with stephanie sy. it begins at 7:30 a.m. eastern. i'm antonio mora. thank you for joining us. pore the latestfor the latest news any time head over to www.aljazeera.com. have a great night. >> the deadline for nuclear talks for iran came and went, and they're still talking. the u.s. delegation said there has been enough progress to keep on talking even if they could not get to an agreement by tonight. with skeptics doubting iran can be trusted to keep it's and of the deal we'll talk to a weapons inspector about the fine art of looking over nuclear scientists shoulders. and the then the tough part. iran wants nuclear program and

outers don't want iran to be able to develop a bomb. what does the compromise look like? that's "inside story." >> welcome to inside story. i'm ray suarez. the white house said documents being hammered out light on specifics spell out what sides still have to work on. john kerry who had planned to leave switzerland today is staying. and the iranian delegation is willing to stay as long as it takes. americans who say they're skeptical to the obama administration's commitment to iran they don't trust iran to keep a deal it makes with world powers. but that doesn't change the

conversation much. do inspections work? can they fake compliance? can they care on a parallel program in secret while reaping the benefits? we figured we would ask someone whose answers are more than jade the guesses. federal arms control inspector welcome to "inside story." >> good to be here, ray. >> if a country summits itself to an international inspection regime first of all how does that work? we've got an iran that already has labs and centerfuges how does that work? >> that's what we're going to find out i think. people have made a lot of comparisons with iraq, and as you point out you used the verb submit themselves to inspections. that's a key point. in the case of iraq, they were cowered into it. they fought a war and lost and

had draconian rules placed on it. in iran, they're coming in voluntaryily, albeit the threat of sanctions the question going forward, will they continue to submit to these inspections and will the sanctions be released automatically, or will they be able to be reimposed. the role of the inspectors is going to be tough because they have to make judgments that the political parties are not going to be willing to make themselves. they'll look for an independent body which the inspectors will be to make judgments about whether they think the iranians are compliant. underlying all of that, what authorities, access and arrangements will be place in details of ensuing agreement. >> one of the things that they have gone back and forth over in these last cycle months is the

number of centerfuges enriching radioactive material. if they come up with a number limit, let's say 6,000 that has been talked about how do you know there aren't another 3,000 somewhere else? >> well, we don't. there has been a fixation on the number of centerfuges but bear in mind that's only one part of the nuclear program. they've got to have the enriched uranium. there is a delivery system, and we know iran has ballistic missiles of substantial capacity capacity. we know that every 90 mines there is an iranian satellite that's goes over the united states. if they can do that, they can build a nuclear weapon. the third is how do they test it. they have refused the i.aea access to what they've done in the past. this is a sensitive issue. not only do you really need to

know what they can produce in terms of the centerfuges but you need to know what experiments they have done to design the weapon itself. so far they have not been willing to address that issue. >> i think this is critical because you bring up the fact that we've been here before. iran has had international scrutiny on what it's doing in this arena and hasn't always been compliant, has not always been cooperative. >> quite the opposite. they've lied. they've deceived the weapons inspectors before. it's only under the threat and the existence of sanctions that they came back to the table. the risk now is going forward. if there is an agreement two three, four years from now perhaps, will the iranians still have the threat of sanctions being reimposed? what we found in the case of iraq was saddam hussein was very good in knowing how thick to slice the salami. in other words, he would have incremental violations and the collective views of the security council and bear in mind that

one actor against a collective has an advantage. tehran just has to agree on what tehran wants. the p5+1, there are a whole bunch of people who have to agree. right now they may be agreed on enforcing sanctions. but two three four years from now when some people are making money are they going to be willing to reimpose the sanctionings or will they be pressing the iaea to say do you really know what is going on in iran? the weapon's inspectors task will be to gather evidence. evidence is always ambiguous. when they present that evidence to the security council the political scientists as opposed to the physical scientists are going to be saying, well, what do you know, what do you really know. >> is this really a violation? >> is this really a violation what does it mean, and it will be a tough position for the weapons inspectors to be in because there is pressures on all sides. >> is part of the cat and mouse

game skirting the rules to see if anyone notices? >> iran has been doing it in the past. there was an entire new facility to enrich uranium and that had alluded the inspectors. they had not had access to that. a lot of details and authorities of the weapons inspectors have yet to be worked out. will they, for example have the authority to go any place in iran that they elect to go? not just the facilities which iran declares. in the case of iraq, we had enormous authority to go any place any time in iraq. we could interview anyone. we could seize documents. we could interview inspectors. we had no-notice inspections. even in that case with all of those authorities we could not fully perform our job. because we don't tell the security council that we knew for sure that iraq had complied

or not complied. going forward with iran, are we going to be able to do that with the weapons inspectors in iran? i don't think so. they'll have fewer authorities. >> you point out that iraq, unlike iran, was a conquered country. in the case of iran, let's go back to the other side of the water way there we are also dealing with a country that very much wants to break out of its isolation. very much wants to return to global markets and wants to bank like a normal country and all of those things that is prevented from doing in recent years. can you build in to an agreement the idea that violations will be dealt with severely and really as opposed to inspectors trying to find a way where you can define deviants down and say more or less following the rules? >> you raised two interesting points. one is taking the second one

can you build in an automaticity that if iran does not comply, sanctions will automatically come back on. possibly p5+1 will work out other things like that. but when the talks began the idea was that we were going to open a door for tehran to enter the international community. if it would firmly confirm that it had given up its new england program. clearly they haven't done that because they've been negotiating now in terms of, well, break out time. iran has not made a firm, clear decision it is going to give up any possibility of building a nuclear weapon. >> let me jump in with the little time we have. people are arguing whether it's better to have something rather than nothing allowing an iranian program to go on with none of the world's eyeballs on

it. isn't some inspection better than none? >> possibly, it could also lead to self deception in a sense where we've gotten inspectors there you think things are fine. but i would step back from this and say the negotiations over the nuclear program you know, that's an issue in isolation. what is the overall policy towards iran? where do we see iran 20 years from now? and i don't see a framework for these nuclear discussions. i don't see what the american or international policy towards iran. are we opening the door because we think over time the government in tehran will evolve to a point where it's more akin to the international community? i don't know. >> that leads us beautifully into the next part of the program. it's great to have you with us. >> thank you ray. >> as the self-imposed deadline for these negotiations approach

would it leave iran to carry on enrichment and the security council's permanent members confident that iran is not building a nuclear weapon. we'll be reviewing what is hard about hammering out an international agreement that actually works. stay with us. it's inside story.

>> welcome back to inside story on al jazeera america. i'm ray suarez. representatives of seven countries walk into a room and sit down. six of them have some difficult histories with each other. just in the past century they've killed millions of each other's citizens yet they agree among themselves that the seventh could be, should be prevented from having nuclear weapons which almost all of them have had for decades.

if you acknowledge iran has already gone a long way down the road of nuclear enrichment, how do you make it stop? if like the united states, you haven't had diplomatic or economic contacts with the country for decades what is left in your tool books for leverage? how do seven parties leave the table feeling like they've gotten enough of what they want to call it a success? geneva abdo. and mohsen mililani from the university of south florida. is this a binary yes or know thing? can iran have some nuclear program and no weapons program and make it work over time? >> well, in theory that's possible. of course there is suspicion as to iran's strands parentcy if a

deal was signed because iran has a whole history of misleading the international community including weapons inspectors, including agencyies that are tasked with these kinds of inspections. there is a lot of suspicion. i think this is why, of course, we've been in this torturous process even tonight at the final hour we don't know if there is going to be any sort of agreement. i think from the iranian point of view they feel this has been an asystemsymmetrical negotiating process. as you mentioned. these countries some have varying degrees of programs that virtue tallly they're always given the light on, and iran believes they're treated unfairly. so they believe they're always viewed with suspicion in an unfair way. this is why i think you have this feeling on the iranian part now they're going to be in the drivers' seed. they're going to control the

negotiating process. this is why you had one of the iranian chief negotiators leave the negotiations and go away for a few days. it's sort of a gamesmanship now. they want to make sure that they can return to tehran and to their own population with confidence and they want to be able to claim victory. >> professor just tonight the iranian delegation announced it was willing to stay for as long as it took. does iran have even much more incentive than we've talked about generally to get itself out of the international dog house? to play ball with the p5+1? >> i don't believe iran is playing hard ball with the group of p5+1. i think iran is trying to reach a win win agreement. obviously it is delusional to think that it could dismantle

iranian nuclear program. short of a military invasion and occupation of a country with 80 million people. no iranian leader today can even talk about dismantling iranian nuclear program. we have to accept some level some degree of advancement of iran's nuclear program. these nuclear negotiations should be looked upon as the beginning of a new chapter in iran-u.s. relationship without nuclear agreement without nuclear agreement there is no possibility of improved relations with the united states. with a nuclear agreement there is a chance. i think that the international community, as well as the united states have reached the conclusion that it is good for both sides to at least try to craft some sort of agreement

about iran's nuclear program at this critical moment. >> professor, you heard us talking in the first segment about iran's checkered history with international inspectors. doesn't that make it tougher to reach a deal that all sides can believe is going to be kept? >> i don't think that any agreement is going to be completely safe. there is always a possibility of cheating by iran as there is a possibility of a group 5 plus 1 not following the promises they've made. countries usually do not trust each other. that is understandable. the only thing that we can do is to to enpose impose a very well defined invigorous inspection that is being done. furthermore any agreement that

we're going to have, as i said earlier, it's not going to be perfect. however, the question i want to ask is what alternatives do we have? can we go back to the days of imposing more sanctions? we know when we did this in the past in eight years iran increased centerfuges from 4500 to 500 to over 19,000. >> let me offer that question to genevieve abdo. people are acting like there are a lot of choices that we could make. are there? >> no, i agree with mohsen. he's correct. we don't have alternatives. if we don't have an agreement we don't have reconciliation. but i think there is a plan b which probably is too late now to approach it in any way. that is i always believed it's a

mistake to negotiate with iran on the nuclear issue in isolation of all other issues. by that i mean their activity in the arab world. >> isn't it really hard to get that kind of comprehensive agreement to bring all of these disparate pieces together all together in one grand bargain? >> possibly. but if you take this scenario that is unfolding to its obvious conclusion, at some point sanctions are lifted. what is the incentive for the iranians to curtail their activity that some argue is even more risky and more a threat to western interests than their nuclear program? if you consider their activity now, their influence in the arab world either directly or indirectly i don't want to generalize.

>> you agree with some of the things that genevieve is talking about. >> i do. there are major obstacles ahead of us. but without first resolving the nuclear issue we could not have addressed the other issues. imagine if the united states had engaged iran in nuclear negotiations as well as negotiations about the future of the bahrain or future of yemen or future of iraq, imagine then what the saudis and other arab countries would accept. that the u.s. is already rewarding iran as a major regional power. i think they have to go step by step. we've had 35 years of mutual animosity of iran and the united states and i don't think we're going to be able to become friends. but what we can become rather than strategic enemies, we can

become strategic rivals at first, develop mechanism to resolve differences and eventually over a period of five to ten years i can see a much brighter future. >> joining us from florida genevieve with me in washington. thanks. >> thank you. >> the deadline came and went in switzerland and the talks are not over. but don't pop the champagne corks yet still hanging over the obama administration, a delicate phase of the negotiations while iran pushes mightily to get out from under sanctions that are already in place. risks still remain for the president here at home. that's still ahead on "inside story." stay with us.

>> you're watching inside story on al jazeera america. i'm ray suarez. the world is watching the nuclear talks in switzerland for reasons noble and maybe nefarious. there are a lot of parties interested in seeing whether iran can be deswayeded from becoming a nuclear power. the u.s. has a lot of riding on the nuclear talks whether they

wrap up in hours days or weeks. congress has been threatening to lay more sanctions on iran even as the united states is in talks with iran. mike viqueira joins me now. mike i'm wondering what was going on right behind you in the white house as midnight approached in switzerland. >> we know that the president has had his negotiating team in lausanne switzerland, right now, ray and we learned that he convened a video conference with john kerry the secretary of state. the secretary of energy, and windy sherman top state department officials, a key person in these negotiations. all along in the united states a video conference held by the president, his national security team and those individuals on his team negotiating with switzerland. no decision whether they gave him any idea whether they are were close to a deal, all the sporadic reports late in the evening here in switzerland

various diplomats quoted anonymously saying that they're getting close to a deal. there are high stakes at the last minute. >> what are you hearing at the other end of pennsylvania safe? for weeks the congress has been making rumbles on laying on more sanctions even as the talks continue. >> in your open you said it was whether iran will not be able to get a bomb. everyone agrees from republicans to the white house to the king of saudi arabia to the prime minister of israel agree that the goal, but a lot of people disagree on whether or not the president's approach is what is going to get us there. yes, republicans are lying in wait there is no question about it. if for some reason these talks do drag on and the original deadline was midnight tonight, a half hour from now, you can expect the republicans are not going to sit back and watch the president play ftse with iranians. but one thing that the president

has in its favor is that republicans are on a recess until april 18th. that's the real deadline. once they're back you can expect them to pile on and pass measures in the house and senate. it's not just going to be republicans. plenty of democrats are going to jump on board. >> this evening march 31st, was only the deadline because the americans said it was. if you ask the other members of the negotiating teams they think it's june 30th. but in real terms does the president have that long? >> you know, this was something that the white house put forward, this march 31st deadline. think said it was not going to be extended again. i asked the white house again is this an arbitrary deadline. much to my surprise they agreed. april 13th is the practical deadline for president when the congress gets back and june 30th if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts is the time that the agreement

under which iran is operating or not operating its nuclear program and sanctions are in place. that runs into june 30th. so a lot of people look at that, although most people figure that there is no way they can get it all done, cross all the ts, dot all the "is" by june 30th unless they come to a broader agreement by tomorrow, perhaps. >> mike viqueira apt the white house. unlike many tough negotiations between nations nuclear talks cannot simply be left to politicians. when you're talking about centerfuges and break out time you need physicist around. at john kerry's side is secretary of energy, a renown physicist. but the talks in lausanne are not the first time that their paths have crossed. before they were harming out the technical details of the nuclear agreement they were at the mit

in the 1970s. decades later the two have risen to the top of their countries nuclear establishment. not a bad advertisement for mit. if they do come up with a deal, you may say it started then. >> we'll introduce you to a florida official who claims he was suspended for using the words "climate change" in work correspondent. did work trump science. get in touch on facebook, follow us on twitter and watch us next time. in washington, i'm ray suarez.

the armed siege in istanbul a turkish prosecu