that be better than the agreement. that s how i come down with wrestling with those two questions, the short duration of the agreement weighed against the alternative agreement and what it looks like. so it sounds to me, correct me if i m wrong, congressman, you re leaning towards supporting this deal? well i don t want to express a lean to at this point. i still want to go through my final due diligence on it but i want to let this drag out. i know i m going to have excess to what will change the calculus but what are the practical realities of a congressional vote against this deal. what would then take shape? what would iran do what would russia and china do. is it plausible to envision something that comes out better than the agreement? i haven t reached a final conclusion but that s what i m trying to weigh. are you convinced as
he s been listening to kerry s arguments, the other arguments pro and con over several days joining us from capitol hill once again. congressman, thanks very much are you yet on board. do you support this nuclear deal with iran? wolf i still haven t made a decision yet. there s still some more documents in the intelligence committee i want to go through and a few more conversations that i want to have. but i m getting fairly close. as i work my way through the issues it comes down to a couple things. i think the snapback sanctions are actually a pretty effective mechanism. i think the inspections are fairly robust although there is a problem with gaining access to military sites that still troubles me. but the biggest concern i have over the agreement is over its duration. what happens after eight to ten years when they have a fairly robust enrichment capability? and what i m weighing that against, wolf which is the other challenge here for the other side of this argument what is the
position as a what the u.s. calls a state sponsor of terror. he wasn t very upbeat that iran s attitude in this area could change. that s right, the pentagon has said malign activities of iran basically an all-encompassing phrase its efforts to use proxy such as hamas and hezbollah and all of iran s activities that iran want to see them abandoned from the nuclear agreement. i think it is very fair to say that at the pentagon the top leadership watching very closely doesn t see a loatht of change in iran s behavior yet and it goes back to general dempsey. if you don t see a change in iran s behavior you just to watch them all the more carefully. he s talked about watching them more closely and very much the need to keep u.s. forces in the region to deal with all of it if it comes to that wolf. all right, thanks very much
officials in the 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 use this money to help 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
secretary of state john kerry is being closely scrutinized on capitol hill. listen to this exchange between the secretary of state and the chairman of the committee. we re presuming iran is going to change its behavior. no we re not. that behavior did not change last weekend when they were chanting again death to america. mr. chairman please with all due respect. we re not presuming any such thing. there s no presumption about what iran will or won t do. there s one objective make sure they can t get a nuclear weapon. joining us now is the house foreign affairs committee ed royce of california. mr. chairman thanks very much for joining us a testy exchange there. i take it you re adamantly opposed to this nuclear deal. the secretary didn t convince you to vote from favor of it?