the deal we have negotiated achieves that goal. it make sure that iran does not get a nuclear weapon we have always recognized that even if iran does not get a nuclear weapon it still poses challenges to our interest and our values in the region and around the world. when this deal gets implemented, we know that we will have dismantled the immediate concerns around iran's nuclear program. we will have brought the stockpile down to 98%. we will have reduce the number of centrifuges they operate. we will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime. that will remain in place not just for 10 years, but for the stockpile 15 years. iran will have pledged to the international community that it will not develop a nuclear weapon that will be subject to additional protocols. we will have disabled a facility like iraq the iraq facility from allowing iran to develop plutonium they could be used for a bomb. we will have greatly reduced the stockpile of uranium that is enriched, and we will have put into place inspections along the entire supply chain so that if uranium was diverted into a covert program, we would catch it. so i can say with confidence but more important a nuclear experts can say with confidence, that iran will not be in a position to develop a nuclear bomb we will have met our number one nuclear priority. we will still have problems with iran's sponsorship of terrorism. it's funding of proxies like hezbollah that threat israel and the region. my hope is that we can continue to have conversations with iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region, to be less aggressive, less hostile, more cooperative. to operate the way we expect nations to behave. we are not counting on it. this deal is not contingent on iran changing its behavior. it solves one problem, making sure they don't have a bomb. it will be a lot easier for us to check iran's nefarious activities, push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interest. will they change their behavior? will we seek to gain more involvement with them? we will continue to engage with them. we are not normalizing diplomatic relations here. the context will be limited we will work with israel to bring additional pressure on iran. the argument that i have been hearing before the deal was announced that because this deal does not solve all those other problems that is an argument for rejecting this deal. it makes no sense it loses sight of what was our original number one priority, which is making sure that they don't have a bomb. >> does it give pause to see this deal praised by the syrian dictator as a victory for iran or praised by those in toronto who shout death to america, and yet our closes ally in the middle east calls it a historic mistake. in washington, it seems a large majority will vote to reject the deal. you have any concerns about seeing the majority of the people's representatives in congress and this is a bad deal? if i can just ask you a quick question -- president obama: let me answer the question you ask. it does not give me pause that mr. assad or others in tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. that's what politicians do, and that's been the case throughout. i mean, you will recall that during the course of these negotiations over the last couple of months, every time the supreme leader or somebody tweeted something out, for some reason, we all bought into the notion, "well, the obama administration must be giving this or capitulating that." well, now we have a document. so you can see what the deal is. we don't have to speculate. we don't have to engage in spin. you can just read what it says and what is required. and nobody has disputed that as a consequence of this agreement, iran has to drastically reduce its stockpiles of uranium, is cut off from plutonium, the fordow facility that is underground is converted, that we have an unprecedented inspections regime, that we have snap-back provisions if they cheat. you know, the facts are the facts, and i'm not concerned about what others say about it. now, with respect to congress my hope -- i won't prejudge this -- my hope is -- is that everyone in congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts, not on politics, not on posturing, not on the fact this is a deal i bring to congress as opposed a republican president, not based on lobbying but based on what's in the national interest of the united states of america. and i think that if congress does that, then in fact, based on the facts, the majority of congress should approve of this deal. but we live in washington, and politics do intrude. and as i said in an interview yesterday, i am not betting on the republican party rallying behind this agreement. i do expect the debate to be based on facts and not speculation or misinformation, and that, i welcome, in part because, look, there are -- there are legitimate, real concerns here. we've already talked about it. we have huge differences with iran. israel has legitimate concerns about its security relative to iran. i mean, you have a large country with a significant military that has proclaimed that israel shouldn't exist, that has denied the holocaust, that has financed hezbollah, and as a consequence, there are missiles that are pointed towards tel aviv. and so i think there are very good reasons why israelis are nervous about iran's position in the world generally. and i've said this to prime minister -- i've said it directly to the israeli people. but what i've also said is that all those threats are compounded if iran gets a nuclear weapon. and for all the objections of prime minister netanyahu or, for that matter, some of the republican leadership that's already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the american people a better alternative. i'm hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about "this is a bad deal. this is a historically bad deal. this will threaten israel and threaten the world and threaten the united states." i mean there's been a lot of that. what i haven't heard is what is your preferred alternative? if 99% of the world's community and the majority of nuclear experts look at this thing and they say "this will prevent iran from getting a nuclear bomb," and you are arguing either that it does not or that even if it does, it's temporary, or that because they're going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that they'll cause more problems, then you should have some alternative to present. and i haven't heard that. and the reason is because there really are only two alternatives here. either the issue of iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war. those are -- those are the options. now, you'll hear some critics say, "well, we could have negotiated a better deal." ok. what does that mean? i think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that a better deal, an acceptable deal would be one in which iran has no nuclear capacity at all peaceful or otherwise. the problem with that position is that there is 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 have a situation where iran can delay 24 days before giving access to military facilities. president obama: i'm happy to -- i'm happy to -- that's a good example. so, let's take the issue of 24 days. this has been, i think, swirling today, the notion that this is insufficient in terms of inspections. now, keep in mind first of all that we'll have 24/7 inspections of declared nuclear facilities: fordow, natanz, arak, their uranium mines, facilities that are known to produce centrifuges, parts. that entire infrastructure that we know about, we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities. ok. so then the issue is what if they try to develop a covert program? now, one of the advantages of having inspections across the entire production chain is that it makes it very difficult to set up a covert program. you know, there are only so many uranium mines in iran. and if in fact we're counting the amount of uranium that's being mined, and suddenly some is missing on the back end, they got some 'splainin' to do. so we're able to track what's happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a covert program. but let's say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly, the iaea, the international organization charged with implementing the non-proliferation treaty and monitoring nuclear activities in countries around the world, the iaea will have the ability to say that undeclared site, we're concerned about. we see something suspicious. and they will be able to say to iran, we want to go inspect that. now, if iran objects, we can override it. in the agreement, we've set it up so we can override iran's objection, and we don't need russia or china in order for us to get that override. and if they continue to object we're in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that iran's in violation and is cheating. as for the fact that it may take 24 days to finally get access to the site, the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such -- this is not something you hide in a closet. this is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere. and by the way, if we identify an undeclared site that we're suspicious about, we're going to be keeping eyes on it. so we're going to be monitoring what the activity is, and that's going to be something that will be evidence if we think that some funny business was going on there, that we can then present to the international community. so we'll be monitoring it that entire time. and by the way, if there is nuclear material on that site, you know, your high school physics will remind us that that leaves a trace. and so we'll know that, in fact, there was a violation of the agreement. so the point is, jonathan, that this is the most vigorous inspection and verification regime, by far, that has ever been negotiated. is it possible that iran decides to try to cheat despite having this entire inspection and verification mechanism? that's possible. but if it does, first of all, we built in a one-year breakout time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully, and we've built in a snap-back provision so we don't have to go through lengthy negotiations at the u.n. to put the sanctions right back in place. and so really, the only argument you can make against the verification and inspection mechanism that we've put forward is that iran is so intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon that no inspection regime and no verification mechanism would be sufficient because they'd find some way to get around it because they are untrustworthy. and if that's your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. that means, presumably, that you can't negotiate, and what you're really saying is that you've got to apply military force to guarantee that they don't have a nuclear program. and if somebody wants to make that debate, whether it's the republican leadership or prime minister netanyahu or the israeli ambassador or others they're free to make it, but it's not persuasive. carol lee? >> thank you, mr. president. i want to ask you about the arms and ballistic missile embargo. why did you decide -- agree to lift those, even with the five-and eight-year durations? are you concerned that arms will go to has the law or hamas and's or anything that you or a future president can do to stop that. i wanted to ask if you could step back with that -- this and look at the deal -- it's obviously emerging as a sticking point on the hill. and are you concerned that arms to iran will go to hezbollah or hamas? and is there anything that you or a future president can do to stop that? and if you don't mind, i mean, i wanted to see if you could step back a little bit and when you look at this iran deal and all the other issues and unrest that's happening in the middle east, what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a year-and-a-half? president obama: so the issue of the arms embargo and ballistic missiles is a real concern to us, has been of real concern to us, and it is in the national security interest of the united states to prevent iran from sending weapons to hezbollah for example, or sending weapons to the houthis in yemen that accelerate a civil war there. we have a number of mechanisms under international law that gives us authority to interdict arms shipments by iran. one of those mechanisms is the u.n. security resolution related to iran's nuclear program. essentially, iran was sanctioned because of what had happened at fordow, its unwillingness to comply with previous u.n. security resolutions about their nuclear program, and as part of the package of sanctions that was slapped on them, the issue of arms and ballistic missiles were included. now, under the terms of the original u.n. resolution, the fact is that once an agreement was arrived at that gave the international community assurance iran didn't have a nuclear weapon, you could argue just looking at the text that those arms and ballistic missiles prohibition should immediately go away. but what i said to our negotiators was, given that iran has breached trust and the uncertainty of our allies in the region about iran's activities let's press for a longer extension of the arms embargo and the ballistic missile prohibitions. and we got that. we got five years in which under this new agreement, arms coming in and out of iran are prohibited, and we got eight years for the respective ballistic missiles. but part of the reason why we were willing to extend it only for five, let's say, as opposed a longer period of time, is because we have other u.n. resolutions that prohibit arms sales by iran to organizations like hezbollah. we have other u.n. resolutions and multilateral agreements that give us authority to interdict arms shipments from iran throughout the region. and so we've had belts and suspenders and buttons, a whole bunch of different legal authorities. these legal authorities under the nuclear program may lapse after five or eight years, but we'll still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. and truthfully, these prohibitions are not self enforcing. it's not like the u.n. has the capacity to police what iran is doing. what is does is it gives us authority under international law to prevent arms shipments from happening in concert with our allies and our partners. and the real problem, if you look at how, for example hezbollah got a lot of missiles that are a grave threat to israel and many of our friends in the region, it's not because they were legal, it's not because somehow that was authorized under international law; it was because there was insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those. so the bottom line is, carol, i -- -- insufficient intelligence or capacity to stop those shipments. so the bottom line is, carol, i share the concerns of israel saudis, gulf partners about iran shipping arms and causing conflict and chaos in the region, and that's why i've said to them, "let's double down and partner much more effectively to improve our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity so that fewer of those arms shipments are getting through the net." but the legal authorities will -- we will still possess, and obviously we've got our own unilateral prohibitions and sanctions in place around non-nuclear issues like support for hezbollah, and those remain in place. now, in terms of the larger issues that the middle east, obviously that's a -- that's a longer discussion. i think my key goal when i turn over the keys to the president -- the next president, is that we are on track to defeat isil that they are much more contained and we're moving in the right direction there, that we have jumpstarted a process to resolve the civil war in syria which is like an open sore in the region, and is giving refuge to terrorist organizations who are taking advantage of that chaos, to make sure that in iraq, not only have we pushed back isil, but we've also created an environment in which sunni, shia, and kurd are starting to operate and function more effectively together, and to be in a conversation with all our partners in the region about how we have strengthened our security partnerships so that they feel they can address any potential threats that may come, including threats from iran. and that includes providing additional security assurances and cooperation to israel, building on the unprecedented cooperation that we have already put in place, and the support that we've already put in place. it includes the work that we've done with the gcc up at camp david, making sure that we execute that. if we have done those things then the problems in the middle east will not be solved. and ultimately, it's not the job of the president of the united states to solve every problem in the middle east. the people in the middle east are going to have to solve some of these problems themselves. but i think we can provide that next president at least a foundation for continued progress in these various areas. the last thing i would say, and this is a longer-term issue, is we have to address the youth in the region with jobs and opportunity and a better vision for the future so that they are not tempted by the nihilistic, violent, dead-end that organizations like isil offer. again, we can't do that entirely by ourselves, but we can partner with well-intentioned organizations, states, ngos, religious leaders in the region. we have to do a better job of that than we've been doing so far. all right. michael crowley. >> thank you. you alluded earlier to iran's role in syria. just to focus on that for a moment, many analysts and some former members of your administration believe that the kind of negotiated political settlement that you say is necessary in syria will require working directly with iran in giving iran an important role. do you agree, and is that a dialogue you will be actively seeking? and what about the fight against isis? what would it take for there to be explicit cooperation between the u.s. and iran? president obama: i do agree that we're not going to solve the problems of syria unless there's buy-in from the russians, the iranians, the turks, our gulf partners. it is too chaotic. there are too many factions. there's too much money and too many arms flooding into the zone. it's gotten caught up in both sectarian conflict and geopolitical jockeying, and in order for us to resolve it there's going to have to be agreement among the major powers that are interested in syria that this is not going to be won on the battlefield. so iran is one of those players, and i think that it's important for them to be part of that conversation. i want to repeat what i said earlier. we have not, and i don't anticipate anytime in the near future, restored normal diplomatic relations with iran and so i do not foresee a formal set of agreements with iran in terms of how we're conducting our counter-isil campaign. but clearly, iran has influence in iraq. iraq has a majority shi'a population. they have relationships to iran. some are natural. we expect somebody like prime minister abadi to meet with and negotiate and work with iran as its neighbor. some are less legitimate, where were you see iran financing shia militias that in the past have killed american soldiers and in the future may carry out atrocities when they move into sunni areas. and so we're working with our diplomats on the ground as well as our military teams on the ground to assess where can we appropriately at least de-conflict and where can we work with prime minister abadi around an overall strategy for iraq to regain its sovereignty. and where do we tell abadi, you know what? what iran's doing there is a problem. and we can cooperate in that area, for example, unless you get those folks out of there because we're not going to have our troops even in an advisory or training role looking over their shoulders because they're not sure what might happen to them. and those conversations have been ongoing. i think they will continue. the one thing you can count on is that any work that the u.s. government does or the u.s. military does in iraq with other partners on the ground is premised on the idea that they are reporting to under the chain of command of the iraqi government and iraqi security forces. if we don't have confidence that ultimately abadi is directing those soldiers, then it's tough for us to have any kind of direct relationship. ok? major garrett? >> thank you, mr. president. as you well know, there are four americans in iran, three held on trumped-up charges that, according to your administration, one whereabouts unknown. can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all the fanfare around this deal, to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for in relation to these four americans? and last week, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. it is perceived that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations. many in the pentagon feel you've left the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff high out to dry. could you comment? president obama: i've got to give you credit, major, for how you craft those questions. the notion that i am content as i celebrate with american citizens languishing in iranian jails? major, that's nonsense, and you should know better. i've met with the families of some of those folks. nobody's content. and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out. now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. suddenly, iran realizes you know what? maybe we can get additional concessions out of the americans by holding these individuals. makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. and by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we'd still be pushing them just as hard to get these folks out. that's why those issues are not connected. but we are working every single day to try to get them out, and won't stop until they're out and rejoined with their families. with respect to the chairman's testimony, to some degree, i already answered this with carol. we are not taking the pressure off iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. as i just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo under this particular new u.n. resolution not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular u.n. resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see iran engaged in those activities, whether it's six years from now or 10 years from now. so we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact, part of my pitch to the gcc countries, as well as to prime minister netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that iran's not engaged in sending arms to organizations like hezbollah. and as i just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners. ok. april ryan. >> thank you, mr. president. i want to change the subject a bit. earlier this year, on the flight to selma, you said on matters of race, as president, your job is to close remaining gaps that are left in state and federal government. now, how does criminal-justice reform fit into that equation, and what gaps remain for you in the -- towards the end of your presidency? and also, what does it mean to travel to kenya, your father's homeland, in the next couple weeks as president of the united states? and lastly, would you revoke the medal of freedom for bill cosby? president obama: you stuffed a lot in there, april. [laughter] you know what -- >> i learned from my colleagues. president obama: who'd you learn from? jonathan karl? is that what you said? [laughter] the -- on criminal-justice reform, obviously, i gave a lengthy speech yesterday, but this is something that i've been thinking about a lot, been working first with eric holder and now loretta lynch about -- we've been working along with other prosecutors of the -- the u.s. attorney's office. it's an outgrowth of the task force that we put together post-ferguson and the garner case in new york. and i don't think that the criminal-justice system is obviously, the sole source of racial tension in this country or the key institution to resolving the opportunity gap. but i think it is a part of the broader set of challenges that we face in creating a more perfect union. and the good news is -- is that this is one of those rare issues where we've got some republican and democratic interests as well as federal, state and local interest in solving the problem. i think people recognize that there are violent criminals out there, and they've got to be locked up. we have got to have tough prosecutors. we have to support our law enforcement officials. police are in a tough job, and -- and they are helping to keep us safe, and we are grateful and thankful to them. but what we also know is this huge spike in incarcerations is also driven by nonviolent drug offenses where the sentencing is completely out of proportion with the crime. and that costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money, it is debilitating communities, who are seeing huge proportions of the young men in their communities finding themselves with a criminal record rendering them often times unemployable. so it compounds problems that these communities already have. and so i am very appreciative of -- of folks like dick durbin and cory booker alongside mike lee and rand paul and other folks in the house, who are working together to see if we can both reduce some of these mandatory minimums around nonviolent drug offenses, because again, i tend not to have a lot of sympathy when it comes to violent crime. but when it comes to non-violent drug offenses, is there work that we can do to reduce mandatory minimums, create more diversion programs like drug courts, then can we do a better job on the rehabilitation side inside of prisons so that we are preparing these folks who are eventually going to be released to reenter the workforce. on the back end, are we doing more to link them up with reentry programs that are effective? and you know, this may be an area where we could have some really significant bipartisan legislation that doesn't eliminate all the other challenges we have got. because the most important goal is keeping folks from getting in the criminal justice system in the first place, which means early childhood education, and good jobs, and making sure that we're not segregating folks in impoverished communities that have no contact with opportunity. but this can make a difference. you know, i met these four ex-offenders, as i said yesterday. and what was remarkable was how they had turned their lives around. and these were some folks who had been some pretty tough criminals. i mean, one of them had served 10 years. another was a repeat offender that had served a lot of time. and in each instance, somebody intervened at some point in their lives, once they had already been in the criminal justice system, once they had already gotten in trouble, and said you know what, i think you can live a different way, and i'm willing to help you. and that one person, an art teacher or a ged teacher, or somebody who's willing to offer a guy a job, i want to give a shot out to five guys, because one of the guys there was an ex-felon, and five guys gave him a job. and he ended up becoming a manager at the store and was able to completely turn his life around. but the point was, somebody reached out that person and gave them a chance. and so part of our question should be how about somebody reaching out to these guys when they're 10 or 11 or 12 or eight as opposed to waiting until they've already gone through a criminal justice program? that's part of why we're doing my brother's keeper. but this is an area where i feel modestly optimistic. i think in the meantime, we've got to stay on top of keeping the crime rate down, because part of the reason i think there's a conversation taking place is, violent crime has significantly dropped. last year, we saw both incarcerations and the crime rate drop. and you know, this can always turn if we start seeing renewed problems in terms of violent crime. and there's parts of the country where violent crime is still a real problem, including my hometown of chicago, and in baltimore, and you know part of what i've asked attorney general lynch to do is to figure out how can we refocus attention if we're going to do a package of criminal justice reforms? part of it would be actually having a greater police presence and more law enforcement in the communities that are really getting hit hard, and haven't seen some of the drops in violent crime that we've seen in places like manhattan, for example. with respect to the visit to kenya, it's obviously something i am looking forward to. i will be honest with you, visiting kenya as a private citizen is probably more meaningful to me than visiting as president, because i can actually get outside of the hotel room or a conference center. and just the logistics of visiting a place are always tough as president. but it's obviously symbolically important, and my hope is, is that we can deliver a message that the u.s. is a strong partner, not just for kenya, but for sub-saharan africa generally, build on the progress that's been made around issues of health and education, focus on counter-terrorism issues that are important in east africa because of al-shabaab and some of the tragedies that have happened inside of kenya, and continue to encourage democracy and the reduction of corruption inside that country that sometimes has held back this incredibly gifted and blessed country. and with respect to the medal of freedom, there is no precedent for revoking a metal -- medal. we don't have that mechanism. and as you know, i tend to make it a policy not to comment on the specifics of -- of cases where there might still be, if not criminal, then civil issues involved. i will say this. if you give a woman, or a man, for that matter, without his or her knowledge, a drug and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape. and i think this country, any civilized country, should have no tolerance for rape. all right. have we exhausted iran questions here? i think there's a helicopter that's coming, but -- but i really am enjoying this iran debate. topics that may not have been touched upon, criticisms that you've heard that i did not answer, the -- i just -- go ahead. go ahead. i know josh is getting a little stressed here, but -- i just -- i just want to make sure that we're not leaving any stones unturned here. go ahead. >> thanks. mr. president, i'll be brief. the argument has been made that iran now has a cash windfall billions to spend. your people seem confident they're going to spend it at home. why are you confident they're not going to spend it on arming hezbollah, arming bashr al-assad, et cetera? president obama: i -- i think that's a great question, and i'm -- i'm glad you brought it up. i think it is a mistake to -- to characterize our belief that they will just spend it on daycare centers and -- and -- and roads and -- and paying down debt. we think that they have to do some of that, because rouhani was elected specifically on the premise of improving the economic situation inside of iran. that economy has tanked since we imposed sanctions. so the notion that they're just immediately going to turn over $100 billion to the irgc or the quds force, i think runs contrary to all the intelligence that we've seen and the commitments that the iranian government has made. do we think that with the sanctions coming down that iran will have some additional resources towards the military and for some of the activities in the region that are a threat to us and our allies? i think that is a likelihood. do i think it's a game-changer for them? no. they are currently supporting hezbollah, and there is a ceiling -- a pace at which they could support hezbollah even more, particularly in the chaos that's taking place in syria. so can they potentially try to get more assistance there? yes. should we put more resources into blocking them from getting that assistance to hezbollah? yes. is the incremental additional money that they've 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 they're going to take over the world. and i say that not tongue-in-cheek, 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 we're 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: we're not writing iran a check. this is iran's 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. they've been willing to do that because they've 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% of the world community that this is a deal that resolves the iranian nuclear 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 don't get $100 billion; maybe they get $60 billion or $70 billion instead. the price for that that we've paid is that now iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. we have no inspectors on the ground. we don't know what's going on. they're still getting some cash windfall. we've 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. i'm just going to look -- i made some notes about any of the arguments -- the other arguments that i've heard here. what about -- (off-mic) -- the end of the deal? president obama: okay, yes that's a good one. the notion -- at the end of the deal they could go back -- president obama: right. well, so let's address this issue of -- because that's the other big argument that's been made. all right, let's assume that the deal holds for 10 years, iran doesn't 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, they've still got to keep their stockpiles at a minimal level for 15 years. the inspections don't go away; those are still in place 15, 20 years from now. their commitment under the non-proliferation treaty does not go away; that's 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 there's 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 one-year 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, we're going to cheat, or not even cheat -- at that point, they decide openly we're now pursuing a nuclear weapon -- they're still in violation of this deal and the commitments they've made internationally. and so we are still in a position to mobilize the world community to say, no, you can't have a nuclear weapon. and they're not in a stronger position to get a nuclear weapon at that point; they're in a weaker position than they are today. and, by the way, we haven't given away any of our military capabilities. we're 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 they're at a breakout point -- they won't be at a breakout point that is more dangerous than the breakout point they're in right now. they won't be at a breakout point that is shorter than the one that exists today. and so why wouldn't 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 they've 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 they'll change their behavior? president obama: no. >> nothing different -- president obama: no. look, i'm 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 i'm 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 we're 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 that's it, we're done negotiating, we're 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 we've hit the big themes. but i promise you, i will address this again. all right? i suspect this is not the last that we've heard of this debate. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the united kingdom was one of the six countries that negotiated the deal with iran over its nuclear program. philip hammond discussed the details in the deal in the house of commons and took questions from fellow members of parliament. this is 45 minutes. >> secretary philip hammond. mr. hammond: i would like to make a statement. the world has held its breath as the talks between world powers and iran have edged toward the conclusion. they were difficult negotiations and all sides faced tough decisions. in the early hours of yesterday morning, a process -- a process that began over a decade ago came to a conclusion. the result is an historic deal. a landmark moment in efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation and a victory for diplomacy. the u.k. with its partners in the e3 plus three, china france come a, russia, and the u.s. with the eu high representative is our co-op -- as our coordinator have reached an agreement with iran on its nuclear program. within -- with the conclusion of these negotiations the world can be assured that all routes to a nuclear bomb can be closed off in the world can have confidence in the peaceful nature of the iranian program going forward. the origin of these negotiations lies in the revelation some 12 years ago that iran was concealing nuclear activities in violation of its international obligations. at that time iran, under a different government, was not willing to meet the requirements of the international atomic agency. the international committee responded with multiple un security council resolutions. the agreement we have reached does not absolve iran of claim for its previous activities, nor does it wipe the slate clean. instead, it offers iran the opportunity to draw a line under its past behavior and gradually to build the world's trust in its declarations that it is not pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon. this will not be a quick process. but within -- implementation of this deal, it should be possible. the government's purpose in seeking an agreement has always been clear to secure assurance for -- that iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon. disagreement imposes strict limits on iran's nuclear program through -- and they are comprehensive and long-lasting. the enrichment capacity will be reduced by over two thirds from current levels. it will enrich uranium to a level of 3.67%, well below the 90% level of enrichment considered necessary for a nuclear weapon. the stockpile of low enriched uranium will be limited to 300 kilos, down from over seven tons is -- at present with the balance exported to russia. its research and develop men activities will be constrained so that it will not be able to enrich with advanced centrifuges for at least 10 years. additionally, no uranium enrichment, enrichment r&d, or nuclear material will be permitted at the underground site. the agreement cuts off the plutonium route to developing a nuclear bomb. iran's heavywater research reactor at iraq will be redesigned and rebuilt so that it will no longer have the capability to produce weapons grade plutonium. given the historic levels of mistrust that have built up between iran and the international community, a strong inspections regime and framework for addressing concerns about past military dimensions to iran's nuclear program are vital to build trust and providing us with the confidence that iran is meaning it's commitments. some of the crucial monitoring and transparency measures will allow -- will last indefinitely such as the addition of the safeguard agreement. every -- the iaea has concerns that cannot be addressed in any other way. iran is no exception. iran's energy -- obligations including the application never to acquire or develop nuclear weapons will apply during and after the time of the deal. we will not hesitate to take action including the reimposition of sanctions that iran -- if iran violates its obligations at any time. our concerns about the possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program will be addressed. the iaea and iran have agreed a roadmap of actions to clarify these issues. taken together, mr. speaker, these measures mean that if iran were to renege on its promises and try to break out for bomb, it would take 12 months even to acquire the necessary fissile material 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 if the program develops over time, iran will received -- receive phased relief. they will be really fun of the nuclear related and financial sanctions but to be clear, the sanctions relief will be triggered once the iaea verifies that iran has taken the agreed steps to limit its nuclear program. other core provisions in the existing un security council resolutions will be reestablished i a new u.n. resolution. important restrictions on imports and exports of conventional arms and development of listing missiles will be reimposed through an act of -- in and asked to that resolution and only listed later in the agreement. these relaxations are backed by a robust enforcement mechanism. if there is a violation, all previous unit in -- u.n. sanctions can be reimposed i a snap that mechanism which any party to disagreement can invoke. the eu and the u.s. could also reimpose their own sanctions. -- in such a scenario. clearly, having made this agreement, it will be i -- in iran's interest to comply with 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 dumps along the road. we entered the agreement in good faith and all sides must try to resolve problems and fomenting this deal. 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. it's conclusion could have wider, positive consequences by by providing the means through sanctions relief for iran's economic re-engagement with the world, it will allow the iranian people to feel the tangible benefits of the -- of international cooperation. after reengage met materializes, we will speak to assist businesses to take advantage of the opportunities that will arise. that that assistance would be enhanced through having a functioning british embassy in tehran. we remain committed to reopening our embassies in each other's 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 community's efforts, in particular, and confronting the shared challenge of isil and the resolution of regional crises such as those in yemen in syria. regional crises such as those in yemen and syria. but this will be a process, it will take time. and in the meantime we remain realistic about the nature of the iranian regime and its wider ambitions. we will continue to speak out against iran's poor human rights record and we will continue to work closely with our friends allies and partners in the region who live with iranian interference in their neighborhood. iran will not get a free pass to metal be on its borders. mr. speaker an iranian bomb would be a major threat to global stability. about threat is now removed. we and iran now have a common 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 uk is fully committed to playing its part, and documented this statement to the house. >> here, here. >> thank you, mr. speaker. can first offered apologies of my right honorable friend who can't be with us today because he's recovering from a minor operation. can i begin by thanking the foreign secretary for advance sight of this statement for setting up the details of this landmark agreement. let me begin by paying tribute to him john kerry our european and international partners and everyone involved for the efforts in securing a major diplomatic breakthrough. there has long been consensus across the front 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 u.n. security council resolutions. it is welcome the talks have reached a conclusion more than 12 years since they first began with the support of him and others have been foreign secretary jack straw. mr. speaker, none of us want iran to have a nuclear weapon and no one believes the world would be a safer place were they ever to acquire one. so it is worth reflecting on how much more grade the world might look today at the foreign sector have returned to the house to report that the talks have collapsed without an agreement. we would be facing the almost certain we start iran's 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 already volatile region. that's why it has been right to use the negotiating opportunity that the pressure 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 iranian foreign minister's joint statement yesterday. that this is not only ideal but a good deal and a good deal for all sides. mr. speaker, negotiations on this complexity are never easy. that is the nature of diplomacy, but this agreement presents the international community with a real chance to make progress in the right direction and we should grasp it. foreign sector outlined many aspects in detail. let me touch on just a number of these. firstly iran has reaffirmed as part of the agreement that under no circumstances will that ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. this is significant and important. but the world want to see iran's words are matched by its deeds. especially those countries in the region that have particular concerns. so i welcome the foreign secretaries assurances of a thorough and independent inspections are at the heart of this agreement. it is the final that imitation is based not on faith but on facts, evidence and the verification. we on this side of always said that iran should have to demonstrate beyond doubt that it is not pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. it realize realizes the measures outlined in the joint action plan should now able everyone to see that this is the case. that is essential if this agreement is to command the confidence of world opinion. much has been made of the proposals to manage access to particular sites with the commission to rule on whether inspection requests i the international atomic energy agency are just that i would therefore be grateful if the foreign secretary to provide further detail about this a work in practice. what assurances were given in vienna to ensure that this process will not prove to be an obstruction? mr. speaker, on enrichment it is welcome that iran has pledged to remove 90% of its stockpile of enriched uranium and two-thirds of installed centrifuges. there's been much discussion of the numbers and at the time scales involved. as the foreign secretary said some parts of the stay will remain in place for five years such as the arms embargo. other restrictions for 10 to 15 years, and other transparency measures will stay in place permanently. he explained the rationale for this time scales and one the government is satisfied that they are sufficient or would he also agreed that while we should be positive about implementation of this agreement we must also go into it with our eyes open works if there's a lesson to be drawn from the collapse of the agreed framework we negotiate with north korea in the 1990s it is that the success of these agreements should be judged not over months but in years. so it is right some sanctions and should be removed gradually and only as iran owners the commitments it has made. were iran to violate the terms of the agreement is government set aside the provisions of sanctions to snap back are tough enough to block the path to a nuclear weapon? finally does the foreign secretary agree with the words of -- the iranian foreign minister. he said yesterday this deal represents not a seemingly foundation to build other it's no secret that iran has been involved for many years in exploiting sectarian tensions in the region whether proxy armies or support for terrorist groups. those issues as a difficult relationship with iran will not go away overnight. this agreement does present iran with an opportunity to put a much more constructive global role, particularly with our shared interest in defeating the threat from isil or daesh. what confidence is before secretary of that iran is ready and willing to use this breakthrough to him improve its relations? does he agree opening up better links with a rim of the process of reform within the country which needs of course as the foreign secretary said to include improving its human rights record? and for britain specifically, he mentioned ongoing efforts to reopen our embassy in tehran. window seat realistically expect that to take place? mr. speaker working together at an international community is a well-worn phrase but this moment does show what can be achieved through patience and diplomacy. if history teaches us anything however, it is that piece is a process, not anything that the iranian president yesterday called this a new chapter. we all live in hope that this is one that will help lead to a safer and more peaceful world, free of nuclear weapons. we on this side will continue to support all efforts to make the help of reality. >> i'm grateful to the audible jump in for the constructive tone in which he is approach this announcement, and thank you for the continued support from the odyssey front bench for what is fortunately in view of the duration, something that has been across party approach for many years. he mentioned the long duration of these negotiations and i would like that's not just about foreign secretaries and just sectors the state. it's also about the experts and diplomats who have been carrying out these negotiations on the team that traveled back from vienna with me there was at least one person who has been on this project for 10 years ma and who now faces i need a new career after 10 years on this particular project. these have been complex. it's important outcome is a win-win. coming back from vienna with something that was a triumph for us but not a win for iran would be a hollow victory because it would eventually fall apart. there has to be something solid for iran for the iranian people. there has to be an opportunity for the iranian people to build a new future and ensure the future prosperity of their country, and i'm confident this agreement will allow that. we shouldn't underestimate the importance in a country like iran of the religious edict against building a nuclear weapon. that is now firmly enshrined in the words of the supreme leader of iran will not build or seek to acquire a nuclear weapon. but he's right. we have to be pragmatic, and a robust inspection regime is that part of our ability to do this deal. he asked me how the monitoring and access arrangements would work. the monitoring is multifaceted. them the electronic monitoring sophisticated advanced telemetry seals, for example, on equipment that has been taken out of use. there will be cctv cameras within the facilities. ability regular inspections by iaea inspectors, and if there is any suspicion by the iaea that they need access to aside that they do not regularly inspected, they can demand such access. if the iranians deny access, the question of what access should be allowed will be referred to the j.c. '08 commission and it will be, it will be determined on a five out of eight majority vote. the members of that commission are that the 3+3, the eu high representative, and iran is a. we are confident that in that format proper access will be insured. he asked about the different timescales. we are comfortable with the end result. obviously, this was a negotiation and we didn't get as long on some other restrictions like arms control, conventional arms control, as we would have liked. but on the nuclear part of the deal we are very comfortable that we have respected our timelines which are about maintaining a minimum 12 month breakout for a minimum of 10 years. we are confident that we have well in excess of the minimum rake period for well in excess of 10 years as a result of the practical effects of this agreement. he also asked me about this now back to the mechanisms first that that are robust and we insisted upon the. if any member company member of the joint commission including the united kingdom believes iran is insignificant violation, that member is entitled to ask you a city council to vote on a negative resolution which would cause the sanctions to snap back. the honorable gentleman mentioned north korea, and i understand why he did so. but having spent some time with the iranians negotiate and spent some time find out a bit more more than i presume you about iran i just want want to say disparate iran is a very different country from north korea. iran is a major player in the region. it is a big country with huge resources, a large and well educated population. it can if it chooses play an enormously positive role in the development of the middle east and, indeed, can contribute positively to world affairs. and he asked me about the reef. he is a reformer. rouhani is a reformer but we do not delude ourselves that is but in tehran is welcoming this agreement today, that everybody in tehran shared their vision of a more open and more engaged iran. our job is to make sure that as this agreement is a limited we reinforce the hand of those in iran represent the majority that would like iran to engage in a responsible way with the world. and part of that is ensuring that we work with iran to do with the shared threat of isil across the region. .. i very much welcome the tone of the foreign secretary's remarks. this now opens the way for iran to play a constructive role in regional shares and noting that we have a profound common interest in defeating dinesh and the reactions from reality. will we do not use the opportunity to employ the full british diplomacy to force intelligent, effect incorporation between riyadh and tehran towards a common strategy to defeat daish appeared >> he is quite right it is to achieve a measure reconciliation between saudi arabia and constructive engagement between those two important regional powers in addressing many challenges facing the region. that will not happen overnight. he's absolutely right the measured tone of the response we heard from saudi arabia in stark contrast to the last measured response was heard from elsewhere in the region and is promising and i spoke last night we will maintain our engagement doing two things. encouraging allies in the arab countries around the goals to be willing to engage with iran over time in a sensible and measured way, but also providing them the reassurance they need about their security to allow them to take a little more risk in trying to realize the opportunities the agreement presents. >> may i congratulate the foreign secretary and all others involved on this historic agreement on what has taken an enormous amount of time effort and detail and i think it is appropriate to congratulate barack obama this agreement that george -- yet they have many aspects which are objectionable and we look for improvements in the treatment on civil rights and other ways and i ran. i ran as a player and it's important indeed. will the foreign secretary made clear to the government of israel which unlike iran is not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty and which has hundreds of nuclear warheads and missiles that any attempt by an to deal with communicate the agreement will not be tolerated. >> mr. speaker, i am honorable to good gentleman's remarks in in fact, he took the words out of my mouth. i was trying to explain why george was better than world war but i found it difficult to convey across the language barrier. of course what he said is a rate. iran has been subject to 35 years of isolation. it's a choice in our thoughts and getting iran engaged in the affairs of the region again will be a huge benefit. i am going tonight to israel and will have a chance to convey our message directly to prime minister not yahoo! -- benjamin netanyahu. israel will seek to use its influence in the u.s. congress to abstract the progress of the deal. i am confident the action will not succeed. i'm also confident israel has shown time and again that it can be pragmatic and once it has exhausted the avenue of opportunity that it will seek to engage in a sensible pragmatic way to deal with the new reality on the ground in the middle east. >> dr. liam fox. >> mr. speaker, my right honorable friend is right that if iran gives up nuclear ambitions is a huge move forward and reasonable security. but if we have confidence in verification that must be unfettered and unrestricted. can my right honorable friend guarantee to the house iran could be forced to grant access to any site designated in how quickly would iran be forced to do so. while his right there is positive implications for the agreement, there's also potential negative implications. if iran had sanctions lifted what assurances are being sought that this will not be used to fund proxy since hamas and has a lot provide greater and stability to the region. >> my right honorable friend makes a series of good points and he is right the access for verification is the crucial underpinning of the agreement. we haven't been able to secure arrangements and we wouldn't been able to make the deal. it would've been too too much risk attached to it. i describe in response earlier the arrangements for identification for inspection and reference of any iranian and actions to the commission. we are confident those arrangements will work. it will mean typically around a period of 21 days between initial demand and mandated access. if they continue to deny access that the commission has mandated should be access, though it be a breach of the agreement subject to snap back. my friend asked me about iran's assets. ultimately it will be to the unfreezing of $150 billion in the outset outside of the country. it will be a progressive process. what will happen with the money how can we be sure it won't be used to process interference in the region. but can't be absolutely sure. first of all iran has a huge deficit of infrastructure investment in this country, energy, exporting infrastructure and needs a new fleet of civilian aircraft. they're a huge demand for the use of the assets and the reformers in iran understand very well the deal has to deliver real benefits to ordinary people as they go about investing in no-space. the second point is that very little money available and under the full burden of international sanctions, the islamic revolution command has made a pretty effect your job in syria lebanon and elsewhere. it is not as this the body was itching to do things i'm unable to do them. it has been able to be effective on a shoestring and we don't think the release will make a material difference. >> i point out to the house that it's not an honorable gentleman. he is a right honorable gentleman. he is quite important to get these things right. >> be aware that president rouhani -- [inaudible] in his doctoral thesis he wrote this verifies no loss in this land are immutable and that is true and it's also true of relationships between nations. not to listen to the prophets of doom by to see this welcome agreement as they start to a process of engagement that will bring good people of the remarkable country back into the community of nations. >> i have to confess that i was not aware the president was a graduate of glasgow university but i'm delighted to hear it. let's say a wholly new spin on the meeting but then he has relied on a consecutive english translation. he clearly does understand what we say. or maybe not. i totally agree with the honorable gentleman. there is a huge opportunity. it is in our interest in the region's interest that we grasp it and ensure we do that. >> dr. julian lewis, most of the contributors so far have welcomed this development. will the foreign secretary bear in mind the world also breathes a sigh of relief in 1972 with the signing of biological weapons convention only to discover after 1989 russia has been cheating on the massive than industrial scale. there must always hope for the best. i hope you'll bear in mind who will also be prepared for the worst. >> the cautionary statement and the difference in the case with rashes cheating in the license agreement was that we did have the good intrusive inspections and access we will have in relation to iran. it is right while they go forward with optimism as the others have suggested, we should also be cautious. we should recognize a very big deficit of mistrust to be overcome. we need the access and inspection regimes. we need to pursue cautious and not least if we can't reassure partners in the region that we are approaching this cautiously and sensibly we will lose them and not be able to encourage them to engage in the way we want to see. >> that history will decide whether this was an historic agreement or not. it may be a bit premature at this stage. the negotiations took longer to reach than the safeguards stated 10 years to get to this point. can i return to the point about using sanctions lifted to support these proxies? i do think he needs to reassure the house a little bit more to the lifting of sanctions will meet at iran becomes our proxy. >> mr. speaker, first of, first of all she is obviously right. she corrects for an era which i'm sure many of us have made describing something this historic premature basis. she talks about a 10 year time scale. the significance here is many of the measures taken by have an effect which lasts much longer than 10 years. frankly, the challenge now is to change the mindset in iran that the uranium before the iranian leadership. we have a tad-15 year period starting from now when we need to get it enshrined in the iranian mentality that it is better for iran, that iran will have more influence, more prosperity more success working with the international community can international community and working in isolation. that is why it is important we engage with them and i look forward to doing that. >> i right honorable friend will forgive me if i press him on one aspect of the agreement. he talks about drawing a line. we don't actually have a line that. we have in the words of the agreement a roadblock will drive out of line. given iran's past that committees of clandestine site and obfuscation, could you just a little bit about how we will know exactly what the position is when verification takes place but now it's against a position that exists. >> yes mr. speaker. the international atomic energy authority who has responsibility for this has agreed that iran is a roadmap that affect entities need to be carried out so allowed to publish its final report. we don't know how long that will take care of probably six months also. various conditionality here until they establish the sanctions will not be listed. they will have the ability to gain technical access whether they need to do so to have discussions with iranian experts. it is completely independent. they are confident the measures they put in place that iran has agreed to as part of the deal are adequate to allow them to do their job complete their mission. >> mr. speaker, the foreign secretary talked about the issue of inspections on this after 20 or more days for access to begin causing concern. how confident is the foreign secretary the citizens of the country can be assured in the period where there's arbitration and discussions taking place that iran will be able to cover up any activity? >> mr. speaker, these negotiations have gone on a long time and on each and every one of these issues we've had lengthy detailed technical discussions. this is one of the issues have been particularly focused on. i've sought detailed reassurance from our u.s. allies that the assets and resources they have would allow them to be confident maintaining eyes on the situation in the time access was demanded until the time access is granted. after many hours of discussion on this it will be possible for us to retain a high degree of confidence that the question has not been tampered with or to know exactly how it has been tampered with. in the case of radioactive material removing things is not so easy. the radioactive footprints will be present and that is very, very extensive remediation cleaning were to take place. >> on present trends it would take a further hour and a half to accommodate interested colleagues. the present trend needs to be backed. let's look to a new member two latest by example. >> my late father wrote extensively 1960s on nuclear weapons was to be pursued just had nuclear weapons. geraniums are genuine when they say they are not seeking to develop nuclear weapons. >> mr. speaker, president rouhani the supreme leader will make the weapons he has. there will be some within the iranian power structure including some as the military structure i'm sure was still after the idea of nuclear weapons at some point in the future. >> jerry corbin. >> i'm pleased the agreement has been reached. a huge step forward. as a result, does the foreign secretary think there is a possibility of holding the middle east weapons of mass destruction conference in the last treaty review supported by all parties including iran and this is surely a great opportunity to push forward to and proliferation in the whole region. >> the honorable gentleman has been a supporter of the approach for a long time. the government supported the u.k. has been advocating this conference and moving forward on this agenda. removing the arabian issue i don't think it tells was of the problems we have in bringing this to a conclusion. we are continuing to press forward and will continue to do so. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> it is clearly a diplomatic trial for the partners who have come to the conclusion. we will need to make sure in the long term project that it will be essential for greater contacts between this country and i ran across an area that is currently available. but he also agreed its essential the partners to the deal are firmly brought in behind the efforts that normalize relationships with iran. >> contacts with iran will be critical now. -- the more iranians travel abroad the more foreigners travel to iran, the better we will understand each other. >> louise, all men. >> iran supports gaza and elsewhere in promoting terrorism. what impact will the agreement have on the situation? >> in an ideal world. iran becomes more engaged in the international community and the affairs of the region. we will be able to engineer a situation where iran's average can be a force for good. we are not there yet and we are not there automatically. there is an opportunity to engage with iran on wider issues which there hasn't been for the nuclear file has been holding over it. >> misters or reoffend president or reoffend president for or reoffend president lujan in our moderate but hardliners remain the iranian government. secretary talks about the region and they are interfering massively. have they spoken to the native ally turkey and what is their reaction to the deal? >> i haven't spoken to my turkish counterpart since we did the deal, but clearly i've met with him on many occasions over the last few months. turkey is also an important player in the region. saudi arabia, iran turkey israel has to be engaged if we are going to have a stable region which has any chance of breaking out the >> tomorrow house hearing and their work in guarding commercial aviation. live coverage at 10 a.m. eastern. and janet yellen at a hearing of the senate committee talking about the u.s. economy and interest rates. watch that live on c-span3 and c-span.org. >> book tv is television for serious readers. join us this saturday starting at 11 a.m. eastern for all days live coverage of the harlem book fair. the flagship african-american literary event with talks and discussions. on sunday, august 2 the cofounder of [inaudible] celebrating its 15 year -- 15th year. that is a view of the upcoming live programs on c-span2's book tv. national security analysts discuss the iran nuclear program agreements at the atlantic council, focusing on the role of the international atomic energy agency in monitoring iranian facilities. it is monitored -- it is moderated by barbara slaven. this is an hour and a half. ms. slaven: we have done it again, we have time to program to follow by one day a historic agreement with iran. i would like to say than i planned it this way but i think in this case, it is dumb luck. as we all know, there is a lot to digest and this 159 page document that was announced yesterday. we're going to welcome your questions about any aspects of the agreement but our focus today is on one of the most important issues. it is not the most important issue that congress will be looking at other critics of the agreement will be looking at and that is verification. what we know if iran cheats what will we do, how will we handle it? is the international atomic to -- atomic energy agency which is the organization tasked with doing this verification. is it up to the task of monitoring the deal, and if not, what more might need to be done to augmented's capabilities? to discuss these issues, we have a very distinguished panel including the author of a new study on this subject. but first let me inc. the powershares fund for generously supporting our program. also the chairman of our task force who be here with us today. let me say how absolutely delighted i am that we are cohosting this event with search for common ground. for those of you who don't know it, they are the pioneer in u.s.-iran diplomacy. they took the wrestlers to iran in 1998. they have done many things over the years that have helped bring us to this day. before i introduce our other speakers, i will ask ambassador bill miller to say a few words. i have known bill for about as long as i have been focusing on iran, about 20 years. at times, i have questioned his perennial optimism about u.s.-iran relations, but once again, he has proven that he is more farsighted than the rest of us. so ambassador miller, if you would say a few you words? then we will get to the rest of our program. investor miller: thank you barbara. you are a stalwart friend and a source of optimism. i want to thank the counsel for having this event today and being our gracious host. when we scheduled this event, we did not know the joint comprehensive plan of action would be issued just yesterday. this is an historic agreement by any standard. even by standards of decades. we are pleased that this is so well-timed, and the atlantic council has been able to mobilize the talent that is going to speak today. my interest in iran began as a foreign service officer well before the revolution. this was in 1959. in 1959. as it happened, this was the beginning of the iranian nuclear program. the iranian nuclear program owes almost everything to the united states. its physicists and engineers were trained in the united states. as a part of the atoms for peace program of eisenhower, we even send david lilienthal to iran to work out a comprehensive energy program. 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 poetry, art astronauts wrestlers, soccer players basketball players scholars politicians. most important scientists. people who understand the middle east. i would like to describe the beginnings of the tom shea paper which is of direct relevance today. it was clear to many of us that the agreement depends on the ability of the terms of the agreement being verified. it was the suggestion of senior members from the senate who anticipated that an agreement was pending. that the key issue before the congress would be whether the terms of an agreement with iran could be monitored effectively so that if there was any direction away from peaceful uses, it would be detected in time to take effective action. that was the baseline problem. the question then immediately arose, was the iaea good enough to fill that task. for the past year, we have been engaged in efforts to make that determination. over a year ago, after meeting with him and hearing high praise for his work for a quarter of the century in the iaea and as a scientist in american institutions, to undertake a study of the efficacy of the iaea, how it works, how it might in fact undertake the task of monitoring the agreement. he has done this job that he has done it very well. i suggest that you could go copies of the summary outside this room. i want to thank joe, the president of plowshares, for his continued efforts to bring about a rational solution to one of the great questions of arms control. we oh my stew is support over the years. i want to thank, in particular, barbara, dear friend, who brings the best of journalism and scholarship to her job. she continues to lead the way on the best approach is to iran. jim walsh is a close friend and we have struggled together in the task of bringing sense and rationality to our leadership. john lambert, of course, is a dear friend. i'm sorry that we weren't able to extract you forth with. thank you barbara. thank you tom for your good work. barbara: i neglected when we began to tell you a little bit more about bill miller. he told you he was in iran before the revolution as a foreign service officer. he was also u.s. ambassador to ukraine. he also served for 14 years on capitol hill. he was a staff director for three senate committees. tom shea search for 24 years -- served for 24 years in the iaea safeguard. develop systems for reactor fuel manufacturing plants green -- reprocessing plants. he supervised inspections of facilities in japan, china india, and other countries. after he retired from the

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Japan , Iran , Tel Aviv , Israel , Turkey , Natanz , Esfahan , Riyadh , Ar Riya , Saudi Arabia , Syria , Lebanon , Russia , Toronto , Ontario , Canada , As Iran , Az Arbayjan E Sharqi , Washington , District Of Columbia , Ukraine , United Kingdom , Kenya , Iraq , India , Tehran , Gaza , Israel General , North Korea , Vienna , Wien , Austria , Yemen , France , Chicago , Illinois , Americans , America , Turkish , Iranians , Turks , Saudis , Britain , Iranian , Israelis , Iraqi , British , Syrian , Israeli , Russians , American , Dick Durbin , Mike Lee , Cory Booker , Jim Walsh , Loretta Lynch , Ernie Moniz , Michael Crowley , John Kerry , Tom Shea , Jonathan Karl , Barack Obama , Philip Hammond , Benjamin Netanyahu , April Ryan , Barbara Slaven , Carol Lee , John Lambert ,