the world. a window had cracked open. iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the p5-plus-1, the united states, china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france, and the european union could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. now let me pause here just to remind everybody that when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we're hearing from now, called it an historic mistake. they insisted iran would ignore its obligations, they warned the sanctions would unravel, iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade. its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections did increase. there was no flood of money int

the world. a window had cracked open. iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of negotiations iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of nearly 20% enriched uranium and froze the progress of its program so that the p5+1 the united states china, russia the united kingdom, germany, france and the european union could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we're hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. they insisted iran would ignore its obligations. they warned that sanctions would unravel. they warned that iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted. for the first time in a decade. its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections did increase. there was no flood of

the negotiations lasted for a decade and iran never left the table. iran was at the table all the time. is persuadeds did iran that unless it made meaningful concessions, it was heading for disaster. sanctions were extremely effective the moment the united states and europeans together went beyond u.n. sanctions in bringing iran's economies to its knees. snapotion that you could that sanctions, even if there is a political will in europe in the united states of the with thecouncil international community to snap back sanctions, the effect of sessions is seen over time. was not until to the f11 five years later at the iranians really started to feel the pressure of the economy. the administration says maybe they were effective for a time, but this certainly did not stop iran's progress on a nuclear track. the sanctions were not stopping. that is true but it is also wrong. the sanctions were never designed to stop iran's's nuclear program. to increasesigned the leverage of the international community over iran. they were designed increasingly over time a

the morality police in iran. when i drove in that first night and the sun came up that morning and we were in our hotel and we had a good view of tehran, the city that most came to mind was los angeles. it was a city, there were mountains, it's rel tifl flat, it's spread out and there are freeways everywhere and they are heavily trafficked, high-rises, apartment buildings, commercial areas with low slum buildings. we rolled with a team of five. there was our photographer, my producer, our handler, who is a representative of the agency. there were about a handful of agencies who handle you on behalf of the government. mostly they help you because it's a state in which when you are shooting for tv, you get stopped all the time by various levels of police, all the time. we had a little i.d. cards we carried, that they had made for us, and papers that said we had permission to shoot, but d did not matter, this is a society where everyone checks their papers, ask their friends if they are okay. the handler helps you ou

the world. a window had cracked open. iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium and froze the process. -- froze the progress of its program. the member countries could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. let me pause here just to remind everybody, that when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we are hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. they insisted iran would ignore its obligations. they warned the sanctions would unravel. they warned that iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade. its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections did increase. there was no flood of money into iran. and the architecture of the international sanctions

the world. a window had cracked open. iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal. a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium and froze the progress of its program so that the p5+1 -- the united states, kingdom, germany france and the european union -- could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that when the interim deal was announced, critics -- the same critics we're hearing from now -- called it a historic mistake. the they insisted iran would ignore its obligations. they warned sanctions would unravel. they warned that iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted for the first time a decade. its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections did increase. there was no flood of money into iran and

we focus the exclusively on iran's nuclear programme and the potential of iran having a nuclear weapon. >> this international effort follows weeks of grappling at home. president obama's chief negotiators have been trying to make the deal. it's not sitting well. >> as i review the deal, there's troublesome. >> reporter: the clock is tick the republican-controlled congress has a few weeks to prove or disapprove. the administration has a tough road ahead. >> if this agreement goes through, iran gets a cash bonanza, a boost to standing, and a lighted path towards nuclear weapons. >> at times during the hearings. frustration. >> do you care more about the deal are american sovereignty, and the approval through duly elected representatives, mr secretary. >> i don't need lessons from you about who i represent. country. >> god bless you service. >> let me make it crystal clear. this is america's interests. it's the principal guarantor. particularly with respect to some of our friends. >> the secretary of state, the head of the treasury tried to convince others that this is the way to prevent

the iran says don't get -- the administration says sanctions don't get iran to do what they wanted to do, but at the same time, we have snapback. it is either one or the other. i don't see how we have the wherewithal under this agreement. your partner says there is no way that they will respect that. we will be back to point zero. you are reluctant to acknowledge that there should be a reauthorization of the iran sanctions act because then they may very well walk away. if they are going to walk away simply by the existence of sanctions that don't go into effect unless there is a violation in the future, you have to worry that what they are doing is buying for time. the last point i want to make. sometimes what is past is prologue. i want to read some excerpts from a hearing when i was pursuing the iran sanctions act when did the then-chairman, now the secretary of state was arguing against the sanctions. i guess in that respect things have not changed. he said that rather than motivating these countries to join us and increasing pressure on iran, they are more likely to resent present

and the iaea? >> iran and the iaea are well aware of our legislation. i can assure you they follow what you do every single day. >> one final question. fascinating new interview today from secretary kerry and jeffrey goldberg says that if congress were to vote no on this it would be screwing the ayatollah. and then secretary kerry says if congress rejects the deal it would show iran quote, america is not going to negotiate in good faith. it didn't negotiate in good faith now. and that would be the ayatollah's point. surely you made clear to iran that congress had to vote on this deal before it could go forward and therefore they should not be operating under such a misperception. >> of course they knew congress was going to vote on this. everything was very public. everything that happens in our country is transparent, democratic and public and we're proud of that fact. >> are you concerned about congress screwing the ayatollah? >> i have not seen this interview. i'm not going to comment on it. what i will

the u.s. and other major powers have signed with iran. we welcome our distinguished witnesses and thank them for joining us today. we appreciate the senators and secretary moniz and lew being here. for the record, i did not request the presence of it secretary kerry or moniz or secretary lew. i'm glad they are here, as their desire to do so. since this focus is today's hearing it's on a strategic and military implications of the iran agreement. what we want to know, among other things, is how this agreement will affect regional security proliferation, and the balance of power in the middle east, and what impact it may have on iran's maligned activities and hegemonic ambitions in the region. what it means for perceptions of american credit ability and resolve among our allies and partners, and what the consequences are for u.s. defense public hearing -- defense, policy. we concerted these broader strategic consequences of the agreement. what is already a bad deal only looks that much worse. to this committee perhaps the most concern about t

the world. a window had cracked open. iran came back to the nuclear talks. after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal -- a deal that rolls back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched uranium and froze the progress of its program so that the united states come in china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france and the european union could negotiate a comprehensive deal with out the fear iran might be stalling for time. here just to remind everybody that when the interim critics, theunced, same critics we are hearing from now called it a historic mistake. iran would ignore its obligations and warned sanctions would unravel and iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism. wrong.tics were the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade. it stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of his advanced -- of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections increased. there was no flood of money into iran and the architecture of the international sanctions

in the 1980s iran accused the u.s.ing sedan in the iraq war and in 1988 they shot down an iran air passenger jet off of iran's southern coast killing 290 people. the u.s. never formally apologized for the attack. despite all the bad blood over the years most iranians we talk to say they like americans, just not american foreign policy. >> i like america. i like american muscle cars. i don't hate america and my friends do. seven years has passed since the revolution so the current people we see on iran street is four years or younger have no memory of the shaw regime. they don't have a memory of americans doing bad things here and now we have the nuclear negotiations. this is actually an opportunity for the west. >> our national. >> reporter: a deal on iran's nuclear program is in place with u.s. and other world powers some are hoping it signals a new direction in this hostility but it won't happen overnight. ♪ overnight. >> in 2003, i had a chance to in 2 pou 3 i had a chance to work as a journalist in iran and one was

the world. a a window had cracked open. iran iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal -- a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the p5+1 -- the united states, china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france, and the european union -- could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that when the interim deal was announced, critics -- the same critics we're hearing from now -- called it "a historic mistake." they they insisted iran would ignore its obligations. they warned that sanctions would unravel. they warned that iran would receive a windfall to to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade. its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections

the iran came back to the nuclear talks. and after a series of negotiations, iran agreed with the irinternational community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back iran's stockpile of near 20% enriched-uranium and froze the progression of its program so that the p5-plus-one, the united states, china, russia, the united kingdom, germany, france and the european union, could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that iran might be stalling for time. now let me pause here just to remind everybody when the interim deal was announced critics, the same critics we're hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. they insisted iran would ignore its obligations. they warned sanctions would unravel. they warned that iran would receive a windfall, to support terrorism. the critics were wrong. the progress of iran's nuclear program was halted, for the first time in a decade. its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced. the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped. inspections did increase. there was no floo

, is for the people of iran to have free elections and the people of iran really decide who their government should be in a free setting. let me ask you another question. secretary moniz. this might be my last question. if i understand the agreement the oil sanctions, which is prohinted iran from exporting oil, that's going to be lifted. is that correct? >> well sanctions are relieved. that would be among those relieved. under this deal, that's one of the ones that will be relieved? >> if the sanctions are relieved, yes. >> now being the secretary of energy, let me ask you this. why are -- why is the united states lifting the sanctions on the exporting of oil on iran but we're not lifting its sanctions on america exporting crude oil like texas sweet crude? >> we don't have sanctions on our exports. we have a congressional law that in the 1970s restricted exports. >> do you support that law being changed? you know that's the question. do you support the law -- >> this time has expired. >> i'll put that in the record. >> we need to go to david sis illini. >> just a point of personal privilege.

cotton: was moved to the side deals for iaea and iran. you acknowledged to senator scott that you read the side agreement between the iaea and iran. did anyone else read these side agreements? undersec. sherman: some of her experts at it as well. as it all of the p5+1. sen. cotton: can you give me an estimate? undersec. sherman: a handful. sen. cotton: you said earlier to senator corker that we have to technologies agreement between iaea and iran. undersec. sherman: it is the iaea in every country with safeguards protocol. sen. cotton: the fact that you read them, doesn't that undermined the supposed evidence reality? -- supposed confidentiality? undersec. sherman: we were shown it in a private setting. i will share my confidential understanding and keep it in a classified setting. sen. cotton: how long are these doctorates? --these documents? undersec. sherman: very short. sen. cotton: why are these documents classified? it's not a u.s. covert document. it's not sensitive to the methods of our intelligence community. you know what's in it

once the sanctions are lifted. iran's currency has lost -- my understand is most of the money is most of that money is iranian money in foreign accounts. frozen foreign accounts. in that iranians -- iran's currency has lost about half its value over the past three years, was that factored into your estimate about the amount of money which will be available to iran once -- >> i was addressing the specific issue of their reserves that are tied up overseas because of sanctions. we have done enormous damage to their economy. it will take them years to get back to where they would have been if sanctions had not been put in place even if they got that money back. they're not looking at breaking out into a period of great growth. and i think the challenge here is, we have a pretty good understanding of what the pressures in iran are right now. we can't know with certainty what decisions they'll make. we know, for example, just to get their oil fields up and running properly would require an investment of $100 billion to $200 bil

bomb, accepted the agreement and closely monitor iran's nuclear program, or reject the agreement and if there's escalation, bomb iran? which one is more likely to be effective? >> clearly a long-term negotiated solution which is what we have in the joint comprehensive plan of action is more effective because if we take military action, which the president of the united states will do it is actually no choice, indeed wil the only setk to program it is rated by intelligence community two to three years because iran has the know-how. they have mastered the entire cycle to create fissile material for a nuclear weapon and so, therefore, although we could bomb away their facilities, they could reconstruct them. you cannot bomb away knowledge. you cannot sanction the way knowledge. the only way to control is a negotiated solution that is highly monitored and verified. that is what we've negotiated. >> thank you. some have said they want a better deal but that is not the choice that congress faces. the deal is with the deal, and congress has two choices. accept it or reject it. no one can sa

violates the agreement and we see iranracing toward a nuclear weapon, we would have a little bit of time to react. the u.s. president would use force to prevent that from happening. it would knock them back for a couple of years. if we bomb the heavy water reactor. that would be substantial. we would have to have another negotiation down the line. i cannot see the u.s. succeeding in containing iran if we are not willing to use force and be credible about it. i would say with the greatest respect, i respect president negotiation down the line. i cannot see the u.s. succeeding obama of course. he needs to say that. in the middle of this debate to reassure congress and the american people, reassure people at me that that is a credible threat of force and i have not seen this speech he just cave -- gave. perhaps he said it in that each. -- in that speech. >> you described in your testimony -- it congress does not reject the deal, are there ways that treasury should be using these bank sanctions in a more robust way to mitigate

in the iran-iraq war in the 1980's, the u.s. assisted saddam hussein with intelligence as he was coming iran. giving them reports on where they were bombing and how they could improve their aim. there was the policy of dual containment of the clinton administration in the 1990's, followed i -- by the bush administration in the early years of this century after the 9/11 attacks which branded iran as art of the axis of evil. throughout most of its existence as -- iran has been the target for regime change. iranian scholars and officials point this out. as not quite an excuse but an alibi for some of the things that iran did, because many of the actions that are in them a program and the rest of the region, they say were the result of iran's feeling of insecurity and a reaction to american and general western actions to assuage domestic security concerns. with the u.s., the army, the question -- enemy, the question was asked what could we do to hurt those interests. there is a lot of skeletons in the closet on both sides and it is o

the world. do i trust iran? absolutely not. this is precisely why any deal at many support whether it is this jcpoa has to have effective monitoring and enforcement and tools that deal with the other risks which will go up because of enriched regime in tehran. i don't equate not and i haven't heard from the administration plan to deal with those increased risks and that's a real challenge with the regime in tehran. >> mr. chairman, i don't trust iran and i was struck today, my jaw dropped when undersecretary charman effectively admitted we will not have physical access to all military site because this deal is a riot on the iaea and this is a fundamental existential bet that we will be able to go anywhere any time in the military site. iranians have been saying for years now we will not allow the united states into military sites. if you can get boots on the ground access and i'm deeply concerned about the efficacy of the verification and we all agree we don't trust iran. if we don't trust her own verification regime would have

once the sanctions are lifted. iran's currency has lost -- my understand is most of the money is most of that money is iranian money in foreign accounts. frozen foreign accounts. in that iranians -- iran's currency has lost about half its value over the past three years, was that factored into your estimate about the amount of money which will be available to iran once -- >> i was addressing the specific issue of their reserves that are tied up overseas because of sanctions. we have done enormous damage to their economy. it will take them years to get back to where they would have been if sanctions had not been put in place even if they got that money back. they're not looking at breaking out into a period of great growth. and i think the challenge here is, we have a pretty good understanding of what the pressures in iran are right now. we can't know with certainty what decisions they'll make. we know, for example, just to get their oil fields up and running properly would require an investment of $100 billion to $200 bil

that is simple enough the case. iran's foreign reserves cannot be put in a vault in the form of gold or bills. what iran needs with its foreign reserves is to have them in centers,ancial imports, boost currency, a whole host of things. will have toey keep them in foreign jurisdictions where they are subject to snap back. if anything, the more iran begins to benefit from the deal, the more vulnerable they are to this pressure. i agree with your question in that respect, that the consequences to iran will remain very serious, very severe, throughout this agreement. >> thank you very much. time, youallotted have testified that you don't expect iran to stop funding has lot -- -- has a terrorist groups, so what do you expect? >> i do expect them to continue funding their violent proxies. of myne of the goals career. we have a lot of that our disposal. one of the most powerful is the one that congress has given us, which is when we sanction iranian terror supporters, our designation is amplified internationally. namei mean is th

the lobbying effort over the iran nuclear agreement is heating up. today at the white house. they appealed to the leaders. they took to the internet to urge american jews to reject the team. john terrett joins us from washington. >> that's right. good evening. welcome to you. we really are in the middle right now of two days of intensive lobbying recording the iran deal. both politicians, lawmakers and today in particular with jewish americans. the reason for this is that we are on the eve of vasion season here in d.c. the house is already gone the senate is about to leave town and so the idea is to put a bug in politician's ears. they don't have to vote on this in the fall. the hope is that they'll ruminate about what they hear now while they are on the beach. >> the toughest critic of the iran nuclear deal israeli prime minister binyamin netanyahu addressing major u.s. jewish organization lateders via a think from israel. his line - i'll accept a good deal. this is a bad one. >> don't let the iran get its hands on dangerous weapons, opposed this bad dealt >>> the white hous

but in the end the money will be secondary in iran. the bank will bring enormous extremes and analytical resources on iran's most pressing challenges. reforming the trade regime, improving competitiveness, upgrading infrastructure, modernizing the education system, established a more transparent governance mechanism, reforming the labor market and the list goes on. finally, i want to say the developing economies learned the hard way that the economic analysis is not the most important, but it is the politics, stupid. i may be naive but i like to believe that if iran can make substantial progress in terms of growth and economic integration and that the benefits are felt by families and the young, that the politics will gradually change. chanta's report helps clarify everyone's thinking. >> thank you so much, and chandra, let me start with a simple question which probably doesn't have a simple answer. if iran's oil production and exports are projected to double at a time when the price of oil has recovered more than half, could we look ba

if the iran minister would like to comments i would be grateful. i would like the close the i can you are concerning allegedly taking place visited to moscow of the general major last last week the united states threatened they will raise in the u.n. the issue you of the visit to moscow of the americans suspects russia to have violated the sanctions regime of iran, what measures moscow is taking so that to lift this concern of the american party in this respect. >> translator: i few words i will say all the comments on this room, on this were already made and i on this specific episode -- in the range of suspicions of the american i have nothing to add. the rumors are rumors. but if we talk about facts, which nobody disputes, that the sanctions of the regime was violated in the most obvious way by our american colleagues when sometime ago they -- from the base in guantanamo from the prison -- where dozens of citizens of different countries are held illegally out of the -- out of this inmates there were a few -- few -- some people from the u.n. list,

and we have to look at the possibility that congress will reject the iran treaty even if the president vetoes it, there is still a question as to whether congress would override that veto. and we have to ask ourselves what happens if this iran agreement comes to an end. military action. some form of military action. one of the senators on the other side of the aisle assured us four days, will take care of the iranian nuclear problem in four days. he wasn't here when we were told the war in iraq would last two weeks. 4,844 american lives later tens of thousands injured unless of dollars spent that war ended with a result that none of us really view as a success for american foreign policy. now we face that same question. those who would reject the iranian agreement have a responsibility to come to this floor and explain what happens next. yesterday, we called a meeting. i asked the ambassadors from the five nations that joined us in the negotiations with iran to come meet with members of the senate on the democratic side. we had the ambassador from russia the ambassador from china, the

in the end the money will be secondary in iran. e bank will bring enormous experience in analytical resources on iran's most pressing challenges. reforming the trade regime, improving competitiveness, upgrading infrastructure, modernizing the education system, established a more transparent governance mechanism, reforming the labor market and the list goes on. i want to say the developing economies learned the hard way that the economic analysis is not the most important. it is the politics, stupid. i may be naive but i like to believe that if iran can make substantial progress in terms of growth and economic integration and that the benefits are felt by families and the young, that the politics will gradually change. chanta's report helps clarify everyone's thinking. >> let me start with a simple question which probably doesn't have a simple answer. if iran's oil production and exports are projected to double at a time when the price of oil has been cut by more than half, could we look back a few years from now and see this opening

and israel over the iran nuke deal to a family feud. eaker of the israeli parliament will be up next. what it means to the safety of his country next. we're back on "sunday morning futures." >>> welcome back. president obama making a strong push for the iran nuclear deal to jewish americans on friday declaring, quote, we're all pro israel. we're all family. the president went on to detail key points in the agreement noting that the deal, quote, blocks every pathway iran might take to develop a nuclear weapon, unquote. but israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu, however, definitely not on the same page arguing in a visit to italy that the iran deal will only fuel terrorism. joining me to talk more about it is yulie etle steen. nice to have you on the program. >> thank you for having me. >> first off, give us your assessment of the iran nuclear deal. >> the vast majority of israelis, including the vast majority of the israeli members of parliament both in the coalition and opposition very much worried about the deal. we might have diffe

iran. of course, we must guard against the possibility that iran does not uphold its side of the deal. if iran violates its commitments once we've suspended sanctions we'll be able to snap back both u.s. and u.n. sanctions and since preventing the u.n. 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 revo

deal means for the u.s., iran, and the region. we will talk a little bit about the mechanics of the deal and if people want to ask about that, that is fine. for this panel, we will not spend too much time on centrifuge count and 24 days. starting on my left is john mclaughlin, former deputy director and acting director of the cia. next to him is matthew spence, who recently departed the pentagon where he was deputy assistant secretary and a special assistant to the president, advisor to two national security advisers. alan spent 25 years in government, including as vice chair of the intelligence council. john, let me start with you. secretary kerry got quite a grilling from committee, in which, among other things he was told he had been fleeced bamboozled, and was likened to a hotel guest who left nothing -- left with nothing but the hotel robe on his back. do you agree? give us your take on the deal. john: i would say, leaving aside all the details about centrifuges and percentages of enrichment material, we can come back to that

who's making the best case for the iran deal? ller: of course the president and his administration are. there's no such thing as a perfect deal, and, you know, even though you work on a deal doesn't mean that it's going to go the way it's supposed to in the future. the republicans and the warhawks out there want to get us into another conflict, it appears, when peace is the way. the president is trying to work with our friends and trying to work things out with our enemies. if we're going to be the world leader, we can't be the world leaders for, you know, conflict. we should be the world leaders for spreading peace. >> here's katherine, who's in new hampshire. your thoughts. is the president making the best cases? you think senator schumer or those opposing the deal make the best case? >> caller: good morning. i think president obama's iran nuclear weapons deal makes sense. and i have just a short suggestion. do we want another war? do we want a world of green pastures and blue skies, or do we want a world of radioactive rubble?

the deal rests. iranremains the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. it remains a serious risk to the national security interests of the united states. it remains a constant threat to the survival of israel. and despite these grave concerns, it will remain a country with the capability to enrich uranium. under these circumstances, i believe it's critical that congress conduct a thorough review of the agreement as required by the iran nuclear agreement review act. as part of this review the banking committee will focus specifically on analyzing the sanctions relief provided in the nuclear agreement and the implications of taking such actions. there's general agreement that the pressure of sanctions brought iran to the negotiating table. congress must consider carefully now the repercussions of lifting those sanctions on our national security and our economic interests. in recent week, many of my colleagues on both sides of ooit have expressed skepticism over several aspects of the agreement. for exa

his passionate defense of the nuclear deal with iran. >> this is the best way for iran not to get a nuclear weapon. >> his response to criticisms that he compared republicans in congress and hard-liners in iran. >> they do have a lot in common with hard-liners who are much more satisfied with the status quo. >> his feelings about iran's supreme leader, who tweeted out an image of obama with a gun to his head. >> you don't negotiate deals with your friends. you negotiate them with your enemies. >> why he says there is no option but the deal. >>> let's get right to the big interview. i normally give you my take in this space. today i'll give it to you after you've heard from the president of the united states. so let's get started. ♪ ♪ >>> mr. president, thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> since you announced the agreement with iran. it appears, looking at several polls, that the majority of american public oppose it and the majority of the united states congress oppose it. why do you think that is? >> people haven't been getting all the information. it's a complicated piece

and vast desert areas make up the land of iran. here is the scene on one of the world's earliest civilizations and the average logical remains of once great kingdoms which flourished in the ancient world. in ancient times, even as today, iran's strategic position has tempted invaders and covetous neighbors. during recent years, iran supplies have been trained by the united states. as a part of the freedom-loving world. 6,000 years of recorded history were to be part of the study for the combined u.s./iranian military exercise delawar. the planning nerve center for exercise delawar was located at mack dill air force base, florida. they commanded all united states forces participating in the exercise with the compensation of mass airlift forces. command of these forces were retained by the mats commander. in new mexico, fighter pilots were briefed on their tactical support mission. two squadrons of f-100 super savers were assigned to the delawar operation. 88 united states base transports provided the airlift requirements necessary to

assurances the deal rests. iran remains the state sponsor of terrorism and remains a serious risk to the national security interests of the united states. it remains a constant threat to the survival of israel. despite these concerns, it will remain a country with the capability to enrich uranium. under these circumstances, i believe it is critical that congress conduct a thorough review of the agreement as required by the iran nuclear agreement review act. as part of this review, the banking committee will focus specifically on analyzing the sentience relief provided in the nuclear agreement and the implications of taking such actions. there is general agreement that the pressure of sentience brought iran to the negotiating table. congress must consider carefully now the repercussions of lifting those sanctions on our national security and our economic interests. in recent weeks, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have expressed skepticism over several aspects of the agreement. for example, the relief

it is seen as the u.s.-iran deal, of course, it isn't, explain to us is involved and what it would mean if u.s. pulled out of that. they would still have the deal with iran? >> well, yes. they could. signedly, everybody that it, which was all of the permanent members of the security council under the auspices of the european union -- including russia and china -- they have all signed onto this. and there's no real doubt they are going to go ahead and put it into effect. if the u.s. withdrawals, technically, the deal is broken, the deal is off. that they are not required to do anything in particular other than sort of business as usual. the deal would come to an end. we would be seen as responsible for it. the sanctions would unravel, almost certainly, and rather quickly, i suspect. and we got nothing out of it at all. in a very serious threat that we would get back to position where all we could do then is threaten military action to kind of enforce our view. it really is a lose-lose situation why -- by any stan

the deal. it has three veteran saying we concede iran will use the money to export terrorism. concede iran will use the money to buy advanced weapons. we concede you cannot trust this regime. cheat,ede if it doesn't it gets a bomb in 15 years if not sooner. that is why you need to sport iran deal, which makes no sense. it is a debate tactic you use your freshman year of college. concede the point of your adversary and then tell them they are wrong and you are right. we want to deconstruct these arguments with facts. we have secured meetings with three democratic senators. i'm not going to mention their names so they do not cancel on us because it is next week. we are going to give them a list of 10 individuals on the nonnuclear side, 10 entities, and 10 generals on the nuclear side, that if you want to ensure iran does not becoming nuclear power, the last thing you want to do is give them freedom of movement, money, and the ability to go after these assets. weak this deal is because any concessions made by our president will kill the deal. any change kills it. that is how weak

will they be able to gain support against the iran deal? an said they go home and meet with their constituents. there's a big number that have been canceled already by the democrats. they don't want to go home and debate the iran-contra and there's a big campaign going on against this. republicans don't want to go home because they got chaos in the congress. you have the back seat member trying to take the speaker out. you have a junior member of the senate calling mcconnell a liar. there's chaos. they couldn't pass a highway bill. a lot of unhappiness and that's what trump is tapping into with congress and they don't want to go home and talk to constituents. >> pro-republican groups have scheduled three times as many town hall meetings as democrats and that's got to hurt the democrats. it means the democrats are more scared than the republicans. >> they need to get out there and convince constituents why the iran deal is good. you have the republican congress attempting to overthrow the speakership, which is not happening on the democratic