Click here to view the video.

WASHINGTON – Today, in an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism, spoke about the potential consequences if Congress opposes the Iran nuclear deal recently agreed upon by Iran and the P5+1.

Below is the full text of Murphy’s appearance on Morning Joe:

Mika Brzezinski: The Iran deal: it is obviously stirring up a lot of controversy between Democrats and Republicans. Some Democrats are concerned about it as well. Where do you stand?

Murphy: I’m still going through the agreement right now, but I don't see anything in it that would cause me to oppose it. I think what the president is saying is you have to reconcile with the world that we have, not the world that we want. And there is only two ways to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon: either you negotiate with them and you give them something in return, or you force them to give up their nuclear program which really is a matter of a military attack. That wouldn't happen overnight, but if you're not willing to talk to these guys at all – and that's what I’m hearing from most of my Republican friends, I don't hear them talk a lot about the details of the deal – they seem to object to the very nature of entering into an agreement with Iran that would give them access to tens of billions of dollars that have been held in abeyance. If you're not willing to talk to them, you have to admit that the only logical path to stop them from getting a weapon, likely, in the end, involves military action.

Murphy: And I know for some people that was a stark choice to hear yesterday, but it is the logical conclusion of a process here in Congress where we reject to this deal because the sanctions will not go back into place if the United States rejects a deal that all of our partners support. The restrictions on the nuclear program won't go into place and you'll get the worst of all worlds. You'll get Iran empowered with money from a release of sanctions at least from Russia and China, and you'll get no eyes on the nuclear program. So I’m just amazed that there is such a casualness of opposition to this deal given the consequences of the United States Congress rejecting it in the face of all of this international support from the P5+1.

Jeremy Peters: I think most people agree that one of the failings of this president and this White House has been his outreach to members of Congress on important issues like this, and I wonder how you would compare the White House's reaching out to you and other senators to other issues? And it is getting better on this particular one?

Murphy: I think it's largely black and white. I am amongst those who have been critical of the White House for not being as engaged with Congress on a host of other issues, but on this question of the Iran nuclear deal, their outreach has been absolutely exceptional. I think most of us got a call within hours of the deal being reached. I can't tell you the number of times that I’ve gone over to the White House personally, even as someone who is a likely supporter of this agreement, to talk about the progress and the negotiations. This is a legacy issue for the president. It’s as big as he conveys it to be in that press conference to this new world order that he hopes comes down in the wake of it. And their outreach has really been extraordinary.

Murphy: And Democrats who are, yes, right now having a little bit of cold feet, I think you'll see just like on other questions – like the Kirk-Menendez legislation, the new sanctions legislation that lots of Democrats supported and then after vigorous outreach from the White House many of them walked back the support for it – the same dynamic will likely play out here. When the president engages with Congress on this question of Iran, he normally wins the argument. I think that will happen here.

Mike Barnacle: Senator, if we could go back to, as you alluded, to the world that we have, as opposed to the world that everyone wants. The P5+1 nations – if this deal goes down, if it doesn't happen – those sanctions are removed. Would we have any allies left in imposing further sanctions? And if the deal goes down, would we have any allies at all in taking any potential military action?

Murphy: So you clearly, I think, would lose the support of Russia and China. They would move ahead with plans to do economic deals with Iran which would largely strip away the crippling nature of the sanctions. Maybe you could put sanctions back into place with the European partners, but this would be an absolute blow to the legitimacy of this president, and of any president, to negotiate a diplomatic agreement. This is an exceptional moment in which you have the United States, you know, our European partners, Russia and China all agreeing on a path forward. If the United States Congress was to override that, I don't know how any president in the future could ever sit across from our allies and adversaries and negotiate a deal, and that's why this is a moment about the legitimacy of diplomacy.

Murphy: Republicans in Congress – and I really believe this – just simply don't believe in the legitimacy of diplomacy as a tool in the tool kit of the American president. They do zero oversight on our war that we're fighting right now against ISIS, a military engagement in the Middle East, but they do oodles of oversight over a diplomatic agreement with Iran. And that just speaks to what many Republicans in Congress believe to be legitimate exercises of American power and illegitimate exercises of American power. If this deal goes down, I don't see how the United States can lead any diplomatic effort in the near future around the world without people questioning whether or not Congress is going to accept it and override it.