of mass destruction being used against civilians and do nothing. a holocaust let loose. and we did nothing. the legacy is what it is. i think there will be regrets but president obama would bring in people who would have the point of view of john mccain and lindsey graham and go through in a rationale way say here s why what they re proposing is a bad idea. he didn t want another american quagmire in the country in another region and he saw the downside as greater than the upside but the cumulative effect of those decisions to reject inkrei incremental steps is to have a legacy of mass genocide and handing off a horrible situation. i m one who thinks that the president s essential argument during much of that period which is, yeah, we could give weapons to rebels, but which rebels,
well, this is a bad deal. it s a very bad deal. we re better off without it. hours later, president obama responded to prime minister s netanyahu s criticism. here he is. on the core issue, which is how do we prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region, the prime minister didn t offer any viable alternatives. the alternative that the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear programs. his essential argument is if we just double down on sanctions, iran won t want to do that. well, we have evidence from the past decade that sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent iran from pursuing its nuclear
well this is a bad deal. it s a very bad deal. we re better off without it. hours later, president obama responded to prime minister s netanyahu s criticism. here he is. on the core issue, which is how do we prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous and would give it scope for even greater action in the region the prime minister didn t offer any viable alternatives. the alternative that the prime minister offers is no deal in which case iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear programs. his essential argument is if we just double down on sanctions, iran won t want to do that. well, we have evidence from the past decade that sanctions alone are not sufficient to prevent iran from pursuing its nuclear
different pathways for iran to advance its nuclear capabilities. it would roll back some elements of its program. it would ensure that it did not have what we call a break-out capacity that was shorter than a year s time. and it would subject iran to the most vigorous inspections and verifications regimes that have ever been put in place. and the alternative that the prime minister offers is no deal in which case iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they are doing. and without constraint. and his essential argument is if we double down on sanctions, iran won t want to do that. well, we have evidence from the past decade that sanctions alone
different pathways for iran to advance its nuclear capabilities. it would roll back some elements of its program. it would ensure that it did not have what we call a breakout capacity that was shorter than a year s time. and it would subject iran to the most vigorous inspections and verifications that have ever been put in place. the alternative that the prime minister offers is no deal in which case iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they re doing. and without constraint. and his essential argument is if we just double down on sanctions, iran won t want to do that. well we have evidence from the past decade that those sanctions