Joining today's show are Mike Barnicle, Mark Halperin, Richard Haass, Jon Meacham, Eugene Robinson, Mark Leibovich, Enrique Latoison, Secy. Madeleine Albright, Donald Trump, Chuck Todd, Rep. Steve Israel, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, David Ignatius, John Kirby, Sen. Bob Corker, Amb. Ron Dermer, Amb. Peter Westmacott, Cindi Leive, Colin Quinn, Brie Larson, Elizabeth Gore and more
The 109-page Iran deal is filled with complicated details about how the Persian nation must limit its stockpiles of uranium and plutonium in order to secure sanction relief from the west. We explain it in 60 seconds, using Legos.
The West — specifically the United States, the U.K., Russia, China, Germany and France — has long suspected that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons and has imposed tough economic sanctions to pressure the Iranian government to abandon this pursuit. This lego wall represents those sanctions, which have significantly isolated Iran and brought it to the negotiating table.
Under the agreement announced on Tuesday, Iran must dramatically reduce its nuclear materials — such that it doesn’t have the uranium and plutonium necessary to make a weapon. (For instance, it will reduce the number of uranium centrifuges from 19,000 to just 5,060 and limit the enrichment of uranium to just 3.67% — a purity of 90% is necessary to make a weapon.) International inspectors will verify that Iran is complying with these terms. Then, the sanction wall will begin to crumble.
If Iran doesn’t live up to the agreement, the inspectors will alert the West and the world will build the wall back up. For sanctions to be reinstated, five out of the eight negotiating parties must agree, thus preventing China or Russia from vetoing the snapback of sanctions.
Critics argue that an empowered Iran could destabilize the Middle East and finance terror groups. The world, including the U.S., will certainly have to formulate a policy to counteract any nefarious activities — but if the deal works, that threat won’t include a nuclear weapon.
US conservatives condemn agreement. US conservatives have lined up to condemn the deal reached between major world powers and Iran. The agreement limits Iranian nuclear activity in return for the lifting of crippling international economic sanctions. The US Congress has 60 days in which to consider the deal, though President Barack Obama has said he will veto any attempt to block it. Israel's government has strongly criticised the agreement. Negotiations between Iran and six world powers - the US, UK, France, China, Russia and Germany - began in 2006. The so-called P5+1 want Iran to scale back its sensitive nuclear activities to ensure that it cannot build a nuclear weapon. Iran, which wants international sanctions lifted, has always insisted that its nuclear work is peaceful.
Could US Congress torpedo the deal?
- It has 60 days to review the agreement
- During that time, President Obama cannot lift the sanctions Congress has imposed on Iran
- Congress can reject the deal, and keep the sanctions in place, but Mr Obama can veto that
- Congress would need a two-thirds majority to overturn the veto, which is unlikely
The Republican Speaker of the US House of Representatives, John Boehner, said the deal would only "embolden" Tehran. "Instead of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, this deal is likely to fuel a nuclear arms race around the world," he added.
Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator and presidential candidate, described it as a "terrible" deal that would make matters worse. Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.
Barack Obama: "Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off". Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the sanctions regime was never successful, but that it had affected people's lives
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a "stunning historic mistake" that would provide Iran with "hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe". He said he did not regard Israel as being bound by this agreement. "We will always defend ourselves," he added.
Analysis: Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor
The agreement will change the Middle East, perhaps a lot, but at the moment no-one knows exactly how. The biggest question is whether it will reduce or increase the turmoil in the Middle East.
Iran and the world's big powers, most significantly the US, now have a habit of working together - but don't assume that will help automatically to resolve the crises and wars that Iran, the US and their allies are involved with in the region.
There is a danger that mutual suspicion will heat up the Middle East's fault lines, especially the cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia - and with it sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
But the agreement in Vienna removes Iran's nuclear programme from the danger list. Two years ago, as Israel threatened to bomb Iran, it looked likely to lead to a major Middle East war. That in itself is a major diplomatic achievement.
President Obama said that with the deal, "every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off" for Iran. In a televised address, he insisted the deal would make the world "safer and more secure", and provided for a rigorous verification regime. "This deal is not built on trust - it is built on verification," he said.
Mr Obama said the agreement would oblige Iran to:
remove two-thirds of installed centrifuges and store them under international supervision get rid of 98% of its enriched uranium accept that sanctions would be rapidly restored if the deal was violated permanently give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access "where necessary when necessary".
Sanctions relief would be gradual, Mr Obama said, with an arms embargo remaining in place for five years and an embargo on missiles for eight years.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the "historic" deal opened a "new chapter" in Iran's relations with the world. In his own televised address, he said the prayers of Iranians had "come true".
He said the deal would lead to the removal of all sanctions, adding: "The sanctions regime was never successful, but at the same time it affected people's lives.''
After 12 years, world powers had finally "recognised the nuclear activities of Iran", he said.
Separately, the IAEA and Iran said they had signed a roadmap to resolve outstanding issues.
IAEA head Yukiya Amano told reporters in Vienna, Austria, that his organisation had signed a roadmap "for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme".
He called the agreement a "significant step forward", saying it would allow the agency to "make an assessment of issues relating to possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme by the end of 2015".
Barack Obama: "Every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off". Jump media playerMedia player helpOut of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the sanctions regime was never successful, but that it had affected people's lives
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was a "stunning historic mistake" that would provide Iran with "hundreds of billions of dollars with which it can fuel its terror machine and its expansion and aggression throughout the Middle East and across the globe". He said he did not regard Israel as being bound by this agreement. "We will always defend ourselves," he added.
Analysis: Jeremy Bowen, BBC Middle East editor
The agreement will change the Middle East, perhaps a lot, but at the moment no-one knows exactly how. The biggest question is whether it will reduce or increase the turmoil in the Middle East.
Iran and the world's big powers, most significantly the US, now have a habit of working together - but don't assume that will help automatically to resolve the crises and wars that Iran, the US and their allies are involved with in the region.
There is a danger that mutual suspicion will heat up the Middle East's fault lines, especially the cold war between Iran and Saudi Arabia - and with it sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni Muslims.
But the agreement in Vienna removes Iran's nuclear programme from the danger list. Two years ago, as Israel threatened to bomb Iran, it looked likely to lead to a major Middle East war. That in itself is a major diplomatic achievement.
President Obama said that with the deal, "every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off" for Iran. In a televised address, he insisted the deal would make the world "safer and more secure", and provided for a rigorous verification regime. "This deal is not built on trust - it is built on verification," he said.
Mr Obama said the agreement would oblige Iran to:
remove two-thirds of installed centrifuges and store them under international supervision get rid of 98% of its enriched uranium accept that sanctions would be rapidly restored if the deal was violated permanently give the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access "where necessary when necessary".
Sanctions relief would be gradual, Mr Obama said, with an arms embargo remaining in place for five years and an embargo on missiles for eight years.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said the "historic" deal opened a "new chapter" in Iran's relations with the world. In his own televised address, he said the prayers of Iranians had "come true".
He said the deal would lead to the removal of all sanctions, adding: "The sanctions regime was never successful, but at the same time it affected people's lives.''
After 12 years, world powers had finally "recognised the nuclear activities of Iran", he said.
Separately, the IAEA and Iran said they had signed a roadmap to resolve outstanding issues.
IAEA head Yukiya Amano told reporters in Vienna, Austria, that his organisation had signed a roadmap "for the clarification of past and present outstanding issues regarding Iran's nuclear programme".
He called the agreement a "significant step forward", saying it would allow the agency to "make an assessment of issues relating to possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme by the end of 2015".
Poll: Trump leads the GOP field but falters against Clinton. Donald Trump has surged to the top of a crowded Republican presidential field, a USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll finds, but the brash billionaire is also the weakest competitor among the top seven GOP candidates against Democrat Hillary Clinton.
In the nationwide survey, Trump leads at 17% and former Florida governor Jeb Bush is second at 14%, the only competitors who reach double digits. Trump's edge, which is within the poll's margin of error, is one more sign that his harsh rhetoric about immigration and toward his rivals has struck a chord with some voters.
What explains Donald Trump's appeal? "He's got some backbone," Steve Fusaro, 59, of San Clemente, Calif., who was among those polled, said approvingly in a follow-up interview. "We need a businessman."
But Buxton McGuckin, 19, of Columbia, S.C., who supports Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, expresses alarm at the potential repercussions of Trump's words. "I know he's a conservative and Republican but I mean ... the (stuff) that comes out of his mouth," the audio engineer says.
Trump has gained 6 percentage points since the USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll taken in June; Bush's support has stayed steady. The survey of 1,000 adults, taken by landline and cellphone Thursday through Sunday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The sample of 349 likely Republican primary and caucus voters has an error margin of +/-5.25 points.
Trump's strengths and his weaknesses are on display.
While he leads the GOP field, he fares the worst of seven hopefuls in hypothetical head-to-heads against former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic nominee. Bush, the strongest candidate against Clinton, lags by four points nationwide, 46%-42%. Trump trails by 17 points, 51%-34%.
That's a wider margin than Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (down 6 points), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (8 points), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (9 points), Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (10 points) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (13 points). Nearly half of all those surveyed, 48%, say Trump's comments about illegal immigrants, including characterizing Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers, matter a lot to their vote. Just 15% say the comments make them more likely to support him; 48% say they make them less likely.
"We've seen Donald Trump make it to the top, but the question is can he stay on top," says David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. "In 2012, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain led the GOP primary field briefly but only to fade."
When the first and second choices of Republicans are combined — an indication of how things might sort out when the field eventually gets smaller — Trump does a bit less well. Bush is at 14% and Trump at 13%. Rubio and Walker are supported by 10%, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz by 6% and Carson by 5%.
"I haven't decided which of the several thousand candidates we have who I'm supporting," jokes William Turville, 68, of Reedville, Va. At this point, he says he could see himself backing Bush, Rubio or Walker. "Bush has some good ideas, (but) I think his problem is he's painted with the Bush last name," Turville says. Some voters "were not happy with his older brother, (and) there's still stigma from his father."
"I think we've had enough Bushes in there," says Charlene Birdwell, 70, of Texarkana, Texas.
Even Stacey Richardson, 43, of Gretna, Neb., calls Bush her first choice but volunteers Trump's name as well. "I like the way he tells the truth," she says.
Trump is the best-known of the Republican contenders. Just 2% of those surveyed have never heard of him, compared with 27% who have never heard of Walker and 16% who haven't heard of Rubio. But Trump also is viewed the most negatively of all.
In the poll, 61% have an unfavorable impression of him and 23% a favorable one, a net-negative rating of 38 points. Bush's favorable-unfavorable rating is 35%-42%.
In the nationwide survey, Trump leads at 17% and former Florida governor Jeb Bush is second at 14%, the only competitors who reach double digits. Trump's edge, which is within the poll's margin of error, is one more sign that his harsh rhetoric about immigration and toward his rivals has struck a chord with some voters.
What explains Donald Trump's appeal? "He's got some backbone," Steve Fusaro, 59, of San Clemente, Calif., who was among those polled, said approvingly in a follow-up interview. "We need a businessman."
But Buxton McGuckin, 19, of Columbia, S.C., who supports Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, expresses alarm at the potential repercussions of Trump's words. "I know he's a conservative and Republican but I mean ... the (stuff) that comes out of his mouth," the audio engineer says.
Trump has gained 6 percentage points since the USA TODAY/Suffolk Poll taken in June; Bush's support has stayed steady. The survey of 1,000 adults, taken by landline and cellphone Thursday through Sunday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. The sample of 349 likely Republican primary and caucus voters has an error margin of +/-5.25 points.
Trump's strengths and his weaknesses are on display.
While he leads the GOP field, he fares the worst of seven hopefuls in hypothetical head-to-heads against former secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the leading Democratic nominee. Bush, the strongest candidate against Clinton, lags by four points nationwide, 46%-42%. Trump trails by 17 points, 51%-34%.
That's a wider margin than Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (down 6 points), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (8 points), Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (9 points), Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (10 points) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (13 points). Nearly half of all those surveyed, 48%, say Trump's comments about illegal immigrants, including characterizing Mexicans as rapists and drug dealers, matter a lot to their vote. Just 15% say the comments make them more likely to support him; 48% say they make them less likely.
"We've seen Donald Trump make it to the top, but the question is can he stay on top," says David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center. "In 2012, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain led the GOP primary field briefly but only to fade."
When the first and second choices of Republicans are combined — an indication of how things might sort out when the field eventually gets smaller — Trump does a bit less well. Bush is at 14% and Trump at 13%. Rubio and Walker are supported by 10%, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz by 6% and Carson by 5%.
"I haven't decided which of the several thousand candidates we have who I'm supporting," jokes William Turville, 68, of Reedville, Va. At this point, he says he could see himself backing Bush, Rubio or Walker. "Bush has some good ideas, (but) I think his problem is he's painted with the Bush last name," Turville says. Some voters "were not happy with his older brother, (and) there's still stigma from his father."
"I think we've had enough Bushes in there," says Charlene Birdwell, 70, of Texarkana, Texas.
Even Stacey Richardson, 43, of Gretna, Neb., calls Bush her first choice but volunteers Trump's name as well. "I like the way he tells the truth," she says.
Trump is the best-known of the Republican contenders. Just 2% of those surveyed have never heard of him, compared with 27% who have never heard of Walker and 16% who haven't heard of Rubio. But Trump also is viewed the most negatively of all.
In the poll, 61% have an unfavorable impression of him and 23% a favorable one, a net-negative rating of 38 points. Bush's favorable-unfavorable rating is 35%-42%.
Hillary Clinton Calls Donald Trump a RACIST… And Trump FIRES Back in an EPIC WAY!
Donald Trump is a conservative billionaire running for President. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump has earned his money the honest way. And he knows what affects American businesses, and the harm caused by illegal immigration. Now, Hillary – who wanted to jump on the media bandwagon this week – has accused Trump of racism for his strong stance against illegal aliens.
While most politicians would respond quietly (if at all), Trump FIRED BACK with both barrels via a Facebook post. And it is awesome!
Here is what The Donald said:
Failing candidate Hillary Clinton, who is desperately trying to hold on to her lead in the democratic primary against Bernie Sanders, is knowingly putting out lies about my stance on illegal immigration. I said “Mexico is sending”— I’m not knocking immigration or immigrants, but rather am very critical of the country of Mexico for sending us people that they don’t want. Likewise I am very critical of illegal immigration and the tremendous problems including crime, which it causes.She is desperate, she is sad, and she is obviously very nervous when she has to revert to issues that have already been settled given the absolute accuracy of my statement. She speaks about “my tone” and that’s the problem with our country’s leaders. They are more worried about tone than results! It’s not about being nice— it’s about being competent.Hillary should spend more time producing her illegally hidden emails and less time trying to obfuscate a statement by me that is totally clear and obviously very much accepted by the public as true. I am honored, however, that she is attacking me, instead of Jeb Bush. Obviously she knows that JEB is no longer her real competition. The last person she wants to face is Donald Trump.
Wow! That is how you handle left-wing Hillary Clinton. This response couldn’t be more perfect and brutal.
Thank you Donald Trump for standing up to Hillary!
Do you support Donald Trump? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.
Donald Trump talks Iran, Hillary Clinton. In an interview with NBC News' Katy Tur on Tuesday, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump discussed his views on the Iran nuclear deal, trade, and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Donald (Trump) is actually on the show (Morning Joe) today and BTW, I agree with Joe. We should NOT be negotiating with countries that have our people as hostages in any way. For instance, Iran needs to release everyone ASAP.
Hillary Clinton won’t propose reinstating a bank break-up law known as the Glass-Steagall Act – at least according to Alan Blinder, an economist who has been advising Clinton’s campaign. “You’re not going to see Glass-Steagall,” Blinder said after her economic speech Monday in which she failed to mention it. Blinder said he had spoken to Clinton directly about Glass-Steagall.
This is a big mistake.
It’s a mistake politically because people who believe Hillary Clinton is still too close to Wall Street will not be reassured by her position on Glass-Steagall. Many will recall that her husband led the way to repealing Glass Steagall in 1999 at the request of the big Wall Street banks.
It’s a big mistake economically because the repeal of Glass-Steagall led directly to the 2008 Wall Street crash, and without it we’re in danger of another one.
Some background: During the Roaring Twenties, so much money could be made by speculating on shares of stock that several big Wall Street banks began selling stock along side their traditional banking services – taking in deposits and making loans.
Some banks went further, lending to pools of speculators that used the money to pump up share prices. The banks sold the shares to their customers, only to have the share prices collapse when the speculators dumped them.
For the banks, it was an egregious but hugely profitable conflict of interest.
After the entire stock market crashed in 1929, ushering in the Great Depression, Washington needed to restore the public’s faith in the banking system. One step was for Congress to enact legislation insuring commercial deposits against bank losses.
Another was to prevent the kinds of conflicts of interest that resulted in such losses, and which had fueled the boom and subsequent bust. Under the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, banks couldn’t both gamble in the market and also take in deposits and make loans. They’d have to choose between the two.
“The idea is pretty simple behind this one,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said a few days ago, explaining her bill to resurrect Glass-Steagall. “If banks want to engage in high-risk trading — they can go for it, but they can’t get access to ensured deposits and put the taxpayers on the hook for that reason.”
For more than six decades after 1933, Glass-Steagall worked exactly as it was intended to. During that long interval few banks failed and no financial panic endangered the banking system.
But the big Wall Street banks weren’t content. They wanted bigger profits. They thought they could make far more money by gambling with commercial deposits. So they set out to whittle down Glass-Steagall.
Finally, in 1999, President Bill Clinton struck a deal with Republican Senator Phil Gramm to do exactly what Wall Street wanted, and repeal Glass-Steagall altogether.
What happened next? An almost exact replay of the Roaring Twenties. Once again, banks originated fraudulent loans and sold them to their customers in the form of securities. Once again, there was a huge conflict of interest that finally resulted in a banking crisis.
This time the banks were bailed out, but millions of Americans lost their savings, their jobs, even their homes.
A personal note. I worked for Bill Clinton as Secretary of Labor and I believe most of his economic policies were sound. But during those years I was in fairly continuous battle with some other of his advisers who seemed determined to do Wall Street’s bidding.
On Glass-Steagall, they clearly won.
To this day some Wall Street apologists argue Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the 2008 crisis because the real culprits were nonbanks like Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns.
Baloney. These nonbanks got their funding from the big banks in the form of lines of credit, mortgages, and repurchase agreements. If the big banks hadn’t provided them the money, the nonbanks wouldn’t have got into trouble.
And why were the banks able to give them easy credit on bad collateral? Because Glass-Steagall was gone.
Other apologists for the Street blame the crisis on unscrupulous mortgage brokers.
Surely mortgage brokers do share some of the responsibility. But here again, the big banks were accessories and enablers.
The mortgage brokers couldn’t have funded the mortgage loans if the banks hadn’t bought them. And the big banks couldn’t have bought them if Glass-Steagall were still in place.
I’ve also heard bank executives claim there’s no reason to resurrect Glass-Steagall because none of the big banks actually failed.
This is like arguing lifeguards are no longer necessary at beaches where no one has drowned. It ignores the fact that the big banks were bailed out. If the government hadn’t thrown them lifelines, many would have gone under.
Remember? Their balance sheets were full of junky paper, non-performing loans, and worthless derivatives. They were bailed out because they were too big to fail. And the reason for resurrecting Glass-Steagall is we don’t want to go through that ever again.
As George Santayana famously quipped, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In the roaring 2000’s, just as in the Roaring Twenties, America’s big banks used insured deposits to underwrite their gambling in private securities, and then dump the securities on their customers.
It ended badly.
This is precisely what the Glass-Steagall Act was designed to prevent – and did prevent for more than six decades.
Hillary Clinton, of all people, should remember.
"I think it's very very important to study it and for people to just flat out say it doesn't work or they're going to derail it in our congress, I hope people don't mean it," Albright, who served as secretary of state in President Bill Clinton's administration, said on CNN's "New Day."
The deal, she said, is "one of the more complicated foreign policy issues that I've ever seen."
Albright dismissed criticisms of the deal and said she believes the verification provisions of the deal and the mechanisms to snapback economic sanctions and Iran are tough enough to keep Iran from a nuclear weapon.
Israeli officials across the political spectrum roundly slammed the deal on Tuesday, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling the deal a "historic mistake" that would endanger the world.
Albright said the Israeli government was "wrong" in the way it expressed its disapproval and insisted the U.S. remains "very supportive" of the Jewish nation and will continue to bolster Israel's security.
And she insisted the U.S. had "some of the toughest negotiators ever," lauding Secretary of State John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz's work throughout the nearly two-year ordeal.
"I think if they could've gotten a better deal, they would've gotten a better deal," she said.
Madeleine Albright Will Guest-Star on Madam Secretary as the Ultimate Adviser -- Herself!
Secretary of State Elizabeth McCord (Téa Leoni) will be getting some valuable advice in an upcoming episode of Madam Secretary.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright will be appearing in the episode as herself, CBS announced Tuesday. Albright will be advising Elizabeth on how to navigate a precarious situation with National Security Advisor Craig Sterling, who is threatening to harm her relationship with President Dalton (Keith Carradine).
Albright is the first woman to become the United States Secretary of State. She was unanimously confirmed to the position and served from 1997 to 2001.
Albright has already made a TV appearance as herself on Parks and Recration where she also gave Leslie Knope (Amy Poehler) some advice on letting April (Aubrey Plaza) move on to a new job. She also appeared on Gilmore Girls as herself in a bizarre dream sequence. Take a look:
Madam Secretary returns on Oct. 4 at 8/7c on CBS.
Obama targets skeptical Dems key to Iran nuclear deal. In order to secure his legacy on Iran, President Barack Obama will once again have to court a key voting bloc that's not always a dependable ally: Skeptical members of his own party.The administration is moving quickly to sell the historic nuclear deal to Democrats who are worried that the accord could leave Israel vulnerable without winning enough concessions from Iran.
A series of public and private, classified briefings begins on Wednesday when Vice President Joe Biden, at the request of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, will discuss the agreement with House Democrats. Ben Rhodes, the president's National Security Advisor, is slated to huddle with Jewish Democrats on Capitol Hill Thursday morning.
The lobbying campaign are part of a strategy to shore up Democratic support in Congress for a key part of Obama's foreign policy agenda. It's a risky play that could run into the same type of trouble that bedeviled the president last month when he muscled trade proposals through the House and Senate despite significant Democrat opposition.
At issue is an internationally negotiated deal to rein in Iran's nuclear program, which Congress will have 60 days to review, examine in hearings and ultimately decide whether to pass. The administration has five days to certify the agreement and formally present the deal to Capitol Hill, which officially starts the clock.
The Republican controlled House likely has the votes to pass a resolution of disapproval, which would block the deal. But in the Senate, Republicans would need to attract support from several Democrats to get that measure through the chamber.
There are a group of about 15 Senate Democrats considered in-play to possibly vote against the President on the Iran deal. If they all joined with the GOP, it's possible that the Senate could override a veto. However, that would be a huge mark against the President and the deal itself even if the House couldn't override the veto and the deal went through.
Senate Democrats
Democrats who count votes have said they expect it to be razor close when an override vote happens in mid-September and there will be enormous pressure on key Democrats like New York Sen. Charles Schumer, who is one of the 15 Democrats whose expected vote is unclear.
In a statement Thursday, Schumer, who is close to American Israel Public Affairs, and who has many pro-Israeli Jewish constituents, promised to study the agreement with a "fine tooth comb."
"I supported legislation ensuring that Congress would have time and space to review the deal, and now we must use it well. Supporting or opposing this agreement is not a decision to be made lightly, and I plan to carefully study the agreement before making an informed decision," he said.
Schumer, who is poised to become the Senate Democratic leader in the next Congress, is very influential with rank and file Democrats so his arguments will be watched very closely by other Democrats who are on the fence.
Other key Democrats in this group include Sen. Ben Cardin, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Sen. Bob Menendez, the former chairman of the committee who has led the charge to give Congress a say in the deal and told CNN's Joe Johns Tuesday he has serious doubts about the agreement.
Menendez, who has been a constant critic of Iran and a thorn in Obama's side on the issue said Tuesday could be better.
"It's pretty interesting to me that all of the world powers were sitting on one side of the table and Iran be levered by sanctions and falling oil prices and sitting on the other side of the table," Menendez said. "That they can still preserve their nuclear infrastructure. That they can get significant sanctions relief, access to conventional arms in a couple of years. So those are going to be the hard questions to ask here."
Among those immediately praising the accord were California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee who called the deal a 'diplomatic resolution' to a significant matter of international security.
"This is a strong agreement that meets our national security needs and I believe will stand the test of time. I stand behind the U.S. negotiating team and will support this agreement in the Senate," she said. "Most importantly, Iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb—including through uranium and plutonium as well as covert efforts—are blocked through this agreement."
The 15 Senate Democrats considered in-play by aides beyond Menendez, Schumer and Cardin are: Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sen. Ben Nelson of Florida, Sen. Joe Donnelly or Indiana, Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Sen. Gary Peters of Michigan and Sen. Angus King, an Independent of Maine who caucuses with the Democrats.
House Democrats
If Senate Republicans are able to attract enough Democrats to override the President's veto on a disapproval resolution, there would be intense pressure on Pelosi to assemble enough votes -- 145 -- in the House to sustain the President's veto. Few if any House Republicans are likely to back the Iran deal so Pelosi could end up as the final line of defense for the White House. She would need to convince the majority of her caucus to support the president.
In a statement, Pelosi called the deal "historic" and while acknowledging the need to review the details, she also emphasized, "aggressive restrictions and inspections offer the best long-term plan to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon."
Democrats skeptical of the deal were being just as vocal on their opposition, even if the congressional math looked like less of an insurmountable hurdle for Obama.
Rep. Steve Israel, the highest-ranking Jewish Democrat in the House and a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, doubled down on earlier comments he made before the deal that he remained skeptical of the Iranians.
"In the fall, there will be a vote on this deal, and my obligation is to review every word, sentence, and paragraph of the deal to ensure it satisfies my continued concerns," Israel said in a statement. "Until then, you can continue to count me in the 'skeptical' column."
Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois pushed backed on those outspoken against the deal noting that it is possible to change the plan in the future if needed.
"Skeptics and critics need to give this a chance to work because the consequences are so high and the prospects for a peaceful resolution of Iran's nuclear ambitions are fragile," he said.
Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday cautiously endorsed the Iran nuclear deal — “tap- dancing all around it,” according to veteran political analyst Larry Sabato.
But the GOP candidates vying for their party’s nomination were unanimous in their denunciation and will surely use the agreement as a cudgel against her, he said.
Under one scenario, the pact with the Islamic theocracy could be a deal-breaker for Hillary, Sabato told The Post.
If the national presidential vote is neck-and-neck and the results come down to the swing state of Florida, Hillary could be out of luck if the state’s many Jewish voters hold the agreement against her.
“Florida is usually very tight, and Democrats count on a heavy Jewish turnout in South Florida, a huge turnout. If they get it, they win the state, if they don’t, the Republicans win,” Sabato said.
“So I think it would give any Republican nominee a heads- up, if they can capitalize on Jewish-American concern about what the deal would do to Israel,” he added.
“What’s going to be interesting is to see how she tap-dances around this. There was no way she was going to come out and say this is a great deal,” Sabato said.
Regardless of it all, please stay in touch.
