Critics of the Iran Nuclear Agreement to give diplomacy a chance easing sanctions in a halt for o nuclear movement. Afghan President Hamid karzai says he will not sign a security pact with the u. S. Until new conditions are met. He met with the security advisor susan rice in kabul. She urged him to sign a deal allowing the u. S. To remain in afghanistan in 2024. Consider this is next. And ill be back later. You can get the latest on aljazeera. Com. Americas deal with iran gets a mixed review, along with mixed messages from the Obama Administration and the iranian president. With the two countries not on the same page, what is a deal a Supreme Court decision could mean changes for obamacare. Last time we saw watson it cleaned up on jeopardy, what is the computer doing and Vladimir Putin and the pope. We begin with an historic accord with iran. Is it a good deal . The u. S. Says its a first step to kur to curtail Irans Nuclear program. Within hours of the deal the parties contradicted each other on a clean issue. There is no right to enrich. Everywhere in the agreement it states they can only do that by mutural agreement and nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on. Translation it has been written clearly in the text of this agreement that iran will continue its enrichment and, therefore, i announce to the people of iran enrichment will continue in the same way it was before. Joining me to make sense of the agreement are ambassador Thomas Pickering former u. S. Ambassador to russia and israel and j matthew mcinnize a resident fellow from an American Enterprise institute. They are both here. Theres clear disagreement. Usu. N. Resolution said enrichment was illegal bay iran. What is going on with this total contradiction between Hassan Rouhani and kerry . Let me explain. Kerry rightly says theres no right to enrich. Its n its not written in the agreement. The present arrangements which is temporary for six months limits the production of enrichment so that therell be no increase in stockpile. It allows the iranians to enrich as long as they convert the material to something that cant be further upgraded at the end of the 6month period. We have to look at that carefully. Thats essentially where we are. Ill let you weigh in, matthew. Thank you. Its a matter that has made progress. My concern is that we have actually allowed a certain implicit agreement that enrichment will be part of a comprehensive deal and that is my biggest concern. The u. S. Has not explicitly but implicitly shifted the bar for the end of the six months, if we get to that point. You know the israelis agree with matthew. The Prime Minister said that iran has enough uranium for five bombs, whether thats true. Most agree that its close to being able to put a bomb together. Quite the contrary. If i can interrupt you. First, the president agreement sets back the time at which it will take further to produce any fiscal material for a Nuclear Weapon. Secondly, obviously, the first call material is not the weapon. To get a device ticks time. To get a bomb takes more time. To get a deliberate war head on a missile takes time. Theres various estimates. The present arrangement gets rid of the material that is most easily upgraded by the iranians. The 20 enriched material. It limits future enrichment to 5 under the deal. As i said is moment ago, it keeps the stockpile of low and enriched uranium below 5 , at the same level at the end as it goes in. Why dont we start on the positive side. Lets look at strengths of the deal. The most Intrusive Inspections, it stalls. The march towards Nuclear Capability with all the restrictions, and we are giving away small concessions on sanctions because its really in the grand scheme of the sanction, its really not that much that we are giving up. Do you think its a good deal . This was the final deal, it would not be a good deal. Mr pickering said we are in an interim stage. My concern is we get the intruce iin possessions which is a Intrusive Inspections by is a good thing. Theres nothing about the military aspects of the nuclear program, and the ability to visit the parcheen site north west of tehran, which is a major concern. Thats part of the challenge, that there has been parallel activity ongoing that has been concerning the western powers for some time in addition to the enrichment that was spoken about. Thats my concern that during the sixmonth deal they may be able to cap the 20 enrichment efforts and neutralize it to some degree. But theres no guarantee that thats the case, and also there may be parallel aspects of the program that we wont be able to check into. We are giving some degree of sanctions relief but my concern is theres a larger sanctions regime that has been put together. And releasing some of that is hard to predict how that may turn out, and we may end up with a weaker regime that is hard to put back together. Ambassador. I want to correct matthew. Theres a look into the possible military dimensions which the left over questions of 2003, including the penalty of the visits to parcheen. Its not completely excluded. Now, i want to sorry, go ahead with your question. Are you comfort that the a. A will be able to do the that the aia will be able to do the inspections it needs and the iranians wont be hiding everything. I have confidence and theyll have daily inspections available of the two big enrichment facilities, as well as for the first Time Opportunities to visit the plants assembling and doing rotor works on centrifu s centrifuges. Something new, important or useful. There are covert areas that you producing things over, above and aside what they see. The question is best answered in two ways. The iranians in that situation will have to be careful not to comingle anything from the covert facilities with the overt facilities that we see, and, secondly, the iranians, we discovered a secret facility a number of years before they were revealed. So very have to contend with a view that the intelligence communities of the world will supplement the i. A. E. A. In their work of making sure things dont happen in iran. These are not supposed to happen. The envelope of ambiguity and uncertainty lies in our direction, not in the iranian direction. We are talking about the uncertainty and what critics are saying. They say the weakness of the agreement says it barely shortens irans time to develop a nuclear wapan, they can maintain the centrifuge. If they keep the 19,000 sentry fudges, if they dilute the 26 , can they ramp up quickly enough so this doesnt curtail the program much . Yes, part of the big concern it if the deal is reneged upon, theyll reconstitute quickly. It wont be instant anious. The capacity will remain. Thats in the biggest fear i have, that we are no longer looking at a dismantlement of the program. Given that they are not exporting the currently enriched uranium, we are not taking apart sent centrifug centrifuges, these are things we may be able to get to, but the fact that it took a bit to get us this far makes me pessimistic. The iranians are giving ground because the anxiouses are hurting them. Some of president obamas biggest allies and many other people an capitol hill are involved in a bipartisan push to get tougher sanctions into place. Lets listen to bob corker. In iran they have consolidated the gains, they have seen what happened in north korea, they have Nuclear Weapons, i dont want to see if in iran. How do you react to corker. If the iranians are happy, what does that tell us . If the iranians are happy its because they are told its a good deal. Im not sure that i would look at it and thing it was a good deal. I would tell you if we took a poll of experts on iran and said a deal like this could be worked out in six weeks, we would probably have had about 90 skeptical of being able to get as far as we have gotten already. I agree with matthew that its important to look down the road bus down the road the approach to the comprehensive agreement is certainly one that links a Civil Program justified by iran on the basis of real needs with what is going to be in my view permitted at the end of the day. That certainly is going to be pretty. Short of where we are now. I would also point out to you that while you mention 19,000 centrifuges, half of those will be permitted to operate. Only a third of the centrifuges will be permitted. As i keep telling you they are not allowed to have more stockpile at the end of the six months than they started out with. All of these fears that this agreement is somehow a stepping stone to moving rapidly to a Nuclear Weapon, which is a concern that the israelis have is a false premise. The israelis would like zero enrichment. I would like to have zero enrichment. I dont think its feasible. The real question is is it sufficient to be able to curtail iranian capability to move rapidly to a Nuclear Weapon to find an agreement we can live with, rather than permit the iranians to continue to go on to expand their capacity as rapidly as they can, creating a greater capability to create a Nuclear Weapon. Yes, it is a good agreement, it comes to that result. Matthew, this is the closest weve gotten to a relationship with the iranians in decade. Is it not worth doing . I agree, we have not had a signed public agreements with iran in 34 years. This is intriguing in how it will play inside the regime. Given that its intrinsic, having to negotiate with the u. S. , i think it has interesting repercussions. In addition to that, with our allies in the region, they are nervous about what that may mean for the future of u. S. Islami relationships. Thank you both very much for the insights. Great to have you with us tonight. Coming up the Supreme Court has decided corporations are people. Can corporations bereligious people. Harmeli aregawi is tracking the stories on the web. What is trending . A store owner in miami installed 16 cameras not because of crime, but local police. Join the conversation on twitter and facebook and google pages. Can corporations pray. Supreme Court Justices will decide tuesday whether to take up the issue whether a business can back out of obamacare on business grounds. In a case before the court. A company, hobby lobby objects to a part of the obamacare. A federal Appeals Court ruled it violates the companys rite to free exercise religion. To what extent should people have the same rights. Im joined by david ganz. He is in our washington d. C. Studio. Luke is the deputy general council, which represented parties which represented parties in the Affordable Care act. He joins us. Great to have you with us. I want to start with you. The concept of corporate personhood or corporation has been longestablished in american law. If a corporation is a person, why shouldnt the person have some religious rights. Corporations have rights but the free exercise of reliageons is not one of them. At its core its about conscience, conviction and human dignity. They are attributes that dont apply to a corporation. They cant pray. They dont have a religious conscience. The Supreme Court allowed them under Citizens United to express themselves under the First Amendment by contributing to campaigns. It doesnt recognise that corporations have interest in human dignity. We have to look carefully at the right thats at issue in this case. Corporations have never in over 200 years had the right to the free exercise of religion. There are limits to corporation hood. They cant vote. What do you say in response to what david does. Im surprised david would say corporations dont have rights for 200 years. The vast majority of churches, synagogues, mosques are organised as corporations. The last three Supreme Court decisions involving the right of free exercise involved corporations and all three turned out unanimously in favour of the corporate right of free enterprise. Houses of worship can gather together to pray and worship. Those are corporations that are clearly structured for a religious purpose. So corporations the point is the corporate form has nothing to do with the limitation on the right of free exercise. Free exercise is not just an individual right, but a right to gather in search of higher good. Churches do that all the time. Davids point it not that corporations cant exercise religion, once a corporation starts to make money it restricts its ability to exercise restriction. The court never held that. Theres a fundamental difference between churches which are understood as a voluntary association of individuals gathering for the purpose of exercising religions and business corporations like hobby lobby and others. You know, that simply cant be described that way. That are not religious and employ people of different faiths. Thats the issue, whether business corporations and whether owners of those corporations can impose their own religious beliefs on their employees and deny to them important federal rights, and the issue is can the owners of hobby lobby, for example, to site the case make it to the court. Can they invoke religious views to deny access to the full range of contraseptemberives to the employs. Lets look at the hobby lobby case. Its a big company with over 20,000 employees. The owners threaten with the obamacare maternity component. Its a christian company. Lets listen to what the founder and ceo had to say. In every area that we feel like it would be something contrary to gods word. That becomes a conviction for us. Just caring about our people is a conviction. We want to love people, and we want to be an example of our employees. Its a company he built from the ground up. Why should he be forced to one of the examples is to pay and do the obamacare for the employees to have access to morning after birth control. The fundamental idea at the route of this law is that its important to provide access to the full range of contraseptemberives. The background is that Insurance Companies were discriminating against women and denying coverage. The point of the law is to provide this to ensure that the rights of the employees are respected. And you know the fundamental point, and this is goes the difference between a church and a business corporation, is that a church in a church we expect a Catholic Church to hire and associate your own. The purpose is to hire a person of all faiths, and they may be imposing their view on their employees. It is a business. People need to work, its not a voluntary association. Not as voluntary as joining a church. David tries to draw a distinction between a church and fullprofit business. Hobby lobby is organised with an expressly religious business. It engages in exercises of religion, closing every sunday, losing millions, providing every employees with free access to christian spiritual encounters, taking out advertisements in newspapers, urging people to accept jesus christ as their lord and saviour. When a business as an expressly religious statement and takes out advertisements if thats not app exercise of religion, what is it . I mean, i think theres a fundame fundamental threat that goes all the way back to the founding of a difference between chufference and other corporation, and the law recognises this throughout federal law that religious corporations have certain rights that have never been extended to business corporations. I think the way this theres a challenge to that aspect of law, that says business corporations should be able to impose religious beliefs on employees. It makes it interesting for employers of which hobby lobby is one, to discriminate against employees that dont share the views of the owners. Wouldnt it have arguably detrimental consequences if people could use religion to fire employees. Is that something we would want . David talks about hobby lobby imposing its views on its employees. Thats the opposite of what is happening. Hobby lobby provide free access to 14 different kinds of contraception. Free access. For the four types of contraception that the federal government says can destroy a fertilised egg. They are saying please dont make us pay for that. What the government is saying is we dont like your moral view, well force you, hobby lobby to pay for the drugs that can cause an abortion in violation of your religious beliefs. The government is imposing its moral view on hobby lobby. Will it make a difference if hobby lobby were a Small Corporation that had a dozen employees. That wouldnt be covered by this provision and question, which applies to larger employees. 50 then. So it would come under the law. I think thats the line. It makes sense to target largest employers who have Health Insurance programs. Its recognising this is a Critical Coverage and important to provide access to the range of contraseptemberives. This was designed to remedy gender discrimination. Insurance companies were not providing Preventative Services including for contraception and discriminating against the female employees of the company. I dont think its its not casting aspersion on moral view, its recognising a need for providing access to the services. Under mr goodrichs view women lose access to the critical services. For me the fundamental point is that, you know, its not part of remageous freedom for a party owner religious freedom for a Company Owner to impose views who are not required to share the views. The courts have been split on this. It boils down to if you have a bunch of companies that can use religion as an excuse to make choices with respect to their employees. Does that limit the ability of individuals to choose where they want to work. Is it a slippery slope. This is about diversity and whether the government will permit Business Owners to have a diverse range