sanctions. we thank you both for being here. it's worth noting that real questions about sanctions relief remain. on the same day the u.n. passed the resolution endorsing the deal and setting out the wrote a mechanism, iran letter to the u.n. saying that they would treat use of the snapback as grounds to walk out of the agreement. again, i think you-all know this passed in about 90 seconds at the u.n. last monday, and at that moment iran sent a letter refuting the ability to use snapback. that same letter outlines that extension of current sanctions would be in violation of the agreement. i know we had an exchange the other day where it was asked if we had some sanctions that are rolling off in 2016 if we just extended those so there would be something to snap back to. i snow senator menendez has made a strong point about this. that itself would be a violation. and then iran would reconsider any imposition of new sanctions with the nature and scope identical or similar to those that were in plac

sanctions. we had a helpful hearing yesterday that dealt with the overall effects of the agreement. i think we spent a good deal of time looking at the alternatives if congress effectively rejects the program what is the consequences. in that discussion we did talk about sanctions. i am sure we'll get back to that today but i think today we want to focus on the sanction aspects of the agreement. the members of this committee will take a decision on the benefits of the agreements outweigh the risks or whether the risks of the agreement outweigh the benefits to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear state. that is our test and the sanctions have a major impact on our evaluation of the issues. let me first deal with an issue i have raised since day one that the chairman raised again in his opening comments and i hope we can get your views on this. that is it has been stated very clearly by this administration that we are not taking off sanctions as it relates to terrorism and human rights and their m

sanctions. we thank you for being here. it is worth noting that real questions about sanctions relief remain. i ran that of -- iran will and leaders say they would treat use of the snapback as grounds to walk of the agreement. again, i think you know that i ran sent a letter refuting the ability to use snapback. that same letter outlines that the extension of current sanctions would be in violation of -- recently, they have been backing off a little bit. i don't know exactly where that stands. those statements the agreement itself, and the lack of clarity from our administration have left senators with unresolved questions. those include questions about the efficacy of u.s. secondary sanctions, if congress refuses the deal, and are also concerns about the u.s. being able to reinstate sanctions. i'm very honestly surprised to say, but there are remaining questions about whether or not extending the sanctions would constitute a violation of agreement, as i mentioned earlier. i see no reason why no

sanctions, it's only the u.n. sanctions. we still have sanctions. our primary embargo is still in place. we are still sanctioning them. and, i might add for those things that we want to deal with in terms of their behavior for instance, hezbollah, there is a u.n. resolution 1701, that prevents the transfer of any weapons to hezbollah. that will cop tin. what we need to do is make sure we're enforcing it. >> i think we've got that. i just want to make sure if we say, all right. what was effective on iran, what really has brought them to the table more than anything else in my view are the sanctions on the central bank because it's more difficult for russia ks china, and other actors to help them evade these sanctions. if we decided we want to impose penalties to deter them from terrorist activity and we impose sanctions on their central bank that that won't be a material breach to the accord. secretary kerry: no. >> that will not. one other question on the broader topic. assuming this goes into effect, we're going to need desperately need a regional

consideration of new sanctions on the missile program, and the arms embargo and missile sanctions are not specifically mentioned in the jcpoa, only the resolution governoring and does the snapback of sanctions apply to violations of the arms and missile embargoes if iran would continue to ship weapons to hezbollah before the arms embargo expires and would they be in violation of a jcpoa? >> congressman, there are so many questions in there. obviously we are very happy to come back to you on the record and i want to answer every single one of them. let me try to take on the biggest ones, first of all. let me just call to everybody's attention here the irgj opposed this agreement. they are not sitting there thinking they will get to do what they want to do. i invite you to talk to the intel community about that, they will document it they see themselves losing for their activities. there's nothing here to prevent us from pushing back the irgj and others going forward. congress and others were all free to work together to build the pushback against the destabilizing activities. let me as

sanctions it's only the u.n. sanctions. we still have sanctions. our primary embargo is still in place. we are still sanctioning them. and for those things that we want to deal with in terms of their behavior. hezbollah. there is a u.n. resolution 1701 that prevents the transfer of any weapons to hezbollah. that will continue and what we need to do is make sure we're enforcing it. >> i think we've got that. i want to make sure if we say, all right what was effective on iran. what's brought them to the table are these sanctions on the central bank because it's more difficult for rshussia, china and other actors to help them evade these sanksctions. if we impose sanctions on their central bank that that won't be a material breach of the accord. >> it will not. >> one other question on a broader topic. assuming this goes into effect we're going to desperately need a regional security framework that you have touched on and some discussions are already going on. i would just encourage you that i understand the problem with 535 secretaries of state. can'

has you calz sanctions a form of violence. i want to examine the effects of the essential on iran and its people. something i saw firsthand over the past two weeks and the obviously place to start is the sanctions against iranian oil exports. in 2012 the u.s. and the european union slapped new sanctions on industry. as a result, between 2011 and 2014, iranian owl exports plunged 46%. they were 2.6 million barrels a day down to 1.4 million barrels a day. this decline is a big deal. oil makes up 40% of iran's export earnings and 50% of government revenue. right now, iran has half a dozen legitimate oil customers, indian indian, turkey, few others. expect that to change quickly, if and when economic sanctions are lifted. iranian officials say they hope to double oil exports soon after the sanctions fall. the news that the talks are dragging on and on sent prices up a bit. they still settled down 1%. oil now trades at $52 many en 24 a barrel. after spending two weeks in iran i can tell you, it's not sanction he, but the ability to

european sanctions. this deal could also in my judgment spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east as the saudis told me when i recently visited there. as chairman of the homeland security committee what concerns me the most is that the deal frees up hundreds of billions of dollars to the leading state sponsor of terrorism. susan rice the president's national security adviser said, quote, we should expect some portion of the money will go to the iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior we have seen in the region. now, you're asking this congress to indorse an agreement that the president's own national security adviser admits will spread terror in the region. finally, iran's deputy foreign minister confirmed we will provide weapons to whomever whenever we deem appropriate and buy weapons from wherever we can. chairman royce and i sent a letter to you and the president of the united states asking you to submit this deal for consideration by the american people through

sanctions have worked. are you going to retract any statements made by secretary lew and anyone else who has said it would cripple them, it would take them years to get servicing again. >> if you're going to quote me, let me speak for myself. >> i quoted exactly what you said. cripple iran and it will take them years to recover. so if we up the sanctions -- >> the other part of what i said is the reason it was crippling is because we had international cooperation. we have worked very hard to get that international cooperation. the parties that we worked with reached an agreement here. >> look who we work with. we work with china and we work with russia. the people who want iran to be in that position because it jeopardizes the united states. >> the power of our sanctions is not going to have the affect -- >> i disagree with you. the economists disagree with you. individuals i have read article after article on disagree with you. >> congressman, as we have said again and again, and i want to repeat it now. w

sanctions. we thank you both for being here. it's worth noting that real questions about sanctions relief remain. on the same day the u.n. passed the resolution endorsing the deal and setting out the snapback mechanism, iran wrote a letter to the u.n. saying that they would treat use of the snapback as grounds to walk out of the agreement. again, i think you-all know this passed in about 90 seconds at the u.n. last monday, and at that moment iran sent a letter refuting the ability to use snapback. that same letter outlines that extension of current sanctions would be in violation of the agreement. i know we had an exchange the other day where it was asked if we had some sanctions that are rolling off in 2016 if we just extended those so there would be something to snap back to. i snow senator menendez has made a strong point about this. that itself would be a violation. and then iran would reconsider any imposition of new sanctions with the nature and scope identical or similar to those that wer

these sanctions any sanctions before. >> remember in 2005. we were sitting and dealing.ed out. we didn't want to deal with them. that time iran had 64 centrifuges. today, after all the sanctions. we this 19,000 centrifuges. worked against the iranian people. it did not work against the nuclear programme. iran expanded its sanctions, more in damascus. >>> to make the nuclear deal stick, two nation was a history of hostility will have to learn to trust each other. coming up, living prove of why that could be easier said than done. >> being a musician, there's no demand... >> world renowned artist lang lang >> the moment you're on stage, it's timeless >> american schools falling flat... >> there are no music class in public schools... >> and his plan to bring music back... >> music makes people happier... >> every tuesday night. >> i lived that character. >> go one on one with america's movers and shakers. >> we will be able to see change. >> gripping. inspiring. entertaining. talk to al jazeera. only on al jazeera america. >> "inside story" takes you beyond the headlines,

these sanctions any sanctions before. >> remember in 2005. we were sitting and dealing.. we didn't want to deal with them. that time iran had 64 centrifuges. today, after all the sanctions. we this 19,000 centrifuges. worked against the iranian people. it did not work against the nuclear programme. iran expanded its sanctions, more in damascus. >>> to make the nuclear deal stick, two nation was a history of hostility will have to learn to trust each other. coming up, living prove of why that could be easier said than done. >> al jazeera america primetime. get the real news you've been looking for. >> now everybody in this country can hear them. >> at 7:00, a thorough of the day's events. >> at the end of the day, we're going to give you an intelligent, context driven, take on the day's news. >> then at 8:00, john seigenthaler digs deeper into the stories of the day. >> this is a complicated situation. how significant is it? >> and at 9:00, get a global perspective on the news. >> the stories relevant to americans. >> they're sending their government a message. >> organiz

sanctions. there is no signing bonus. there will be no immediate changes to u.n. eu or u.s. sanctions. only if iran fulfills the sanctions, sanctions that target third-country parties doing business with iran. we must guard against the possibility iran does not hold up its side of the deal so if iran violates the commitments once we suspended the sanctions we can snap back both u.n. and u.s. sanctions. since preventing the snapback requires an affirmative vote from the u.n. security council united states has the ability to reinforce the sanctions. our primary u.s. trade embargo, with very limited exceptions iran will continue to be denied access to the largest market and maintain powerful sanctions targeting iran's support for terrorists groups such as hezbollah, and its missile program and its human rights abuses at home. just this week, treasury sanctions hezbollah leaders building on designations last month targeting the facilitators. some argue that sanctions relief is premature until iran c

sanctions by countries around the world. the point of the sanctions was to change iran's nuclear behavior. accordingly once it is verified that iran has completed key steps to roll back its nuclear program, phased sanctions relief would come into effect. there is no signing bonus. to be clear, there will be no immediate changes to u.n. e.u. or u.s. sanctions. only if iran fulfills the necessary nuclear conditions will the u.s. begin suspending secondary sanctions on a phased-in basis. sanctions that target third-party countries doing business with iran. if iran violates its commitments once we have suspended the sanctions, we will be able to promptly snap back both u.s. and u.n. sanctions. and since that requires an affirmative vote from the u.n. security council the united states has the ability to force these reimposition of those sanctions. we'll maintain significant sanctions that fall outside of the scope of the nuclear deal including our primary u.s. trade embargo. iran will continue to be denied access to the world's

sanctions it's only the u.n. sanctions. we still have sanctions. our primary embargo is still in place. we are still sanctioning them. and for those things that we want to deal with in terms of their behavior. hezbollah. there is a u.n. resolution 1701 that prevents the transfer of any weapons to hezbollah. that will continue and what we need to do is make sure we're enforcing it. >> i think we've got that. i want to make sure if we say, all right what was effective on iran. what's brought them to the table are these sanctions on the central bank because it's more difficult for rshussia, china and other actors to help them evade these sanksctions. if we impose sanctions on their central bank that that won't be a material breach of the accord. >> it will not. >> one other question on a broader topic. assuming this goes into effect we're going to desperately need a regional security framework that you have touched on and some discussions are already going on. i would just encourage you that i understand the problem with 535 secretaries of state. can'

sanctions. thank you very much for appearing before committing their turn to our distinguished ranking member for his comments and look forward to a very good hearing. >> mr. chairman thank you for arranging this hearing. the deal with the sanction aspects of up of the joint jcp l.a. and i think -- thank our two experts in this area for sharing their thoughts and engaging our committee and the discussion so we can better understand the impact of the jcp l.a. as it relates to sanctions. yesterday we had about a helpful hearing that dealt with the overall effects of the agreement. i think we spent a good deal of time looking at the alternatives and if congress effectively rejects the jcpoa what would be the consequences. in that discussion we did talk about sanctions. i'm sure we will get back to the same impact today but i think today we want to concentrate on the sanction aspects of the agreement. ultimately the members of this committee be numbers in the united states senate and congress are go

european sanctions. this deal could also in my judgment spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east as the saudis told me when i recently visited there. as chairman of the homeland security committee, what concerns me the most is that this deal frees up hundreds of billions of dollars to the leading state sponsor of terrorism. susan rice, the president's national security adviser said, quote, we should expect some portion of the money will go to the iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior we have seen in the region. now, you're asking this congress to endorse an agreement that the president's own national security adviser admits will spread terror in the region. finally, iran's deputy foreign minister confirmed we will provide weapons to whomever whenever we deem appropriate and buy weapons from wherever we can. chairman royce and i sent a letter to you and the president of the united states asking you to submit this deal for consideration by the american people thro

these sanctions work better than any sanctions before. >> remember in 2005. sitting and dealing. we walked out. we didn't want to deal with them. that time iran had 64 centrifuges. today, after all the sanctions. we this 19,000 centrifuges. worked against the iranian people. it did not work against the nuclear programme. iran expanded its sanctions more in damascus. >>> to make the nuclear deal stick, two nation was a history of hostility will have to learn to trust each other. coming up living prove of why that could be easier said than done. >> can affect and surprise us. >> wow, some of these are amazing. >> techknow - where technology meets humanity. >> al jazeera america primetime. get the real news you've been looking for. >> now everybody in this country can hear them. >> at 7:00, a thorough of the day's events. >> at the end of the day, we're going to give you an intelligent, context driven, take on the day's news. >> then at 8:00, john seigenthaler digs deeper into the stories of the day. >> this is a complicated situation. how significant is it? >>

sanctions. >> the u.s. treasury and the state department used the swiss sanctions on iran as a gold standard. it's a thing that brought iran to the table. until 2012 there was sanctions. >> one of the things that the administration did was hit iran with sanctions. if rain can export a million a dale. someone had to oversee that. >> the iranian economy shrunk, and it was deeply impacted. the sanctions were better than any before. remember in 2005, we were sitting in iranians, negotiating the deal. we walked out saying we don't want to deal with them. at that time iran had 64 septemberry fumes. today, after all the sanctions, they have about 19,500 centrifuges. so the sanctions worked against the iranian people. >> right. it didn't work against the nuclear programme and the regime. iraq expanded under sanctions, to iraq and yemen. more in damascus or the syrian regime. to many different places around the middle east. >> you are saying this is the only logical option. >> this is an important option. however, t

you don't sanction countries, you sanction companies.when you look at the financial industry and their energy industry and you sanction, from our $18 trillion economy you start sanctioning -- we don't need any other sanctions, in my opinion, really have a dramatic impact on this regime. and we know from past history, recent history, just in the last five years, under this administration, when they doubled down on sanctions, it brought them to the table. in my opinion, we gave in too early my question to both of you this morning, do we have an alternative we haven't talked about in detail? another alternative to war or this bill as it is? mr. nephew. mr. nephew: i think that's an important question. i don't know that you'll like my answer. my view is that -- senator perdue: why would you say that? mr. nephew: i think that at the end of the day that while it's certainly true that it would be our preference for iran not to have a nuclear enrichment program, there's nothing in the treaty that precludes countries having it. the way in which w

also, the comprehensive listing of all sanctions -- lifting of all sanctions.hat includes access to trade technology, and also financing and energy. the comprehensive plan of action comprises the annexes of the nuclear issues, sanctions and peaceful cooperation, and also the setting up of the joint commission, and also the plan of action. so the documents are quite complicated. their specific and detailed. therefore, one cannot present a summary of the documents yet. the annexes will be provided to the public today. at a later date it will be presented. we know that agreements are going to be seriously scrutinized. but we now think that it is not just an agreement. but what we're announcing today is not just an agreement. it is a good deal. it is a good deal for all the parties and the international community, as a whole. this deal will provide new opportunities, a step forward. in order to put an end to a crisis that has lasted for more than 10 years. we are committed to make sure that this plan of action is fully implemented, and we do count on the body for i

back sanctions through the ndna sanctions. >> okay. i would like to move to center sheen by saying. they disagree. france britain, the e.u., disagree. the tools we have through the nuclear file cannot be applied. the other countries disagree. matter of fact the most accurate assessment of this deal from what i have been able to read has been coming from iran. >> but if iran violates it those sanctions could come back and we have the ability to sanction on other grounds, so it's not a fair conclusion that institutions that continue to engage in funding terrorism are immune from those kinds of sanctions. that's just not correct. >> i stand by my assessment as do the other countries who negotiated the deal with you. >> actually the other countries -- >> i'm just going to stop. senator shane. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member carden. thank you to our witnesses for your testimony today, and to the negotiating team for the tremendous effort that it took to get us to this point. before i ask my questions, and i do actually have qu

sanctions. the u.n. sanctions are tied to the international atomic energy agency, so the minute they say hey, something's wrong the u.n. sanctions can come back. there was a separate deal that was signed before this one was signed this morning between iran and the i.a.e.a. the condition of signing this deal was that got done first. it's a very technical deal. you can see some of the stuff is highly highly technical. it is -- this is up a congress to debate whether this is as safe as john kerry says it is, but i certainly makes the case. >> president obama pointed out that there's always the option for going to war but this is intended to reduce that possibility. morgan. >> thanks so much for being with us. president obama also made it very clear that this was the deal this was the best deal they were going to get and that this is not the type of deem that comes from someone's friend. let's take a listen to what he had to say. >> because of this goal, the international community will be able to verify tha

sanctions.rlie: we will of knowledge the sanctions have done terrible damage to your economy. guest: of course they have. but sanctions, you muster member, if sanctions were designed to help the iranian people -- charlie: to change the mind of the iranian government not to change the mind of the iranian people. guest: the iranian government went ahead with building more centrifuges. what the site -- sanctions did was to create an atmosphere among the rain in population that the united states does not want to treat them well, that the united states is trying to put pressure on them, that the united states is trying to prevent them from even buying medicine with their own money from abroad. the united states is saying that iran can purchase medicine. but if you go to a bank and say i want to send medicine to iran, you cannot do that. charlie: no one doubts they have been successful sanctions. if you want to feel the pressure of a series of governments around the world china to influence the govern

of sanctions relieve. so first off, i can say in terms of the contents, i have a much easier job than kelsey because the sanctions package is straightforward and fairly direct and fairly broad. the decision was made very clearly by the negotiating partners to make this an issue of the nuclear problem and how to get resolution of the nuclear program by incentivizing rapid iranian action. and so the time line that has been established for implementation of relief was configured as such. the iranians have to complete all of the nuclear modifications that kelsey was outlining with a few things that just by their very nature are going to have to continue on for eight or ten years, some instances going on for 25, before any new sanctions relieve will be given. so talk about signing bonuses and billions of dollars flooding into iran about a single centrifuge has been dismantled is all false. the way the deal puts it in place. >> the >> the iranians won't see anything until they have done their part, period. now,

that led to sanctions. the obama administration pushed stronger sanctions that really made a difference on the iranians. the obama administration came back with a negotiated agreement. this is among the most complex agreements any of us can hope to judge. it is filled with painful trade-offs. there are risks to acting and risks to not acting. i agree that this will be one of the most consequential votes any of us will take. for diplomatic history you may have to go back to the league of nations in 1920 four when congress played such a role in whether we go forward or whether we don't go forward. i worked on iran policy for three years. i helped to sanction iran. i believe we have to contain the threat in the middle east, but i also believe president obama's policy is worth your support. i'm going to support it because i think it is the best alternative. if i could design the perfect alternative, it is not available to the united states. whether we oppose it or support it we have got to make it about what th

sanctions. and the united states has the ability to effectively force the reimpotion of those sanctions. even as we phase in relief we will maintain significant sanctions that fall outside of the deal including our 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 maintain powerful sanctions for support of hezbollah, backing of the assad regime its missile program, and its human rights abuses at home. just this week treasury sanctions several hezbollah leaders. and we will not be relieving sanctions on iran's revolutionary guard corps, any of their subsidiaries or senior officials. some argue that sanctions relief is premature until iran ceases these activities. and i understand that concern. but iran's ties to terrorist groups are exactly why we must keep it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon. the combination of those two threats would raise a nightmare scenario. if we cannot solve both concerns at on

the sanctions that congress is able to effect are the sanctions that u.s. has put on iran. not the global and that's why he keeps selling if we bow out here, and we're left behind, the international parties go on. everyone else continues forward except for us. and we're left weak and out of the action. >> now you are hearing a lot of ret tor rec and angry commens and you have to ask them, if these if this is just for political show or if they have important questions. >> we're going to take a brief break and we'll continue our questions and listen to the testify money. this is the house foreign affairs committee. the news continues in just a moment. stay with us >> thank you for being us with, as i watched the debate taking place, there's a question that i want you to clarify because you study, modern iran, does iran want the bomb or do they want the deal? >> i don't believe they ever actually wanted a bomb, what they wanted was the nuclear knowledge and capability of making a bomb. but, at the present time, what they want most important is actually this deal, because all t

sanctions or international sanctions. sen. shaheen: i don't know who wants to respond to this but, at the time we began negotiations what was the best estimate of our intelligence community about the time for iran to break out with a nuclear weapon? sec. kerry: the best estimate was 2-3 months. sen. shaheen: was there an agreement among our intelligence agencies about that estimate? sec. kerry: yes. there was a disagreement with a couple other countries, but there was not a disagreement in our intel community. sen. shaheen: as we look at this agreement goes into effect, is there an estimate about how long it might take to get to a nuclear weapon at the end of this agreement if iran decides to pursue that option at the end of -- sec. kerry: the breakout time as it is used in this negotiation is a hybrid of the traditional understanding of breakout time. breakout time and arms control has usually been referred to as the time it takes to get a weapon. we have been dealing only with the amount of time it takes to get enough fissil

everybody's sanctions.we resisted that. we didn't do that. that's not what happened. what we did was we wound up securing the one-year breakout timeth going from two months two one year securing the safety of reducing their operable centrifuges and reducing the research that they can do in their next centrifuges. locking in their enrichment level at allow level. -- low level. they have to undo their piping. they have to undo e -- electrical. i don't know whether it will be six months or a year but when it is done we lift the fundamental component of financial and banking sanctions that were the heart that brought them to the table. >> i guess the point is everybody that is forth the agreement, this will prevent it from having a nuclear weapon -- >> the intel community, i urge you to connect with them. there's no decision there whatever. what he's doinyag is protecting thete domestic turf. >> he's saying the opposite. he's saying that this is not true, thishe does not stop us from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

sanction for some time. and the net result is that people have learnt to live with it. they work around the sanctions. today we drove through the city, the streets of tehran, and found that you can buy almost everything you want to buy the same way you could in an american city. the difference is are you making enough money, is it worth enough to make things viable. i'm carrying in my pocket in excess of a million units of their currency. that may be good to get my team dipper. that's the issue -- dinner. that's the issue facing iranians. yes a deal of optimism. >> economic sanctions of the united states and its partners have in the nuclear chest match, sanctions are credited with forcing iran back to the negotiating table in 2013, after 34 years of hostilities dating back to the hostage crisis, and putting an end to the sanction assist a top priority of the president, elected in 2013. after taking office, hassan rouhani went on a campaign to end iran's economic isolation, saying nuclear weapon had no place

sanctions, tough sanctions against iran if they vote disapproval and if for some reason the veto is notr ridden that means the president couldn't lift sanctions on iran the white house will do everything it can to make sure that is not the outcome. >> it would seem the obama administration will have votes to obtain the presidential veto depends on what they will do. >> some democrats are calling this deal historic and diane feinstein says she believes it will stand the test of time and nancy pelosi says it will stand the test of time and he will have support on democrat side but some democrats are also voicing concern so we will have to see. i think the vetting is the president will ultimately walk away with a deal and walk away with the ability to relieve the sanctions on iran. >> lisa stark reporting live from the white house in israel the closest ally in the middle east and who they vowed to destroy reaction has been harsh and benjamin netanyahu called it a mistake of high proportions and anxiety over iran are growing and we report. >> reporter: hours before iran's nuclear deal with

sanctions. but the big ones that matter will be lifted. so we'll have access to billions and billions of dollars. their economy will be growing, they'll be shipping all around the world. it's an amazing thing. and so what happens, i think all of us figured this out as we went through the deal. right now, we have some leverage, but 9 months from now, the leverage shifts to them because we have a sanction snapback. what they have if we ever tried to apply that is what's called a nuclear snapback. the way the deal is structured, they can immediately just begin. they can say well, if you add sanctions, we're out of the deal. they can immediately snap back. the possible military dimensions i think most of us call it the previous military dimensions because we know they were involved in that. basically, that has no bearing, no bearing per the agreement. and i know our witness will say, well, if they don't deal with this properly, it won't implement. according to the agreement, it has no bearing whatso

one other point on the sanctions. they're international sanctions. they include the indians and the south koreans and japanese and a lot of countries that aren't terribly threatened by iran. they imposed sanctions because they wanted to bring iran to the table and believed we would negotiate seriously. if we don't follow through on that, the sanctions will unravel, iran will get its money without any nuclear controls. >> woodruff: and that raises the question about what happens if this falls apart. for the critics who are saying this is a wrong deal what's the alternative dennis ross? >> i think there is a burden on the critics to explain that. i think the point sandy made is right. there is a reality here. you have the international community embracing this agreement, certainly the members of p5+1. if this were to be blocked, the iranians would say we implemented. the european union commits, if the iranians do their part, the union is committed to lifting the sanctions. i am concerned you wouldn't be able to sustain that. the critics are convinced t

they have been raising sanctions relief generally throughout this and taking the position sanctions had to come off at the beginning. fact of the matter is we were able to design sanctions relief in a variety of other places. so for instance the notion they would not get the relief immediately, they would have to complete nuclear steps first then sanctions relief. but the last detail that was ironed out is how long within the ten year u.n. security council resolution we are able to maintain the ballistics missile and arms embargo provisions of the nuclear related sanctions. we knew they were in a position they would come off right away and that was a tough issue in the last several days. >> rose: the energy commissioner said he wanted to restrict the amount of research and development they could do but my understanding is there is a limit on how much you could restrict and they can go forward with research and development to technological improvement to centrifuges and the like. >> well, he very much focused on this negotiation. what we wanted to make sure is, number one they are not en

the question of what unilateral sanctions very multi-lateral sanctions can do is a complicated one. the dollar is the reserve currency transactions that go through u.s. financial institutions are within our grasp. but that doesn't give us the ability to reach out to all foreign banks and transactions and i think that it's at our own peril if we have a sanction's regime where we are enforcing sanctions which the rest of the world is rejecting. we have worked bilaterally with countries around the world to do things against their own economic interest because they agreed with us on the imperative of stopping iran from getting a nuclear weapon. if they see us walking away from this agreement, i think the degree of cooperation goes down considerably. it's not that we go from being able to do everything to doing nothing, but it's the fact that we have had the international cooperation. india and china have been buying less oil from iran than would have been good for their economy. how do you enforce bilaterally by saying we insist so there are things we can do. >> i think -- >> but it get

the treasury department's knowledge of the sanctions and application of the sanctions has been exemplary, and they helped us understand the implications of all of these sanctions. and as jack will let you know, we're not talking about 150 billion. we're not talking about 100 billion. we're actually talking about $55 billion that will go to iran and we'll go into that later. but from the day that our negotiations began, mr. chairman, we were crystal clear that we would not accept anything less than a good deal. one that would shut off all of those pathways towards fissile material for a nuclear weapon. and after 18 months of very intensive talks, the facts are pretty clear that the plan announced this month by six nations in fact accomplishes that. i might remind everybody all of those other nations have nuclear power, or nuclear weapons. and all of them are extremely knowledgeable in this challenge of proliferation. so under the terms of this agreement iran has agreed to remove 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium, dismantle two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and destroy by fill

they've been raising sanctions generally throughout this and taking the position that sanctions had to come off at the beginning. the fact of the matter is we were able to design the sanctions relief in a variety of other places. they would have to complete the nuclear steps first and then begets is -- then began to get the sanctions released. the last detail that was ironed out was how long within the 10 year secured counsel resolution we were able to maintain those provisions of the sanctions. we knew they were in a position that they should come off right away, and that was a total position in the last several days. charlie: he wanted to restrict the amount of research and development they could do, but my understanding is that there is a limit on how much you can restrict, and they can go forward with some research and development on technological improvements, centrifuges, and the like. ben: he very much focused on this in the negotiations. we wanted to make sure that they are not in reaching uranium with their against centrifuges in the first 10 years. they are not allowed to enr

sanctions. they've been international sanctions. that requires keeping an international coalition together to impose the kinds of tough sanctions we've had. in past debates over u.s. sanctions, we've gone back and forth with the congress saying if you do more and it keeps other countries out, then we're in the end doing less. and i think we've come to a good place on each of the rounds of discussions over sanctions to grow the coalition in the world. if this deal is rejected the other partners who have helped uts to impose those sanctions will not be of like mind. >> of $115 billion you identified. and i understand the nuances of the different categories of that cache, how much is that relative to our secondary sanctions on other countries dealing with iran compared to the eu and p5plus1. >> i'm trying to make the dlination between what are the sanctions -- what percentage of the 115 is due to u.s. sanctions, congressional sanctions -- >> it's hard todisaggregate. we've had had for years now ongoing discussions where it's getting ha

sanctions? mr. chairman, we talk about what sanctions we will lift, but there are some within our control, but there are so many executive order sanctions that the president can lift so many provisions that he can waive, and i know i am out of time but i am greatly saddened, sickened and frustrated over this deal. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. brad sherman of california. >> thank you. let me first set the record straight, the sanctions, especially the secondary sanctions are the only reason that iran made any concessions at all, and those sanctions were imposed by congress over the objection of the executive branch, and for 30 years congress had it right and the executive branch had it wrong except for the occasions when the house had it right and sent it over to the senate and the president blocked it in the senate and i am disappointed for the reasons that have been brought up, and the arms embargo, and the sanctions relief is so complete that we will import things from iran, not oil, but only t