That is part of what this vote would be. We dont trust that, it was no way iran could come under it. The consequences of this are even more than what you laid out. Here is what else happens but better on politics long enough, i have a pretty good sense a lot of people were opposing this before it was announced before they read it. If this does not meet congresses approval, and iran goes back to enriching, you can hear the cry now. What are we going to do about it . You hear the Prime Minister of his rail calling me up it is time to bomb. What are we going to do . That is why learned people say that is the alternative. When they are glitching like crazy, and the patched up diplomacy, and passed up the nonproliferation treaty, what is left . I know senators are uncomfortable that they may have an enrichment program, so what is your plan . Knock out their entire capacity . Erase the memory . Totally go to war . I heard somebody mention iraq that we had a huge ability to know what happened there, that was after we invaded a country. Then we had anywhere, anytime. It is the only place in the world you had it. No country has anywhere, anytime. I asked people to be reasonable. There are more consequences but each one of the ones he laid out a pretty consequential. If i could just respond, i agree with you that they would fray. In addition, we had a lot of discussion about the reserves. We after member they are not sitting in the United States. If this agreement falls apart our ability to keep that money will also fall apart. The concern is they get their money, and there was no Nuclear Agreement. That is very real. Th regard to your comment, i totally agree. If it is seen as a pretext, that violates the agreement. We reserve the ability to put sanctions back in place. There is some inherent fuzziness. It is a matter of interpretation which is why people can say they have different views. It is not as if this was some accidental provision. At think the thought process you walk through was very helpful. I do want to say congress can put in place many of the sanctions that brought iran to the table. What i think is unfair is that the secretary afforded himself the ability to walk away from this deal and face all of the same consequences. You said that no deal was better than a bad deal. At many times you laid out the chances of this happening. You yourself had to be thinking about going down the very path that senator murphy just put out. What you did by going to the Un Security Council and delaying this out basically even the we put a in place that brought them to the table, you are trying to paint this picture that basically takes that choice away from us. I find that to be incredibly unfair. Secretary kerry mr. Chairman, i can just say to you, the choice would have been the same whether or not the Security Council voted. Its the exact same choice. The great distinction, with all due respect, the great distinction is that when i was ready to walk away, everyone wouldve come with me. They understood the walk away was the intransigence of a ramp. We wouldve walked away and held the unity of the sanctions. We could have done more. Or if we have to resort to military, people wouldve understood why. The problem is now, they wont understand why. They want walk away with anyone. I dont want to put too much emphasis, but ill go back to the other and say, again, the way you present the options. I think by the administration going to the United Nations, and a good faith bipartisan manner we are showing the world we dont stand together. That is what this is all about. That is why we fought. We voted to go back to the balance. Im encouraged that senator king is here sitting your for four hours this morning listening to this. People are involved in this. I appreciate would you guys have done, this is a huge task, you played hard the last few months. Thank you for all of your effort. I personally have tried to take a very measured approach in this to understand the issues, to understand what we are trying to achieve. But for the secretary of state say our goal is to preclude he ran from ever becoming a Nuclear Weapons state. I am very troubled today. I look at the somewhat skeptically im not sure what is it was humorous, let me just read you a couple of quotes. This agreement will help to achieve a longstanding american objective. President obama iran will never be allowed to develop a Nuclear Weapon. Wwhat we will do is set uopp a mechanism where inspectors to go anyplace. This agreement represents the first step on a road to a nuclear free korean peninsula. President obama, this framework would cut off every pathway that are red could possibly take to develop a Nuclear Weapon. I am unsettled because we have had bad experiences dealing with bad actors. If other do this today, using the link today you said something today we are guaranteeing they want of a Nuclear Weapon. I know that is our goal. I read every page of this document. I am very concerned that i read this, i understand our objective is never allow iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. Does this deal actually preclude them from becoming a Nuclear Weapons state. Secretary kerry senator, first of all, i really appreciate your approach to this. And i very much appreciate your comments. And i know youre taking this very seriously. I want to speak specifically to your several concerns. First of all, i believe, and a spent 29 years here in this committee back in the early days of the mx missile debates. This, i believe, its one of the most extensive agreements with the most extensive access provisions and accountability standards ive seen in the time that i was here. I believe we are put in place a highly distinguishable set of measures from north korea. First of all the really eight years of the clinton administration, they didnt gain one ounce of plutonium capacity. They started cheating. And the framework was put into place, and the administration changed. Path. The framework was put in place and the administrations were changed. New administration came in with a different attitude about how to approach them but with the discovering of the cheating on the heu, they immediately shut down the diplomatic track and north korea pulled out of the ntp. Fully pulled out of the ntp. There were no inspections. Nothing else was happening. Yes, they blew up several Nuclear Weapons and they developed their nuclear capacity. That should be a warning to everybody here. Unlike north korea the north korea experience is what gave birth to the Additional Protocol. Senator kerry, i apologize i just want you to know senator, the Additional Protocol came into existence to remedy the deaf fit of what happened with nuclear. So, the access we have here, we never had in nuclear. We have unprecedented ability to hold iran accountable. I believe through the myriad 24 7 access to their declared facilities, well know instantaneously if they try to move i understand. I heard you say that last night. I appreciate that. If we do well know. But does in deal this agreement preclude iran from becoming a Nuclear Weapons state. The deal itself . I believe if the agreement is fully implemented, and obviously if iran lives by it, yes. Thank you. Secretary lew, with regard to the options, what brought iran to the negotiating table recently . Whats their motive for coming to negotiate in the first place . Senator im not sure i could tell you the specific thing but we look at the impact of the sanctions over the last number of years. Its crushed irans economy. Its crushed it reduced it about 20 . Yes. The size of the economy is down, Exchange Rate is terrible. Inflation and unemployment rates are ohio the question i have is in the very beginning when they came to the table, we ceded to them the right to enrich, to bypass 18 countries who are good ang tors on the world stage and join an elite group of five countries that have Civil Nuclear programs but dont enrich. There are Nine Countries that actually have Nuclear Weapons. Five in the ntp. Four out of the ntp. They obviously have civil programs. But the dlination between the countries that are good players, germany, brazil afghanistan im sorry, argentina, holland, gentleman. Japan. Were putting iran into that group. What option i see to this is potentially doubling down on the sanctions that got them to the table in the first place. Id like you to respond to that. We know it was crushing their economy. We know it was having tremendous impact on their regime. My question is is that not a viable option today . As we look at alternatives to the deal itself. The reason i think the sanctions have had the powerful effect is theyre not just u. S. Sanctions. Theyve been international sanctions. That requires keeping an International Coalition together to impose the kinds of tough sanctions weve had. In past debates over u. S. Sanctions, weve gone back and forth with the congress saying if you do more and it keeps other countries out, then were in the end doing less. And i think weve come to a good place on each of the rounds of discussions over sanctions to grow the coalition in the world. If this deal is rejected the other partners who have helped uts to impose those sanctions will not be of like mind. Of 115 billion you identified. And i understand the nuances of the different categories of that cache, how much is that relative to our secondary sanctions on other countries dealing with iran compared to the eu and p5plus1. Im trying to make the dlination between what are the sanctions what percentage of the 115 is due to u. S. Sanctions, congressional sanctions its hard todisaggregate. Weve had had for years now ongoing discussions where its getting harder and harder to keep countries tied to the oil sanctions, for example, because its hard on their economies. The goal of the sanctions was to get iran to the negotiating table. Query, would they be willing to do it if iran came to the negotiating table and we rejected a deal that all the other countries in the have signed onto . Thatsy our actions ability starts to fray. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Rebuilt the economy of germany after they had done two wars against the u. S. That was hard. There were objections and no votes. President kennedy, nuclear test band treaty with the soviet union, during the bay of pig they were nlgtegotiating. It was hard and there were no votes. This is a deal in my review produces a dramatically better position for about 15 years than the status quo before negotiations started. When you started the negotiations right before enrichment level 20 and climb, youve knocked it back to 3. 67 . A heavy water plutonium facility at iraq, theyre dismantling. They were on a path where they had a huge program and it was growing for 15 years. This deal with the inspections mechanisms, et cetera, produces a dramatically better status quo for the United States, for regional allies, for the world. My questions are after your 15. Secretary moniz, various provisions start to come off certain elements of the program, certain inspections began your eight, 10 15, 300 kim gram cap comes off. When you get to your 25, this is how i read the deal. The deal basically is iran commits in the first paragraph of the agreement under no circumstances will iran seek to develop, purchase or acquire Nuclear Weapons. Theyve agreed to all the ntp obligations Going Forward and they agreed that any Income Program will be completely civil in nature. They make that commitment. The intelligence we have, the knowledge we gained through 25 years of enhanced inspections and the ongoing inspections under the ntp, especially the Additional Protocol. Is that level of knowledge sufficient at year 25 and thereafter to detect if iran tries to violate this deal and acquire Nuclear Weapons . I think it puts us in a far better position otherwise, and i think the risks on their part would be enormous to try to break their commitment. And i think you put your finger on a very important thing, which our Intelligence Community would support. We should not forget the tremendous knowledge of the program, what their doing, where theyre doing it, over 25 years. We will have a lot of indicators to really amplify our national means. Thats a good segue to the question i want to ask secretary kerry. You talked to senator murphy about them. I think those who objected to the negotiations starting in 2013. They were against that diplomatic beginning. If we could go back to that status quo, it seems the status quo was we had sanctions they were punishing iran, hurting their economy, but they were racing ahead on their Nuclear Program. We were hurting their economy, but the Nuclear Program, 19000 centrifuges and climbing, 12 tou kilograms and climbing, iraq heavy water moving ahead, if we just had lived with that status quo, it seems to me one of two things was going to happen. Either they were going to eventually ka pit late. There were two othds. Im not going to ask you to assign odds to those two things but there was significant risk. Had they not start diplomacy, they were going to get a Nuclear Program. You stalled that one. Let me mention another alternative because its been mentioned by members of this body. After the framework was announced on april 2, a member of this body who has been a loud and influential voice in this issue, said bombing iran to end their program would only take a few days. Mr. Secretary, youve been at war. Do you find that to be a realistic statement . Well, its a i find it to be a factual statement in the sense it would only take a few days but i dont find it to be a realistic statement in terms of a policy because the implications of that, if youre not at the end of your rope. In other words fitz not last resort, would be extraordinarily complicated for the United States. If we were to do that, thats an alternative. If we were to do that right now, would we have International Support for that. Not on your life no way. Would we have an International Legal basis for doing it . We were in israel a number of us met with israeli officials who said, they are have concluded iran is trying to get to a threshold yet iran has not yet made a decision to pursue and acquire Nuclear Weapons. If we were to initiate a war against iran, would they have not yet have made that decision would there be an international basis for war . No. Furthermore, we would be proceeding without any allies, which is not a small consequence. Let me flip it around on you. I want to talk about credible military threat. If this deal is done and if iran confirms to the entire Global Community in the u. N. Iran confirms under no circumstances iran will seek or acquire Nuclear Weapons. They pledged that to the world. Then they break toward a Nuclear Weapon, would we be more likely to have the support of International Partners if we want to take military action to stop them from doing what they pledge not to do . Absolutely. Would we have a greater legal basis to justify taking mill father action to stop them from doing what they have pledged not to do . Yes. And would we have because of an inspections regime, plus existing intelligence, a lot more knowledge about how to target military action and increasing the threat of our military threat . Yes. I dont have any other questions, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator isaacson. Thank you, chairman corker and senator cardin for your Opening Statements and thank you for the way in which you handled the beginning of this debate. Ill be brief. Im familiar with Senate Hearings when they enter their fourth hour but i want to make a couple things Crystal Clear on behalf of my constituents. And i speak for myself as well. Secretary kerry, you said unprecedented transparency from a point of inspections and holding iran accountable. Is that correct . With the exception of the iraq war, yes. Do you recall the debate on the new start treaty . Somewhat. We were involved in that pretty heavily that was missiles. Theres a distinction between missiles and Nuclear Program. I know we had shorter period. Thats a different deal. But what got the twothirds majority that ratified the new start treaty in the senate was satisfaction to the senate that the inspection regimen was quick, decisive and United States had i understand. This particular agreement, the iaea is the inspector. Principle inspector. We are, obviously, sleuthing and all of our intelligence communities around the world would be following it but theyre the principle and identified inspector. We pay 25 of the costs to the iaea is that correct . Yes, it is. The treaty specifically says none of the inspectors can be american, is that correct . In this particular thing, yes, thats correct. Those two poipts that ive raised are why people raise questions in terms of the inspections and whether they are unprecedented in their transparency. I think you really have to deal with it deeper than you have today. Well, im happy to there are a lot of reasons not the least of which we dont have diplomatic relations with iran, which is one of the principle reasons that we cant proceed to have inspectors and so forth. The s. T. A. R. T. Treaty it specific locations identified in it, prelocations. This is for things we cant prelocate. This is for what we might suspect at some point in time or what we might have some