today we're here to talk about iran. i want to say to our witnesses thank you for being here i think there are legitimate concerns by almost everybody on this committee and it's not in any way disloyal, it's not an infringement on anybody else to say we have legitimate concerns. when you think about where we are in iran negotiations, we have six security resolutions, u.n. security resolutions that call for full suspension of enrichment, we then move to the standard called practical needs. in other words, if you're in iran and you have -- if you want to do enrichment, even though in -- that is in violation of security council resolutions what is the practical need for , the country. by all estimation that's maybe 500 centrifuges, yet we know the negotiations have moved way beyond that. we know that. we talked about dismantlement, we have concerns about what that means. some people say it's disconnecting the plumbing to use very coarse terms. people are concerned about research and development. we spend time talking about

today we're here to talk about iran. i want to say to our witnesses thank you for being here i think there are legitimate concerns by almost everybody on this committee and it's not in any way disloyal, it's not an infringement on anybody else to say we have legitimate concerns. when you think about where we are in iran negotiations, we have six security resolutions, u.n. security resolutions that call for full suspension of enrichment, we then move to the e1 standard called practical needs. in other words, if you're in iran and you have -- if you want violkóçm5ijáq(u)ity council resoluql3ip:iyg]"á ]s%>v practical need for the country. by all estimation that's maybe ].qkdi 500 centrifuges, 3 tur)jju$e.be÷/n]Ñ) zqb+c%;xÑv(ys negotiations have moved way jvp beyond that. we know that. we talked about dismantlement, we have concerns about what that means. some people say it's disconnecting the plumbing to use very coarse terms. we spend time talking about hour one and two, talking six, way beyond that. it doesn't speak to ba

regime change in iran. we cannot and will not be safe as long as islamist despots rule in iran. it should be to support regime opponents and promote a constitutional government at peace with the united states, israel and the world. this is so because of the nature of iran's regime is what makes its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability so dangerous in the first place. few people worry that france is a nuclear state. or that japan is a nuclear threshold state. why? because france and japan are peaceful constitutional regimes who pose little threat to their neighbors and the broader world. iran's regime poses a threat not primarily because of its actions but because of its nature and the first principles on which it acts. second the united states should cease all appeasement, conciliation and concessions towards iran starting with the sham nuclear negotiations. certain voices call for congressional restraint urging congress not to act now lest iran walk away from the negotiating table undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in iran. but, the end of these negotiations is

just as we've asked iran to live -- uphold commitments we've lived up to our commitment to provide iran with limited relief about $14 billion to $15 billion from the start of the agreement to this june when it ends. and david cohen can talk more about that. but that relief is dwarfed by the vast amounts denied to iran under existing sanctions regime that we are vigorously implementing. the entire sanctions architecture remains in place and david can talk about that. congress as has been mentioned is now considering legislation to impose additional on iran should negotiations fail. let me say at the outset i know the intent of this legislation is to further increase pressure on iran and in so doing strengthen the hand of our negotiators and strengthen our leverage. we very much appreciate that intent but it is our considered judgment and strongly held view that new sanctions at this time are both unnecessary, and far from enhancing the prospect of negotiations, risk fatally undermining our diplomacy, making a deal less likely and unraveling the sanctions regime that so many have worked s

they are at the table because this has been iran versus the west rather than iran versus the u.s.i think that's what we need to make sure continues. so i'm sensitive to the administration's concern that congress move ahead now with additional sanctions even triggered that might upset the negotiations and fracture the coalition, effective coalition that we have. i do believe that if the administration thinks that they can include an agreement and move on without congress weighing in however at some point on that agreement that's a bridge too far. i think it's our right and responsibility to weigh in on an ultimate agreement. and so i will be anxious to see the administration's formal response to the chairman's proposal and look forward to those discussions as well. but i also as a side agreement i'm glad to see that treasury has lessened its load a bit by changing our policy toward cuba. licensing americans to travel to cuba and can free up resources and time and effort to make sure that these agreements and the sanctions that we currently have and future sanctions if they should b

by iran to evade sanctions.ortunately in those instances you caught them. it gives me another concern about their intent. let me say a couple of observations. with reference to senator paul and senator boxer, not sure legislation that says, this is what will happen if there is no deal or a violation of the deal, which you said you think is acceptable, is really any different from what we are saying. i think that is nuance, at best. it is interesting to note that sanctions on russia visa v ukraine haven't caused them to walk away from what they think is an important deal to be achieved. the suggestion that sanctions, whether you have concluded a deal or not -- if the russians wouldn't walk away with sanctions on ukraine, i think it's pretty telling. to be very honest with you, the overwhelming number of sanctions that this committee has levied to the congress have overwhelmingly had a much more significant lead time than immediate position. obviously, the time for necessary for it to have an effect on iran has be

and iran supported.re better off if they also clean up the current crieses together. >> directly or indirectly, iran and the u.s., they cooperated to remove saddam. it was enemy of iran. it was enemy of the u.s. today definitely they have common interest for the peace, security and stability in iraq. >> woodruff: but in another country, syria iran is supporting the assad regime, a brutal dictator-- >> see, judy, don't get me wrong. i didn't want to say on every issue in the middle east we have the same views. i'm saying we have already-- like israeli issues, palestinian issues, syrian issues. >> to get assad out or to weaken him or to move him aside cannot be done without some sort of acquiescence with iran because if we just kill him, the result may be like when we dismantled the regime in iraq. >> woodruff: some would argue that that's already-- that syria's already in chaos. >> i would argue this-- that there are different levels of chaos, that you could go from a balkan level of atrocity to a rewand

by iran to evade sanctions. fortunately in those instances you caught them. it gives me another concern about their intent. let me say a couple of observations. with reference to senator paul and senator boxer, not sure legislation that says, this is what will happen if there is no deal or a violation of the deal, which you said you think is acceptable, is really any different from what we are saying. i think that is nuance, at best. it is interesting to note that sanctions on russia visa v ukraine haven't caused them to walk away from what they think is an important deal to be achieved. the suggestion that sanctions whether you have concluded a deal or not -- if the russians wouldn't walk away with sanctions on ukraine, i think it's pretty telling. to be very honest with you, the overwhelming number of sanctions that this committee has levied to the congress have overwhelmingly had a much more significant lead time than immediate position. obviously, the time for necessary for it to have an effect on iran has b

iran has the capability to build a bomb. it has the knowledge and even if talks collapsed and we launched a war, the fact is we can't bomb knowledge. >> woodruff: plus, the debate over the portrayal of a u.s. soldier in the oscar-nominated film "american sniper." >> i think americans are hungry to see heroes on the field and i'm not talking about football players this sunday. heos on the battlefield. the film does a tremendous job and resonates with vets and civilians the battle we endure in camouflage and the battle when we come home. we see parades when we've come home and i'd like to see those same parades a year later when we're back in society. >> ifill: and, the art of the big bet the economic winners and losers of gambling on the superbowl. >> it's a cat and mouse game every single game. the public, the average joes, we will just let them play the game. >> woodruff: those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour. >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> at lincoln financia

and being 67 years old and a student of iran, having studied carefully, a lifetime, iran, i knew how to handle my interrogators, and i knew how to make it possible for myself to survive under those very difficult and dire conditions, both physical and mental. >> hinojosa: when you say that you knew, what do you mean? i mean, you had never been in prison, you had never been interrogated before. how did you know how to survive these people who were terrorizing you? >> i was interrogated for four months before i was detained. outside prison, i used to spend with the same people eight to nine hours a day, day after day after day, going over the same questions and answers. and i knew their mentality. but once they took me in, i mean, i decided i either had to survive, or if i succumbed to despair, then they would have achieved what they wanted, meaning a forced confession from me. >> hinojosa: you say that you never broke down when you were being interrogated, and i just think, "oh, my god, if i'm being interrogated nine hours a day, same question after same question, there would come a p

if iran does not say yes. and if they cannot provide assurances that lead myself and david cameron and others that they are not obtaining a nuclear weapon we'll explore our options and i will be the first one to come to congress and said we need to tighten the screws. i said we'll leave all options on the table. congress should be aware if the diplomatic sanctions fails that the risk and likelihood that it ends upon as a military confrontation is heightened and congress will have to own that as well and that will have to be debated by the american people. we may not be able to rebuild the kind of coalition we need in that context if the world believes that we were not serious about negotiations. so i take this very seriously and i don't question the good faith of folks who think it is helpful, but it is my team at the table. we are steep in this stuff day in and out, we don't make these judgments blindly. we have worked on this 5, 6, 7 years and consult closely with allies like the united kingdom in making ass

and iran was united. and through some very strong diplomatic work, we united the world and isolated iran. and it is because of that work that we brought them to the negotiating table not for posturing, not for meetings that lead nowhere, but to a very hard-nosed nuts and bolts discussion of their nuclear program. now, the interim deal we entered into also froze progress on their nuclear program, rolled back in some cases the stockpiles of material they had already accumulated, and provided us insight into their program that was unprecedented. we have people on the ground who are able to verify and inspect and tell us what exactly is going on. that's not just our assessment. that is the assessment of intelligence services around the world, including the israelis. so the agreement is held and negotiations have been serious. we have not lost ground. iran has not accelerated its program during the time these negotiations have taken place. in fact, iran's program has not only been in abeyance, but we have actu

i think that igkÎ that iran iran will be in a different position.than 2 million barrels of oil. it will have access to $100 billion in reserves currently being held overseas, and it will have the ability to procure critical items for its fro program. it gets a lot that would require no we get a one-year alarmy6ábñ/t!jr bell, which may not be enough time to react. i'll tell you something, if you had nothing in place after a no-deal situation, then the president may very well be of his own design in a position in which his only options is a military option or accepting iran as a nuclear state, and that is a pretty terrible set of@j circumstances. now maybe you don't fear that because maybe there's anotherks%f set of secret letters or deals on the side that we don't know about. there have been a lot of those so i don't know. maybe you can,4Ñ tell us whether there's any that we should be waiting on. >> there are not. hopefully none will surface afterwards otherwise we'll have to have a real conversation. so i'll just say look, no one has worked harder t

and iran was united. and through some very strong diplomatic work, we united the world and i isolated iran. and it is because of that work that we brought them to the negotiating table, not for posturing, not for meetings that lead nowhere, but to a very hard nosed, nuts and bolt discussion of their nuclear program. now the interrim deal we entered into also froze progress on their nuclear program, rolled back in some cases the stockpiles of material that they had already aaccumulated and provided us insight into their program that was unprecedented. we have people on the ground who are able to verify an inspect and tell us what exactly is going on. that is not just our assessment. that's the assessment of intelligence services around the world including the israelis. so the agreement has held and the negotiations have been serious. we have not lost ground, iran has not accelerated its program during the time these negotiations have taken place. in fact iran's program has not only been in obeyance but we

it's the topic of iran. i think all of us understand it's not going to be voted on until after march the 24th. that is my understanding today. that is my understanding in supporting this. so i just want to go to the toomey amendment. on 271, 2, 3 agreements where we have a civil nuclear agreement with any country, the president was just in india where we have 1, 2, 3 agreements, one of my first votes here was on a civil 1, 2, 3 agreement. the threshold is low. y'all should look at the way it's set. it's very low. it's not something that a potentially disfunctional senate could even mess up just for what it's worth. sherrod, i've talked to every single -- all but one of our allies. this doesn't in any way impede negotiations. that is absolutely not true, absolutely not true. each of the countries understands we have processes we do through. each country goes through a process of ratifying whatever happens. the iranian parliament has to go through a process. i would just say to my friends, the fact is that ult

[gunfire] there is no better use than the iran-iraq war when even under chemical attack from iran, theed by weapons of mass destruction and is not reciprocating just because of its religious values, what more objective guarantees do you want to believe that this nation is not after a nuclear bomb? >> woodruff: iranian good faith was clear more recently in syria where iran was a key partner in negotiating the destruction of assad's chemical weapons stockpiles. >> there was a try lateral cooperation between tehran washington and moscow which led to the destruction of chemical weapons in syria. >> you'd have to believe in the tooth fairy to believe that iran is not interested in getting very close to nuclear weapons. >> woodruff: richard haass of the council on foreign relations is much less trusting. history wouldn't give you a lot of confidence. one is robb has at times violating understandings with the international atomic energy agency. there have been a lot of things on the side surreptitiously. >> we shouldn't be naive. iran has the capability to build a bomb. it has the knowledge.

one of the reasons why iran came back to the negotiating table. the u.s. itself unilaterally has more entities on its sanctions list from from the balkans, cuba, iran burma and even zimbabwe than north korean entities. we have nearly three times as many zimbabwe entities on the sanctions list as north korea. fourth, there's nothing more the u.s. can do on north korea. again, you'll see that often in the media. and, again that's not true. the u.s. has a number of existing laws and regulations that we've simply not applied as firmly towards north korea as we have to other nations. president obama, the former assistant secretary of state for east asia, etc., etc., have all said there are other measures that we're contemplating, some of them are blood curdling, and yet we still wait a year or more after these statements. a fifth sanction -- a fifth myth sanctions don't work on north korea. well, they do k. we did, we had an extensive program in 2005 against a bank where in conjunction with the u.s. treasury department announcing it as a money launderi

regime change and iran. we cannot and will not be safe as long as islamist despots rule in iran. the policy of the united states should therefore be to support regime opponents and about the constitutional government at peace with the united states, israel, in the world. this is so because of the nature of iran's regime, it's what makes its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability so dangerous in the first place. few people worry that france is a nuclear state. or that japan is the nuclear threshold state. why? because france and japan are peaceful, constitutional regime who pose little threat to their neighbors in the broader world. iran's regime posed a threat not primarily because of its actions but because of its nature and the first principles on which it acts. second, the united states should cease all appeasement, conciliation and concessions towards iran starting with a sham nuclear negotiations. certain voices call for congressional restraint urging congress not to act now last iran's walk away from the negotiating table undermining the fabled yet always absent moderates in

because nobody can doubt what iran is about.verybody who knows that region of the country, who has any kind of intelligence on what the iranians are doing, knows what they're about. not to ignore that is an absolute default of responsibility. >> ignoring, ignoring a military pact between russia and iran, ignoring the sponsorship of terrorist organizations by iran ignoring their role in the war with iraq on the part of the united states. a third of our casualties are attributed to the involvement of iran, yet this administration insists on proceeding. >> well, you know, in a way i'm at a bit of a loss for words and you know how rare that is in my lifetime. >> i do. >> because what you are saying is so manifest in its clarity and in its implications and somehow or other, this administration is playing whatever game they're playing and allowing a lot of this stuff to proceed. it's threatening that whole region. we have enormous interests in that region and it's now going to be undermined by an administration that is absolutely will

deal with iran.o you think it's appropriate for him to come in this manner at this time to washington? >> well, i'll let mr. boehner answer that and mr. netanyahu. i speak with prime minister netanyahu all the time. we're declining to meet with him. i'm declining to meet with him simply because our general policy is we don't meet with any world leader two weeks before their election. i think that's inappropriate. and that's true with some of our closest allies. david cameron who has an election coming up recently came to visit because we insisted if he wants to come and it was an important meeting, he needs to be far away enough from the election that it doesn't look like in some ways we're meddling or putting our thumbs on the scale. to the broader issue, fareed i don't think there's been any rebuttal of my argument. i haven't heard a persuasive rebuttal of my argument that we crafted very effective sanctions against iran specifically to bring them to the negotiations table to see if we could resolv

does iran top the security threats? >> i don't think iran is a security threat to saudi arabia. iran is a competitor for regional political weight and influence and the iranians have made it clear that they and the so you had des need a dialogue and to come to an agreement. the iranian prime minister was supposed to go to saudi arabia a few weeks ago but postponed it when harsh statements were made about iran. there is a process of dialogue and coming to terms with each other between iran and saudi arabia. there's no question that that's going to happen very soon. the question is how much will that help lower the temperature and reduce some of the conflicts around the region, which are proxy battles often between saudi and iranian influences. saudi arabia and iran and iraq formerly were the big three powers around the gulf. iraq is in remission right now but iran and saudi arabia will have to fight a modus on a modus oprand. >>. they agree to coexist. >> if anything, you think about developments in the region and then particularly how this proxy war between iran and saudi arabia

for iran what will they do? >> well, i think the same is true with iran. iranians will not let the israeli regime get away with this. the troops were there to assess the situation with regards to the al nusra front an extreme ist group supported by the israelis and the united states and the saudis and southern syria. just like isil is supported by the turks in the north. so the iranians have been working hard to beat back the extremists and this attack about the israelis was basically in support of the extremist groups which have had many set backs in recent weeks. we think ultimately the irans have a lot of patience. i think when the in time the israelis will be hit. >> you say they will retaliate. how so? >> well, i have no access to know that sort of information but it's obvious that when the israelis start targeting iranian citizens in a third country which iranian commanders, which have been in syria at the invitation of the syrian government and fighting against extremist organizations that the united states and the europeans claim to be fighting, wh

the value of iran's currency by 76 percent. the president has said that those sanctions, the entire reason why they were at the table, let's back a winning strategy and make sure that the nuclear war in the persian gulf never happens. i i would say that for those you think that we are working to fast about how close the rain is coming on the enrichment of uranium. with that i would reemphasize my thank you's. we have been attempting to make sure that we bring the whole set forward on this with democrats and republicans to express our views in a most unified way with that i yield to bob. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me start off by thanking senator kirk for working with me to accomplish a mutual goal to have iran never achieve the capacity for a nuclear weapon and i appreciate his work. the essence of this legislation has been well debated over the course of the year, probably have more legislative attention between the senate foreign relations committee the banking committee hearings in the series of classified hearings than

critical for democrats for being too soft on iran? >> i think it's going to be a confusing mess in congress. but what the president did is showed what a steady hand and how vested and informed he is in the iran activities. i tweeted out i was completely impressed with the level of detail he had and how steady he was and how confident he was in his call to congress to give him the two or three more months to keep them -- if you guys don't do this war will be on your watch, and you'll be responsible for it. and to preempt that he'll make his case to the american public. i thought he was impressive with that and david cameron really shored that up in his own opening remarks where he essentially preemptively said any sanctions activity here would completely disrupt potential and very important progress with iran. >> and peter, on the british side we heard a lot of discussion of home grown terrorism, obviously that's a big concern right now in europe europe is very on edge about sleeper cells and new kinds of terrorist threats. are you hea

sanctions against iran. the secretary of state not only misspeaking it appears, but caught categorically contradicted by the israeli government. the secretary claiming the mossad advised a group of unnamed senators to avoid any new sanctions on iran. the secretary's clear implication that the mossad and the netanyahu government are divided on the issue of iranian sanctions. >> one of the top intelligence personnel within the israeli intelligence field i won't name names, but this person was asked directly by a congressional delegation that visited over the weekend what the effect of sanctions would be? this person answered it would be like throwing a grenade into the process. lou: the mossad says kerry's statement is untrue. a statement released today reads, quote -- contrary to the report, the head of the mossad did not say he opposed sanctions on iran. the remarkable efficacy of the sanctions imposed on iran over the last few years in bringing iran to the negotiating table. senate foreign relations committ

there were also news on iran. the british prime minister admitted that yes, he is lobbying senators to try to stop congress from passing a bill that would essentially say if the iranian nuclear negotiations stop, there will automatically be a round of new sanctions. president obama said that threat themselves could undermine the negotiations. the two leaders talked about efforts to deal with cyber security to map and trace where some of the terrorists have been operating. the president saying the main way they are communicating is through the net. let's go to mike viqueira who is in the east room of the white house. what jumped out at you? >> well first of all the iran issue, this has been gurgling now in washington. there has been talks about a new extension that was just agreed to recently the president coming out very forcefully against that. asking at one point for congress to just hold your fire saying that if congress were to pass that it could scuttle the talks with iran and repeated the phrase we have hear

didn't do it to destroy iran. they did it to help get a nuclear solution. >> basically, i have a similar perspective. i would only add to that, in addition to what he said, think the breaking off of the negotiations or the collapse of the negotiations would arrest and reverse the painful and difficult process of increasing moderation within iranian political life. we are dealing with an old generation of revolutionaries, extremists and so forth, but there is an iranian society, a significant chunk, with a more moderate attitude and more moderate lifestyle and a more tempting inclination to emulate western standards, including how in tehran women are dressed. all of that indicates that iran is beginning to evolve into what it traditionally has been, a very civilized and important historical country. we have to be very careful not to have this dramatically reversed, not to mention thing at a -- the negative consequences it would have for global stability, and the reduction in willingness iranian willingness in some

using both its military and proxy hezz bowla, iran has -- hezbollah, iran has planned attacks around e world.

iran.ig influence on the regional ready and if things continue if things are shaky enough iran might be the big winner coming out of this with even more influence in the middle east. >> tom foreman, thank you for that. coming up after a quick break our panel will weigh in in the next half hour on the fate, the future of the middle east. ♪ ♪ ♪ you're only young once. unless you have a subaru. (announcer) the subaru xv crosstrek. symmetrical all-wheel drive plus 34 mpg. love. it's what makes a subaru a subaru. when the flu hits, it's a really big deal. the aches. the chills. the fever. an even bigger deal? everything you miss out on... family pizza night. the big game. or date night. why lose out to the flu any longer than you have to? prescription tamiflu can help you get better 1.3 days faster. that's 30% sooner. call your doctor right away. and attack the flu virus at its source with prescription tamiflu. tamiflu is fda approved to treat the flu in people 2 weeks and older whose flu sympto

often prettying outside iran.evolutionary guard is believed to be involved in intelligence gathering and educating sir thank you so much for joining us on al jazeera. we'll talk in a little bit more detail about those attacks and the response from hebs. i would like to focus on this general from the revolutionary guard. the statement we had from tehran said he was on assignment to syria giving crucial advice to shia fighters fighting shea. whatwhat does this have influence across the middle east. >> the revolutionary guard is the part of the islamic republic of iran, in terms of taking on its enemies which today is not just israel but also saudi arabian and also i.s.i.s it's a group that protects iran's interest, a group that gives financial and military support to groups which iran is close to. and of course, in iran today the military body that's closest to the supreme leader, politically speaking is the revolutionary guard as well. >> but how much influence do you think they have, for example, in the fight agai

because this administration is not really willing to face up to iran.his is just another dimension of it because netanyahu and the israelis obviously are terrified because of what iran might do and this was his rationale for coming here to find some way to explain it to the american people. >> i have to say i think it was an error that boehner invited the prime minister so close to the israeli election. at any time it's fine but imagine the british prime minister coming, i think there's a problem in terms of diplomatic protocol which is important. but i would say it's quite interesting, looking how the intelligence services are talking about this nuclear deal, i think they have either very good -- i don't have information, my inclination they have very good human intelligence. >> one other question, did the a.j.c. approve this? >> i don't know what the a.j.c. did. >> ok. next up, arabia. >> following his india visit, president obama jetted off to saudi arabia to pay his respected to the recently deceased king abdullah. but meeting with saudi arabia's ne

let me start with iran.z, senator menendez saying the president's talking points on iran and now he's lined up. what do you make of the delay until at least the 24th of march for a vote? >> look menendez was right the first time but the democrats in the senate with a little pressure from the white house has given him a month and a half breathing room. look, the timing is not the issue, it's the silliness of the policy. this man is negotiating with a country that is determined to have nuclear weapons, and there is no way he is going to keep them from going in that direction, unless he negotiates tough and hard and does it with the backing it up if you will with the might of the u.s. in some respect. he does not know how to negotiate. he gives the store away. and this is a very critical store he's giving away. lou: another alleged giveaway that's the unilateral normalization of relations with cuba. do you see that as exactly the same analog? >> you know, everybody wants to end up with a normalized relationship

that, effectively, negotiations with iran are pointless. and since these claims are being made by individuals who see iran as a mortal threat, and want as badly as we do to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons the question becomes what other alternatives are available? that is part of what we have to consider as to why it is so important for us to pursue every possible avenue to see if we can get a deal. and it has to be a good deal, not a bad deal. i have already shown myself willing to walk away from a bad deal. and the p5 plus one walked away with this. nobody is interested in some document that undermines our sanctions, and gives iran the possibility of -- whether covertly or gradually, building up its nuclear weapons capacity. we are not going to allow that and anything that we do -- any deal we arrive at, if we are going to arrive at one will be subject to scrutiny across the board. not just by the numbers of congress but more importantly by people who actually know how the technical aspects of nuclear programs can advance. and h

on iran, we remain absolutely committed to ensuring that iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon.y to achieve that now is to create the space for negotiations to succeed. we should not impose further sanctions now. that would be counterproductive and it could put at risk the valuable international unity that's been so crucial to our approach. we also have to keep pace with new threats such as cyber attacks. we've discussed that in the last two days. and we've today agreed to deepen our cyber security corporation to better protect ourselves. finally, we face, the entire world faces a growing threat from diseases. today our fight is against ebola. in the future, it could be against a global flu pandemic. through our action in sierra leone, the u.s. action in liberia, france and guinea, we are beginning to turn the corner. but we must get better at responding to these global health emergencies and make sure we can master them before they master us. so reforming the w.h.o., the world health organization, establishing a team of experts to be an standby to deploy anywhere in the world,

it's not as if suddenly we've got a great relationship with iran. it solves one particular problem that is urgent. and it solves it better than the other alternatives that might present themselves. so my main message to congress at this point is just hold your fire. nobody around the world, least of all the iranians doubt my ability to get some additional sanctions passed should these negotiations fail. that's not a hard vote for me to get through congress. and so the notion that we need to have additional sanctions or even the possibility of sanctions hanging over their head to force them to a better deal, i think the iranians know that that is certainly in our back pocket if the negotiations fail. with respect to violent extremism extremism, my impression is that europe has consistently taken this seriously during the course of my presidency we have worked collaboratively and with great urgency and a recognition that not only do you have foreigners who may be trying to hatch plots in europe but that given large immigrant populations, it's importan

to iran. you know we are approach this with a huge amount of skepticism. the goal of an iran without a nuclear weapon makes these talks worthwhile. on the issue your question has -- is this a turning point for europe in terms of terrorism? i would argue that we turned some time ago. maybe britain in particular because of the appalling attack that is took place in 2005 but there have been attacks elsewhere, but since i have been prime minister there's probably been at least one major plot every year by the significant nature that we have managed to intercept, stop and prevent. the awareness of the scare and the challenge we face is absolutely there across government, across parliament across the different political parties in the police and intelligence services. i think there is an opportunity for countries in europe who have up until now been less effective to work with them and make sure that we share knowledge and skills because when you say how do you -- the turning point is making sure yo

iran was united. through some very strong diplomatic work, we united the world and isolated iran. it is because of that work that we brought them to the negotiating table not for posturing, not for meetings that lead nowhere, but to a very hard-nosed nuts and bolts discussion of their nuclear program. the interim deal we entered into also froze progress on their nuclear program, rolled back in some cases the stockpiles of material they had already accumulated, and provided us insight into their program that was unprecedented. we have people on the ground who are able to verify and inspect and tell us what exactly is going on. that's not just our assessment. that is the assessment of intelligence services around the world, including the israelis. the agreement is held and negotiations have been serious. we have not lost ground. iran has not accelerated its program during the time these negotiations have taken place. iran's program has not only been in abeyance, but we have actually made gains in rolling back some of the stockpiles they had. we have on the table currently a series o

on iran we remain absolutely committed to ensuring iran cannot develop a nuclear weapon. create the space for negotiations to succeed. we should not impose further sanctions now. that would be counter productive and it could put at risk the valuable international unity that has been so crucial to our approach. we also have to keep pace with new threats such as cyber attacks, we discussed that in the last two days and today agreed to deepen our cyber security operation to better protect ourselves. finally we face the entire world facts a growing threat from diseases. today our fight is against ebola. in the future it could be against a global flu pandemic. through our action in sierra leeon leeone, we are beginning to turn the corner. we must get better to make sure to master them before they master us. reforming the w.h.o. world health organization establishing a team of experts to be on stand by to deploy anywhere in the world, new international platform to stimulate the design and development of new drugs, all of these things are needed. let 2015 the year we must crack

i think iran's on the -- iran is the one who needs to show the u.s. we can trust them by releasing my husband who has been held hostage. >> and as we look at the picture there. your two children are only getting older as your husband sits in custody in iran. >> jay, what is your position? i mean, the u.s. has this no ransom policy. and yet we see bowe bergdahl relieved for five of the worst terrorists and other deals where there are under the table deals and money through a third party. what's going on, jay in? >> we paid a ransom. the u.s. government paid a ransom of $4.7 billion when we released the sanctions to get the iranians to sit down at a table and talk with us. the whole discussion about ransom. what did we get in return for that? we didn't get the release of her husband or other americans that are held captives. we got the iranians to the table. i think we have -- as a judges you know this, words are important here. the united states as a confidence-building measure means getting something to move forward, lifts sanctions off the iranians a

. >>> is sending a mixed message the best bet for stopping iran's nuclear program? president obama and congress worlds apart. this is "special report". ." good evening and welcome to washington. president obama and his british counter part david cameron stand side by side physically and emotionally over how congress ought to handle iran. they insist the sanctions congress wants to slap iran with will blow up the already fragile nuclear deal and drive closer to a nuclear weapon. james rosen is at the white house with our lead story. >> reporter: after a working session in the oval office president obama and british prime minister david cameron worked overtime to persuade the u.s. congress to hold your fire on more sanctions against iran. >> i don't question the good faith of some folks who think this might be helpful but it is my team that is at the table. we are steeped in this stuff day in and day out. >> the president's remarks came one day after he attended a retreat with senate democrats in baltimore. set to join the majority of republicans to finalize a deal to

that's the reason we should look at iran equally as we look at the government in this case. >> iran iser so much pressure in other corners of the world. the last thing it needs is to be implicated as having been comply sit in this terror attack that killed 85 people. >> they have been accused of sponsoring state terrorism. if he was successful in bringing this to the court and bringing the evidence even if he couldn't actually extradite be individuals that would have been an inconvenient set of circumstances for a country that's trying to clean up its image. >> he wasn't necessarily going after his country's president so much as saying that she was compli complisit. >> the reason this came to light is he has judicially approved wiretaps that showed this agreement being developed because the two sides. i think in the end his main motivation was to get justice for the victims of the bombing. for that he needed to bring the iranian's to court from being able to do that. i think he thought this was a step to open that door. i think that if iran did not want that door open they had a lot of

you mentioned your opposition to the sanctions bill on iran. this is oh, my goodness a beneficial bi-partisan bill supported by members of your top party. why do you oppose a bill that would only impose sanctions if you failed to reach an agreement and if the iranians failed to agree to take steps to curtail their nuclear program? would you go so far as to veto a bill supported by top of democrats in congress on this issue? and mr. prime minister i understand you have been making phone calls to senators on this issue of the iran sanctions bill. is that correct? are you actually lobbying the us congress on this? if i may mr. president, i would really like to hear your reaction to the news that mitt romney is thinking about running for president gem. >> on your last question i have no comment. on your first question, when i came in to office i made a commitment that iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon that we would do everything we believedcould to do that. >> that's important for our security and it's import for the world security. if iran ob

the senate wants a say in the president's negotiations with iran. the president is promising to veto any new or increased sanctions and basically telling republicans to stay out of it. that is a recipe for a political mushroom cloud here in washington. chief congressional correspondent tells us tonight republicans are lighting the fuse in an unusual way. >> i have invited prime minister of israel benjamin netanyahu to address a joint session of congress on the grave threats of radical islam and the threat that iran poses. >> reporter: hours after the state of the union boehner invited netanyahu to address lawmakers on february 11. >> i did not consult with the white house. the congress can make this decision on its own. i don't believe i'm poking anyone in the eye. there is a serious threat that exists in the world and the president last night kind of pafred over it. >> reporter: the president reiterated his call for congress to stand down on new sanctions and made this claim. >> our diplomacy is at work with respect for iran where for the first tim