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 Irans 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 irans sponsorship of terrorism. Its 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 dont have a bomb. It will be a lot easier for us to check irans 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 dont 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 peoples 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. Thats what politicians do, and thats 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 dont have to speculate. We dont 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 snapback provisions if they cheat. You know, the facts are the facts, and im not concerned about what others say about it. Now, with respect to congress my hope i wont 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 whats 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. Weve 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 shouldnt 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 irans position in the world generally. And ive said this to Prime Minister ive said it directly to the israeli people. But what ive 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 thats already spoken, none of them have presented to me or the American People a better alternative. Im 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 theres been a lot of that. What i havent heard is what is your preferred alternative . If 99 of the worlds 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, its temporary, or that because theyre going to get a windfall of their accounts being unfrozen that theyll cause more problems, then you should have some alternative to present. And i havent 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 its resolved through force, through war. Those are those are the options. Now, youll 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 cant have a Peaceful Nuclear program. They agree with us that iran cannot have a Nuclear Weapon. And so we dont 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 dont have a weapon. Thats exactly what weve 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 theyre 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 im happy to im happy to thats a good example. So, lets 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 well 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 were counting the amount of uranium thats being mined, and suddenly some is missing on the back end, they got some splainin to do. So were able to track whats happening along the existing facilities to make sure that there is not diversion into a Covert Program. But lets say that iran is so determined that it now wants to operate covertly, the iaea, the International Organization charged with implementing the nonproliferation treaty and monitoring Nuclear Activities in countries around the world, the iaea will have the ability to say that undeclared site, were 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, weve set it up so we can override irans objection, and we dont need russia or china in order for us to get that override. And if they continue to object were in a position to snap back sanctions and declare that irans 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 were suspicious about, were going to be keeping eyes on it. So were going to be monitoring what the activity is, and thats 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 well 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 well 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 . Thats possible. But if it does, first of all, we built in a oneyear breakout time, which gives us a year to respond forcefully, and weve built in a snapback provision so we dont 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 weve 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 theyd find some way to get around it because they are untrustworthy. And if thats your view, then we go back to the choice that you have to make earlier. That means, presumably, that you cant negotiate, and what youre really saying is that youve got to apply military force to guarantee that they dont have a Nuclear Program. And if somebody wants to make that debate, whether its the Republican Leadership or Prime Minister netanyahu or the israeli ambassador or others theyre free to make it, but its 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 fiveand eightyear durations . Are you concerned that arms will go to has the law or hamas ands 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 its 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 dont 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 thats happening in the middle east, what kind of middle east do you want to leave when you leave the white house in a yearandahalf . 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 Irans 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 didnt 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 irans activities lets 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, lets 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 weve 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 well still be in possession of other legal authorities that allow us to interdict those arms. And truthfully, these prohibitions are not self enforcing. Its 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, its not because they were legal, its 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 ab