we know about their weapons too.hat's why we ask them to stop and we ask those army commanders to go back and support the legitimate regime in yemen, and we need to put an end to this matter because the houthis militias are doing every wrong thing in the conflict. those commanders of the army will be safe if they cooperate with the good people of yemen, with the coalition forces and to support the legitimate regime. we have targeted the weapons stores and you cannot imagine how big and how massive are some of these weapons store because lot of weapons were taken from the yemeni army and were stolen by those who were opposed to the legitimate coalition -- regime. the coalition forces are on a daily basis destroying these massive quantities of weapons. that's where the coalition will achieve their goals. there are some movements as we have mentioned yesterday. these militias and the ones who support these militias have only two things either to stay hidden in their location and the arab forces will destroy them, or to

weapon.ost: it is -- guest: it is not easy to get a nuclear weapon, but there is certainly the ongoing risk that nuclear weapons might be used an additional countries could acquire them. the quest to reduce and eliminate the nuclear weapons threat has been a long one. i think it is going to last many more decades. nuclear weapons are far less relevant to the security policies of the most nuclear countries -- nuclear armed countries. as i was saying before countries like india and pakistan find them to be in important part of their security strategy. the united states and russia have a very important role to play in reducing the number of nuclear weapons we have. both countries recognize that we have more nuclear weapons then needed to determine the use of nuclear weapons. the key going forward is going to be to limit the technologies that can be used to use -- to make nuclear weapons, uranium enrichment and the separation of plutonium from reactors, limiting the spread of missile technologies

essentially weaponize.lear weapons in the middleast and others will go after that. and or another strike byus or by israel or by both all of which i think generate increased instability and conflict in that part of the world. and if there's any chance that we can avoid another conflict as anndividual who is lead in two already i'm willing to take that chance. now this this deal so far as it's been talked about talks about very intrusive inspections, more so than has ever existed in the history of nuclear weapons. and i'm not unfamiliar with inspections that we did with the soviets which were very exhaustive inspections. the concern and i think it's a legitimate concern is will anybody, will the iranians cheat on this in the long run. what they're saying they will do in terms of numbers of sent ri finals in terms of their facilities their level of enrichment which is very low, i think threeny of that percent whack they have signed up to the indications are going in the right direction. but it's in the detail

which, i think, essentially weaponized -- puts nuclear weapons in the middle east and others will goer that. or another strike by us or israel or by both. all of which, i think, generates increased instability and conflict in that part of the world. if there is any chance that we can avoid another conflict, as an individual who has led in two already, i'm willing to take that chance. this deal so far talks about very intrusive inspections, more so than has ever existed in the history of nuclear weapons. i'm not unfamiliar with inspections that we did with the soviets which were very exhaustive. the concern is will anybody, will the iranians cheat on this in the long run? what we're saying they will do in terms of numbers of centrifuges, their facilities, the level of enrichment which is very low -- 3.5%, something like that -- the indications are going in the right direction. it is in the details and secondly in the enforcement that will prove whether this is the deal that makes a difference in the world. charlie: what would you worry about the most? adm. mullen: i would worry about

weapons. whether saudi arabia. >> egypt included. >> nixon cut a teal with china basically at odds with russia. developed a friendship with brezhnev. >> china had a nuclear weapon already. >> they had lots of nuclear weapons. that is called diplomacy. it is messy and it happens. >> i think the obama administration track record on diplomacy is shoddy. i don't have a lot of faith they're doing well. what we're seeing with negotiating process -- melissa: let's bring in peter barnes sitting at white house where we're waiting for the president to come out. he was supposed to come out at 2:15. he is couple minutes behind. >> what a big surprise. melissa: not a surprise there. peter barnes. >> i want to clarify when sanctions get lifted. we have a fact sheet from the white house on this. basis the e.u. and u.n. security council sanctions would be lifted once iran has taken all of its nuclear related steps. this is according to the white house fact sheet. again, the u.s. however would only would phase

these weapons are unlike any other weapons we have.as long as we have them, my view is we better understand how they fit in a grand strategy of deterrence that has to be tailored to individual actors in today's world. mr. avey: we have time for q&a. we have the microphone going out. >> thank you. i really enjoyed the presentation. to follow a bit of what you just said, you look at deterrence from the standpoint of america's national interests. if you were president rouhani, would you accept the standpoint -- how would you evaluate the nuclear posture, the potential usage, assuming they would not -- would it launch a strike on israel which would lead to the mutual destruction that would follow? >> a complicated question, mr. ambassador. i demand easier questions. [laughter] i do not think i can speculate on what the iranians would say. i have read in the press that they said they have considered acquiring them for their own national security interests. i don't know that they have made that decision, whether or not to acquire them. when

we had the clear weapons. besides the ones that everyone knows, bombers or continental missiles could do, artillery shells, a range of other things. some smaller ones could be used by special forces. in the event you need it to do something that requires a little bit more of regular explosives. so you have to train with them to know how to operate them safely. still have two mammals. part of it is how to get it in. some of us had to learn to parachute with it. charlie: you and others drove by supporting -- help proud of that are you in the long run that you had a national security? michael: i was proud that it was the job of a lifetime. i was a young man in my early 30's. i would come out to the central intelligence agency. it was a remarkable time. there was -- a lot of insurgencies. because of charlie wilson there was a buildup of resources. that caused a review of strategy about was this the right amount and should we continue to see this at some that would impose costs on the soviets? when they occupied an

they've deceived the weapons inspectors before. it's only under the threat and the existence of sanctions that they came back to the table. the risk now is going forward. if there is an agreement, two, three, four years from now perhaps, will the iranians still have the threat of sanctions being reimposed? what we found in the case of iraq was saddam hussein was very good in knowing how thick to slice the salami. in other words, he would have incremental violations, and the collective views of the security council and bear in mind that one actor against a collective has an advantage. tehran just has to agree on what tehran wants. the p5+1, there are a whole bunch of people who have to agree. right now they may be agreed on enforcing sanctions. but two, three, four years from now when some people are making money are they going to be willing to reimpose the sanctionings, or will they be pressing the iaea to say do you really know what is going on in iran? the weapon's inspectors task will be to gather evidence. evidence is always am

weapons. mr. chairman there were many people as you know who doubted missile defense would work in the first place and it would be like quote hitting a bullet with a bullet as the bumper sticker read, but today as everyone knows on the committee the missile defense accuracy is equate to hitting a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet. missile ballistic technology is now increasing at a pace we have never seen before. they are investing in technologies with the explicit purpose of defeating our defensive capabilities. in 2011 the director of missile defense agency general o'reilly stated the technology exist that a space-based layer could be developed within ten years. further this limited capability for the defense of the homeland would be a fraction of the cost of a global constowconstalation. there are those who will argue this is not the right approach to missile defense. that it ask too expensive. and we should focus on left to watch. but mr. chairman we are in the mist of negotiations

you have to have the weapons. take the material and make -- and put it in-- . >> rose: the weaponization. >> put it in a good design that it will actually work and you have confidence that it will work. you have to then make that and have confidence that it will survive when you put it on a missile, for example. and of course you have to develop the missile as well. all those parts have to work together. what the iranians have been doing over time is to try to develop each of these components to varying degrees to be closer to if they ever made a decision to have a deliverable weapon that they could keep that time as short as possible but not actually do it. so right what you have is a number of incomplete parts some further along than others, but all of them inches forward. and the goal of trying to get them together. what the nuclear agreement would do would push one of those back further. and therefore extend the time line of the whole system. >> rose: push back the material. >> the material part of it. the mat

-- one potential nuclear weapon.hat will be expanded now under this deal to one year from those two to three months. that is obviously as much as six times what it is today and what it has been for the past three years. i would like also to make one more point very, very clear because it has been misinterpreted and misstated misrepresented for much of this discussion. there will be no sunset to the deal that we are working to finalize -- no sunset, none. the parameters of this agreement will be implemented in phases. some provisions will be in place for 10 years. others will be in place for 15 years. others still will be in place for 25 years. but certain provisions including many transparency measures, will be in place indefinitely into the future. they will never expire. and the bottom line is that under this arrangement, the international community will have confidence that iran's nuclear program is exclusively peaceful providing, of course, that the provisions are adhered to. and if they aren't, we have provision

weapons. in 2012, the u.s. president warned president assad the use of chemical weapons was a red line not to be crossed. the following year inspectors confirmed the nerve agent sarin was used in an attack in damascus. 1300 people died in that attack. two months later the international chemical weapons catch dog began the pros of dismantling syria's chemical weapons. it completed the process in september of last year. on him joined now by the senior emergencies researcher for human rights watch in new york. thank you very much for joining us. please tell us more about this find of the use of chemical weapons and the victims. >> human rights watch has been investigating these attacks and for the latest round that happened in idlib province in northern syria we spoke to rescue workers medical personnel, eyewitnesses, reviewed dozens of videos and photos and our conclusion is that in at least three attacks there is very strong evidence that government forces from helicopters dropped barrel bomb w

to build a nuclear weapon, a single nuclear weapon. now the clusion for that is something that requires first the mearl, then convert that material into an exclusive device for a bomb and to build a bomb and to build a warhead and all of that to be able to exploit the bomb. now, what they're talking about when it comes to iran, they're talking about the time that is required for iran to build necessary material for one bomb. that is not to build a bomb. so this is where the hype comes in. this is where the hype comes in. for the past eight years iran has suffered all these sanctions and we had enough material to build eight bombs. >> rose: eight bombs. >> eight bombs. and we never did. >> rose: what kind of material is that. >> 8,000 kilograms. >> rose: 8 thousand kilograms of -- >>,000 -- 8,000 kilograms of enriched uranium. the rest of the world put all the pressure on him tried to create a security threat out of a country that never posed against anybody eight years 8,000 kilograms, eight bombs. not a single bomb. nobody even contes

that they have been seeking, the location of the weapons on the "b" yard.tel may be the only way to prevent future attacks like the ones carried out by jeremy. >> i had blood all over my hands so i licked the blood off my hands to get away with the crime. >> but jeremy's brush with violence didn't start with prison. it was a brutal crime that brought him to corcoran in the first place. >> i have been in prison since the end of '99. i was originally arrested for murder out of boulder creek next to santa cruz. before that i was living on the streets for approximately two years since i was 13 years old. just, you know, trying to survive on the streets and hanging out with the wrong people. we were downtown in santa cruz at a youth shelter, and i was looking for a place to sleep, and i met somebody there by the name of 48. that was his street name. and my street name was storm. and he said he had a dry place to sleep in boulder creek. so all we needed to do was find somebody with a car. and we found two people who had a car. it was a woman and her boyfriend. an

iran's past efforts to weaponize the program will be addressed. with this deal iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. so this will be a long-term deal. that addresses each path to a potential iranian nuclear bomb. there will be strict limits on iran's program for a decade. ed a the igsaladditional restrictions on building new facilities or stockpiling materials will last for 15 years. the unprecedenteded transparency measures will last for 20 years or more. indeed, some will be permanent. and as a member of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon. in return for iran's actions, the international community has agreed to provide iran with relief from certain sanctions. our own sanctions and international sanctions imposed be the united nations security council. this will be featzed as iran takes step to adhere to the deal. if iran violated the deal sanctions can be snapped back into place. >> meanwhile, other american sanctions on iran for the support of terrorism, the

full scale weapons destruction will begin in october. each shell will be carefully unpacked and have its explosives removed then repeatedly checked for leaks. they'll be taken apart soaked in chemicals blasted with high pressure water and baked in ovens to strip away every trace of poison. these artillery shells are used for training purposes only and don't have any chemical weapons inside of them but there are 780,000 real shells full of mustard gas here at this facility. some live shells that are leaking or have damage, have already been destroyed. >> three two one. >> it's not dramatic but the charges neatly split the shells which are then treated with chemicals. >> mustard gas is within the vessel. that is neutralized with monoethanol amine. broken down and destroyed all the mustard agent. >> the experts who do this dangerous painstaking work say it's a deeply satisfying job. >> chemical weapons is about the worst thing going. they are dirt 80 nasty. getting rid of them is in my opinionopinion an important thing. >> the stockpile des

iran's past efforts to weaponize this program will be addressed. with this deal, iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. this would be a long term deal that addresses each path to a potential nuclear bomb. there will be strict limits on iran's program for a decade additional restrictions on building new facilities or stock piling materials that will last 15 years. unprecedented transparently measures will last 20 years or more. indeed some will be permanent. as a member of the non proliferation treaty iran will never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon. in return for iran's actions, the international community has agreed to provide iran with relief from certain sanctions. our own sanctions and international sanctions imposed by the united nations security council. this will be phased as iran takes steps to adhere to the deal. if a ran violates the deal sanctions can be snapped back in place. other american sanctions on iran for support of terrorism, human rights abuses ballistic missile program will continue to be

the weapons maker still denies there is anything wrong with the rifle. the opposition suspects a cover-up. >> it appears someone has been protecting them, and i want to know who, why, and for how long. while those questions remain open, the defense minister stressed german officials are working to replace the weapon, but that it will take more than a year at the least. >> let's pull and terry martin, who is on the story for us here in berlin. what in the world is wrong with this weapon? >> well, it's very elemental. it seems it doesn't shoot straight when it's hot, and that obviously can be a very serious problem for combat troops who are facing very dangerous situations. this is the standard issue combat rifle for german troops. they used it in afghanistan extensively. it is still being used by german troops and now in mali. let's look at what the criticism is. there have been several studies on this weapon, and the latest results show that after shooting two magazines the rifle longer strikes with accuracy. it's that simple. after three magazines have

to build a nuclear weapon.ow, the calculation for that is something that requires first to have the material, and to convert that material into an explosive device, and to build the bomb, and to build the warhead, and all of that. now, what you are talking about when it comes to iran, you are talking about the time that is required for iran to build material for one bomb. this is not to build a bomb. this is where the height comes in. for the past eight years iran has suffered all these sanctions, and we had enough material to build eight bombs. charlie: eight bombs? min. javad zarif: eight bombs. and we never did. 8000 kilograms of enriched uranium. during president ahmadinejad's time, when the united states and the rest of the world put all the pressure on him, demonized him, tried to create a security threat out of a country that never posed a threat against anybody, eight years 8000 kilograms, not a single bomb. nobody contests this argument. so, breakout is a hysteria. but iran doesn't want to build nuclea

nuclear weapons.furthermore as many of you know, it is an obligation of the nuclear weapons states to carry out a good-faith efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons totally. that's article six of the nonproliferation treaty and a legal obligation as the international court of justice ruled and those efforts could be carried out but unfortunately we are going in the opposite direction so presidential recently announced that trillion dollar program to modernize the capacity of the powers acting more or less similarly. there are policies being conducted by mentioned ukraine but that is not the only one bringing the global situation to the point that it might lead to a nuclear strike that has been known for decades if the power launches a nuclear strike, it will be destroyed by the effects of the nuclear explosions so there's no way scape. it's any new clear border between any power in the capacity to the extermination. we know how to end it but the steps conduct that are in the opposite direction and there

foreign minister also spoke to delegates. >> i urge both nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states to take joint action. >> reporter: at the previous conference five years ago, state department conducted an action plan. it included pursuing policies towards a changing world with nuclear weapons. but since then relations between russia and the u.s. over nuclear weapons states have soared over the crisis in ukraine. this is one of the reasons many experts are concerned about the direction of this conference. on the other hand, a new initiative led by non-nuclear states such as austria and mexico is gaining momentum. the group advocates for starting negotiations on a separate treaty that will ban nuclear weapons. they hope to accelerate the discussions during this conference. the conference also offers a chance for government officials to listen to the voice of the public. on sunday thousands of people took to the streets. many survivors of atomic bombings in japan were also there. >> translator: i want people of the world to know what damage the atomic bomb has caused from the

cyber weapons are a tremendous shoe. charlie: the thing robert gates said to me is the thing they fear is nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists. michael: you have a nihilist with a very dangerous weapon. you inside job -- it would generally be an inside job where the state had access to that capability and then made that available to a terrorist group through infiltration. they would steal it. then once it is out of the barn can you recover quickly enough? ♪ charlie: the thing robert gates said to me is the thing they fear is nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists. michael: sure, that is the nightmare situation because you have a nihilist with a very dangerous weapon. charlie: give me an example. michael: it would generally be an inside job where the state had access to that capability and then made that available to a terrorist group through infiltration. they would steal it. then the question is, once it is out of the barn can you recover quickly enough? it becomes a challenging problem. like a

they don't have any chemical weapons inside of them. but there are 780,000 real shells at this facility. >> some shells that are leaking and that have been damaged are already being destroyed. it's not dramatic, but the charges neatly split the shells, which are then treated with chemicals. >> mustard gas is neutralized. we rotate the vessel in no more than an hour. and then it has been broken down and destroyed all the mustard agent. >> the experts who do this pain taking work say it's a deeply satisfying job. >> chemical weapons are the worst thing going. they're dirty nasty and getting rid of them n my opinion, an important thing. >> destroying the stock pile will take four years and cost $4.5 billion. rob reynolds, pueblo, colorado. >> in the u.s. most prisoners are not allowed to use computers, but that has not stopped some from learning how to code. they're training inmates for release in an unusual way. >> i'm about to go inside. the prison known as san quenton the first maximum facility built in. california. you don't really thi

have any weapons in space?n: i'm thinking of satellites that maneuver next to another satellite, and then take some action to disable it without blowing it up. >> james: we do have satellites that maneuver, that look at things in space. but not what you jus >> martin: you think the chinese believe that? >> james: i... i don't know what they believe. >> martin: when the chinese look at america's space operations, they see a program that, by most estimates, spends ten times more than they do and has tested anti-satellite weapons of its own. space command told us an american f-15 fired a missile into space five times in the 1980s, and one of those times destroyed a u.s. satellite creating debris that remained in space for decades. one of the officers involved in that test was general hyten. >> hyten: i think it was a surprise to most people on that program, how much debris we created. >> martin: so where do we get off lecturing the chinese about testing anti-satellite weapons if we were the first and if we created

we're not getting rid of our nuclear weapons. we're not getting rid of our navy we're not giving anything up. we are simply waiting to see what it is at a the negotiators come up with and if in fact we are able to come up with something that works then we'll know and, you know, with respect to the supreme leader, yes, it's a pretty important title. that's, you know, seems a little more clear cut than president. on the other hand, there may be ways of structuring a final deal that satisfactory their pride their optics, their politics but meet our core practical objectives and that's what we've got to give the negotiators room to determine. last question, karen deyoung. karen? there she is. >> thank you. just to belabor the point on that question, mr. president the -- your people have said that the framework agreement that's what's in it stands, that they are not renegotiable points although the implementation of them can be renegotiated in some way and i wonder how within that framework that's already been agreed how we can come u

that's what happened, they would fine 20, 30 weapons and never know which one was actual murder weapon. the squad came through, security quad, or goon squad, they came through and cordoned off everything and they took the pictures and collected evidence and things like that. so they collected the evidence and find all these weapons. now, that night i'm up and i'm worried. about what's happening. but they don't know what happened. >> but a break in the case came from the confession of an inmate involved in the murder. >> saw an opportunity for himself, serving a life sentence. turned everybody in. because of my lack of knowledge and planning of the crime, and my age, the judge overturned my death penalty and sentenced me to life in prison without the chance of parole, i don't go to board, i'm just here. >> howell was 36 when he was murdered. he was just doing his job. he was doing what it takes to protect society from that element in prison. i guess i want to know why, why hal? >> i followed orders, i was a foot soldier following orders. it was either him or me and i chose him. it was s

tries to coax iran into a nuclear weapons deal, u.s. warships are there and what are they authorized to do? this is "special report." good evening and welcome to washington. i'm bret baier. american diplomats are preparing to resume work on a nuclear deal with iran to try to delay the ability to build a nuclear weapon. this as american naval vessels are keeping a close eye on iranian ships, which may be trying to add more weapons to the mix in the chaotic houthi rebels. the u.s. is under strict orders of what they can not do. we have an eye-opening look at the iran nuclear timeline and how the u.s. has adjusted the assessment of how long it would take iran to get a bomb. we begin with jennifer griffin at the pentagon. >> fox news has learned that the white house is not even close to making a decision about conducting a search of the iranian vessels carrying arms to the houthis. the atmosphere at sea remains tense off the coast of yemen on this high stakes game of brinkmanship. nuclear negotiations resume as the military standoff between

show containers not certain they have weapons, but if they are once the weapons go ashore you have other options, opportunities to destroy them interdict them et cetera. what you're seeing is a show of force by the u.s. in a very tense situation. the u.s. has made its position clear on iran arming the houthi rebels but based on the conversations i've having it's unlikely you would have a u.s. naval personnel forcibly boarding an iranian ship. >> the argument has been made international legal argument, the u.n. security council passed a resolution saying you can't arm the houthi rebels shiite iran backed houthi rebels. one thing for iranian ships to be transporting arms in international waters but once they get into yemeni sovereign waters territorial waters of yemen, technically there's an international legal authority to suspect those ships. >> absolutely. you'll notice in statements from u.s. officials and others in the region they have mentioned those very u.n. security council resolutions as a kind of public reminder, a marker to the iran appss, one, that we're watching we have our s

there are weapons delivered to g. >> what we've said to them is if there are weapons delivered to . >> what we've said to them is if there are weapons delivered to . >> what we've said to them is if there are weapons delivered to . >> what we've said to them is if there are weapons delivered to o. >> what we've said to them is if there are weapons delivered to >> what we >> what >> what we've & they could prob we're sending them very direct messages about it. >> reporter: for now the iranians show no signs of challenging the blockade, inching along at 5 knots just outside yemen's territorial waters to avoid any military confrontation with u.s. or coalition forces. officials here are confident the iranians have a plan they just don't know what it is. according to one senior official the iranians are not playing cat and mouse, they're playing chess which could give them the advantage. after all, the official points out, iranians invented chess, lester. >> jim miklaszewski at the pentagon, thanks. >>> the captain of the ship that capsized in the mediterranean saturday drowning at least

we cannot allow iran to build a nuclear weapon. so we can go forward with the deal, making sure that we have full transparency, unfettered access inspection, and so fort, guaranteed by not just the united states but by six major world powers, or bomb iran and bomb the nuclear program back a few years. the latter option would be extraordinarily dangerous. the first option is preferred, but by no means assured, and i think we'll have to use congress to help ensure that the process will be fair and open but i encourage congress not to turn this into a political football. >> i do, fashion the president said this issue is bigger than politics but a lot of people think he is talking about his legacy. mark i think wait interesting when we saw the iranian foreign minister standing up there zarif he kept saying that iran has always been enriching uranium peacefully. everyone in the world knows that's a lie. so here you have him at this press conference, not even telling the truth at the press conference. where does that leave us? >> we stal

tries to coax iran into a nuclear weapons deal, u.s. warships are there and what are they authorized to do? this is "special report." good evening and welcome to washington. i'm bret baier. american diplomats are preparing to resume work on a nuclear deal with iran to try to delay the ability to build a nuclear weapon. this as american naval vessels are keeping a close eye on iranian ships, which may be trying to add more weapons to the mix in the chaotic houthi rebels. the u.s. is under strict orders of what they can not do. we have an eye-opening look at the iran nuclear timeline and how the u.s. has adjusted the assessment of how long it would take iran to get a bomb. we begin with jennifer griffin at the pentagon. >> fox news has learned that the white house is not even close to making a decision about conducting a search of the iranian vessels carrying arms to the houthis. the atmosphere at sea remains tense off the coast of yemen on this high stakes game of brinkmanship. nuclear negotiations resume as the military standoff between

of terrorism or exporters of weapons.hat is a nightmare scenario for the western world. iran having nuclear weapons becomes massively destabilize. not only for the region, but also for the world. it is dangerous given the history as a state sponsor of terrorism. you wonder why foreign news resonates now and it doesn't feel like something remote being done in geneva. people have a visceral response from the rise of al qaeda and the attacks of 9/11 to the rise of isis and iran and the blurred lines throughout the middle east today. it is one of the reasons why our middle east coverage and our foreign coverage has resonated. which are to focus and differentiate our foreign coverage. focus on dictators and terrorists will recover them and break them with real news and move the ball forward and not slide into any artisan defense of one predictable approach or another whether it be republican or democrat. these are issues of life and that death. president obama certainly talked a lot about nuclear weapons at the outset of his t

including on thive heavy weapons -- offensive heavy weapons like tanks and artillery. they said that the training has been sluggish. when i asked a senior u.s. official, he said, well, the peshmerga are on the front line fighting, we're having trouble organizing them. that notion was repudiated by senior kurdish officials. so the u.s. is a major obstacle to iraqi kurdistan's independence. the conditions of security and economic viability are being established, but they haven't been fully man pest. manifest. kurds have been trying to sell oil around the world. the u.s. has actively lobbied countries not to buy their oil. there was a kurdish tanker a kurdish -- a tanker filled with kurdish oil that was going through morocco. the u.s. intervened repeatedly with the the moroccan government not to buy the oil. there was a tanker off the coast of galveston, and the u.s. brought a legal action true a federal court -- through a federal court to block the offloading of the oil. the kurds say we want to have income in order procure weapons and defend ourselves, so they haven't b

the incident was triggered when officers conducted a routine cell search for weapons in the prison's maximum security unit. >> the inmates are primarily in here because of behavior, assaultive, and if they can get their hands on pieces of metal particularly, they will sharpen them to make shanks or knives. >> we search a lot. we search as much as we can to make sure they are not storing contraband items like weapons, drugs, money. >> it was during this cell search that we first met this inmate who was serving an eight-year sentence for carjacking. >> can you tell me what's going on? >> they shaking us down to see whether we got illegal things on us, things that we ain't supposed to have, stuff like that. i call it harassment though. >> his cell is thoroughly searched. >> they like to hide shanks or homemade knives in their boots sometimes. they will come in here and tear out the soles and put them in the bottom. they have 24 hours a day to think of where to put stuff, so it's an endless process. >> so what are they doing? >> they're not allowed to have anything on the walls or the do

the core of its weapon in iraq will be dismantled and replaced. second, this deal shuts down iran's path to a bomb using enriched uranium. iran has agreed to reduce installed installed centrifuges by at least two-thirds. even if it violated the deal for the next decade at least, iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb. and the strict limitations on iran's stock pile will last for 15 years. international inspectors will have unprecedented access not only to iranian nuclear facilities but to the entire supply chain that supports iran's nuclear program from uranium mills that provide the raw materials to the centrifuge production and storage facilities that support the program. if iran cheats the world will know it. if we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. iran's past efforts to weaponize its program will be addressed. with this deal iran will face more inspections than any other country in the world. the transparency measures will last for 20 years or more and iran will never be permitted to develo

and that is clearly an economic weapon. now there is precedent for shielding countries from this type of coercion. in 2003, the u.s. and the eu, immune to seizure by private creditors. the uk parliament could similarly enact legislation to deny enforcement of the bonds since it is governed under english law. if russia refuses to reschedule payment on the bond or reclassify it under the auspices of the paris club, has the administration engaged with the british government on the possibility of denying enforcement of the bond under british law? >> ranking member menendez, thank you for that question. a few -- i think you toucheded on a few points so let me touch on a few aspect that is are relevant. first of all, russia has not asked for, has not demanded so-called acceleration of the payment. in addition, the ukrainian government in the context of its imf program has indicated that it intends to discuss with creditors, which would include russia, the rescheduling of obligations falling due primarily within the cope of the im

they were also obsolete weapons. the u.s. had already issued an offer -- had already issued an order to withdraw them because they were being replaced by even more lethal weapons, invulnerable to lair race submarines. so that was kennedy's choice, shall we publicly withdraw first strike missiles from turkey on the border of russia, which are being replaced by even more lethal missiles, or shall we refuse? he refused. his own estimate, subjective estimate of nuclear war at the time was between a third and a half. that's in my view, one of the most appalling decisions in history, and even more appalling is that kennedy is praised for his cool courage in handling the crisis. .. henry kissinger secretly informed israel they could ignore it. hence the need for a nuclear alert to frighten the russiansway. fortunately they were frightened away. security of the population was a matter of little concern as usual. ten years after that, the reagan administration launched operations to probe russian defenses. that meant simulating air an

the iranians have been shipping weapons to the houthis long before this conflict began and those weaponsnclude shoulder launch surface-to-air missiles. there was a shipment that was interdicted of iranian weapons going to the houthis. they're helping them with -- to build certain facilities. and so the evidence we have -- and they're providing them with financial support. the evidence is very clear to us and we have no doubt about it. we also see it reflected in the public position that iran and hezbollah have taken with regards to the conflict in yemen and with regards to the houthis. dr. anthony: the next one has to do with various aspects of iran and perhaps three aspects. several questions about if you were to address the question of to what extent, if at all, is it really sunni versus shi'ia issues, ideological, political geopolitical, versus revolutionary view points versus the legitimacy of the incumbent governments in the region. haven't seen that question but that's an intriguing one. adel: i think the way we never wanted to have a sectarian conflict. we have in saudi arabia, sa

says its speeding up weapons supplies to the coalition. on the diplomatic front china and russia are working on a new resolution. the move is aimed at stopping violence and resuming political talks among yemen's rival factions. >> china is deeply wired about the recent developments about the situation in yemen. we call on all relevant parties to quickly implement a cease-fire and avoid further civilian casualties. china also hopes that all relevant sides can i am security counsel resolutions and gcc proposals. we also call on them to resolve the crisis through political dialogue to restore stability and legal order. >> but on the ground the fighting continues. forces loyal to abd rabbuh mansur hadi say they're driving houthis from arrests why aden saada. the saudi-led coalition said that they'll continue attacks until houthies are pushed out of cities that they control and president hadi is reinstated, a demand that is rejected by the houthis. >> well, earlier i spoke to the saudi ambassador to the united nations. he started by talking abo

. >> prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon? now, it's holy week and i want to believe those words, but common sense tells you the decision to believe someone depends on prior experiences with them. translation, given benghazi and this despicable video and you can keep your health care plan and your doctor, and there's not a smidgen of corruption in the irs, and bloomberg doyle served with honor and distinction. do i need to keep going? but i want to believe the president. this is just too important. not only for us but for our children and our grandchildren. there are two sides to every deal. how do we know if we can trust the other side? how do we know if we can trust iran? but i guess that i don't have to worry because our president has us covered. >> if iran cheats, the world will know it. if we see something suspicious, we will inspect it. >> here's the problem. the iranians tried to keep their underground fortress a secret from us and the rest of the world when they were building it. and assuming that inspectors can even f

to give him weapons basically on credit.nd the list is pretty long from iraqi officials we're hearing -- oh it looks like possibly the meeting may have wrapped up. that was the prime minister just leaving. he will be meeting with secretary kerry later in the day. the list is pretty long everything from f16s to surveillance drones apache helicopters. basically they want to conducted their own air campaign. but that would be giving away the most leverage the u.s. has. think about tikrit the shia militias was fighting alongside. there was a stalemate, and the u.s. was asked to do air strikes, and the u.s. said not unless the shia backed militias leave, because they are linked with iran. so it's a very delicate dance happening here at the white house. >> given the fact that a few months ago, iraqi military walked away in the face of isil abandoning lots of weapons and tanks, is there any concern that if the u.s. provides new weapons they could fall into the wrong hands? >> of course it is a huge certain here. the president said