tehran. we will use the missiles to destroy israel. that's where we are worried. at the same time we are dealing with the palestinian issues. i was be happy to hear arab leaders. if they could have come to the congress, we could say what the prime minister said. they are worried about iran becoming the superpower. >> danny is a likud members, a former deputy defence minister. thank you for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> that is the show for today. i'm ali velshi, see you again tomorrow. hello, i'm ray suarez, there has been plenty of noise around binyamin netanyahu's speech to congress, who

invited whom, who broke protocol and not. negotiations between the united states and its partners to prevent tehran from having a nuclear weapon are close to agreement or shutting down. in switzerland secretary of state john kerry and his iranian counter part are working towards an end of march dead line. as they talked to each other the prime minister of israel addressed congress. >> that deal will not prevent iran from implementing nuclear weapons, it all but guarantees iran gets them, lots of them. >> binyamin netanyahu wants americans and other people to know for israel, any deal would be a dad deal. >> according to the deal not a single nuclear facility will be demolished.

thousands of centrifuges will be left spinning. >> is that right. would sa deal leave iran as close to the bomb as the prime minister says. we'll get inside the negotiations and find out what is on the table now, with former congressman back from tehran, we hear from a negotiator, and talk about what it means for israel, and the world. deal or no deal - it's "inside story". after weeks of recriminations the speech, itself, lasted 40 minutes. the prime minister's remarks punk tuated by more than 40 standing ovations.

many democrats did not attend. a holocaust survivor did. the central premise that a deal with iran over nuclear technology would put israel in danger, threaten its future would have to be seen as a swipe against the united states president. they are working with the members of the security council and germany to stop iran becoming a nuclear power. while the prime minister thanked the president for past support, he insinuated that the president was naive to think he could make a deal with the ayatollahs, in all this, whether or not iran is looking for, whether it can be trusted. whether it's close to a bomb tends to take a back seat, we begin with packing those questions. we talk to our guest, returning from a government trip to iran in december and a partner at wylie&ryan.

welcome to "inside story". eye opening trip. >> very much so. i was told that i was the first former member or current member of congress to be invited to speak in iran since 1979. i don't know if it's true. that's what i was told. >> when i was back on the plane, heading west. did you leave with a different sense, or a better informed sense of what it is that iran is looking for in the negotiations? >> yes, the bottom line is that i think iran is prepared to be very flexible with the united states and the p5+1. on what i call the technical issues around the agreement. >> meaning what? >> i believe they are prepared to agree that they won't enrich uranium to 5%. that is did not. to date it's 20%. weapons grade is north of 90%. the fact that they'd agree to

limit enrichment to 5% would be significant. they l i believe, are prepared to reduce the number of centrifuges that they have. they have 20,000. about 9,000 are spinning. and i think that they are prepared to reduce that number as well. how much, we don't know yet. but they are prepared to do that. in addition to that, i think they are prepared to limit the volume of enriched uranium. so those three things alone would be significant. and i believe that those three things coupled with shutting down sol of the other facilities will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, that's the objective. i sharply disagree with the prime minister binyamin netanyahu who today was trying to tell the congress that this agreement would - i think the term he used was pave the path for iran to obtain a nuclear

weapon, i sharply disagree with that. i don't think the facts support what binyamin netanyahu said today to the congress. >> he defined any agreement with this iranian government, this decision of the iranian government as, by definition, a deal that would put his country in danger. let's listen to more of the speech. i want you to react. >> this deal has two major concessions, one, leaving iran with a vast nuclear programme, and, two, lifting the restrictions on the programme in about a decade. that's why this deal is so bad. it doesn't block iran's path to the bomb, it paves iran's path to the bomb. >> the deal that we are trying to negotiate that is not yet completed would cut off different pathways to advance

nuclear capabilities, it would roll back some elements of its programme, ensuring that it did not have what we call break out capacity that was shorter than a year's time. it would be subject to regimes of inspections that have been put in place the amazing thing about what the president and the prime minister had to say, as someone that was not a diplomat. i watch it and i say what about iran. are they not part of the whole think. the speech was made in an atmosphere where it seemed everyone believed what you had to do is to tell them they have to stop. did you get a sense from iranians you spoke to that selling them to stop would make them stop? >> not at all. the bottom line is this - i

believe iranians would insist on retaining capability enabling them to meet their purposes. the united states provided them with nuclear technology in the days of the shaw. in addition, it's important to realise what are the optionses and binyamin netanyahu has them believe they just have to put more on it. the number of centrifuges increased from 200 to about 20,000. this was at a time when we were trying to be tough with iran imposing the terrible sanctions. what the iranians have done is develop their own enrichment capability, and what binyamin netanyahu doesn't seem to what co accept is that we have it.

they have enrichment capability, how does he propose to get them to give it up. >> putting on more sanctions. >> the sanctions haven't worked. i'm convinced the iranians are not going to give up what they perceived as their right to peaceful enitchment of uranium under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. they perceive they have that right and will not give it up. now what do we do binyamin netanyahu. he doesn't have an answer to that question. recollects unless he wants us to bomb rain. in 2002 binyamin netanyahu testified in the city saying "i guarantee you that if you take out saddam hussein, there'll be positive reverberations throughout the region." this was binyamin netanyahu in 2002. and when a witness is so

wrong on past advice, i question why congress would be impressed with his testimony today. >> whether the israeli prime minister comes or doesn't come, speak or doesn't speak, there's a sizeable number of members of the body of whom you serve that if we would turn of the screws harder we'd get more results. there's no doubt we hurt that country in the last two years. >> there's no question that the sanctions put pressure on iran. i believe the new fact was the location of hassan rouhani, and his government. i mooef they are termed and anxious to make a deal with the p5+1. for the first time in 40 years,

there's a government in washington and tehran that wants to improve relations between the united states and iran. i hope we have enough vision to take advantage of the moment. i would conclude by observing that the relationship between israel and the united states is historic. it's not going to be in the long term significantly affected by the political theatre that we saw today. speaker john boehner hopefully will get a christmas turkey, they game him who knows how many millions. also enabled speaker john boehner to drive a dangerous narrative that is that president

obama is selling out israel. that's a troubling mention former congressman back from tehran. thank you for stopping by. >> we'll be back with more "inside story" after the short break. when we return we'll continue the look at negotiations with iran making the speech so controversial and necessary. we'll be back with a specialist nuclear technology and security, and a scholar that researched the long and bitter conflict between the united states and islamic state of iraq and levant. stay with us, it's "inside story".

>> discipline... >> that's what i wanna hear... >> strength... >> give me all you got... >> respect.... >> now... >> bootcamp >> stop your'e whining... >> for bad kids... >> they get a little dirty... so what... >> dangerous... >> we have shackles with spit bag... >> they're still having nightmares >> if you can't straighten out your kids... >> they're mine

>> al jazeera america presents camp last resort on al jazeera america >> this is the true definition of tough love welcome back to "inside story" on al jazeera america i'm luis suarez. -- i'm ray suarez. israel's prime minister binyamin netanyahu was the subject of swirling debate. he sided with the republicans on the hill, against a president, whose documents spent years trying to hammer out a deal with iran that would keep the iranian public developing weapons. >> iran proved time and again that it cannot be trusted. that's why the first major concession is a source of concern. it leaves with a vast

infrastructure, relying on a break-up. that creates a danger. the second major concession creates a greater danger. that iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. virtually all the restrictions will decade. >> research scholar at the programme on science and global security at princeton university says binyamin netanyahu has it wrong. a former member of the delegation says his country has gone a long way towards meeting bomb. >> when a country like iran is accepting the maximum level of verification, the maximum level of frarnsy, the maximum level of inspections, and also is ready

to become a long period like 10 years, to cap the enrichment, below 5%, as long as the enrichment is below 5%, there's bombs. >> two smart guys on your television said two things that can't both be write. the statements are contradictory. rather than just letting you sit on the couch and scratch your head, we'll give you context to make up your mind with jim walsh, a research associate, security studies programme, and barbara slaven, a senior fellow at the south asian center. jim walsh, let me start with you, we hear about breakout capacity as binyamin netanyahu calls it, a vast nuclear programme. are these testable propositions, can we know today, in march 2015, whether iran is

pretty close to having nuclear weapons capability or not? >> i think you can. there's maths here, if you do it you can figure it out. basically rain has to produce enough enriched material at 80-90% to make a bomb. they'd need so many centrifuges for so many hours a day and it is correct to say if iran does not allow an accumulation of the 5% material, they can't make a bomb. there's a lot of countries that have 3-5% enriched you uranium, but they can't make a bomb out of it. other countries like japan have enrichment or reprocessing that could in theory be used for a bomb. that's why we have the international atopic energy

agency where inspectors go in, and iran unprecedentedly go in daily and confirm that that is not happening. it's possible to build an arrangements where we have confidence that iran would not do it. they could kick out the inspectors. the agreement would do that. if you look at binyamin netanyahu's speech, he has changed the goalpost from back when he gave the speech in the u.n., with the picture of a bomb. he said we need a breakout time so they don't enrich at 20%, and we have more than a few weeks or months warning to deal with this. there is no 20% enrichment. it's more than a few months or weeks, it's a year's breakout. now he's saying it's not enough. >> that's where diplomacy comes in.

you have to create transparency confidence on both sides that we know they are not violating the agreement in year 2, 3 and five and we have confidence that they are letting international inspectors see what they need to see. as jim wall much says there are daily inspections, which is an achievement of the interim agreement that was reached a year ago, and i assume that transparency would condition. binyamin netanyahu makes the negative sungses about iran. but very much so about the nuclear programme. they are determined to get to a bomb. iran has the slowest moving proliferation in the history of man kind. since iran got the nuclear infrastructure. israel, china, pakistan developed weapons, iran has not. that may

suggest net don't want them in the face of that fact, the israeli defense established, political establishment and lots of the american establishment say as an opening declaration you can't trust iran to live up to bargains it makes, so any deal is a bad deal if that's the conclusion, you have the military option, something that most americans are not eager to see, a war in the middle east. israelis talked about the military option. you notice that binyamin netanyahu did not splatten to attack iran. he spoke about the threat that iran presents to israel. he did not make that threat. >> he has nuclear weapons. know. >> still ahead - people covering the negotiation and the governments involved are talking about a 10 year deal.

with some of the lim occasions would -- limitations would come off. what then, and if the p5+1 walk away, tighten the screws on iran, and then they feel they have every right to continue their work, build centrifuges and try harder to innovate the prying eyes. inspectors have more problems, which leads to a dangerous world. stay with us, it's "inside story". >> former klansman david duke. >> america has been taken over. >> defending his controversial past. >> i did what i thought was right. >> that was then... what about now? >> i believe the zionists control the country. >> "talk to al jazeera". only on al jazeera america.

you're watching "inside story" on al jazeera america. i'm ray suarez. earlier in the programme you heard binyamin netanyahu, prime minister, insist that any deal with iran is a bad deal. from this day forward there are a lot of options. for iran, the united states and its negotiating partners. the u.s. could continue to ratchet up sanctions against tehran, an approach favoured by many in congress. the permanent five in germany could come to an agreement with the iranian government that

seeks to take the nuclear weapons off the table or could end with no deal leaving iran so pure sue its open natural interests. there are plenty of options. barbara and jim walsh are with me. barbara slave ep, with all the fighting, toing and flowing over sovereignty and rites. is there a part of iran that yearns to rejoin, sort of, fully paid up unremarkable membership in the international system. >> i think rain wants it both ways. they want to have a revolutionary pose to chant death to america every year on february 11th and have all the rites and privileges of membership in the international club of great powers. there are inherent differences there. prime minister binyamin

netanyahu was rite to point that out. that said, i think iran wants to reach an agreement. the sanctions and isolation hurt. the vast majority, young, well educated people wants a relationship with the west. >> why does a country that is sitting on an ocean of oils, want so much to have a nuclear electric power plant? >> it's a great question. i would question na. they should invest in natural gas, not nuclear. this is a common illness among countries, they want the shiny object. be seen as being modern. in the case of iran, there's a sort of psychological dimension to this too. as you rightly pointed out, we were helping the shah, offered to help the shah build a civilian nuclear infrastructure, trying to sell the idea that although he had a lot of oil, he should go in this direction.

encouraged them to join a consort yup, and when the islamic republic came in said no, we don't want any of that. part of this is pride. they are pushing back, we are saying no. we say "you say no, we'll do it anyway", i agree with you. i think it would be better invested elsewhere. if you get an agreement, letting the air out of the balloon, my guess is they'll make that suggests on their own over the course of 10 years, and you'll see the nuclear programme wither on the wine. >> the deadline is getting closer for the end. talks. is the world a more dangerous place in they shake hands and everyone goes home? >> i wish that was the case. the prop is the broment we have is not extended. iran could enrich back to 20% and higher. it could reduce the level of inspections by i.a.e.a. and this would bring us closer

to a situation were there might be interaction, calling for it in congress. we should try to preserve the gains of the interim agreement if possible, reach a longer term agreement. i think the world will be safer. if there's a healthy level of skepticism turned to the iranian programme, is it safer for the world with some level of oversight, rather than none? >> i think you put your finger on the right question. what are the alternatives here. this is not the first rodeo. we had a lot of agreements with the bad guys. we had agreements with the old bad soviet union. you are almost always better off about an agreement with people being inside constrains than being unconstrained. if it goes

away less possession. what happened, jim slattery spoke to this. they went from 164 centrifuges to 20,000. it's better to keep verification, constraints in a system than letting people go off on their own and do what they want. >> barbara, we are close to the end of our time - what is your best guess as to what will happen. do you think all the parties - no one wants to see late march come and go without something. >> i have seen this for a long time. i have seen the extraordinary amount of time put into this at a high level on the two sides and feel this they'll do everything possible.

it will require both sides to compromise. >> given the reception we saw today for the prime minister, what does that mean? >> binyamin netanyahu turning it into a partisan issue helped president obama sell the deal to the democrat, making it easier for him to go forward without having to worry about veto proof majorities for sanctions. >> great to talk to you both. that's all for this edition of "inside story". we want you to talk a back to your television. give us facebook. give us your feedback. we invite you to follow us on twitter. see you next time in washington. i'm ray

they have proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. nothing new and no viable alternative. obama responds to netanyahu's speech to congress. ♪ ♪ hello, i am jane dutton and you are watching al jazerra. also on the program we'll be live in iraq with the latest on the battle for tikrit. australia's prime minister says he's revolted as indonesia transfers 11 11 convicts to face eye firing squad. and south african firefighters battle to put on out a