gaining some steam since the debate. polls show her jumping to the second spot 15%. donald trump leading the race 24%. that is down from 30%. trump, carly fiorina and carson coming in third followed by marco rubio 11% and jeb bush 9%. enemy time, presidential candidate hillary clinton on

first, the rhetoric on the snapback of sanctions is inconsistent. on the one hand, the administration says that the united states can unilaterally cause the international sanctions to be reimposed. at the same time, the administration repeatedly warns us that the sanction regime is falling apart. which is it? second, iran has already made explicit in the text of the agreement that the imposition of any sanctions will be treated as grounds to restart its nuclear program. included in the jcpoa is this clear statement. iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its equipments under this jcpoa in whole or in part. mr. president, in effect, iran has given advance notice that if the united states or any of its partners insist on reimposeing sanctions, iran -- reimposing sanctions, iran can simply walk away from the deal. given their investment in the deal, i am very skeptical that any of the p-5 plus 1 countries will be willing to take that action. after the united nations secu

snapback requires an affirmative book from the un security council, the united states have the ability to reinforce the addition of those sanctions. even as we face the sanctions relief, we will maintain sanctions that fall outside the scope of the deal, including the trade embargo and other measures. with very little exception, iran will continue to be denied access to the world's largest market and we will remain powerful sanctions targeting their support for terrorist groups, its destabilizing role in yemen, it's backing of the assad regime, its missile program, and its human rights abuses at home. just this week, we will not be reg sanctions on the guard corps. some argue the sanctions relief is premature and till bases their activities. the funds iran recovers could be diverted from malign purposes. i understand that concern. their ties to terrorist groups are why we must keep them from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the combination of those threats will raise a nightmare scenario. a nuclear armed iran will be far more menacing. if we cannot solve both concerns that once, we need to

i want to talk about snapback sanctions on their effectiveness. the president has said that sanctions are not stopping around from advancing the nuclear program. he says that the only airplane the tip is war because sanctions would not stop around from advancing their nuclear program. he is also said this would be the punishment if they violate this deal and it will be effective. it seems to me contradictory to say that the economy was that is currently struggling it is not going to be deterred by sanctions. at some indeterminate time in the future, if they are stronger in their conventional military, that snapback sanctions would effective at that weight. could you help me explain that see me inconsistency? resumebin: i would not to speak for the president or what he was intending with his remarks. i think the point he and many others have made this throughout to 2011,rame from 2005 while we were ratcheting up sanctions, it has enrichment program. it continues to stockpile as it centrifuges. section of losing very heavy thumb on the scale. it was

now, do i think snapback will work? russia, china and india and and our european partners share a common interest in iran not having a nuclear weapon. i believe they would support a snapback in sanctions if violations were identified and verified. but a snapback sanction mechanism is innovative but untested, and that takes me then to the alternatives. is it an adequate you? the answer is yes. is it a magnificent deal? not so sure. but what are the alternatives? i believe that the alternatives that the alternatives are extremely limited, and they have limited efficacy. the two alternatives are more sanctions and military action. some have suggested that if we reject this view we should impose unilateral sanctions and force iran back to the table. i think it's very unclear if the eu, russia, china, india and others would continue sanctions. entity to think snapback will work, enhanced sanctions will not work for the same reason. then there's the possibility of military action. i put the military option pashtun i believe t

we will still be in the jcpoa period, a time when snapback of sanctions is a viable hedge against iran cheating. is that permitted under the jcpoa? sec. lew: if it's on expiration, that's one thing, it's in advance, that is another. coming out of the box right now is very different from what you do when it expires. cardin: the question is, why would that be? we would get to that. the 24 days that you referred to, and i appreciate her .xpiration they could be using nuclear material that is in violation. you have addressed that issue as far as the 24 days. it could involve weaponization or research not using nuclear material. with the 24 days delay, in those cases, they come for mice our ability to determine whether iran is in plants with the agreement. --c. lew: again, thereoniz: again, even there is a spectrum. for example, working with uranium metal is something that would still involve nuclear material. i think we would have very very strong tools there. when we go to some other activities, not getting into too many specifics, there will be a variety of signatures. my second priority

i talked about snapback here. i talked about snapback here. it not possible. i talked about that back here. let me move forward. this is what i mentioned before but i can't comprehend it. the deal obligates a p5 plus one, obligates to actually help iran build up their infrastructure during the 15 years before they achieve a free breakout. we are actually helping them construct their nuclear infrastructure which can easily be converted to breaking out a nuclear weapon. in all turn they had actual persistence in pursuing it. they are actually helping iran get to the on. as we hear from our colleagues in the support, this i am voting for this because it's a prevents iran from getting a bomb. read the agreement. it's not easy, it's not fun to read but it is alarming. remind me, i was out at in the senate in the '90s. the negotiations, actually wendy sherman was principal and the north korean agreements. i remember being told on this floor, by the president of the united states, then president clinton don't worry, we have total verification procedures in place. if

is calledhad is what a nuclear snapback. the way the deal is structured, they can immediately say a few abstentions, we're out of the deal. so the leverage shifts to them. the possible military dimensions, i think most of us call it the previous military to rent -- dimensions because we know they were involved in that. no bearinghat has for the agreement. i know the witnesses will say they do not think it is proper, they won't implement. according to the agreement, it has no bearing whether the sanctions or -- are removed or not, yet it was such an important piece for everyone to know. last night we had witnesses saying i never said that. of the mantrapart since day one. anywhere, anytime inspections. now the process they are declaring his 24 days. 24 days begins after the iaea has found violations they are concerned about, and then you give iran time to respond. by the time it kicks in, they are a 24 day process. it could be months. it is very easy to cover things up like that. all of the focus has been on finding uranium.

the snapback of sanctions apply. would they be in violation? >> well, congressman, there are so many questions in there. let me try to take on the biggest ones first. let me call to everyone's attention, the ir gc opposes this agreement. they are not sitting there thinking they are not sitting there thinking they will get the whole world. one of the reasons they oppose this agreement is that they see themselves losing the cover of the nuclear umbrella they hope to have. there is nothing here to prevent us from pushing back going forward. congress and others were free to work together to build a push back. let me ask you a simple question, is for an empowered empowered more destabilizing the region with a nuclear weapon or stripped of that ability of venice coming in underneath? the answer is crystal clear. you asked the question. under the additional protocol please focus on what happens. there is not some sudden break off. they are under remarkable restraint, specifically the comprehensive safeguard agreement that they have to negotiate which

it is indeed better to have inspections and snapback than nothing. but for this part of the agreement, the weaknesses with both of those prophecy makes the argument less desirable. we must argue how it would restrict iran in ten years. if their true intent is to get a nuclear weapon under this agreement it must exercise patience. after ten years it be close to achieve that. they would be stronger. and unlike its current unsanctioned pursuit it would be codified in an agreement signed by the united states and other nations. finally we must consider the non-nuclear elements of the agreement. this aspect of the deal gives me the most pause. they are supporting military or terrorist actions in syria and iraq and iran would receive $50 billion in the future and undoubtedly use some of that money to create more trouble in the middle east and perhaps beyond. they could pursue an icbm once the sanction is lifted and in eight years have capability because of the ban on the ballistic missiles lifted. restrictions should have been place limiting how iran could

america can trigger snapback on our own. on the other hand, if iran abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snapback will only grow. so, this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives. this is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the israeli government, has expressed support. the united nations security council has unanimously supported it. the majority of arms control and non-proliferation experts 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, but whether or not this deal is good for american security is not one of those calls. it's not even close. unfortunately, we're living through a time in american politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism, evaluated by headline-grab

and the snapback provisions of the sanctions, it's really important that the united states work clearlyto keep all the countries on board with the snapback. >> ukraine, you've studied it very carefully. you also have dealt with putin. do you think putin will finally blink in a sense? there's a lot of pressure on him. oil prices have collapsed. european sanctions have so far held. you think he's looking for a way out? >> yes and no. i was very disturbed when he blindly tore up the agreement i signed with his predecessor promising to respect ukraine's territorial integrity. the good news is, he says he will always honor the new start treaty which was negotiated when hillary was secretary of state. which makes the world a safer place in a time when very few things do. my guess is that he's keeping his options open. i know the president is meeting with him during u.n. week. i personally think that's a very good thing. i don't think you ought to ever stop talking to try to work this out. and we'll just see. i don't know yet. but i think the u.s. ought to be four square on the side of ukraine

snapback is a fallacy. and finally, senator ayotte and others have done a great job of raising questions of basic scenario that's laid out, very important with regard to other paragraphs in this agreement. on an important hypothetical, this is actually very likely, we've asked secretary kerry, secretary lew, a number of us, assume sanctions are lifted. six to nine months, the economy starts humming, the sanctions are lifted, iran's still a sponsor of terrorism, the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, and they commit an act of terrorism. this body goes to reimpose sanctions, whoever the next president is, agrees, because some act of terrorism. what iran can do is cite either paragraph 26 or paragraph 37 that states if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part iran will treat it as grounds for failure to perform the entire agreement. what happens? we impose the sanctions for a terrorist action they're likely to take. they say hey, we can legally walk, read paragraph 26, paragraph 37, our agreement with t

america can trigger snapback on our own. on the other hand, if iran abides by the deal and its economy begins to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snapback will only grow. so, this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives. this is the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated. and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the israeli government, has expressed support. the united nations security council has unanimously supported it. the majority of arms control and non-proliferation experts 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, but whether or not this deal is good for american security is not one of those calls. it's not even close. unfortunately, we're living through a time in american politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prism, evaluated by headline-grab

the way it was constructed, it is a very strong snapback provision. in a way that weakens, that we can work out will by exercising a veto if there is a disagreement with us. senator: did you have a comment? mr. kerry: there is a surreality here. with all respect, the president of the united states is not mandating war. he doesn't want to go. it is not his choice. he is not advocating war. what he is saying is that if you analyze the alternatives here, and this is what i mean by surreality, could the united states continue sanctions? to what end? to negotiate? with whom? do you think the ayatollah is going to come and negotiate? senator: please shorten your remarks. mr. kerry: the reason the president talks about the possibility of war is iran has made it clear that if this is rejected they consider themselves free to go back to where they were with the 10-12 bombs. the inevitable consequence of that would be what are you going to do about it? we will have lost the international support because the international community is ready to enforce this deal.

they're asking about these snapback sanctions, and it's a are pretty catchy word but what exactly does it mean? how feasible is it? is it practicable in its implementation? and i can't look them squarely in the eye and say surely, you can rely on those sanctions to come into play. even if we could get them into play, we know that those sanctions would be less effective than we have now. and they're saying what about these side agreements, these side agreements between iran and the iaea? houk only they know what's going on there? and when we can't go back to our constituents, when we can't go back to the good people of the great state of alaska and say with -- with confirmation that yes, we have these provisions that -- on verification that gives us that security, that yes, snapback sanctions are plaque kabul -- practicable in effect, and there aren't any secret side agreements, we can't do that. and prior to the release of billions of dollars of foreign assets and allowing sanctions to expire, i need some clear, some convincing and really some unequivocal evidence that this agreement w

the snapback provisions that are in this agreement if iran violates it makes it so that both the u.s. and international sanctions would be back in place. >> the challenge will be to mobilize our partners. >> i don't think it is a challenge. international sanctions act in a way that we can work our will by exercising a veto if there is a disagreement. >> do you have a comment? >> there is a surreal reality here. the president of the united states is not mandating a war. it is not his choice. he is not advocating war. he is saying if you analyze the alternatives here and this is what i mean i surreality, could they continue some sanctions, to what end? to negotiate? with who? iran has made it clear that if this is rejected, they consider themselves free to go back in and in rich and go back to where they work with the 12,000 kilograms and 12 alms, etc. the inevitable consequence of that would be, what are you going to do about it? we will have lost the international support unit in international community is ready to enforce this deal. if we are not unilaterally, they walk away. it is n

caroline: we talk about a snapback in glencore as well.aying some ofut the steps they are taking to renew that balance sheet wasn't enough. today, we get a bit of a bounceback. miners are regaining, and leadin=g the charge. yesterday there were concerns they were being engulfed in a scandal that they were swallowing volkswagen. clarification was that they in no way meant that bmw had manipulated the missions test. a sigh of relief as the stock rises higher. the downside, bad news once again for zodiac aerospace. 8%, that wasn after we understand that american airlines has had enough. it no longer will be this flyer of libyan business class seats to american airlines because it delayed. up the pace come all the airlines want to have a better experience. with other airlines follow suit? jonathan: glencore a penny stock, thank you very much for that. the bank of japan governor kuroda between the prime minister later today. the main inflation gauge goes negative since the first time in first time since 2013. >> what the boj has said they been

. >> bruce, do you believe in snapback? given what we know and what we hear by defenders of the deal, and it is absolutely true, about the imminent collapse of the sanctions regime internationally, in the event that it were verified that they were cheating, do you believe that snap back or any serious -- has believe that this deal moved further toward snapback than we have ever seen before. it will come when the moment of violation occurs. the united states not only has the option of snapback, the united states will also have all these other options, including use of the military. we are not forgoing any options. >> this will be the last question i put for you and then we will go to closing remarks. au both have talked about lack of appetite within the international community to continue economic sanctions, and that is the reason that which the negotiations had to reach a conclusion, and why the deal should be verified and upheld as written. but doesn't that suggest -- and this is one thing the critics aing up -- that if th

i assume since the snapback provisions that were negotiated as part of the deal rely on the fact that there have to be sanctions to snap back to, that you would be supportive of us extending i s a immediately so those sanctions are there to snap back. >> the talent and dedication in the office. with respect to the iran deal, not diplomatic, but i had the opportunity to participate in a number of rounds and i believe the deal to be a strong one to achieve the president's objectives to obtain a nuclear weapon for -- to convince you. >> if you did not talk about that i would say the president said they would end nuclear program and we did not do that, we are industrializing the industrialization. they evolve and is unfortunate, and hopefully respect my position and disagreement but what i would like to hear is we could reauthorize with your support the sanctions that were in place. >> the administration with respect to preserving the leverage of snapback with the administration position has been very clear, with your own senator we need to have that leverage in order to be turned reaches

. >> we will snapback. i think that we will come back. we should have more volatility. >> earnings season will start soon. liz: when does it begin? october 8? >> october 8 with alcoa. liz: donald trump under fire for not correcting a man who called president obama muslim. >> okay. we have a problem in this country. it is called muslims. our current president current president is one. he is not even an american. anyway, we have training camps. when can we get rid of -- >> we will be looking at a lot of different things. bad things are happening. we will look at that and other things. liz: the situation playing out in 2008. >> i cannot trust obama. he is an arab. >> no, ma'am. no, ma'am. he is a decent, family man, citizen that ii just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. that is what this campaign is all about. liz: of course a lot of these situations will be coming up more down the road. will this hurt trump in the polls? we will stick with jessica. do we need to here the comment about mr. obama being a muslim? tick ke

with money, with support, and one of the sticks you have to carry into this is making the threat of snapback sanctions real. there is a role that congress can play in helping to implement this agreement, fund the necessary inspection tools and keep your powder dry on sanctions and show the us is going to snap these in place koran keep the unity because it is not unilateral sanctions that matter, not what we say but what japan and south korea and india and china and russia say. >> let me pick up on something you said about the next phase and how this is where we have to engage diplomatically. in new york last week and said several times that, yes, it is possible we can deal after the agreement with the united states, but it will depend on whether you continue to bully us and whether you treat us with respect. and i guess i would say, it looks to me like after the deal the combination of loading on of legislation which will restrict the president of the united states effort to provide all that israel and the gulf states want, the political dynamics in this country and our own narrative combine

a snapback on wall street and a monster rally in japan. good morning. i'm cheryl casone.: i am nicole petallides. leading the asian stocks sharply higher and bringing up arrows across the world. china stocks added another 2% gain in the jump we've seen in the nikkei we have that same jump like that since 2008. cheryl: all of this good news for us. the stock market futures pointed to marking back of the doubt showed up 390 points yesterday. features right now head of the opening bell at three hours and seven minutes from now. dow, nasdaq and s&p with a strong opening. >> don't raise rates, fed. joining the imf as well. in europe, you can see the ftse a 1.7%, dax up 1.7% as well. >> oil prices moving a little bit lower. we are talking two pennies, whatever. we've got action on the oil contracts overnight. we did fall below $46 a barrel. nicole: that is better than the 40 bucks people have been looking at. gold prices edging up overnight. down 50 cents. lauren: the dollar flipping overnight against the major currencies as you see on your screen that dollar firming up overnig

that means penalties even for small violations, keeping our allies on board, being willing to snapback sanctions into place unilaterally if we have to, working with congress to close any gaps. to see whether there are additional steps that could be taken. finally it means insuring that the iaea has the resources it needs to hold iran's feet to the fire. the most important thing we can do to keep iran from cheating or trying to wait us out is to shaped iranian expectations right from the start. the iranians and the world need to understand that we will act decisively if we need to. so here is my message to iran's leaders. the united states will never allow you to acquire a nuclear weapon. as president, and i will take whatever action is necessary to protect the united states and our allies and will not hesitate to take military action if iran attempts to obtain a nuclear weapon and i will set up my successor to be able to credibly make the same pledge. we will make clear to iran that our commitment to prevention will not waver depending on who is in office. it is permanent. should it be

placed on a country outside of war to be put into effect and allow that if iran should cheap wicked snapback sanctions nearly instantaneously. we achieved every single goal. this agreement shrink-wrapped iran's nuclear program to a fraction of its current state car wraps it in the toughest inspection regime i have ever seen, and it then freezes it for 15 years, almost all of the restrictions, as you will see any starts around me last at least 15 years. some start to come often. some, we set up a special procurement channel so everything that they buy has to go through this special procurement channel. what country does that? disagreement -- this agreement mandates that. stumps -- some start to come off, but some are like diamonds, they last forever. iran is never allowed to build a nuclear bomb. the inspection regime is never allowed to and. even as some of these are relaxed 15, 20, 25 years from now, and eternity in national security terms, those barriers remain. no nuclear weapons ever and a forever inspection regime. this, for me, has implications far beyond iran the steel tackles the mos

you can call this a snapback rally. nicole: check this out. i want to point out. it has been a dis3458 week. everything down 1%. nasdaq 1.4, 1.5% across the board. lauren: checking key commodities. you know what is interesting, nobody is buying gold this morning, down 12 bucks. that is one full percentage point. look at commodities, look at oil, up 18 cents. nicole: for the past two days gold has seen the nice jump. biggest two-day jump in a month. we'll take it. you have weakness versus the euro, pound, canadian dollar and japanese yen, nicole. lauren: look at 10-year treasury yield 2.15%. nicole: well president obama and chinese president xi jinping expected to announce significant steps to combat climate change. the white house officials includes a pledge by beijing to launch a program by 2011 to cap emissions to put a price on carbon. to be unveiled shortly after the two leaders meet this morning. president xi's first state visit begins 9:00 a.m. a joint press conference is scheduled for noon. lauren: turn it to the pope. we've been watching that closely. the

verifiable, and the lifting of the sanctions though comes more quickly than i would like -- i believe the snapback could work. but after looking at all of the alternatives, which i believe have limited efficacy, i want to declare that i will support the agreement. amy: four democrats joined republicans in opposing the iran deal -- chuck schumer of new york, ben cardin of maryland, joe manchin of west virginia, and robert menendez of new jersey. view, the overall sanctions relief being provided given the iranians understanding of restrictions on the reauthorization of sanctions, along with the lifting of the arms and missile embargo well before iranian complaints over years is established, leaves us in a weaker position. to me, is unaccountable. amy: after the vote, senate republican leader mitch mcconnell vowed to continue to fight against the deal, a move -- against the deal. well, for more on the political will that what it means, we turn to reza marashi. he is the research director at the national iranian american council. welcome to democracy now! talk about the significance of what took place

includes inspections of all sites including military and suspected sites and that has a provision for snapback of the sanctions should iran violate the terms of their agreement. the kingdom was satisfied with these assurances. >> mr. ambassador, why do you think we're seeing a public reversal from the saudis about their fears over this deal since they were very vocal about their concerns just even weeks before this? >> well, they may have some side agreement on other matters or on these matters with the administration, diplomacy can soften language in a number of different ways. but this agreement is i think really a very bad deal. andy mccarthy, very fine lawyer, on his blog today points out that the corker legislation which was passed early in the summer that set up the system for congress and the senate to analyze this agreement was set up in such a way that the agreement had to be complete and had to be transferred to the executive branch or to the white house and then sent to the congress within five days of it being negotiated. well, not only was it not sent within five days, it has a lo

minus five on the oscillator i generally feel there's too much selling pressure and we're do for a snapback. however, like i said, nothing's perfect. in the dark days of the financial crisis, this gauge totally fail med, oscillator going all the way to minus 20 and higher. that happened in 2009, this thing just didn't work. so it's not a totally reliable indicator but so far it's worked pretty well in this new age because that rally from last week's lows when we hit minus seven was nothing short of phenomenal. the oscillator is no longer assor sold as this evening making this market more vulnerable so i don't want you to be as positive as you would have been in a more strained level but when we got to that minus seven, minus five, it meant people were getting too negative. the investors' intelligence newsletter poll, which comes out on wednesdays, isn't scientific, either, and it involves only checking in with a small amount of people who opine about stocks for a living. i do think, though, it works in extremes and we are in an extreme situation as -- get this, this was shocking to me -- th

i don't think you're going to see the significant snapback any time soon. >> make your shopping list focus on the theme as was spoken about earlier, where there are pockets of strength and that's where you want to go and you also want to see which sectors in the market, in these declines, which sectors are outperforming on a relative basis. all down, but which group is down the least? if it's the staples and utilities, that's a defensive kind of attitude, but actually yesterday the utilities were the worst performing group so keep an eye on which sectors are leading and lagging. >> words of wisdom, josh brown? >> i think the one comment made earlier on our show that really should resonate with everyone is that we're now in a downtrend, and that's something that you've not been able to say for approaching four years now and what that means is that market behavior changes and the range of possible outcomes on any selloff are much broader than what they are when you're in a market uptrend. you get a lot more tail risk, a lot more of these massive, you know, plus three or down 3% days. i

might call the more coercive measures of the agreement, so the inspections and verification and snapback and so on, when you look closely at these mechanisms, they evaporate -- -- they evaporate. our colleagues here at hudson did a very good aa nal sis of the so-called -- analysis of e so-called 23 days that the ranians have in order to oppose any effort to inspectacular a suspect site. and under their analysis, which i think is very convincing, the 23 days quickly becomes many, many, many months. possibly even longer. because of the inability to bring this process to an end at any point and to actually coerce the iranians into getting what you want. as david sort of suggested, at a certain point, you find yourself, when you're pushing up against the iranians, the only option you have is, for lack of a better word, the nuclear option of blowing up the whole deal in order to get what you want from them. so it isn't a very effective mechanism. when people look at this, at the way that the administration has caved on these coercive measures, there's a tendency to say that we were bamboozled

people deserve the truth about snapback sanctions and secret side deals, iran's right to enrich uranium and congress' role in this bad deal. members of congress must ask themselves two questions, does this deal make us more secure? does this deal make us more safe? the answer to these questions is a resounding no. secretary of state kerry said no deal is better than a bad deal. i couldn't agree more. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland. mr. cummings: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. royce: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. loudermilk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. loudermilk: iran is an enemy to the united states of america. not by our declaration but by proclamation by the most senior and military leaders of that nation who have stated their destiny is to destroy the united states of america. i was recently told by the prime minister of israe

you could see a snapback effect when the selling season gets under way that there's lower inventory than that could move people out of their seats to say i have to get in the stores now before all the good stuff is taken up. that's something -- you're not going to know it's going to happen until it happens but i'd like to see that. >> we'll see. by the way, got a tweet, this guy has been tweeting me for months, a guy in alaska, what are you talking about? $3.55 a gallon last week and that's in alaska. >> but why do dog sleds need gas? >> so alaska and california now. >> have a nice weekend. >> don't you know? don't you know? courtney, thank you. want to also show you shares of sears. the stock down 20% so far this year. sales down 14% last quarter but, this is important, sears has been on a hiring spree. most recently adding a former logistics exec from amazon in addition to recent executive hires from johnson & johnson and hp. is there a turnaround for this company? >> you can look at jcpenney as an example of when you get the right people in place, the right strategy and you execute on

by agreeing to a lax enforcement and inspections regime, and fanciful, unrealistic snapback sanctions, the administration has accepted that iran should remain one year away from a nuclear bomb. i am not prepared to accept that. the sanctions relief will provide iran with billions of dollars, funds that will bolster the revolutionary guard and nonstate militant groups. the deal ends the conventional arms embargo and the prohibition on ballistic missile technology. not only will this result in conventional arms flowing to oups, like hezbollah, it concedes the delivery system for a nuclear bomb. this will provide iran with nuclear infrastructure a missile delivery system, and the funds to pay for it all. y the way, the i in icbm means intercontinental. i don't believe that new zealand and mexico are the intended targets. that would be us. this deal cripples and shatters the current notion of nuclear nonproliferation. if iran can enrich uranium, which they can under this agreement, their gulf ashe neighbors will likely want to do the same. -- their gulf arab neighbors will likely want to