Is the incremental additional money that theyve got to try to destabilize the region or send to their proxies, is that more important than preventing iran from getting a Nuclear Weapon . No. So i think again, this is a matter of us making a determination of what is our priority. The other problem with the argument that folks have been making about, oh, this is a windfall and suddenly iran is flushed with cash, and theyre going to take over the world. And i say that not tongueincheek, because if you look at some of the statements by some of our critics, you would think that iran is, in fact, going to take over the world as a consequence of this deal which i think would be news to the iranians. That argument is also premised on the notion that if there is no deal, if Congress Votes down this deal, that were able to keep sanctions in place with the same vigor and effectiveness as we have right now. And that, i can promise you, is not true. That is absolutely not true. I want to repeat were not writing iran a check. This is irans money that we were able to block from them having access to. That required the cooperation of countries all around the world many of whom really want to purchase oil from iran. The imposition of sanctions their cooperation with us has cost them billions of dollars, made it harder for them. Theyve been willing to do that because theyve believed we were sincere about trying to resolve the Nuclear Issue peacefully and they considered that a priority a high enough priority that they were willing to cooperate with us on sanctions. If they saw us walking away, or more specifically, if they saw the u. S. Congress effectively vetoing the judgment of 99 percent of the World Community that this is a deal that resolves the iranian Weapons ProgramNuclear Weapons program in an equitable way, the sanctions system unravels. And so we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions, but it would be far less effective as it was before we were able to put together these multilateral sanctions. So maybe they dont get 100 billion; maybe they get 60 billion or 70 billion instead. The price for that that weve paid is that now iran is pursuing a Nuclear Weapon. We have no inspectors on the ground. We dont know whats going on. Theyre still getting some cash windfall. Weve lost credibility in the eyes of the world. We will have effectively united iran and divided ourselves from our allies. A terrible position to be in. Im just going to look i made some notes about any of the arguments the other arguments that ive heard here. What about offmic the end of the deal . President obama okay, yes thats a good one. The notion at the end of the deal they could go back president obama right. Well, so lets address this issue of because thats the other big argument thats been made. All right, lets assume that the deal holds for 10 years, iran doesnt cheat. Now, at the end of 10 years, some of the restrictions have been lifted although, remember, others stay in place for 15 years. So for example, theyve still got to keep their stockpiles at a minimal level for 15 years. The inspections dont go away; those are still in place 15, 20 years from now. Their commitment under the nonproliferation treaty does not go away; thats still in place. The Additional Protocol that they have to sign up for under this deal, which requires a more extensive inspection and Verification Mechanism that stays in place. So theres no scenario in which a u. S. President is not in a stronger position 12, 13, 15 years from now if, in fact, iran decided at that point they still wanted to get a Nuclear Weapon. Keep in mind, we will have maintained a oneyear breakout time, we will have rolled back their program, frozen their facilities, kept them under severe restrictions, had observers. They will have made International Commitments supported by countries around the world. And hold on a second and if at that point they finally decided, you know what, were going to cheat, or not even cheat at that point, they decide openly were now pursuing a Nuclear Weapon theyre still in violation of this deal and the commitments theyve made internationally. And so we are still in a position to mobilize the World Community to say, no, you cant have a Nuclear Weapon. And theyre not in a stronger position to get a Nuclear Weapon at that point; theyre in a weaker position than they are today. And, by the way, we havent given away any of our military capabilities. Were not in a weaker position to respond. So even if everything the critics were saying was true that at the end of 10 years, or 12 years, or 15 years, iran now is in a position to decide it wants a Nuclear Weapon, that theyre at a breakout point they wont be at a breakout point that is more dangerous than the breakout point theyre in right now. They wont be at a breakout point that is shorter than the one that exists today. And so why wouldnt we at least make sure that for the next 10 15, years they are not getting a Nuclear Weapon and we can verify it; and afterwards, if they decide if theyve changed their mind, we are then much more knowledgeable about what their capabilities are, much more knowledgeable about what their program is, and still in a position to take whatever actions we would take today . So none of this is holding out hope that theyll change their behavior . President obama no. Nothing different president obama no. Look, im always hopeful that behavior may change for the sake of the iranian people as well as people in the region. There are young people there who are not getting the opportunities they deserve because of conflict, because of sectarianism, because of poor governance, because of repression, because of terrorism. And i remain eternally hopeful that we can do something about that, and it should be part of u. S. Foreign policy to do something about that. But im not banking on that to say that this deal is the right thing to do. Again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an american president is in a worse position 12, 13, 14, 15 years from now if, in fact, at that point iran says were going to pull out of the npt, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. If that happens, that president will be in a better position than what happened if iran, as a consequence of congress rejecting this deal, decides thats it, were done negotiating, were going after a bomb right now. The choices would be tougher today than they would be for that president 15 years from now. And i have not yet heard logic that refutes that. All right. I really have to go now. I think weve hit the big themes. But i promise you, i will address this again. All right . I suspect this is not the last that weve heard of this debate. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] announcer the u. K. Was one of six countries negotiating with iran over its Nuclear Program. Philip hammond discussed the details of the deal in the house of commons today and took questions from members of parliament. This is 45 minutes. Speaker order. Secretary philip hammond. Secretary hammond i would like to make a statement on the outcome of the Nuclear Negotiations with iran. The world has held its breath as talks between world powers and iran have edged to a conclusion. They were difficult negotiations and all sides faced tough decisions. Yesterday morning a process that began one decade ago came to a conclusion. The result is a historic deal, a moment in efforts to prevent Nuclear Proliferation and a victory for diplomacy. The u. K. With its partners china, france, germany, russia and the u. S. Have at last reached an agreement with iran on Nuclear Programs. With the conclusion of these negotiations, the world can be reassured that all ukrainian routes to a nuclear bomb iranian routes to a nuclear bomb have been closed off. The origin of these negotiations lies in the revelation 12 years ago that iran was concealing Nuclear Activities in violation of international optic nations. At that time, iran was not willing to meet the International Community. They responded with Security Council resolutions. The agreement we have reached is not absolved iran blame for previous activities, nor those of white the slate clean. It offers even on the opportunity to draw a line under past behavior and build trust in his declaration that it is not pursuing the development of a Nuclear Weapon. This will not be a quick process. It should be possible. The governments purpose in seeking an agreement has always been clear to secure insurance that iran will not be able to develop a Nuclear Weapon. Disagreements impose strict limits on the Nuclear Program, the comprehensive and longlasting for 10 years, a rons enrichment capacity irans enrichment capacity will be reduced. It will only enrich to a certain level below the 90 percent level of enrichment considered necessary for a Nuclear Weapon. Its a stockpile of enriched uranium would be limited to 300 kilos, down from over seven tons with the balance being exported to russia. Its research and Development Activities will be constrained so that it will not be able to enrich with advanced centrifuging for 10 years. No uranium enrichment or Nuclear Materials will be permitted at its underground site. The agreement also cuts off the plutonium wrote to developing a bomb. Irans heavywater Research Reactor will be redesigned so that it will no longer have the capability to produce weapons grade plutonium. Given a historic levels of mistrust builtup between iran and the International Community, a strong inspection regime and a framework for addressing concerns about past military dimensions are vital for Building Trust and providing us with the confidence that iran is meeting commitments. Some of the crucial monitoring and transparency measures of this deal will last indefinitely, such as the implementation of the Additional Protocols of the safeguard agreement. It will allow access to sites about which the iaea has concerns that cannot be addressed in other ways. Iran is no exception. Irans obligations, including the obligation never to acquire or develop weapons will apply during and after the. Of the deal period of the deal. We will not hesitate to take action including sanctions if they violate at any time. Our concerns about the military dimensions of the Nuclear Program will be addressed. The iaea and iran have agreed a roadmap of actions to clarify these issues. Taken together, these measures mean that if iran were to renate on promises and break out for a bomb, it would take at least 12 months even to require the necessary materials for a single device. The robust transparency measures we have agreed mean that we, the International Community, would know almost immediately and we would have time to respond. In return for implementing these commitments and as our confidence in their program develops over time iran will receive a portion of sanctions release. Initially, there will be release of the eu, u. S. , and Nuclear Related economic and financial sanctions. The sanctions really full only be triggered once iaea verifies that iran has taken steps to limit Nuclear Programs. Other core provisions in the existing Security Council resolution will be reestablished by a new u. N. Resolution. Important restrictions on imports and exports of conventional arms and development of Ballistic Missiles will be reimposed through in annex to that resolution and only listed later in the agreement. These relaxations are backed by a robust enforcement mechanism. If there is a significant violation of the nuclear provisions of the agreement all previous u. N. Sanctions can be reimposed through a snap back mechanism, which any party to disagreement can invoke. The eu and the u. S. Could also reimpose their own sanctions. Clearly, having made this agreement, able be strongly any rons interested to comply with the provisions to avoid a return to the sanctions regime that has crippled its economy for so long. We need to look ahead to the implementation of the agreement. After such tough negotiations there will be bonds along the road. We entered the agreement in good faith and all struck all sides must try to resolve problems. The deal includes robust enforcement provisions and we will not hesitate to use them if iran goes back on its word. Disagreement is focused solely on their Nuclear Program. Its conclusion could have its conclusion could have wider, positive consequences by providing the meat by providing sanctions relief for economic reengagement with the world it will allow the uranian people to feel the tangible its of international cooperation. After reading engagement materializes, we will speak to assist businesses to take advantage of the opportunity that will arise. That assistance would be enhanced through having a functioning British Embassy in tehran. We remain committed to reopening our embassies in each others countries and will do so when we have resolved outstanding issues. The deal also has the potential to build a different kind of relationship between iran and the west. A change in the positive way the dynamics of the region and beyond. In an atmosphere of developing confidence and trust, there will be an opportunity for iran to realign its approach in support of the International Communitys efforts, in particular, and confronting the shared challenge of isil and the resolution of regional crises such as those in yemen in syria. This will be a process, it will take time. In the meantime, we remain realistic about the nature of the Iranian Regime and its wider ambitions. We will continue to speak out against irans poor human rights record. We will continue to work closely with our friends, allies partners in the region who live with uranian interference uranian interference iranian interference. An iranian bomb would be a major threat to global stability. That threat is never moved. We and iran now have a responsibility to ensure that the wider potential benefits of this deal for the region and for the International Community as a whole are delivered. The u. K. Is fully committed to playing its part and i commend that. Thank you mr. Speaker. Can i begin by thanking the foreign secretary for his sin minute for setting up the details of this agreement. Let me begin by paying tribute to him, john kerry, our european and international partners, and everybody involved for their efforts in securing a major diplomatic breakthrough. There has long been consensus across these benches that seeking an agreement with iran was the right thing for the International Community to do. We have always supported the approach of sanctions and negotiations backed up by the Security Council resolutions and it is welcomed the talks have reach a conclusion more than 12 years since they began with the support of among others, the foreign secretary. None of us want iran to have a Nuclear Weapon, and nobody believes that the world would be a safer place where they ever to acquire one. Reflecting on how much more grave the world might have looked at today if the house to report that talks had collapsed without an agreement. We would be facing the almost a certain restart of their Nuclear Program with no means of monitoring or inspection. The possibility of a Nuclear Arms Race in the middle east and greater instability in an alreadyvolatile region. That is why it has been right to use the negotiating opportunity the suppression of sanctions against the Iranian Regime has created and that this process was not rushed in order to get this right. The question now is to ensure that this agreement lives up to the words of the eu and the Iranian Foreign ministers joint statement yesterday. That it is not only a deal, but a good deal. Mr. Speaker, negotiations of this complexity are never easy. That is the nature of diplomacy. In agreement presents the International Community with a chance to make progress in the right direction. We should grasp it. The foreign secretary outlined many aspects of the agreement. Let me touch on a number of things. First, iran has reaffirmed that under no circumstances will they ever seek, develop, or acquire Nuclear Weapons. This is significant and important. The world will want to see that there words are matched by its deeds, especially those countries in the region that have particular concerns. I want the foreign secretaries assurances that independent inspections are at the