nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic ability to eliminate every movement in iran. but we can eliminate them having a nuclear weapon. that's what we've done. to go back to congress i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement number one to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two to explain specifically where it is that they think that this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they're right and people like ernie monesi, an mit physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force then those critics should say so. that will be an honest debate. all right. >> prime minister netanyahu said that you have an situation where iran can delay 24 days-- >> i'm happy to--that'sthat's a good example. let's take the issue of 24 days. this has been swirling toda

that lasts impertuity. we'll have disabled the iraq facility from allowing iran to develop plutonnium that could be used for a bomb and greatly reduced the stock pile of uranium that is enriched and put this place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if iran diverted in a covert program, we would catch it. i can say with confidence and nuclear experts can say with confidence, that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb. we'll have met our number one priority. now, we'll still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. it's funding of proxies like hesbollah that threaten israel and the region and destabilizing activities in places like yemen. and my hope is that building on this deal we can continue to have conversations with iran that incent vises them to behave differently in the region and to be less ark greszive and less hostile and more cooperative and to operate the way we expect nations in the international community to behave. but we are not counting on it. this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior and iran act being like a liberal democracy. it

nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran cannot have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with usiran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so, we do not have diplomatic leverage to eliminate of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is to make sure they do not have a weapon. that is exactly what we have done. so to go back to congress, i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they are right and people like an mit nuclear physicist and expert in this issue is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative, and if the alternative is that we elould bring iran to he through military force, then that would be an honest debate. >> prime minister netanyahu said you could have a situation where iran can delay 24 days -- president obama: i am happy to -- that is a good example, the let's take the issue of 24 days. this has b

. >> do you believe that iran is the world's foremost sponsor of terrorism? >> yes. >> and that they will use the conventional weapons made available by the iran nuclear treaty to kill americans or israelis? >> well, they may. as you know we've responded to that from 1979 when they took over our embassy forward. we have snacks place specifically because of their support for terror. because of their-- >> i understand that. you've answered my question when you said yes they may. next is the obama administration willing to use military force to prevent iran from obtaining building, testing or using new england weapons? >> yes. >> and what has iran done in the past couple of years that causes you to believe that they want to become a responsible member of the international community? >> the only thing that indicates to us a willingness to comply to this agreement is the fact that they've complied fully with the interim agreement in the last two years and they have put in place such a strict set of consequences that it is deeply in their interest to comply if they have reduced two-thirds of their

nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is to make sure that they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so to go back to congress, i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they're right and people like ernie moniz, who is an mit nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> mr. president, if i can -- president obama: no. no. >> prime minister netanyahu said that you know, you ha

that brings us to iran. the united states appears to be on the brink of a deal with its long time middle eastern enemy, the june 30th deadline for the deal have come and gone but the talks have extended for at least another week. near the negotiations over iran, two fundamental issues have to be resolved. first acknowledge inspection of iran's nuclear facilities and military sites. second, the information it has to provide about its nuclear past, president obama and george w. bush, before secretary kerry and iranian dmoaments were about to come to their first deal. several critics agre disagree we secretary of state kerry. one of the form he u.s. officials that wrote and signed a letter, published on the washington institute of near east policy, ambassador jeffrey, the obama administration seems to be back away from previous demands that iran give a full accounting, on its past nuclear development, there are three crucial parts on the development of a nuclear warhead, the first is a fissile punch and the thi

is nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that and the international community does not take the view that iran can have a peaceful nuclear program, they agree with ust iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. but we do have the leverage to make sure they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so to go back to congress i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they're right and people like ernie moniz, who's an m.i.t. nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong. and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. >> reporter: mr. president, prime minister netanyahu said that you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before giving access to

holds this office will be in a far stronger position with iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the iran program. for this reason i believe it would be irresponsible to walk away from this deal. but on such a tough issue it is important that the american people and their representatives in congress get a full opportunity to review the deal, after all the details matter and we've had some of the finest nuclear scientists in the world working through those details and we are dealing with a country, iran, that has been a sworn adversary of the united states for over 35 years so i welcome a robust debate in congress on this issue and i welcome scrutiny of the details of this agreement. but i will remind congress that you don't make deals like this with your friends. we negotiated arms controls with the united states union when that was committed to our destruction and those agreements also made us safer. i'm confident this will meet the security interests of the united states and allies so i will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this dea

that position is that there is nobody who thinks iran would or could accept that and the international community does not take the view iran can have a peaceful program. they agree with us iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. so, we don't have diplomatic vestige of a peaceful program in iran but we have the leverage to make sure they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so, to go back to congress, i'd challenge those who are object objecting to this agreement. number one to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two to explain specifically where it is they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they're right and people like ernie monise, who is an m.i.t. nuclear physicist is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong. and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heal through military force then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> reporter: president f i can, prime minister netanyahu said you have a situation where iran can delay -- >> aim happy to -- that's a good example. so, let's tat issue of 24 days. this has been

nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vest vestage of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is to make sure they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so to go back to congress i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and why they're right and people like ernie motese who's a nuclear physicist and expert in these issues is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong. and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> mr. president, if i can, prime minister netanyahu said that you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days befor

that the iaea has with iran. is that correct? >> yes. >> i want you to use your power to make sure we are not reached with the same staff that briefed hillary clinton on benghazi. make sure that we get it decent briefing. you say frequently that this is the strongest negotiation that you could get -- you felt like it was. the president said he would walk away from a bad deal. i would submit this. you come to us and say that other countries don't appreciate the congress is weighing in. i has set from the get go, i think there are a lot stronger positions you should've taken. you tell me if you operated from this basis. one, i believe jeff duncan over here when he said american hostages should have been released. number two, the demand should be in for iran to dismantle all of its centrifuges. three, give the iaea unfettered, 24/7 access. four, stop the exporting of terrorism. five, denounced terrorism and prosecute those who put -- perpetrated. restore civil rights in their own country number six. stop the death chant to israel and america and they need to re

nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful fulful nuclear program in iran. what we do is make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon. that's what we've done. so to go back to congress i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon and why they're right and people like ernie moniz who is an m.i.t. nuclear physicist and an expert on these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heal through military force, then those critics should say so and that would be an honest debate. >> mr. president, prime minister netanyahu said you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before giving access -- >> that's a good examp

nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is to make sure that they don't have a weapon. that's exactly what we've done. so to go back to congress, i challenge those who are objecting to this agreement, number one to read the agreement before they comment on it, number two to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they're right and people like ernie moniz, who is an mit nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong, why the rest of the world is wrong, and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force, then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> prime minister netanyahu said that you know, you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before givi

nobody who thinks that iran would or could ever accept that, and the international community does not take the view that iran can't have a peaceful nuclear program. they agree with us that iran can not have a nuclear weapon. and so we don't have diplomatic leverage to eliminate every vestige of a peaceful nuclear program in iran. what we do have the leverage to do is make sure they don't have a weapon. that is exactly what we've done. so, to go back to congress, i challenged those who are objecting to this agreement, number one, to read the agreement before they comment on it. number two, to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. and why they're right and people like ernie moniz who is mit nuclear physicist and expert on these issues is wrong. why the rest of the world is wrong. and then present an alternative. and if the alternative is that we should bring iran to heel through military force then those critics should say so. and that will be an honest debate. all right. >> mr. president, if i can prime minister netanyahu said that you have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before

so in addition to these restrictions on the number of machines that are being produced iran's procurement of materials that can be used for centrifuge development will be monitored by the joint commission which is set up through the deal and any changes that iran wants to make to the r&d will also have to be approved by the joint commission. so if iran starts to move or try and sort of move away from the r&d plan that it will submit to the iaea as part of the additional pror prot -- protocol it will become clear very quickly to the joint commission. so one of the other areas where there has been a lot of questions relates to the transparency and the monitoring and verification elements of the deal. and this is something that if the arms control association we were very concerned about because of iran's illicit nuclear activities in the past. but we feel that the intrusive inspections and monitoring and verification regime produced under this agreement will provide the highest degree of confidence that iran cannot pursue nuclear weapons at the declared facilities or covertly. so first, at the declared facilities, iran

tehran agreed to open the door to inspectors giving them access to sites, that iran used to threaten hbours and the world. in return, u.s. and the u.n. agreed to lift sanctions that crippled iran's economy. after 20 months of bargain ag the deal is done. whether or not you support it there's a deal agreed upon. the iranian streak is alive with talk of what is to come. to make sense of it i had to go and talk to the people understand their history, listen to their stories. you have to go behind the deal. [ ♪♪ ] >>> the first thoughts when i landed were about how everybody who i saw looked different. you didn't have to have their head cover on the plane. as soon as you cotton the plane you needed to put your headdress on, that's what they needed to do to get in the country with reality police in iran. >> when i drove in the first night, when the sun came up we had a good view of tehran the city that most came to mind was los angeles. this is a city, there was some mountains and it was flat and it was spread out. there are freeways everywhere and they are heavily trafficked high-rises, c

tehran agreed to open the door to inspectors giving them access to sites, that iran used to threaten hbours and the world. in return, u.s. and the u.n. agreed to lift sanctions that crippled iran's economy. after 20 months of bargain ag, the deal is done. whether or not you support it, there's a deal agreed upon. the iranian streak is alive with talk of what is to come. to make sense of it, i had to go and talk to the people, understand their history, listen to their stories. you have to go behind the deal. [ ♪♪ ] >>> the first thoughts when i landed were about how everybody who i saw looked different. you didn't have to have their head cover on the plane. as soon as you cotton the plane you needed to put your headdress on, that's what they needed to do to get in the country with reality police in iran. >> when i drove in the first night, when the sun came up, we had a good view of tehran, the city that most came to mind was los angeles. this is a city, there was some mountains and it was flat and it was spread out. there are freeways everywhere and they are heavily trafficked, high-r

more towards having a nuclear weapon that i can actually use of versus not. greta wodele brawner: iran has been striking deals with other countries, russia, etc.. loretta sanchez: that is a problem. and back to our last caller, what are you doing?

us. instead, they'll walk away from the tough multilateral sanctions that brought iran to the negotiating table in the first place. multi lateral sanctions that brought us to the table in the first place and we'll have skaundered the best chance we'll have to solve this problem through peaceful means. make no mistake the president has made it clear he'll never accept a nuclear armed iran. and he is the only president who has asked for and commissioned the design of a weapon that has the ability to take out the facilities and who has actual deployed that weapon. but the fact is iran has already mastered the fuel cycle. they've mastered the ability to produce significant stockpiles of fissile material and you have to have that to make a nuclear weapon. you can't bomb away that knowledge. any more thank you have sanctions it away. i was chair of the senate foreign relations committee when we put most of the iran sanctions in place and i know well as you do that the whole point was to bring raub to the -- iran to the negotiating table and even the toughest sanctions doesn't stop the iran prog

that used a selfie stick within the white house. at the end of the day, this is something that happened under george bush. we made it clear that we were not going to war with iran and that put us on the back foot there. iran knew what was going to happen. we needed to come to a deal and this was, unfortunately, i believe, the best deal we were going to get out of a hostile nation. michelle was completely right about the 24 days. you can't hide a nuclear weapon in 24 days. >> work on small-scale nuclear work. that's what's going to end up happening. >> i'm not saying more can't be done. tom had an amazing piece in "the new york times" that we can make sure this deal is implemented properly and a military official in charge of the inspection and congress passing a bill that allows the president to use force. this president and further presidents to come. >> i know john wants to jump in. what are your thoughts, wayne first of all on the deal and president obama hanging out with jon stewart, which, by the way, i don't have a big problem with. >> i don't know what the alternative is. the alternative is no deal. the alternative is war and the alternative hostilities.

tehran agreed to open the door to inspectors giving them access to sites, that iran used to threaten hbours and the world. in return, u.s. and the u.n. agreed to lift sanctions that crippled iran's economy. after 20 months of bargain ag, the deal is done. whether or not you support it, there's a deal agreed upon. the iranian streak is alive with talk of what is to come. to make sense of it, i had to go and talk to the people, understand their history, listen to their stories. you have to go behind the deal. [ ♪♪ ] >>> the first thoughts when i landed were about how everybody who i saw looked different. you didn't have to have their head cover on the plane. as soon as you cotton the plane you needed to put your headdress on, that's what they needed to do to get in the country with reality police in iran. >> when i drove in the first night, when the sun came up, we had a good view of tehran, the city that most came to mind was los angeles. this is a city, there was some mountains and it was flat and it was spread out. there are freeways everywhere and they are heavily trafficked, high-r

sanctions that a viable alternative is to say to france germany, britain and others, choose us or choose thim as you move forward economically. that if you are going to continue to do business with iran then you can't do business with us. >> so we do have powerful tools that make it very dangerous for foreign business to violate u.s. laws. and if they do business and violate our sanctions we will enforce. whether we can do that against the whole world effectively without doing damage to our own economy is something we have to have seergs considerations about. it's one thing when we're taking action in concert with the world. another thing if we're standing on our own. the ability for it to work is not the same as it being effective or adding up to what we'd like to accomplish. >> secretary carter you are talking to the gcc countries. it seems that one of the challenges here is confidence. confidence that they'll be safe. that israel will be safe. that's what this comes from is making sure that your child can be safe and sleep safe that night. and that's what mr. netanyahu is trying to ensure. so as you look at it when we talk to our gcc friends and others is there any putting togethe

iran. this is the most recent issue that i think caught us by surprise. i think the other element of surprise was the discovery that in the middle of this negotiation, about a month ago, that iran had committed to transfer to hamas, not just the funding to rebuild the 35 tunnels that had been built before under israel, but also a new generation of rockets and weapons and then most recently the additional discovery or announcement that iran was going to transfer precision guidance to the rockets and missiles that hezbollah has in its disposal aimed at israel but not as effective because of the iron dome and it would be if they had the precision guidance systems, and the fact they are willing to do that in the middle of the negotiations and demand the up front signing bonus which they will use for this, and it drove the congress has this information is surfacing, and i would like, ray, your comments on this, or general, you might have some insights as well. >> i mean, nick can talk about the conventional prohibitions in the u.n. as i understand it, those emb

that. you answered my question when you said yes, they may. next, is the obama administration willing to use military force to prevent iran from obtaining building, testing or using nuclear weapons? >> yes. >> and what has iran done in the past couple of years that causes to you believe iran will abide by the iran nuclear treaty or wants to become a responsible member of the international community? >> the only thing that indicates to us a willingness to try to comply with this agreement is the fact they have complied fully with the interim agreement for the last two years and that we have put in place such a strict set of consequences that it is deeply in their interest to comply if they have reduced two-thirds of their centrifuges stripped their stockpile put -- emptied out fordah, so there's a lot of -- >> that focuses to a large degree on the nuclear side. what about the use of the conventional weapons and whether they will maintain their status as the world's foremost -- >> we have serious concerns, which is precisely why we're engaged with our friends in the region. it's why i will be in doha in a few days to meet with them, as we lay out

iran will have aure in clearnuclear weapon. are you familiar that they've practiced ship launch using scud missiles? they've done that according to dr. peter vincent frey. an emp attack would be conducted by somebody like north korea or iran and conducted from a ship off our coast using a scud missile and the fact that you as the secretary of the department of energy were not even aware of the 15 recommendations, basic recommendations. things like evaluating and implementing quick fixes in the threat of an emp attack. for literally $20 million to $70 million we could protect 700 critical transformers that could help us recover from something like that. i'm highly concerned. as you, secretary of energy, not even aware of these recommendations that were made public in 2008. seven years later, we have done nothing, virtually nothing to address these 15 recommendations by the commission. >> first of all, i don't know that report, and the -- clearly many of them must apply to dhs and the dod. however, on the transformer question, if you look at our quadrennial energy review published in april we identify

that does not mean that we can't, as we did in 2010 curtailed the activities of companies in iran. we did that with the useof iran sanctions act. going to the loan, my view is that if we decide to reject this deal and just use our sanction, we will have an effect and we will have an effect on iran but i don't think it will be nearly as strong as we would have if we had cooperation, especially out of europe. long-term i'm very concerned about overuse of u.s. sanctions, removing it as a tool. you spoke to the idea of chinese looking for alternatives to the financial system. that's my fear. if we go it alone here and other circumstances we may invalidate the financial system tool because they'll just use other systems that don't involve us. as he pointed out they have a lot of infrastructure problems there and they were elected on the basis of solving those problems. he wants to be reelected and more important the iranian system doesn't want to have instability and conflict on the inside. they are very concerned about things like arab spring and the color revolution that happened in eastern europe. they don't

iran continues to say no another month could go by. that potential length of time gives me pause. i would like to know how we can be sure iran cannot usese delays to sanitize sites and get away with breaking the rules. already we're seeing iran's leadership declare that military sites will be off elements to inspectors. if this iran's version of transparency during the implementation of the agreement, we're getting off to a bad start. i'm also troubled by reports about how the arrangement reaches between iran and the iaea on how parchen will be inspected, and sunset on the ballistic missiles and advanced conventional weapons. i was disappointed to learn that after a maximum of five and eight years respectively they will be terminated. i would like to understand why we allow this to happen and what we can do to ensure this doesn't make a terrible situation in the region get even worse. i'm also concerned about what iran's leaders will do when sanctions are phased out and new resources come flowing in. we're talking about tens of billions of dollars. of course i would like to see iran's leaders use this money to help the iranian people b

whether the compliance with this agreement by the united states will put us on a path that makes it less likely or more likely that iran will become a nuclear weapon power. that's got to be the test that we use. mr. chairman, i have many questions. that i hope we will get answers today. i hope those answers will provoke a debate among us in congress and american people and help us make the right decisions. since there is no trust, the inspection and enforcement regime is particularly important. we need to understand how it works. do we have sufficient time to discover if iran is violating the terms of this agreement in order to take effective action to prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power? that's a question that we need to understand. we need to know the breakout times. we need to know what happens after the time periods. do we have sufficient opportunity to prevent iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state? the commitment they make under this agreement. are the inspections robust enough to deter iran from cheating? and if they do will we discover and be able to take action? mr. chairman you raised th

people have forgotten lil ienthal recommended that iran had 22 nuclear reactors and use its gas and oil for infrastructure. this legacy extends to this day. iran has a program that stems from that. from that time when i served in iran, i have maintained my interest. i want to quote from a letter that i carried with ramsey clark on november 6 1979, a letter from jimmy carter to ayatollah khomeini. i want to read one paragraph. i have asked both men to meet with you and to hear from you your perspective on events in i ran and problems that have arisen between our two countries. people of the united states decided to have relations with iran based on equality, mutual respect, and friendship. it has taken 36 years to carry that out. john experience part of those 36 years in prison and he is one of the optimists who believes that relations with iran make sense. now that i have a job as a senior advisor for search for common ground, for 10 years we have worked together to carry out the beginnings, the baseline for civilized relations between our countries. we have tried everything. movies poe

iran's domestic priorities. but it's only fair to assume that billions of dollars that will float iran's revolutionary guards corps and the cuds force money that will likely be used to boost arms supplies to iran easter ris approximate-- and double down on bashar assad right when he needs it most. this will present a host of new challenges for the department of defense. what's worse, not only could this agreement strengthen iran's malign activities in the region, it's also likely to enhance iran's acquisition of conventional military capabilities. for nearly a decade an international arms embargo has significantly heard iran's ability to build up and modernize its aging military. throughout the nuclear negotiations the administration insisted that its diplomacy was limited exclusively to the nuclear file. indeed just a few weeks ago general dempsey told this committee that quote, under no circumstances should we relieve pressure on iran relative to ballistic missile capabilities and arms trafficking. and yet thanks to last-minute concessions by the administration that exactly what this agreement would do. at year five the international arms embargo will disappear

that will be eased and lifted. it will give iran access to billions. what will they do. it's been suggested that the iranians will use it at home. where is washington tonne's allies belief that they'll use large chunks of that money to advance and reinforce iran's expanded position in the region, including the houthis in yemen. it's support for hezbollah i lebanon, syria and the fight in iraq. >> the person in the story, was the iranian president. her implication was if the united states would allow those iranian-backed forces in iraq to join the fight, which is stood back at time where they were supposed to supply air support. her implications was that if iran and america share an enemy that can be use: is that a reasonable argument? >> well it's certainly a reasonable arguments in the abstract. i think what they have been careful about is being the air force for iranian backed militias. it's no jet that the iranians used their own revolutionary guard corp to stand up militias in iraq to fight i.s.i.l., that have, themselves, been engaged in mass killings of areas that they liberated from the islamic state. they are

the president told us that iran does not need to have an underground fortified facility in order to have a peaceful nuclear program. yet, this military complex will now stay open. while the obama administration officials first told us iran's missile program would have to be addressed as part of a final agreement, they failed to mention that addressing the program means taking restrictions off -- we are talking about the icbm program that iran has -- taking those off in just eight years. as secretary of defense carter testified last week, "the reason we want to stop iran from happening an icbm program is the "i" in icbm stands for intercontinental, which means having the capability of flying from iran to the united states." as we know, countries build icbm's for one reason -- to deliver weapons and recently in this negotiation at the very end of the negotiation, this is what russia and iran pushed for -- the ability for russia to transfer this technology. this is what russia would like to do. transfer this technology to the regime. at that same hearing our top military official gave his b

we have agreed that iran's water reactor at iraq will be rebuilt based on a final design that the united states and international partners will approve so that it will only be used for peaceful purposes and iran will not build a new heavy water reactor or re reprocess fuel from its existing reactors for at least 15 years. but this agreement is not only about what happens to iran's declared facilities. the deal we have reached also gives us the greatest assurance we have had that iran will not pursue a weapon covertly. not only will inspectors be able to access iran's declared facilities daily but they will also have access to the entire supply chain that supports iran's program from start to finish from uranium mines to center fuge mining, and operation. so what this means is to be able to have a covert path we would need a covert facility it would need a covert supply chain in order to feed into that site and ensure that does not happen to our knowledge under this deal and inspectors will be able to gain access to any indication iaea and majority of the p 5 s 1 nations deem suspicious. [switching captioners] >> as part of the final deal. with that in mind, iran

that. >>> happening this morning, a united nations security vote on lifting the sanctions in iran. that was the main carrot used in iran for the nuclear program. the white house decision to let the u.n. vote on the deal has capitol hill in an uproar. on sunday the administration submitted the deal to congress. starting what looks to be a no-holds bar debate for 60 days. ash carter's visit to israel and jordan this week comes at a very important moment because of the iran deal. for the latest let's bring in erin mclaughlin in jerusalem. >> reporter: good morning, christine. this morning, secretary carter received a warm welcome from his israeli counterpart complete with a red carpet and military music. playing both countries anthems. the two discussed their councils tries mutual friendship. a friendship by all accounts has been put to the test in recent days. israel is of course one of the iran nuclear deals harshest and vocal critics. the united states helped to broker. the u.s. secretary of defense ash carter addressed on the flight from tel aviv saying even friends can disagree. >> i'm not going to change any

people have forgotten lil ienthal recommended that iran had 22 nuclear reactors and use its gas and oil for infrastructure. this legacy extends to this day. iran has a program that stems from that. from that time when i served in iran, i have maintained my interest. i want to quote from a letter that i carried with ramsey clark on november 6 1979, a letter from jimmy carter to ayatollah khomeini. i want to read one paragraph. i have asked both men to meet with you and to hear from you your perspective on events in i ran and problems that have arisen between our two countries. people of the united states decided to have relations with iran based on equality, mutual respect, and friendship. it has taken 36 years to carry that out. john experience part of those 36 years in prison and he is one of the optimists who believes that relations with iran make sense. now that i have a job as a senior advisor for search for common ground, for 10 years we have worked together to carry out the beginnings, the baseline for civilized relations between our countries. we have tried everything. movies poe

. >> i'm convinced that the political will of the iran to use this window of opportunity that we have to build trust in an in a constructive way iran now has an anti to show constructive engagement. >> the last sticking points in this luxury hotel in the early hours of the morning were about lifting u.n. sanctions. the most controversial compromises were the decisions that the arms embargo on iran could be lifted within five years and the restriction on the country's pa his tick missiles in eight years with the u.s. congress starting at 60 day review you can expect these will once again be the most scrutinized parts of this deal. james bays al jazeera, vienna. >> ambassador john john lynnberg is the author of negotiating with iran wrestling the ghosts of history. he was also one of the hostaging held within the early part of the revolution. >> why does this have to happen? >> we've we've heard suspicion. >> suspicion has been the name of the game for 36 years but that's what diplomacy is after all. diplomacy is making i am perfect deals as the iranian foreign minister described this,

iran also must cut the number of centrifuges it now uses. cut that by 70%. iran's underground nuclear site loses half its centrifuges and becomes a research facility. the agreement also stops iran from building any more major reactors for the next 15 years. and in exchange the united states, europe, and, really the rest of the world or at least the united nations will lift up -- lift some of the crippling economic punishments. if iran follows through on its end the u.n. will lift its ban on weapons sales to iran and by iran within five years. and end a ban on missile sales to iran within eight years. now in order to get those bans lifted iran has to allow inspectors open access to nuclear sites certainly and some access to military sites with advanced notice. but iran can challenge the inspector's request and an arbitration board is to decide. the board's members come from iran and the six countries that negotiated the agreement. so who is for and against it? it's about what you would think. republicans in congress say the deal doesn't go far enough. lawmaker

that creates. suddenly iran realizes maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. it makes it more difficult for us to walk away if iran some house thinks that a nuclear deal was dependent in some fashion the nuclear deal and, by, way, if we walked away from the nuclear deal we would still be pushing them just as hard to get the folks out. that is why those issues are not connected. but we are working every day to try to get them out and we will not stop until they are out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony to some degree i answered this. we are not taking the pressure off of iran with respect to arms and with respect to policemens. -- ballistic missiles. as i sprained not only do we keep in place for five years the arms cargo under this particular u.n. resolution and not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular u.n. resolution but we have a host of multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see iran engaged in those activities whether it is six years from now or 10 years from now.

that. we as the american people, what do we know? except for what they tell us. for anyone to tell us -- to think that iraning to dupe us, again, we have to take that chance. just like russia. host: i understand your point. avery in alabama. caller: i want to make three points. the first is the united states has a lot of nerve to determine who obtains nuclear weapons since we are the only country who has used them twice. number two, pakistan and india have nuclear weapons and we forbade them to do it but they did it anyway. number three israel is sitting there with nuclear weapons that they don't even have to report to anyone. so why should we be in arms over who gets the destructive weapons and who can use the energy, when we are the only country diabolical enough to use them to begin with. host: anthony in washington d.c., you support the deal? you want congress to supported as well? caller: i do, greta. we cannot be a nation of potential war. that is my statement. host: ronald in north carolina. he opposes it. what is your message to congress? caller: i hope they don't pass it. how can you deal with any

iran hates us and we do not like iran. the only way this deal gets done is with the five other countries. that's the thing. they don't trust us either. they got for the other five countries being there. if we do not back this deal, the other five countries are not backing us. guest: that is a really good point. if the united states were to walk away from the table -- if the deal was flushed by congress and it didn't happen, the other countries involved in sanctions with iran would probably walk away, and the entire sanctions regime that exists right now would fall apart. in terms of we do not like iran and iran does not like us listen, you do not make deals with your friends. you make the tough deals with your enemies to get the outcome that you want, and the outcome they want as well. host: ed is saying, as i have said, no deal is better than a bad deal. guest: no deal is better than a bad deal, and that is why you kept getting extended. the united states was not about to side, even though several deadlines had passed. we were sticking to make sure the agreement was a tough one. i think what we have is a g

iran nuclear program. they can produce, operate and test more and more centrifuges. they could fuel plutonium for a bomb and we would not have the inspections that allow us to detect a nuclear weapons program. in other words, no deal means no lasting constraints on iran's nuclear program. such a scenario would make it more likely that other countries in the region would feel compels to have their own nuclear programs. it would prevent the united states with fewer and less effective options to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. i have been commander in chief six years now. it's the greatest decision any president has to make. many times, in multiple countries, i have decided to use force. i will never hesitate to do so when it is in our national security interest. i strongly believe that our national security interests now, depends upon preventing iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. without a diplomatic resolution either i or a future u.s. president would face a decision about whether or not to allow iran to obtain a nuclear weapon or to use our military to stop. put simply no deal means a greater chance of more war in the middle east. moreover we give no

administration appear to me that the tens of billions of dollars in iran will get in lifted sanctions, they'll have access to more money than that they're going to primarily useelp develop iran's economy back home instead of supporting international terrorism. that's the argument you hear privately from administration officials. >> wolf i would say they'll use the majority of money for the civilian domestic con summingssumption and the commitments rohanwhani has made to the public but there's more harm that iran can and probably will do in support of hamas and hezbollah. probably of particular consequence of the civil war in syria where, frankly, iran is hemorrhaging resources and starring to hemorrhage people. it will also impact the situation in yemen. so even though it may not be the bulk of resources, iran unfortunately has proved cost effective in the use of its terrorism dollars and its defense dollars, it's stretched a lot, a long way to being incredibly destructive throughout the region and we can expect that to continue and we can expect it to continue with additional resources. >> so you're worried about that. let me quickly get your thought. yet an