novelist. >> reporter: he hopes some of his new characters will remain global favorites for many years to come. al jazeera, seoul. and of course you can always keep up to date with all the very latest news on our website, there it is on your screen, al jazeera.com. nuclear programme by tuesday, so the deadline has been moved, and no one is saying how far. will the u.n. security council's permanent members and germany be so willing to make a deal that iran can come up with last-minute demands. iran on the brink.

it's "inside story". welcome to "inside story". i'm ray suarez. for anyone who wants to limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, the talks with iran earlier this year must have been encouraging. both sides looked like they shared enough interest in finalising a deal that a breakthrough looked possibility. there was an outline, a framework, and encouraging noises from all sides, along with a deadline to wrap up the loose ends. june 30th. as the talks continued, june 30th inched closer and there's no final agreement. there has been an agreement to move the deadline to an undetermined time in the future - consult with governments at home and keep on talking. here is al jazeera's diplomatic

vienna. >> reporter: the u.s. secretary of state john kerry face to face with his iranian counter part mohammad javad zarif. it was after this meeting it was announced mr zr would be return to -- mohammad javad zarif would return to tehran for consul sayings, experts are not sure if they've hit a problem. >> it could be there's a deal on the table that needs to be taken to tehran, because it goes beyond the mandate. >> the news that mohammad javad zarif was leaving came as others were arriving at the talks. german foreign minister frank wall streeter steinmeier, british foreign secretary phillip ham conned, and the e.u. chief fedor eka mogherini. >> i am sure if the will is there we'll get there. >> reporter: how tough are the days ahead going to be?

>> it is going to be tough. it has always been tough, but not impossible. it's a matter of political will. >> reporter: all sides seem relaxed about an extension into the first few days of july. gaps remain between all the sides in the negotiations between the u.n. permanent 5 and iran on the other. this talk of non-negotiatables and red lines, is it looking more or less likely that iran's nuclear programme will be limited, regulated and inspected in return for the limiting or lifting of international sanctions on the republic. >> joining us the president of the united against nuclear iran, and the director of the middle east programme at the wilson center, and charles duelfer,

former u.n. weapons inspector and chairman of a washington area consulting firm. let me start with you. does the finish line look closer or further away now that things are breaking up and june 30th is arriving and leaving without a deal in. >> ray, i continue to think that a deal will happen, i don't know when. the supreme leader intervened on the eve of the deadline last summer, he gave a speech, laying out red lines. months later the iranians made concessions and compromised and produced the framework agreement in april in lausanne. this may be a similar situation where you put forward red lines, unacceptable to the p5+1. unless the iranians exchange their position in the next two weeks, there will not be an agreement in early july, but neither side will back away from

the negotiations, and they'll continue through the summer, and it's possible ta gale will emerge in the fall. as the last deadline approached, the supreme leader, ayatollah khamenei, started to put in now requirements, started to complain about certain aspects of the deal that was emerging. we saw that again last week as june 30th was approaching. what is going on. how should we understand that. >> we should look at what the supreme leader said originally, saying "i nooert support for oppose the negotiations." but i support and he left the door open. if there is going to be a debt, and a number of demand are met. then the

supreme leader will continue, basically i don't support the outcome, but since i trust the negotiating team we'll happens. >> does that mean that there's an unpredictability even until the moment there are signatures on paper, that you can't know whether there's daylight between the president, the supreme leader or mohammad javad zarif. >> my sense is that mohammad javad zarif return comes with the final move from tehran, telling him how far he can go, and he'll come back with that in hand, and probably there'll be a deal. that's my dream, between now and 9 july, because that - he knows quite well that this is going to be the deadline for the administration, otherwise they

have to deal with a 60 day verification period, with congress. so he is - he went back to - with the last message and returns with a final say from the supreme leader and the president and the security council, and i wouldn't be surprised if the supreme leader doesn't advocate the final decision to the iran security council so if there is a deal that he doesn't approve of, he can say i went along with the will of the majority. >> does that mean that severing - there's a chance that things could fall apart at the last minute. >> i don't think i'm as optimistic about the timeline, there's an amount of detailed issues which have to be put in

place if there's going to be a credible inspection and ver verification system. bear in mine as the iranians have to go back to the supreme leader, washington has to deal with a congressional review of some sort. there's a lot of criticisms and close looks given to the framework agreement, and there's several aspect looking to be wobbly, if you think about a verifiable agreement going forward. i want to talk about the technical considerations after the break. before we break, who has the whip hand now. both have an interest in getting this done. if there's a clash of interest versus interest, who blinks first, don't the iranians want to get rid of the sanctions. >> my sense is that they have the greater incentive. there's a lot of money on the table for them. they have to give up the prospect of having a nuclear

weapon in hand, but not being a virtual nuclear weapon state. the united states - there's a lot of people at the time moving the process forward. at the end of the day, us know, the incentives are more on the iranian side than the american side. i think the americans may want the deal as much, but i think the iranians need it for. >> gary, same question - who has the upper hand now, if it comes to will again will? >> i think both sides want the agreement and made concessions to come close to the finish line. but at the end of the day the deal is more important to iran than the p5+1. stand by, when we return, i ask my guests what are the technical details, the understands about machines and radioactive materials that must be mastered and defined in any agreement with tehran. stay with us, it's "inside story".

you're watching "inside story". i'm ray suarez, there are red lines laid out by iran's supreme leader ayatollah khamenei. red lines for western nations who called a nuclear iran unthinkable. as international sanctions hemmed in the tehran government, at the same time as the price of oil plunge jed the core question remains, what is more important to iran, lifting sanctions and rejoining the world community or complete unimpeded freedom of movement in its nuclear programme. the coming weeks may tell the story, charles duelfer, former u.n. weapons somewhere and chairman of a washington area consulting firm, president of

the united against nuclear iran, and the director of the middle east programme at the wilson center. there has been objections from the iranian side not only about the economic architecture. do they come off at this point, this point or this point. what about the regime that will have to be put in place to satisfy the p5 for versions of what is going on in iran. >> if the iranians are sincere, then they have to accept an intrusive inspection by the ia - the question is whether the i.a.e. is capable of having this intrusive ininspection that it had the facility yes, the equipment, and doesn't have the budget, i think, charles stanford will be able to answer that. i think the iranians are well aware of that.

principle? >> i think they'll go along accepting the intrusive inspection. then again, where they differ is what it means, what is intrusive for the i.a.e.a. nd not what is intrusive for iran. these are the details. when we are going to open up. where we open up to any inspection. the supreme leader is saying that our military facilities are not open for inspection, but the commander of the revolution said recently that they can inspect. but they need permission. they are trying to be

accommodating, without sort of giving the impression that they lines. >> i'll go over the technical details in a minute. if you lead an organization called united against nuclear iran, you must have bottom lines, and what iran should be able to retain in the way of centrifuges and fissile material. >> those are the two key elements of the agreement, what are the physical limits on iran's producing fissile material and what are the verifications and monitoring provisions ensuring that iran is complying with the agreements. we are waiting to see the details. the physical limits have been defined by the parameters back in april. it would essentially prevent

iran from producing plutonium for nuclear weapons permanently, iran would agree never to build a reprocessing facility, on the enrichment side, limits would be for only 15 years, and after that period iran would be able to expand the enrichment programme to the point where it would have a credible capacity to produce large quantities of highly enriched or weapons grade uranium. on the verification and monitoring piece, that's a critical element that has not been resolved. i agree that unless the iranians are prepared to accept an inspection regime that includes a mechanism for challenge inspections, including military facilities and sensitive nonnuclear sites, this agreement will not happen, i think at the

end of the day the iranians will accept such provisions. with safeguards and guarantees to assure that the - that these inspections are not used as a mechanism for spying on conventional military activities that are separate from the provisions of the nuclear agreement in my capacity as host of this programme i waved a virtual wand and made you the chief of the team that's going in. what are the necessary minimal standards so someone can come away with the process saying "i think they are clean, they are not doing what they promised not to do", you have to understand the character. and i would back up and say iran in this case has not taken the initial deal, which was if you uncata coricly give up an ambition to having a nuclear wep

squon, the keys to the community is open. they have not taken the deal. they refused to discussion work building the designs. this inhibits a baseline. when you go into your country and test what has been said, you don't have a baseline, the voracity of what the country has done. in iraq, we had extraordinarily ability to debrief scientists, examine documents, bring censors into the country. aircraft that flue over, no one is talking about the level of access in iran. in the case of iran, we could not do the job there.

turns out sudan was giving up more than expected. there will be an extraordinary amount of detail. and how that will be reported to the security council, whoever will make the decision. what will be the trigger. will it be a question of noncooperation, or will they have to have defined proof. will it have proof. that can be a murky, and a tough decision. we'll look at a player. all the coverage from the nuclear talks and the kee negotiators. you get the feeling that self people in the room developed a relationship and made progress. it's never as simple as that. who is pushing from outside the conference rooms, swungy hotels and convention centers in

europe. it's not just kerry and mohammad javad zarif, there's a big world with competing interests. stay with us, it's "inside story".

welcome back to "inside story", i'm swor rsh, we are back with the director of the -- ray suarez, we are back with our guests. in the next couple of weeks, who should we be watching, and who should we listen for, who is not john kerry, for mohammad javad zarif? >> president hassan rouhani indicates speaking on behalf of iran. president hassan rouhani, he was a nuclear negotiator himself,

you know, and knows all the de-styles. -- details. he'd go to the supreme leader. we should watch hassan rouhani, and the head of the iranian atomic energy in iran, and he was sick, but is returning. this is it important because the supreme leader trusts. having him in the room, and having a direct tan nel will make a difference. it's these two people who are very important. the president there are other forces pushing on all the negotiators. who is not in the room that we you should pay attention tox. >> i'd keep an eye on sergey

lavrov, the russian foreign minister. he knows the technical details of these sorts of things. the russians have a fair amount of leverage. it's the case that russia has a hand in the nonnuclear aspects on the issue. i keep an eye on what he is about, what he's pressing, when it gets into the tough questions of access. and who is going to make judgment if they find malfeasance. he'll have a strong voice. >> there may be difference, does russia share concern that iran not go nuclear. >> i think they share, their relationship is different. the economic interests are

different. they have a nuclear projects that they have going in iraning, and at the same time they have a competitive issue on energy rices. it's a complicated thing. >> gary, same question - who are the players who you don't see walking in and out of the conference rooms from geneva, vienna much. >> john kerry reports to his government, and the most important players are sitting in the situation room, reviewing the state of play, and making decisions about whether or not to accept proposals or counterropesals that the iranians put on the table. i know that there's going to be a lot the time spent providing for for kerry, and the president himself. obama care will have to balance

the substance of the agreement, in terms of meeting his active. on the other hand he'll have to keep an eye on congress making sure it is politically sustainable. there is a lot of strong concern. and the president will want to be certain to sustain a veto. the president want to be sure that he can hold a third of the senate of the house or both in order to make sure that his veto is not overwritten. >> earlier in the year the visit of the binyamin netanyahu got a lot of attention. does the concern from its

railies have the ability to scotch the deal. >> if the final issues are resolve. i imagine he'll work as hard as he can do persuade members of congress to oppose the agreement. in israel as in many countries, there's a difference between the political leadership, and the professional officers and diplomats and intelligence people who have a different view. and i think they see some merit in the agreement - if only for buying time. i think prime minister binyamin netanyahu will not - will not accept the agreement, he'll want to make sure he opposes it, and, therefore, will try to keep israel not committed in any way to honour the agreement. >> that's all the time we have for tonight. the story is not over. we'll talk to you again as we get closer

to the finish line. i'll be back in a moment with the time word on nuclear weapons, who gets to have them, and who gets to say it's okay. stay with us, it's "inside story". >> explorer and environmentalist jean-michel cousteau. >> we are visitors and we need to respect that. >> surprising secrets of the ocean. >> if it wasn't for the ocean, we would have a lot of problems today. >> and the harsh reality facing our planet. >> enough is enough. >> i lived that character. >> we will be able to see change.

only on al jazeera america

70 years since the first controlled nuclear chain reaction at the university of chicago. and this summer will mark 70 years since two nuclear bombs were dropped on japan. in the 7 decades since, how many times have nuclear bombs been used in war? none. since nagasaki was obliterated, no country has detonated a weapon of that kind in war. no country has been willing to end the tense and threatening moratorium, even as a small group of countries built nuclear arsenals, capable of destroying the planet. >> brazil, argentina and others stepped back, refusing to go the rest of the way towards building the nuclear bomb after starting programs, and during the same years, india, pakistan,

israel and north korea moved ahead. dictatorships, democracies, rich and poor, those joining nonproliferation scenes and relating them - no one has been ready to take the risk of unleashing death on others and exposing its own people to the fireball that killed tens of thousands. iran is said to upset na calculation, said by its enmace miz to be an unrealable player that may break the string. the world seems to have concluded the best way to deal with it is to not take the chance, keeping iran from joining the club, take one worry, verible, set of unpredictabilities off the table. at least for now. thanks for joining us for "inside story", see you next time, i'm ray suarez.

jazeera. welcome to the news hour, i'm with al jazeera and heading for turbulent times and won't pay 1.6 billion euros it owes the imf and egypt is in a state of all out oppression and accuses of it of crushing generations hopes. and people are killed as a plane crashes in a residential area