and then snapback, we find it 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 about a 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 know a contract between parties. what u.s. sanctions do in that circumstance you are describing is they say any furniture -- future transactions, whether it is future investment by wheel committees, future derivation of profits, future expansion is sanctionable. that is what the sanc

and then we go -- snapback. we find a major violation. we go forward on snapback. it is now year four of that contract. i understand that grandfathering will not affect one, two and three. the profit they have made in those three years they keep. is the contract terminated in year four for the next six years, or does the contract continue? this is an important question, as senator corker said, it's not the most important question, but we need a yes or no answer. there was a "new york times" article where people had different views and they asked the u.s. government spokesman and they refused to give an answer, so that made me worried. so that's why i'm glad you're here to clarify. what happens in year four, five, six and seven? is that contract terminated? >> i want to be very clear and i also want to be very careful with my words to make sure i'm exactly answering the question. sanctions don't terminate a contract. they don't have the authority to anull a contract between parties. what sanctions do, what u.s. sanctions do in that circumstance that you're describin

they have what is called a nuclear snapback. we have sanctions snapback.guess the question is, if somebody enters in to a contract when these sank rinse -- when the sanctions are relieved, they respect than to be relieved in nine months regardless of what the report says, can that contract continue on? it was put in place during the free time. if sanctionsue on are put in place afterwards? that's a gray area. i think its a detail. i realize this is not the biggest issue, but it does create concerns about people rushing in now to establish contracts. senator, i don't think that is an unimportant issue. i think that is pretty central. if you are talking about snapback and the leverage we have, if companies could enter into and then have them be somehow protected against snapback, we would have a very weak snapback indeed. we were intent not to let that happen. what we have is very clear. iran might want to put some grayness into the issue but they understand this as well. when sanctions are lifted, the business allowed by that lifting can occur. if sanctions

you cannot say i have this tool to snapback and fairly easy to snapback if there is agreement of the mechanism protects the majority from brushing and chinese interference. the alternative is if there is a behaviors as set of that are violating the deal or the american u.s. congress or administration decide to relist entities on different accounts for syria or human rights violations or other reasons, and the iranian scream and shout, you are not going to war. arsenal ofwhole other policy choices. to suggest otherwise is this syria if the administration continues to defend its deal and foreign ingenioush these argument and soundbites, what does that tell about how good >> two seconds because i answered this already. i think there are plenty of other options. optimalfar fewer options than we did before because of the administration's conscious and cognizant walking regimeom the sanctions and investing itself of a credible military option and other things. i would point out, what's a manual that is very important. andre here in washington across the street is where the numbers will be

second, on snapback. if iran does not uphold its side of the bargain once we have suspended sanctions, we can quickly snap sanctions back, in a matter of days. our eu colleagues are positioned to do the same. we have the discretion to impose everything from smaller penalties to the powerful oil and financial restrictions. a binary on or off at back would -- snapback would not serve us as well, and we have maintained leverage here. there is no grandfather clause. no provision in the deal gives signed contracts special status. once snap back occurs, any new areas are sanctionable. third, as we neutralize the most acute threat posed by iran, its nuclear program we need to be , aggressive in countering the array of iran's other malign activities. this deal in no way limits our ability to do so. we have made that clear to iran and to our partners. we will sustain and intensify our use of sanctions, using our authority to counter iran's intervention in yemen and syria, iran's efforts to oppress those standing u

to snapback to something. the iran pensions act, which this administration on various occasions has credited as one of the significant elements of getting iran to the negotiating table. if they don't exist after next year, there is nothing to snap back to in that context. undersec. sherman: we believe there is a way forward in that regard. >> let me just read to you what your partner in this deal said in a letter to the security council, dated july 20, 2015. the iranians said it was clearly spelled out in the joint comprehensive plan of action that both the eu and the u.s. will refrain from reintroducing or reimposing the sanctions and restrictive measures listed under the joint company has a plan of action. it is understood that reintroduction or reimposition, including through extension of the sanctions and restrictive measures will constitute significant nonperformance, which would believe iran from its commitments in part or in whole. your partner in this regard believes that if we were, if congress were t

if the snapback had an element of tailored snapback as opposed to blunt snapback. potentially, that's one way of dealing with relatively minor, yet material infractions. i think the bigger question is going to be systematically how infractions are viewed. will they be viewed as iran really trying to cheat? or is it simply kind of iran being iran, pushing the envelope. and i think that's going to be the biggest challenge. i think those who don't want the deal to fail, and certainly may have commercial interest, et cetera, will make the assumption that these are forgivable offenses. those that are more suspicious of iran, obviously, will see these as just the tip of the iceberg reflecting what iran may or may not be doing covertly, for example. so i think how all those infractions are viewed actually in total becomes really important. >> okay. so if you were going to divide -- can i continue? >> sure. >> if you were going to -- >> you're already having such an impact on things with the intel briefing. we need to let you go as long as you can. >> thank you. if you wer

so they have what's called a nuclear snapback. we have sanctions snapback.i guess the question is if somebody enters into a contract over the next year when these sanctions are relieved, everyone expects them to be relieved in nine months regardless of what the pmd report says can that contract continue on? in other words, it was put in place during the free time. can it continue on if sanctions are put in place afterwards? that's a gray area. i think it's a detail, but i think it does -- and i realize it's not the biggest issue, but it does create concerns about people rushing in now to establish contracts which we see happening right now with europe. >> senator, i don't think that's an unimportant issue. i wouldn't describe that as a detail at all. i think that's pretty central. if you're talking about snapback and the leverage that we have, if companies could enter into contracts and then have them be somehow protected against snapback, then we would have a very weak snapback indeed. we were intent that we were not going to let that happen. so what we hav

i want to go to the snapback provision. is there a term of the snapback provision in the agreement? >> the word snapback is not in the agreement, but let me make my point, mr. secretary. i have a lot of questions. i think it would be helpful if you didn't use that term much. i think it is in some ways deceitful because it is an illusion and i think that in many ways, the provision in the agreement -- the snapback is actually more focused on the united states than it is iran. and as you know, mr. secretary those of us who were involved, i was in the bush administration and getting countries to economically isolate iran, we used a lot of leverage. saying, hey, you are either going to be in their market or ours. and that was effective. but if there is some kind of snapback, that was -- that took years to get countries to digress out of the iranian economy. but let me ask a hypothetical. it was a question i asked during the closed hearing. a number of senators were not satisfied and it focuses a little bit on what another senator said. let's assume sanctions are lifted. we get the -- th

they are not affected by any snapback of sanctions.f you strike a deal to sell oil to japan for the next 20 years and snapback sanctions in four years, that will deal stays. it is not affected by this. it is that type of thing we need to look at because that will impact the judgment of tehran's leadership as to how much risk they will take in skirting the edges were making a push for a major breakthrough in getting around this agreement. evidence thise agreement is going to moderate or impinge upon their regional ambitions. they have great capabilities already. they have a history, as general kean has laid out. they will continue to support their expansionism and sustain their clients in the region. indication they will not do that. we are going to have to be vigilant and on guard. what i have not heard from this administration, we have not seated in the past. general kean has pointed this out, whether the bush administration or obama administration. we have not dealt with the hard decisions about what to do about iranian maligned beha

in a sense the snapback mechanism. >> really unrealistic that anything with snap back. >> right. unrealistic because iran has its own snap back. which is it can go back to the nuclear program. >> it can walk out and expel the inspectors. >> that's exactly it. >> and then of course we've learned as you heard in that video that there are separate deals that are attached to the agreement but aren't formally part of the agreement. but those deals are essential to the verification mechanisms that we've depended on. president obama says this deal is not based on trust. it's based on verification. what we've said is this u.n. agency the iaea is going to arrange something with the iranians which we will not -- the contents of which we will not understand. so we are if not trusting the iranians a u.n. agency to carry out a solid verification process. >> this is very different. you and i were around when the soviets and the u.s. negotiated arms accords. those are between the united states and the soviet union. if we had some suspicious about them cheating we could go to them directly and b

we reserve the right to snapback in full or in part. that is a quote from the agreement. we can do that with unilateral , andions, u.n. sanctions the eu has reserved a similar right. whether it is on a category transactions all the way to full snapback's. senator: thank you. chairman senator cotton. senator cotton: i have to know with some astonishment that there was an eight minute exchange about the meaning of the grandfather clause. i think we got some kind of answer out of it. administration officials have said repeatedly that iran will exploit every ambiguity in the text of this agreement to their advantage. i can only imagine what they will say about that clause should it come to pass. moving on, secretary sherman. there's a lot of commentary about access. access to iran's nuclear sites, their military sites. secretary kerry and moniz talked about access. -- managed access. can you assure us that this access will be physical access, iaea inspectors will be physically walking into these sites and taking samples for installing equipment? undersec. sherman: i think eve

security council, 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 have 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 head-line-grabbing

we have reserved the right for snapback in whole or part. obviously, if there's a small technical violation, that will not bring back the whole sanctions regime. the goal would be to get them back in compliance. if there's a need to make it clear that violations that are small will get a response we have the option of putting some of the smaller sanctions back into place. if there's a major violation, we have the option of putting, of course, all of our unilateral sanctions and ultimately going back to the u.n. for the international sanctions as well. we have all the authorities we need to do that. >> arizona. >> thank you. mr. secretary you said you said no country would accept anytime anywhere inspections, but i submit iran is not a normal country. iran is a terrorist state under a heavy international sanctions. it's neither got the moral nor the geopolitical equal of the united states. or our negotiating partners and i think we have to stop treating it like one. it aspires to be a regional power, the u.s. right now is the only world super

we have reserved the right for snapback in whole or part. obviously, if there's a small technical violation, that will not bring back the whole sanctions regime. the goal would be to get them back in compliance. if there's a need to make it clear that violations that are small will get a response we have the option of putting some of the smaller sanctions back into place. if there's a major violation, we have the option of putting, of course, all of our unilateral sanctions and ultimately going back to the u.n. for the international sanctions as well. we have all the authorities we need to do that. >> arizona. >> thank you. mr. secretary you said you said no country would accept anytime anywhere inspections, but i submit iran is not a normal country. iran is a terrorist state under a heavy international sanctions. it's neither got the moral nor the geopolitical equal of the united states. or our negotiating partners and i think we have to stop treating it like one. it aspires to be a regional power, the u.s. right now is the only world super

we have sanctions to snapback to. and that has been met with resistance by the administration. they say you know, we can deal with that when it comes up. that it would be too provocative to do that now. and that's what makes me and others concerned that the administration will be simply unwilling to challenge iran's behavior in the region when it comes to it, if we're that afraid to challenge their interpretation of the agreement now. and to be-- to allow congress to move ahead and reauthorize sanctions without challenging the president's waiver authority, nobody's disagreeing with that. but to say if iran behaves in ways that, or if they violate even on the nuclear side, we want sanctions to snapback too. i think that the congress will move forward on some items like that. and it may be uncomfortable for the administration and certainly for the iranians who have already said that they would consider that provocative behavior. but it should be done. >> rose: many people who support the agreement will say i don't think

just like you're not going have war if the iranians cheat egregiously and you walk to a snapback and the snap bark is mike obviously approved. what i think you will see is a number of much less severe, much less grave intermediate options. the iranians, for example, could respond by -- to a vote of disapproval by saying the americans are in violation of ahn security council revolution and could file a complaint and they will play victim. you will see a lot of other much less severe responses, and by the way, one of the arguments. that the administration makes alongside its european allies to justify the -- and proclaim the effectiveness of the snapback is if there is a political will and a recognized set of violations by the iranians, it will be fairly easy to snap back sanctions. you can't say i have this tool to snap back and it's fairly easy to snapback if there is agreement and the mechanism protects the majority from russian and chinese interference and this and that and the other, and then say the only alternative to the deal is war. no, the alternative is if there is a violati

seeing thehat is snapback effect is apple.or fiveen down session straight, it is now up about five said this morning. wells fargo is upgrading the stock from outperform. had it seemed to be overdone, and that seems to be the number of estimates. also, you have to put in perspective this move and not the we have seen in stocks and remember, the apple record was back in february. it tried to make another run at that in july. this is july 20 break between there and yesterday we saw 22% rate 20% with the definition of a bear market rate we are bouncing back from that level today. the other notable stock is worth mentioning is best buy. everything else is snapping back, but this is rising on fundamental news. the company coming out with news and possible sales of 3.8%. the applesaid that watch sales are doing pretty well. that is ready different from what we heard from others. olivia: indeed, interesting. let's look at the headlines crossing the bloomberg terminal. the big story this morning is that china central bank is fraying of

snapback conjures up an image of a powerful rubber band that will give you a painful lack. really, it is more like the reality has been more a limp deflated balloon a week after the party. it is not very impressive. be wary of the administration's --mises to increase presser pressure, whether to firmly impose snapback or sanctions. the obama administration pulls its punches toward north korea by not fully implement the u.s. law. housess a long list of we will increase pressure and we are still waiting on that. we have seen secretary kerry has promised more pressure. i remember two or three years ago, a u.s. official promised they were considering bloodcurdling sanctions. we're still waiting. 10th and final, negotiations redlineching across speared alternating provocative behavior and a willingness to negotiate enabled north korea and i suggest iran as well, to manipulate the international community about imposing penalties, as well as acquiescing to violations. by maintaining them ambiguity for long enough, don young, like the proverbial camel's nose, are gaining internatio

they could use this threat to prevent the snapback. in the face of iranian threats with the europe agree with the u.s.? i am very doubtful, if the u.s. cannot use economic pressure to stop iran, military force a become the only option. as a result, i fear this agreement may make war more likely, not less likely. when that comes, iran will be stronger. there is an alternative. it is not war, or killing the deal, it is about a better deal. congress should require the administration to amend the sunset clause. one key amendment. the extra heavy weaponry should remain until the un security council to determine that iran's nuclear program is not a threat. one key amendment to stop the u.s. and europe should keep in mind some key parts of the economic sanctions so that we don't need to snapback anything. that leverage will still be in place. there is ample precedent to amend this deal. congress has rejected 200 bilateral international agreements including significant cold war arms control agreements with the soviets. at a time when moscow ha

security council; america can trigger snapback on our own. on 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-

those are snapback resolution, and i agree with his assess many. reasonable people can disagree, but i think that it's pretty strong, as strong as you can recently get. and there's history here, tony. we tried to get zero and tried to get perfect in 2005, and those talks collapsed, and iran went from 164 centrifuges. it wouldn't go to zero then, and then it built 19,000. so i don't think that it's going to go to zero now. >> yes, just to understand the opposition, and some of the arguments, what i have for you. >> whether or not the deal can be verified. monitoring and verification. is the ieae up to the job of monitoring, verifying the new protocols on this deal. >> well, i think that's absolutely a critical question, and it's a question that doesn't get asked very often. we're putting a lot of responsibility on iaea. and it has a lot of new resources and doing things that it has never done before. so that's a question to be investigated. someone should go and systematically look at the agency and it's capabilities and see if they can do it. they

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 negotiat 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. if 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 president 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 in a time in american politics where every deal is evaluated by headline grabbing soundbites. and so before the ink was even dry on this

leader of the democratic delegation who said some of the concerns he had over the deal, which is a snapbacksanctions and inspections resonated with what he heard here so perhaps anita was able to convince some of those 22 democrats. again, he should have a much easier time with the republicans here since many of them already are opposed to the deal. it will all come down to the math, how many, if any, democrats was netanyahu able to convince? the president did meet with one who had the same concerns as netanyahu. a force could destabilize the reason and a threat to american security. did it work? christine, it will all come down to the vote when we find out today as republicans, again, expected to meet with netanyahu a little later on today. >> thank you, orrin. >>> iraqi forces may be on the verge of retaking ramadi from isis. about 10 to you thousa,000 iraq place. >>> 9 minutes past the hour. stocks sinking around the world right now. asian shares are down. the big story again this morning, china further devaluing its currency. for the second day in a row, driving down stocks in europe an

if sanctions don't work, why would the snapback provisions work? just saying if the deal is killed, if it is void, then you are not going to be able to reimpose sanctions because the other allies won't go along with it. senator gardner: i think we can create a scenario of sanctions that are stronger and i think we can have sanctions in a way that affects our allies. if we are doing business with a country or company sanctioned under this deal and they have lifted their sanctions and we have secondary or third-party sanctions that would affect them i think they would pay very much attention. it would still bring iran to the table. we had a briefing several months ago at the state department where we had secretary kerry and a state department analyst talking about the sanctions. the state department analyst said the sanctions re: routing support for the iranian regime gave me. secretary kerry said sanctions can continue to work or something to that affect. those two points don't match. either they are working where they are not. the state department

security council, 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 nonproliferation 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 nonproliferation 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-grabbing sound bi

the snapback provisions in this agreement are real and powerful. and i think are born out of a deep distrust of iran. the snapback provisions, as i understand them allows for nicks of the six powers to the deal to flag what it considers a voilsz. that concern would be submitted to dispute resolution panel. if those concerns remain unresolved, the sanctions would resume or snap back after 30 days, preventing a resumption of sankss would require a vote from the security council from which the united states and its allies would have veto power. it's unprecedented and i think very, very powerful and speaks volumes to this deal. under this deal, uranium would be cut by 98 prers. the level of enrichment for what remains is a long way from the 90% enrichment that would need to occur to achieve a weapons facility material. centrifuges would be reduced from 19,000 to a little over 6,100 for ten years. there would be no enrichment and only centrifuges permitted for use would be older, first generation centrifuges. plutonium would be reconstituted so it canno

there are going to be an effective snapback sanctions. the economic issues we've usually relied on aren't going to be there in the toolbox for us to use. this makes it more likely that if you will have a responsible have to be military, in my judgment, or note response at all -- or no response at all. be, will justl excuse things away, and they will violate and they will violate any will violate, and we will just live with it. >> you were talking about how the administration figures seem to be hopeful that the regime will moderate. one of the things that concerns me -- and i think there is some evidence that the administration is happy to work with the hardliners -- we had some indication that a nuclear deal, since it is the irgc that controls the nuclear file, that will lock in the hardliners. there was a story in foreign policy a couple months ago after the officials went to meet with the president at camp david and john hannah did a piece for foreign policy where the officials were describing the president seems to admire certain thing

we have reserved the right to snapback in whole or in part and that's a quote from the agreement and predicted with her unilateral sanctions, we can do with the u.n. sanctions and the eu has assured similar right. putting back in place in a sector, all the way through to full snapback. >> thank you. >> senator cotton. >> turn one. i have to note that it was an eight minute exchange between senator schumer and the witnesses about the meaning of the grandfather clause. i think that some can answer out of the but also note administration officials have said repeatedly iran will exploit every ambiguity to their advantage i can only imagine what they will say about that clause if it come to pass. but moving on, secretary sherman, there's a lot of commentary about access, access to iran's nuclear sites, military sites throughout the jcpoa. secretary kerry, secretary moniz have talked about managed access. can you assure us that this access will actually be physical access? iaea inspectors will be physically walking into the site and taking samples or installing equipment? >> i think that e

we are still talking about a strong two-day snapback from earlier steep declines. it will matter whether we go out 100 points on the dow or more if we want this to be a significant move. >> tesla shares jumping on a review from consumer reports that amounts to the holy grail of auto reviews. up next, the influential magazine's managing editor talks about the unique review he gave to the model s electric car. >>> why are gold prices stuck in the mud after the worst stock sell-off? world gold council will give us his take. ♪ no student's ever been the king of the campus on day one. but you're armed with a roomy new jansport backpack, a powerful new dell 2-in-1 laptop, and durable new stellar notebooks, so you're walking the halls with varsity level swagger. that's what we call that new gear feeling. you left this on the bus... get it at the place with the experts to get you the right gear. office depot officemax. gear up for school. gear up for great. >>> welcome back. dow trying to hold on to a triple-digit gain today. at the highs we were talking about possibly the

way surprising but some of his own concerns about the deal, the congressman's concerns about the snapback of sanctions and about inspections they resonated with what he heard from the prime minister. we asked the congressman how will you vote? how will the other democrats vote sunny hedged there. he said they are all going to take their time and think about it and see what they are hearing from the administration and their constituency before deciding which way to vote. on the other hand, the republicans are coming out against this deal. the question in the end will be how many, if any, of those democrats were the president and prime minister of israeli here able to convince. >>> iraqi forces may be on the verge of retaking ramadi from isis. according to military officials they are the city surrounded and preparing for a final assault to recapture ramadi. 10,000 iraqi troops in position for an offensive and a third trained by u.s. advisers. isis took control of ramadi back in may. >>> a dramatic day around the world. stocks sinking right now. asian shares are down. china devalueing its cu

again, back to the mets referred to before, the motion of snapback sanctions.en if there is a political will in europe, security council with the p5+1 and international community to snapback sanctions, the effect is seen over time. the first u.n. security council resolutions was found in 2006. it was not until 2115 years later the iranians really started feeling the pressure on their economy. the administration says yes maybe they were effective for a time, but they certainly did not stop iran's process on the nuclear track so the sanctions were not stopping. that is true but it is also wrong because the sanctions were never designed to stop iran's nuclear progress. they were designed to increase leverage of international community over your ran. they were designed increasingly over time as the scope of sanctions went beyond targeting entities and specific individuals with sectors of the iranian economy. they were designed to create a choice for the regime. you either make those concessions and comply with international obligations or we will crush your economy

because it has to have that snapback piece of it that allows a majority. by the way which means that, you know, china, russia and iran cannot veto. but a majority of states. and that could be the u.s., britain, france, germany, are able to immediately say that this is being violated and put those sanctions back makes me feel relatively secure that if the iranians don't live up to their agreement that we will have the security to go at least back to the status quo. which isn't very good today, by the way, but at least status quo. >> okay. we'll take one more question. do you have one? okay. >> very exciting internship. it sounds like you've implemented a lot of great initiatives in los angeles. and you've been doing a great job. but what are your comments on the recent spike in crime there? and also kind of saddleback on that, how do you view obama's recent 46 pardons onto nonviolent federal drug offenders and how can that fit into your city? >> first of all, i think it's great again a bipartisan coalition is taking up criminal justice reform. we spend way

another thing that obama is dishonest about, if the iranians violate it, there will be a snapback ofions. no, there will not. the horses are out of the burning barn. it's over. we are utterly screwed. it's a shame. it's a disgrace that we're playing politics with this. this is not about politics left or right, it's about our security. >> i want to -- speaking about politics, really quickly, just a few seconds left. i want to move on to another bit of news this week with the revelation the pentagon watchdog group is now probing whether intelligence reports about the u.s.-led campaign against isize in iraq may have been skewed to be more open toptimistic? how dangerous is it? >> it's very, very dangerous, i spent almost 22 years in military intelligence and i will tell you that although obviously every administration tries to put a little spin on intel jedge to favor them, we've never seen an administration simply corrupt the intelligence, reversing analytical conclusions and for the obama administration intelligence is all about domestic politics. no, it's not. it's about the security

but if you actually look at the details of how the snapback happens, it's months and months in the process of getting everyone back together and forming an agreement we're going to do that and if we snap back sanctions, written into the agreement it says iran can then if we snap back sanctions, they can then kick out their part of the agreement as well and consider it a violation of the agreement and walk away. and now there's no restrictions on them. so basically we're the ones that are punished if we ever snap back sanctions. if we snap back sanctions iran can say see i told you soy and immediately kick into the process they were into before. the advanced centrifuges are spinning they're still continuing nothing was diminished if that. i didn't even mention things like research and development can continue at all their weapons systems. all that's unabated. the only limitation is around enriched uranium but everything else continues the same. i was also appalled as i went through this agreement and saw the leader of the cueds force general sole manny -- sol amani the distribution and inst

snapback requires an affirmative vote from the u.n. security council the united states has the ability to effectively force the reimposition of those sanctions. even as we phase in a nuclear related sanctions relief we'll maintain significant sanctions that fallout side the scope of the deal including our primary u.s. 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 targeting iran's support for terrorist groups such as hezbollah, its destabilizing role in yemen, its backing of the asam regime, its missile program and human rights abuses at home just this week, treasury sanctioned several hezbollah leaders last month targeting the group's front companies and facilitators and we won't be relieving sanctions on iran's revolutionary guard corps, its quds force any of their subsidiaries or senior officials. some argue the sanctions relief is premature until iran ceases these activities and that funds iran recovers could b

president said this t is all about verification not ri trust and ica like that becauset has to have that snapback piecet of it that allows a majority, w and by the way means that china, russia and iran cannot veto, buy a majority of states and that could be u.s., britain, france, german, are able to say this is being violated and put those ms sanctions back makes me feel o safe if the iranians don't livet up to the agreement we can have. the security to go back to the status quo, which isn't very good today but at least the status quo. >> okay. we'll take one more question. do you guys have one? >> yeah.e >> this is chris. >> very exciting. >> for major papers. ou' >> it sounds like you've implemented a lot of great initiatives in los angeles and job. aregreat b. but what are your comments on the recent spike in crime thered and also kind of to saddleback on that, how do you view obama's 46 pardons on to nonviolent edel federal drug offenders and how can that fit into your city. ll >> first of all, i think it is great that a bipartisan ion is coalition is taking up criminal justice reform.. we sp

snapback the sanctions. who are really trusting the same deal needs to be in place.questions about what is going on. if this is a huge victory, why aren't they being transparent this is the main part of the deal which will not be included. this is a major part. charles: in addition they get the signing bonus. >> kudos to the iranian regime able to negotiate such a fabulous deal. they get to continue pouring money into syria, yemen. pouring money. this is a global agenda. anyone with a brain hasa brain has to look at the details of the deal. charles: did they just sign another deal with russia? >> again, hundred $50 million shopping deal, proving to us where they will put this money. charles: i'm glad you are on top of it. charles: the dow ends the day down 168 points. is this a climactic selloff that a lot of us have been looking for? we will be right back. . . charles: time now for the marching orders and to address some of your questions, a lot of them came through today. jesse asked -- boy, that's a tough one, disney was a stock that let us down, another downgrade

that's how weak it is the field enforcement to use to kill it with snapback sanctions. like a set of an insulated by these 20 and 30 year contracts. so just looking at that you get asked the question so what's a better deal? a better deal is automatically putting these 10 guys back on sanctions in putting these five companies back on sanctions, putting these five shipping company's back on sanctions, putting these three irgc on the banks that have been responsible for funding hezbollah, the brigades, and hamas and also helping out trying once forces directly. the thing about this deal is a lot of people say that the money will go back to the iranian people. dummy with sanctions to begin with because is involved in terrorist activity. the money were sanctioned because it was involved in a chairman of military material that will lead to a nuclear capability. it's not going to go back to the people. every former irgc command or every former irgc general soa member of the club. each one of them has its hands in every sector of the iranian economy. those other things are loo

the instant snapback -- talk about the market reaction. pushing out the idea that september will be a hike. isve 134 basis points, that the market reaction saying they have less conviction to go in september. fixed income was pushing back on the fed. scarlet: you've written about how the fed has lowered the bar for liftoff. how much of a gap is there between what the fed is projecting now with the revisions and what the market is pricing in? michael and the market is moving away from where the fed had been. the market is moving away from where the fed had been. gradually, the two sides had come together. this will still be very data dependent. if we get a strong jobs report on september 4, it could change people's minds again. this was three weeks ago that they were seeing this. when they talk about the dollar, talk about oil prices, we've seen movement in those since that time. we know we were concerned about them -- we are going out to jackson hole in another week. there will be a lot of fed officials talking to the media. you will get a

the snapback, short covering we are here now, andnow, and that gasoline price is based on demand. but we see the deathknell of driving season coming up with labor day the seasonal trend falling into bottom. we should see these as a seasonal aspect command reducing oil price as an input having a significant part to play, but a year ago we were offering more than double that. gasoline prices are here to stay. >> where do you think gas prices are headed by the end of the year? how much lower can they go? >> on the national outreach $2.50$2.50 a gallon. they could easily get down. as long as oil prices remain in the range. looking strong in terms of inventory. demand is stronger as well in response to low prices, but we will see prices edging lower. refinery maintenance season will come up and get offset by strong inventories. gasoline we will continue to gradually move lower. >> in a surprise move venezuela is asking for a meeting to talk about the plunge and prices, possibly cutting production to get oil and gasoline prices go back up. that country is in a world of trouble. about a

months,nk the coming you will see a remarkable snapback in the things that are sold off.he world has become so wired to this. away from that, this is going to be a tough month of sweating it out. olivia: people should sweat it out? >> i think so. if you have gone back a couple of weeks ago, it would have been a better market to hedge been realigning your entire portfolio. third quarter periods are not indicative of year returns. it definitely tells us nothing about full-year returns. olivia: paul and a cone -- annacone made the same point. matt: it is very interesting and compelling. thank you so much for joining us. did you just go to shake his hand? [laughter] matt: i did. olivia: still to come, much more on the bloomberg market day. the market continues to move. we are going to go live to athens next. we are going to figure out what is next for alexis tsipras after he called snap elections a month from now. ♪ matt: good morning. welcome back to the "bloomberg market day." i'm matt miller. i'm here with -- olivia: olivia sterns. matt: a pleasure to be here with you this

it looks more like a snapback will stop the two-day gain in oil on track to be the biggest in 6.5 years time. 45.58. earlier this week, it was below $40 a barrel. it is been a rapid move. we're watching retailers. as oil climbs today, it caught our eye that walmart is trading lower. what are the worst performing stocks in the dow, certainly on a percentage basis am a down 2.2%. you can see its declines have been accelerating throughout the day. elsewhere, earnings reports, big lots is one of them. 2.8%. out with sales up the company raising its forecast for full-year earnings as well. shares getting a big boost, up 16%. in the other direction, the teen retailer,r -- teen down a percent. more than estimated. shares taking a dive, 25%. this is really on the heels of a meltdown already. in general, the teen retailers have been struggling. struggles are a little worse than competitors. take a look. the three a's. all of them below about here is negative. this is the zero line in terms of comparable sales. we have seen a little bit of an uptick for all of them. american eagle the best. their