Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Interview With Rep. Steve Israel of New York; Iran Nuclear Deal; Congress Has 60 Days to Review Agreement; Obama Defends Terms of Nuclear Deal; Reaction to the Iran Nuclear Deal; President Obama Begins News Conference on Iran Deal. Aired 12:55-1:30p ET

Aired July 15, 2015 - 12:55   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


[12:55:05] WOLF BLITZER: Hello, I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington, wherever you're watching from around the world, thanks very much for joining us.

Up first, the deal may be done, but the process of selling the Iran nuclear agreement to U.S. lawmakers, that's only just beginning.

President Obama will make this case when he steps before the cameras and the microphones over in the east room of the White House momentarily. He's news conference set to begin within the next few moments. We're going to bring you live coverage.

The Vice President Joe Biden went to Capitol Hill this morning to discuss the Iran deal with house Democrats. Many Congressional Republicans already are slamming the agreement, but President Obama says, it achieves the main objective.

Here's what he said in an interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion. And what I'm going to be able to say and I think we will be able prove is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. And we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The nuclear deal with Iran has been a foreign policy priority for President Obama. But he's up against severe critiques in the congress and elsewhere. Members of congress, they're threatening to try to derail the agreement.

Let's go to our Senior White House Correspondent, Jim Acosta. He's over at the White House in the east room getting ready for the news conference.

The stakes for the president in getting this deal approved, the stakes, Jim, they're enormous. JIM ACOSTA, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right Wolf, I think you can argue, this is the gamble of the Obama presidency. And he is betting the house on this Iran nuclear deal. He's wagering that the Iranians who have been enemies of this country for generation since the Iran hostage crisis will hold up their end of the deal that they will put limits on their -- and agree to limits on their nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

And as you mentioned Wolf, there are lots of questions. And I'll run through a few of them. But obviously I won't go through all of them.

First and foremost, his foreign policy adversary and -- on this front, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said, that this deal will pave the path to a nuclear arsenal. The president, I think will be asked about that.

There's also this issue of access to these sites.

Yesterday, the president said that any of these sites will be opened to inspectors, basically anytime that they want. Well, there is some dispute about that. The question becomes, well, which sites? Are they the known sites that the inspectors will have access to anytime that they want or will it be any suspicious sites around all of Iran?

Administration officials have told me, there's a different standard for that. And you have to go through a dispute resolution process to workout access to those suspicious sites. So the president maybe asked about that as well.

And Wolf, there's also this legacy issue, we've been talking about this over the last couple of days. The president really staking his legacy on this issue and that is if all of this can get through congress. As you know, the president has offered a veto or decided that he will veto in his legislation that threatens those deal. That would obviously set-up a situation where congress would have to override that veto. They would need a two-thirds vote to do that.

The White House is confident that that won't happen, that lawmakers don't have the votes to do that.

But Wolf, I think there's a more important question as to whether or not congress to override veto. And that is, what would happen if yes, they fall short of that two-thirds majority. But yet, the president is faced with stiff democratic opposition, stiff opposition with his own party. What does that do to the sustainability of this deal and to the sustainability of the rest of his presidency? Wolf.

WOLF: All right, Jim, stand by, we're going to get back to you shortly.

Some members of the congress, they're already calling the calling the Iran deal unacceptable. A lot of Republicans are doing it. But several Democrats are also pretty skeptical of the agreement.

Democratic Congressman Steve Israel of New York, perhaps, he falls into that category skeptical. He's joining us live from Capitol Hill. I know you had a chance with other house Democrats today congressman to meet with the Vice President Joe Biden. He was trying to encourage all the house Democrats to go along with the president. How did he do it?

REP. STEVE ISRAEL, (D) NEW YORK: Well, he made his persuasive of a case as he could. And in fact Wolf, the vice president began his presentation by admitting that he had been skeptical going into this. And he understood why many of us remains skeptical.

Full disclosure, I was skeptical at the beginning. I read the joint comprehensive plan of action last night. There was nothing there that really alleviated my skepticism. But this is the beginning of a 60- day process.

The vice president's appearance, the speech by the president in few minutes, these are all opening arguments in what will be a 60-day trial. Afterwards, congress will pronounce its verdict. And then we will see whether the president will override which -- will veto which I assume he will.

And then there will be a second verdict, will congress override or sustain that veto.

WOLF: What's your biggest concern congressman?

ISRAEL: I have two concerns. One is the IAEA inspections. We were told that this is anytime, anywhere, when you really read the language as I understand it. It's not anytime, anywhere. It's up to a 24-day process through which the IAEA has to go through in order to gain full access.

[13:00:08] And, secondly, this addition at the last minute that would allow Iran to export ballistic missiles to bad actors and other groups around the world. Those are two fundamental concerns that would have to be addressed for me to support this deal.

BLITZER: The conventional arms embargo is supposed to go away within five years but the ballistic missile embargo is supposed to go away in eight years. Is that not good enough for you?

ISRAEL: No, it's not. In fact, those bad actors are going to continue to exist. They're going to morph. They're going to proliferate. And this should not have been part of this deal. I understand the argument that the administration makes that China and Russia weren't giving up on that. That doesn't satisfy me. I think we should have been much tougher and should not have allowed that part of the discourse to enter into an agreement on nuclear weapons with Iran.

BLITZER: Based on what you know right now -- and you're a pretty good head counter in the House of Representatives. Assuming almost all of the Republicans in the House, and they're in the majority, vote against it. There's a majority. The president vetoes that. You need a two-thirds majority to override a veto. Do you think they will -- the president will have enough Democrats to back him to keep this deal alive?

ISRAEL: Well, it's really too early to say. This is why I fought so hard with others to have this 60-day review period so that we would be able to take the time necessary to make a judgment on the deal and not based on the politics of whether there would be a veto or not.

My sense is, based on my conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, it's going to be very close in both the House and the Senate. If -- both on approving or disapproving the deal and then on a veto. The president needs 145 votes to sustain a veto in the House. He needs 34 votes to sustain a veto in the Senate. I believe in both chambers it's going to come right onto -- on the cusp (ph).

BLITZER: It'll be very, very close. And I know the White House is not assuming they have the votes. They believe it will be very close indeed. That's why we're seeing all this activity on the part of the president, the vice president, his top national security advisors. They're going to spend the next 60 days working to make sure they have the votes to keep this deal alive. Congressman, thanks very much for joining us.

ISRAEL: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: The Iran deal will, indeed, be a tough sell for President Obama.

Joining us now to discuss what's going on as we await the president of the United States, our Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger, our Chief Congressional Correspondent Dana Bash, our Global Affairs Correspondent Elise Labott and Fareed Zakaria, the host of CNN's FAREED ZAKARIA GPS.

Gloria, the stakes really are enormous. And from what I'm told by administration officials, they don't assume they have enough votes right now to get this deal through even if the president vetoes it and they need a two-thirds override. They're working hard to make sure that they have the votes.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, I don't think they can assume anything, at this point. And they're smart to understand that they've -- that they've got a vote for -- that they've got to make their case. That is why the president is coming out today to speak to the American public because very often a president will make his case on the bully pulpit, talk to the American voters directly, try and go around the Congress, to a certain degree.

One thing I want to point out here about President Obama is that he's been nothing if not consistent on this issue. We all recall from the 2008 campaign when President Obama talked about direct engagement with our enemies, remember that? And Hillary Clinton, who was running against him in with 2008 chastised him for it and said, you can't do it. You're naive.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not to mention John McCain. BORGER: Not to mention John McCain. But Hillary Clinton who is now,

of course, running for president. And this has been a point of view that the president has had forever. And I think that nobody should be surprised that he tried to get this done as part of his legacy. And I think the question that members of Congress are going to have to confront right now is whether this president is farsighted, as he believes that he is, or whether he's shortsighted, as many people like Steve Israel believe he is.

BLITZER: Fareed, as you know, the Israelis, the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, making no secret. They hate this deal. And it goes across the board in Israel, not just the ruling, the Likud party, but the opposition as well. But there's a lot of other opposition from Sunni Arab states, whether the Saudis, the emirates, the Kuwaits, the Jordanians, the Egyptians. How big of a problem is that for the president in selling this deal?

FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN FAREED ZAKARIA GPS HOST: I don't think it will be as big a problem as the United States Congress. Look, for a number of those countries, Iran has been a strategic foe for decades. And for them -- this is not true for Israel but certainly the Gulf Arabs. For them, the nuclear deal and the nuke -- and the sanctions relating to the concern about nuclear weapons was a way to contain Iran almost permanently. But, of course, Russia and China and even the Europeans once signed up for a kind of permanent containment and sanctions policy against Iran. They put those sanctions in place specifically to bring Iran to the negotiating table to try to get it to make the concessions that largely it has made.

[13:05:12] So, the Saudis would have -- would have liked to see Iran deprived of its oil revenues in perpetuity. That's not likely to happen which is to say that that rivalry between the Gulf Arabs and Iran, between the Saudis and Iran, will, of course, continue and is now, in some ways, more visible because Iran will have access to more resources.

BLITZER: Do you think, Fareed, this is going to spur some of those very wealthy oil-rich Arab countries to start moving towards developing some sort of nuclear capability themselves?

ZAKARIA: I think that that's exaggerated. In my own -- in my own view is that, first of all, they are well aware that the United States is going to provide them with security guarantees that's a much cheaper way for them to get them. And just the way that when North Korea went nuclear, lots of people predicted that South Korea would go nuclear, Japan would go nuclear. And both of them realized the U.S. was providing a security umbrella.

There's also the reality, Saudi Arabia can buy nuclear technology from Pakistan, from China -- from France. But if it were to have to develop nuclear weapons, that means to having an underground indigenous capacity. I have seen nothing in Saudi Arabia's scientific and industrial base that would suggest that they could run a secret totally indigenous program hidden from the public eye. They can buy a lot of stuff. They can make very little. BLITZER: Elise, there is a lot of concern, by the critics, and you

hear this all the time, that Iran is about to get a windfall of about $150 billion. That only in the frozen assets once those are lifted. That's Iranian money that's been frozen all of these years. But they're going to get a windfall of about $150 billion. And then, an additional windfall of billions in oil revenues once that oil embargo goes away. They're going to spend that money not necessarily on education or health care or infrastructure but they're going to give it to various so-called terrorist groups. That's a serious concern out there.

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: It's a serious concern of the critics of the deal and this is why you see so much opposition on the Hill to the arms embargo. It's pretty much not really about the nuclear issue because that arms embargo was put in place by the U.N. because of the nuclear issue. It's these larger things. If you look at the latest State Department terrorism report, Iran is still the biggest state sponsor of terrorism. It's supporting Bashar Al Assad in Syria. It's supporting Hezbollah. It's supporting Hamas. And the concern is that they're going to spend this money on this other activity.

However, President Obama is making a very big gamble right now that the Ayatollah Khamenei and the leadership of Hassan Rouhani, who was elected to improve the economy and get these sanctions lifted, is going to spend this money on their people, is going to kind of solidify the revolution. It's a big gamble. He may keep this regime in check for the next several years but when the deal is over, are we going to have a fundamentally different regime or are they going to continue their terrorist activities?

BLITZER: Dana, you're covering this Republican -- these Republican, a lot of Republicans, 15 formally declared Republican presidential candidates. More on the way, John Kasich I think as early as next week. The governor of Ohio is going to jump into this presidential race. I take it all of them, including Rand Paul, have now come out firmly against this Iran nuclear deal, is that right?

BASH: They have. All the Republican candidates are against it, and that is kind of one of the few uniting events in the very vast and very different Republican fields. And I think that, just to Elise's point, what you're hearing on the presidential campaign trail is not very much -- very different from what you're hearing on Capitol Hill about the reasons for this strong (ph) opposition. You know, we kind of all knew, over the months and months, years of these talks about kind of the broad parameters having to do with the sanctions versus what kind of inspections would go on.

But this arms embargo, the lifting of the arms embargo, as you said to the Congressman, five years for conventional and eight for ballistic. That is, I'm told, inside a meeting that Joe Biden had with Congressional Democrats, a huge point of contention for exactly what Elise was talking about. The very real concern that Iran which is Shiites and has been known to give arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, those who, you know, threaten Israel are going to be able to do that in a much more robust way and that the United States and its allies won't be able to stop it. A last minute move, it seems, that even some of the president's closest allies on this are saying it was a very bad one and it will be very hard for them to support it.

BORGER: And you -- the administration keeps talking about sort of the trust but verify Reaganesque phrase and a lot of opponents are saying, you can't do that. You're not going to be able to trust and verify. And, by the way, you've already -- going to allow -- by lifting the arms embargo, however gradually, you're already giving -- you're already giving something away. And that it's a very different situation --

[13:10:00] BLITZER: By the way, --

BORGER: -- from the way Reagan was.

BLITZER: -- they no longer say trust but verify. They say, don't trust and verify.

BORGER: Trust and verify.

BASH: Trust and verify.

BORGER: Right, right. And that was the --

LABOTT: But the thing here -- and this is why the U.S. had to give up on this point, really, because the Russians, the Chinese, even the French and Germans. They're looking to start sell weapons to Iran. And what they're saying is, listen, you wanted to keep the nuclear issue very separate from all of Iran's other activities in the region. So, this arms embargo, if you're lifting it now -- you're opposition to lifting it now has nothing do with nuclear issues.

BLITZER: But let me get Fareed's thought on this. Another sensitive issue, Fareed, as we await the president of the United States. He's going to be walking in momentarily into the East Room of the White House. He'll open with a statement then will answer reporters' questions. We're told this news conference could go on for at least 45 minutes, maybe as long as an hour. We'll, of course, have live coverage of the whole thing. Fareed, one of the big questions that critics say is this 24-day notification that if there is suspicion by the IAEA or the U.S. or anyone else that something (INAUDIBLE) that Iran is cheating, they're trying to hide something, they will have 24 days that -- notification before inspectors can go in. And the argument is that within 24 days, you can hide a lot of stuff. What do you make of that?

ZAKARIA: Look, it is the weakest part of the deal. I think the deal, in general, is really quite remarkable in being comprehensive and being intrusive and going all the way back to the uranium mines. The 24-day inspection process or the multilayered inspections process is the weakest part of the deal. The compensating fact is that you now have extraordinary technology that allows you to figure out what's going on even before you get to the site. And so, you can raise suspicions.

And, again, because -- you -- the overall context is one in which you know what's happening at the mines. You know what's -- you have cameras and inspectors in each of these major facilities in (INAUDIBLE) places like that. So, you would be able to be -- to be tipped off to some kind of suspicious activity. I think that, you know, if you -- if you pick that one element of the deal, yes, it's not -- it's not ideal. But you talk to experienced IAEA inspectors and they will tell you that with today's technology, there's a lot you can do to compensate for that weakness.

BLITZER: And another criticism -- and Jim Acosta is our man at the White House, he's over there in the East Room getting ready for this news conference with the president. Another criticism, I've heard, if you go through the details, Jim -- and I wonder how the administration responds to this. They point out that all the inspectors that the Iranians will allow to come in from the International Atomic Energy Agency will have to be inspectors from countries that have formal full diplomatic relations with Iran, meaning the United States will not be allowed to have any inspectors that actually go into Iran to take a look because the U.S. does not have full diplomatic relations with Iran. What does the administration say about that?

JIM ACOSTA, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And that was a concession that was made during this negotiating process. And, essentially, it's because the Iranians don't trust the Americans to do a credible job of inspections. And so, what you're going to see unfold, I think, Wolf, is, yes, you're going to have a daily routine inspections of the known sites that have been a part of the Iranian nuclear lexicon for some five or six years now.

The question becomes, what happens with these suspicious sites? And that's where you get into a potential cat-and-mouse game. You know, there's been a lot of talk and the Israelis have been demanding this notion of anytime, anywhere access to sites around the country. Administration officials have said, you know, that's just a myth. There is no country on earth that is going to allow international inspectors to go anywhere at any time. It's just not going to happen.

And so, what you're going to have to see unfold here, Wolf, is this negotiated process. And it's going to get -- it's going to get frustrating at times not only for the White House but other partners who are part of this deal. There may be some moments in the coming months where these inspectors are not getting access to these sites, these possible military sites where there may be nuclear activity suspected of occurring. You know, the inspectors may not get automatic immediate access to those sites. And that's when the games begin.

And, you know, you do hear from administration officials what they don't want to do, Wolf, is to get back -- to flashback to 10, 12 years ago before the Iraq War got started. And, you know, there were inspectors trying to get access to sites and the Iraqis were saying, no, you can't have access to these sites.

But, Wolf, I think what you're going to hear from the president when he comes in here in a few moments, and hopefully it's a few moments from now, is the president will walk through some of the arguments that he laid out yesterday which is, if you don't have a deal, what happens next? If you don't have a deal, the president will say that the two to three month breakout time that the Iranians currently have gets shrunk to zero. And then, all of the activities that the Israelis, the Republicans, everybody else is worried about supporting terrorism, supporting the Houthi rebels in Yemen, supporting the Assad regime in Syria. All of that becomes much, much worse because you have, potentially, a nuclear state in Tehran.

[13:15:05] And so that is - that is an argument you're going to hear from the president that it is much easier to keep a lid on Iran with this in place and that's why I think you heard yesterday Hillary Clinton, when she was up on Capitol Hill saying, you know what, this is a - an important first step to keep a lid on the Iran nuclear program.

The question, though, becomes for Hillary Clinton and for this White House is, you know, as goes this Iran nuclear deal, as go these inspections and the cat-and-mouse games that may follow, so go not only the prospects for this White House and the legacy of this presidency, but potentially Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Can you imagine, Wolf, as she's trying to run for president and you have these Iranians throwing up roadblocks and playing games with international inspectors over these Iranian nuclear sites. It could be a very, very big headache for the Democrats over the remaining months of this president.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, and it was interesting yesterday, Hillary Clinton, in her initial reaction to the deal, when she met with reporters on Capitol Hill, issued a sort of lukewarm statement saying it was important. Later in the day, after she had more briefings, she had issued a lengthy written statement, much more robustly endorsing this agreement.

Elise, what is the administration saying - and you're talking to some of the negotiators who were directly involved - about some of these problems as far as the inspections, the 24 days, no U.S. inspectors allowed in, $150 billion that will be eased up for the Iranians to start spreading their money around. What are they saying about that?

ELISE LABOTT, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: OK, well, they have an answer for everything, right? So on the inspections issue, it's not really - ultimately, it turns out to 24 days, but Iran has 14 days to comply with the request. Then, if they don't reply to the request, it goes to a committee. By the time it's going to a committee for another seven days or so, then it starts to be like, listen, if you're not going to comply, those sanctions are going to snap back right away.

BLITZER: But they will have 24 days without any inspectors in there.

LABOTT: Ultimately they're having 20 - correct.

BLITZER: Twenty-four days for which they can move stuff, hide stuff.

LABOTT: Correct. But by 24 days, if those - if they're not - if those inspectors aren't getting in, then you start to get about the snapback - snapback protections, but -

BLITZER: Yes, well they - they have to go in and - they have to go in, in 24 days.

LABOTT: Exactly. But, look, any time anywhere was never possible because you would have to have a lot of inspectors on the ground all throughout Iran to be any time anywhere. There was always going to be some sort of managed access, and that - and that's what they're calling it.

But, you know, listen, it's - it's exactly as Fareed said, and Secretary Kerry said yesterday, you're going to need to have access to all areas of the fuel cycle. So if Iran is cheating in one area, it's not going to be possible for them to cheat in all areas without people knowing about it.

I mean I think the issue of whether Iran is going to cheat under the cover of night and no one's going to know about it is a little overblown because there will be signs if Iran is cheating. And what U.S. officials say is they understand all of the criticism. But I think the administration's main thing, the alternative here, if the U.S. were to walk away, and they warned Congress yesterday, if Congress ends this agreement and blocks this agreement, allies will walk away from the U.S., the U.S. will never be able to re-impose the kind of sanctions that have brought Iran to this point. And so you have Iran walking away, a breakout state, and then there are no sanctions to do anything about it.

BLITZER: All right, I want everyone to stand by. We're waiting for the president of the United States to walk into the East Room of the White House. Let's take a 60-second break. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Welcome back to our special coverage. I'm Wolf Blitzer in Washington. Once again we want to welcome our viewers in the United States and around the world.

We're waiting for President Obama to walk into the East Room of the White House. He's getting ready to hold a news conference. Obviously on the agenda right now, atop the agenda, the Iran nuclear deal that was negotiated and signed, agreed upon yesterday. The president will open up with a statement. We assume the statement will be on the Iran nuclear deal. He'll make the case why this is critically important for the U.S., its allies, indeed for the entire world and they'll answer reporters' questions. The reporters' questions, by the way, could be on the Iran nuclear deal, but they could be on a whole lot of other subjects as well. We expect the news conference to go on for about 45 minutes to an hour.

[13:20:11] Let me quickly go back to Jim Acosta, our senior White House correspondent.

Any indication why there's a delay? It's supposed to have started, what, about 20 minutes ago.

ACOSTA: No indication for the delay, Wolf. And I have to tell you, I would assume that this president is going to be in a hurry to go through this news conference because he's got a big schedule ahead of him for the rest of this week. As you know, Wolf, he's been talking about this issue of criminal justice reform. He was talking about it yesterday in Philadelphia in front of the NAACP. He heads to Oklahoma later on this afternoon to talk about it there. He'll actually be the first sitting president to visit a federal prison tomorrow for another event on criminal justice reform. So there is an incentive to get out of here as quickly as possible.

But in terms of this news conference, Wolf, this does sort of remind me of what we saw after the midterm elections where the president, his back was up against the wall and he knew that the questions were going to be coming fast and furious. And as I recall and you recall during that news conference, Wolf, the president had pretty much a pat answer for just about every question that came at him. I'm wondering whether or not the president, when he comes into this room, he is going to have something very similar in store for these reporters in here that essentially what we heard yesterday, what we've been hearing from the vice president, other administration officials over the last 24 hours, that once the public sees the deal, once concerned Democrats and even some Republicans see this deal, the more they're going to like it. And I suspect we're going to hear the president echo that message when he gets in here hopefully within a few moments from now.

BLITZER: Yes, well, let's see how long - maybe there's something going on, some sort of crisis that's delaying the president. We'll find out soon enough. Stand by.

Dana bash, up on Capitol Hill right now, I think almost all the Republicans who are speaking publicly, they're at least skeptical if not downright opposed to this deal. Are there any Republicans who are at least willing to give the president - have an open mind to give the president the benefit of the doubt?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not that I've heard so far. It doesn't mean they're not out there, they're just not running to the microphones to say, "I support President Obama," which probably shouldn't surprise any of us.

But, look, if you sort of take a step back -

BLITZER: I raise the question because of the -

BASH: Yes.

BLITZER: The political division here in Washington.

BASH: Sure. Exactly.

BLITZER: You would think on a national security issue like this -

BASH: Absolutely.

BLITZER: There could be some sort of bipartisan or non-partisan approach.

BASH: Well, -- well, what - well, that's actually a very good point. Unfortunately for the president, the bipartisanship seems to be against this approach and this is one of those issues where you have more Democrats than you would think. Steve Israel, who you just interviewed earlier, he was a member of the Democratic leadership. He's a huge supporter of President Obama and of the Democratic agenda. He spent two cycles trying to get Democrats elected to the House. He's skeptical and it sounds a lot like he's probably not going to support this. So that just gives you a perfect example of how, you're right, this does not necessarily fall on party lines, but that's really talking more about the Democrats.

So the key question is going to be, and as Steve Israel said to you very clearly, probably ultimately if the president - assuming the president gets something on his desk saying we don't support this, Congress will not allow this to happen, it's going to be whether or not there are going to be those votes to override his veto. That's, I think, at this point, the big question (INAUDIBLE).

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, let -

BLITZER: It would be a huge humiliation for the president if he were overridden on that veto.

BORGER: And let's not underestimate the impact of the fact that Bibi Netanyahu has come out and said that this is historically a mistake in no uncertain terms and that there are going to be members of Congress who say, you know, we're not going to know the results of this gamble for many years, why do I want to put my stake with President Obama on this when we don't really know an answer definitively. Are they going to be willing to go out on that limb with the president? They have to get re-elected, the president does not have to get re-elected.

LABOTT: Let's just talk about Benjamin Netanyahu for -

BLITZER: Very quickly, because were - the president's about to begin.

LABOTT: I mean, listen, for all his speech and coming here to Congress and trying to warn against the deal, he was really not a factor in these negotiations. And, in fact, I think it really did hurt him. I think he would have had a tougher deal had he have been a silent, visible partner in that room trying to get a tougher deal than coming here and making a grandstand, which I really didn't think really helped the deal in the end.

BASH: Maybe not the deal, but he got re-elected, and you well know, because you were in Israel, the majority of Israelis -

BORGER: That's right, he did get re-elected.

BLITZER: All right, so the president of the United States, we're told, he's going to be walking over to the microphone momentarily, within the next few seconds supposedly. The reporters are going to be seated. The president will come in as once again he'll open with a statement and then he'll call on reporters. He's got a list of reporters. He goes into these news conferences, now, with a list of reporters he's going to call on. In the older days, as I remember having been a former White House correspondent, you would raise your hand, you'd try to get the president's attention. All these reporters now know they may or may not be on the list of reporters who will be questioned. Once in a while the president could deviate and call on someone he spots, but usually at these news conferences, the order of the reporters, pretty much scripted.

As we await - and I want to get a final thought from Fareed in advance of this news conference.

[13:25:03] Fareed, what would you - as someone who has really studied this very closely - like to hear from the president as he makes his case?

FAREED ZAKARIA, HOST, CNN'S "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS": I think what he should remind people of is that five, seven years ago we had a situation where Iran was building thousands of centrifuges. There was some partial sanctions, mostly U.S., very new European, no U.N. sanctions and -

BLITZER: All right, hold on, Fareed. Hold on, Fareed. I've got to interrupt you because the president has now walked in. He's beginning this news conference.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Please have a seat. Good afternoon, everybody. Yesterday was a historic day.

The comprehensive long-term deal that we achieved with our allies and partners to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon represents a powerful display of American leadership and diplomacy. It shows what we can accomplish when we lead from a position of strength and a position of principle when we unite the international community around a shared vision and we resolve to solve problems peacefully.

As I said yesterday, it's important for the American people and Congress to get a full opportunity to review this deal. That process is now underway. I've already reached out to leaders in Congress on both sides of the aisle. My national security team has begun offering extensive briefings.

I expect the debate to be robust and that's how it should be. This is an important issue. Our national security policies are stronger and more effective when they are subject to the scrutiny and transparency that democracy demands.

And as I said yesterday, the details of this deal matter very much. That's why our team worked so hard for so long to get the details right. At the same time, as this debate unfolds, I hope we don't lose sight of the larger picture, the opportunity that this agreement represents.

As we go forward, it's important for everybody to remember the alternative, and the fundamental choice that this moment represents. With this deal, we cut off every single one of Iran's pathways to a nuclear program, a nuclear weapons program.

And Iran's nuclear program will be under severe limits for many years. Without a deal, those pathways remain open. There would be no limits to Iran's nuclear program, and Iran could move closer to a nuclear bomb. With this deal, we gain unprecedented around the clock monitoring of Iran's key nuclear facilities in the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated.

Without a deal, those inspections go away and we'd lose the ability to closely monitor Iran's program and detect any covert nuclear weapons program. With this deal, if Iran violates its commitments, there will be real consequences, nuclear-related sanctions that have helped to cripple the Iranian economy will snap back into place.

Without a deal, the international sanctions regime will unravel with little ability to reimpose them. With this deal, we have the possibility of peacefully resolving a major threat to regional and international security. Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East and other countries in the region would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs, threatening a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.

As I said yesterday, even with this deal, we will continue to have profound differences with Iran: its support of terrorism, its use of proxies to destabilize parts of the Middle East. Therefore, the multilateral arms embargo on Iran will remain in place for an additional five years, and restrictions on ballistic missile technology will remain for eight years.

In addition, the United States will maintain our own sanctions related to Iran's support for terrorism, its ballistic missile program, its human rights violations, and we'll continue our unprecedented security cooperation with Israel and continue to deepen our partnerships with the Gulf states.

But the bottom line is this. This nuclear deal meets the national security interests of the United States and our allies. It prevents the most serious threat, Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, which would only make the other problems that Iran may cause even worse.

That's why this deal makes our country and the world safer and more secure.