You can resite the litany in which they are justified that unfortunate conclusion. The one way to have confidence in the agreement is if the verification inspections provisions of it were air tight anywhere, any time but they are not. They create a whole negotiating process, as we said, 14 days, 21 days, appeal to a board. It is an invitation to the iranians to on advice kate and if they are caught with something wrong to get the time to get it out of the view of the international inspectors. In the area of in spectors whatever you are inspecting giving notice to whoever you are going to inspect always allows them to hide or fix the problem before you get there. It seems to me with 24 days, would you be able to hind the grand canyon or something. I find that as a problem. Big picture is it still the policy of iran today to destroy the United States . Well, until we hear otherwise, i think we have to say it is. And israel as well. And israel. And now you notice that last fridays demonstration for the first time if my memory visibly and audibly brought saudi arabia into the pantheon of those that the iranian government wants to destroy. And then lets talk about saudi arabia. Iran wants to be the big player in the middle east. Does this deal that i have here does that encourage saudi arabia turkey, and egypt to develop Nuclear Weapon capability . To deter iran . Well it sure does in my opinion. And as others have said, general hayden, it does something else. It raises real alarm in the minds and hearts of our traditional allies in the sunni muslim world and in israel about whether the u. S. Has changed its Traditional Alliance relationship with those countries and now is either tilting toward iran or at least pulling back to a kind of neutrality. And if this agreement is allowed to go into effect i think one of the great imperatives for the u. S. Is to not do whatever it can it will be hard, to reassure the muslim the air abe countries or the sunni muslim countries and israel that we are with them. And may i have unanimous consent for one more question. General, i see bms. When iran gets icbms what would the purpose and intent and where would they go to from iraq . Well, by definition, the eyes and the secretary said means intercontinental. And those kinds of weapons have no military or political utility, with just a high explosive war head on it. It doesnt have to be nuclear, but it has to be a weapon of mass destruction. Where could they go . Well if they are intercontinental, they could reach north america . They could even reach texas. Thank you, i yield back. Reaching texas now were talking crazy. Thank you all for being here. What a stimulating and challenging conversation. And i think we members of Congress Face a very challenging vote sometime probably in september. And senator lieberman welcome back to your home. I must say senator lieberman im troubled by the thpgs youve said here today. You agreed with congressman mccall and he said why engage with iran at all. Do you think it was a mistake to engage with iran at all . Thanks, congressman for welcoming me back. Im probably too reflective ty ofusive toward anybody from Homeland Security. It is a buy as point. But i think i said, i didnt oppose the negotiations. I did not oppose the negotiations. I thought it was encouraging that the negotiations were occurring. Much preferable to have a peaceful resolution to this conflict. But what im saying this morning is i think the result on first look that just came out a few hours ago is that this deal is not a good one for the u. S. Or our allies and it is a very good one for iran. Yes. I heard you say that. In fact i heard you council us we should vote no. It seems awfully early to do that and apparently youve made up your mind. Well i have. Well i havent. And i want to share which was agreed to at louzanne in april, this is a temporary freeze if they keep their word and then they have the way clear to become a nuclear power. I understand. And i think some of the questions youve raised are legit but we have to weigh the alternative. We cant pretend there is a perfect alternative if we would only choose it. And i think that is some of the problem, some of the discussion we have around here. But you also said we could just go back to the p5 1 and say we couldnt sell it lets start over again and reengage the iranians. Senator lieberman i dont know anybody who believes that that has any high probability of success. That the very likely is about to happen. If we disavow this, p5 1 falls apart and iran races, not walks to, to accelerate the Nuclear Development program and they are not about to come back to the table. You could concede that is just as likely as the scenario you laid out . Well i dont know. I actually agree with investigator burns said here that if the agreement is rejected, that iran will not rush to build a Nuclear Weapon. Theyll retool th do it because theyll worry that either the u. S. Or israel, if there is clear intelligence showing theyve broken out to a Nuclear Weapons capacity that the u. S. Or israel will detect them militarily and they dont want that. And i take your point. And that is one thing we can consider. But surely there is a chance that is not what is going to happen. And when were thinking about voting, we have to weigh those risks. Absolutely. And at least the agreement in front of me limits the risk. It is a completely unlimited risk, you may be right, they wont do that. But what if you are wrong. What if they will there is a hardline element as you point out in element that would be licking its chops to see this agreement fall apart. To tell you, i think all of the elements in iran want this agreement because it is so good for them economically. And it strengthens their position in the middle east. Doesnt do anything to stop them from supporting and in fact helps them support the proxies where they are senator lieberman. And i will agree with you, i cant predict what will happen. I cant predict with certainty more than anybody can what will happen if Congress Rejects the agreement. I can just say that from what ive seen this morning and based on what i saw come out of loez an in april this has more risk for the u. S. And more reward for iran than i hoped it would have. One final point and i would note for the record there were hardline elements protesting these negotiations in iran. I do not agree with you that there is unanimity of opinion in iran this is a great deal for iran. I think the evidence suggests otherwise. But you also in your statement earlier said this will strengthen the hardline in iran freeing up resources they can use for bad things. Would you concede that again there is an alternative scenario in that is not what happens, it reinforces the rowe hahny element and others that engagement with the west actually produces good economic things for us and we should do more of it. Isnt it at least worthy of conceding that also could be true. It is possible, it is. But i think the much more likely is that the billions of additional dollars that the iranian government and economy will be used by the rergc, which i said earlier the ayatollah and the rgc are the powers in iran and they are the ultimate beneficiaries of the additional money, not the moderates. I wish the moderates were. But i dont believe they will be. Can i comment on one thing congressman. Yes, certainly. On the issue of what happens if Congress Rejects this deal. I went to college in 1980s and majors in something called arms control and for a while i have and i have gone back to all of the arms control. It happened all of the time. Salt one, salt two were renegotiated because of congressional objections. So senator leibermans idea that the United States has to go back and renegotiate is how it happened with big bad soviet union. And let me play out the string that has been put here and the United States disapproved and over rides the president veto and the entire National Community blames the United States and becomes centralist and iran begins to rush toward a bomb. Surely the interNational Community may not allow that. They ma think the United States was unwise, unjudicial for a deal, but toward a weapons threshold, they would join the United States in imposing some sort of measure to prevent that if i would imagine. My time is up. Yes. Matt salmon of arizona. Thank you. Senator lieberman during your time as a senator, you were afforded the opportunity to vote on a few treaties i suspect. Why do you think that the administration pursued this as more of a political agreement than a treaty . What was the rational for that . Ive heard several times today that this is probably the most important decision congress has weighed in on some have said in the last 30, 40 years and some have said in the last 50 years. With that important of a decision, why would it be pursued as a political agreement rather than a treaty . So oh you mean literally . Yeah. Well i dont think the administration if they were here would say it is a political agreement but they would say it is a diplomat negotiation and not a treaty. I will tell you, myself, and this is a closed issue that what is on the line as a result of this agreement between the p5 1 and iran is much more consequential than any treaty i was asked to vote for or against in my 24 years in the senate. And of course if it was considered a treaty, then it would require twothirds to pass, not the other way around. But that is the the president under the constitution and established Court Decisions has the clear right to make the decision he did. This is not a treaty. But it is an International Agreement and it has to meet different standards in congress. And i think that many of the cynics believe that the reason is because the president could have never succeeded in crossing that twothirds threshold in the senate and given the fact, as you said you voted on treaties that had far less consequence than this document. General hayden, you stated that the inspections have become a political not a technical issue. And so one of my questions is that whether you believe the Obama Administration and its p5 1 partners would make ultimately make the political decision to call out any violations of the agreement, i mean whether they are technical in nature or small or large in nature, do you think that the administration, who is kind of staking its whole reputation on this agreement would have the political will to call out any infractions and make them public knowing that the political ramifications could be quite stark . You bring up a great point, congressman. It seems maybe even a little counter intuitive because we are all concerned about iran cheating. But once it goes into effect the burden of proof well let me go back into my previous life and walk into the oval office and say, well you know, mr. President , that treaty that was so important to both you and to the country, i think these guys are violating it. The time i would need and the body of evidence that would be required to turn that into Political Action is a dynamic we used to call in the business, a dynamic of the unpleasant fact, that takes always more evidence and more time to generate action. But beyond that though, congressman, that is just inside of the american bubble. Look at it from the p5 1 and how much other folks have a real vested interest in not admitting that violations have taken place. And so i am really concerned about the managed access regime since it is at the political and not the technical level. And the snapback, so to speak, whether it is a snapback of our or international sanctions, has immense financial implications to many of the countries involved and so the likelihood that they would speak out of a violation im worried that those violations will just be swept under the rug and that well never even see the light of day. As described i cannot and i will not support this deal. Iran has proven time and time again it cant be trusted to meet International Obligations and agreements. I believe this administration is naive to suggest that the hundreds of billions of dollars iran will gain access through this agreement will not be used to continue the proliferation of terrorism across the globe. On the contrary, the terrorism efforts will only get better funded. And despite the president s rather bold statement this agreement will ensure that the Islamic Republic of iran will not develop a Nuclear Weapon, in reality it puts them on a path toward legitimately developing and possessing a nuclear bomb in just ten years and im wondering this administration has had a pen chant hor doing things that only have a effect or a shelf life during his administration, with no thought of consequences to the here after to our children or grandchildren. I think that is this is a frightening deal and didnt address the americans that remain hostages in iran. In fact, im really disgusted that they werent even really front and center in any of the negotiations they were sideline comments at best. For all of the reasons stated above, i cannot support this deal at all. And i yield back the balance of my time. Thank you congressman sal mob. We now proceed to congressman Brian Higgins of new york. Thank you mr. Chairman and i too want to thank the panel. You have been very professional and you have a body of knowledge individually and collectively that is invaluable to our deliberations on this issue. A lot has been talked about. The Nuclear Infrastructure, the centrifuges and the proliferation of them over the last ten years and this deal cuts them by twothirds which i think is very significant. And also the material used the Nuclear Material, you have under this agreement, as i understand it, less than 4 of enrichment of that material which is a far distance from bombgrade material. And then you have the inspections process, which i think is important. But i dont think enough has been focused on the iranian people and the politics of iran which i think are very significant here. The military history an david crist wrote a book the twilight war and since 1979 revolution there have been seven attempts by either side to improve relations and they have all failed. In history, this nuclear deal or anticipated nuclear deal that he was writing at the time, was uncharted territory. And i think when you look at what is going on in iran today in the last five years, the currency has last half its value, there has been 50 inflation, meaning whatever you had in the bank prior to this has worth half and whatever you are buying cost twice as much. Rowhani won an election as a reformist within that context. It is not the american projection of what we would view as a reformist, but he was pretty vocal about how bad the iranian economy was, not only during the election but after he won. The difference in large part, from 79 to currently, iranian officials are turning on each other and i think that reflects that in this nation of some 80 Million People, you have got probably 65 Million People who are very, very young and want normalization with the rest of the world. And then you have the hardliners, made up of the revolutionary guard and kurds forces, seoul manny and it has been said here what a Destructive Forces relative to stability in the region with his work on being on the ground in iraq directing the shia militia and saving assad in the final hour and the support of hezbollah. But because of the zeerting Economic Situation in iran the kurds forces benefit. Why . Because they control the smuggling which is made necessary by the horrific situation economically in iran. Im just here to say that i think this tenyear period is very, very important. Because really nobody knows with certainty what will happen. But what in fact could happen is a normalization with the rest of the world, the promotion of a more diversified legitimate economy in iran could in fact undermine the current regime and produce the kind of changes that the vast majority the vast majority of young iranians want. And just wanted your thoughts on that. I think some of your some of your diagnosis is correct in terms of the notion of population estranged from the regime. And the question is the effect of this particular agreement on the regime. I think whatever the life span of the strauk republic may be and i do think there is a termination date has been extended by an agreement that is over its program and leads to infusion of economic resources. Can you make a case and frankly quite a good one that the longevity of the kims dynastic in north korea has something to do with the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and gaining that in tribute from the interNational Community. They love their isolation. They dont want anything to do with the rest of the world. The iran yawn regime is at the level of institutional arrangements. But again, i think what is going on here is there is a dichotomy within the politics of iran and there is a significant and growing population that wants normalized relations with the rest of the world and wants to see that economy unleash the potential of the iranab people. I think you can say the same thing about north korea. I dont think they want to live in this harmonious kingdom. You would say you cant compare north korea and iran. They are not monolithic. There is a strong movement. The young people are on the ascendency. They are on a trading culture. They are entrepreneurial and they want to connect with the rest of the world and so i agree very much with your comments. Congressman, i think it is quite plausible. I dont think it is likely, but it is plausible. Clearly the ayatollah has decided this agreement will not facilitate regime change otherwise he would not have signed it. I agree. Plausible optimistic scenario wish it were so. I think not likely because i think this agreement strengthe