[ ♪ ] i'm david shuster, in for ali velshi "on target" tonight. >> the free world cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. >> how much could faces trust the united states. >> this morning iran's president offered the same wild accusations against the united states. >> we seek a comprehensive diplomatic solution. >> this will not change iran for the better. >> one of the most difficult and long-lasted security problems we faced in a long time.

should iran have a nuclear programme, after years of intense discussions the talks are coming down to the wire. as part of the manoeuvring aimed at breaking the stalemate. the head of the international atomic energy organization is in train meeting with -- tehran meeting with officials to provide provisions. have you met with the president yet, sir. have you had a chance to meet with the president, sir? are you on your way to meet with the president, sir? as you saw, ali velshi is in tehran and tracked down the i.a.e.a. chief. despite the no comment, there is now every indication that if the i.a.e.a. and iran's leadership reach an agreement the arrest of a deal could be finalized before the july 7th deadline.

as the negotiations get closer, the voices criticizing an iranian nuclear deal are getting louder. many, if not all of those voices, are coming from people and places you would expect. critics of president obama, and backer of israel that do not trust iran with any program. >> former ambassador to the united states says the deal is bad for israel and the united states, and the world. he echoed comments from binyamin netanyahu, that he made before congress in march saying other middle east countries will follow iran's lead in creating nuclear facilities creating a powder greg. and add kevin mccarthy to the list asking president obama to walk away from an awful deal - awful is what he calls it - in an op-ed in "the washington post", he come nated causes for concern including the administration's willingness to

allow to keep its past nuclear work secret. >> republican hopeful jed bush weighed in write in a head line don't trust iran, saying that it appears the president obama administration will do anything to secure a deal. growing criticism of the deal is coming from president obama's advisors, and say they are alarmed by reports that the united states will not force iran to come clean and disclose previous events to weaponize the programme. some signed an open letter expressing concern, and signing a letter was papa's former ambassador to iraq. here is what he told us. >> it's important psych log psychologically and politically for iran to confess to what it has done or be held accountable and blame the international atomic energy agency which has to do a review of this and the report and findings. until that is done, until we get

that, sanctions related to weapons programs, should not be lifted. this is something where we are in the right, we should sit and push them to do this as we discussed all week, israeli and american skepticism that iranians say the programme will be used for peaceful pup p purposes much the spokesperson from the team in 2003 to 2005 insists that despite growing criticisms, the united states and iran will sign a deal son. he is in touch with former college and teaches at princeton university and joins us. what makes you think a deal is coming soon? >> i'm optimistic because of two major issues as the criteria from the beginning has been nonproliferation treaty, npt, as

the basic international law on nuclear issue. i believe they have already agreed about all measures seen on proliferation treaty. >> a major sticking point - i'll grant you that, mpt seems to be in agreement. but it involves the a.b.c. that international inspectors will have to iranian facilities, if iran is not interested in weaponizing the nuclear programme, why not allow unfettered access? >> look, based on international rules and regulations, we have additional protocol as the maximum level of transparency. this is the arrangement which internationally exists and ensures the maximum level of transparency. iran is ready to comply with the additional protocol and give

action. we have seen additional protocol. the issue is about measures, access, inspections beyond additional protocol, which there is no international rules, regulations, protocol arrangements for inspections beyond decisional protocol. but the international protocol didn't imagine a situation where there was clear evidence that at one time, sex or eight years ago iran tried to weaponize the programme. do you blame the united states for seeking the measures. >> first of all, the national estimate intelligence estimate in the united states says in 2006 and 2011, says that after 2003, iran has not done anything

towards weaponization. they say clearly that iran does not have a nuclear bomb, clearly there is no evidence of diversion towards it. in iranian nuclear programme, and there is no decision by iranian politicians to make... >> that may be true, but it could allow for an effort, some sort of effort by some iranian scientists to weaponize the prim. i want to -- programme. i want to build a reaction to something president obama says, he says: would you agree with that? >> as far as iran has agreed with all verification, through

additional protocol, and similar arrangement 3.1. to explain for you, these three arrangements are the only arrangements on verification and transparency, (a), the countries have not accepted additional protocol yet, but iran accepted to be committed to all three arrangements i mentioned. that is why president obama is saying that this is maximum level of intrusive inspection that you can ever imagine, based on international law and regulations, and roun has accepted -- iran has accepted. i told you that the issue left is access to a military site. no country in the world is ready to give access to the international atomic and energy agency. any time, anywhere, any military, any time any military

decides location. a former nuclear spokespers spokesperson, a research scholar even though negotiations reached a sensitive and critical stage, the united states is talking tough and says it's ready to walk away from a bad dealful what would happen next. secretary of defense ash carter asserted that a u.s. military option remains. >> the basic facts have not changed, that we continue to have the tools to do that. and continue to maintain the military option, because the president instructed us too. >> al jazeera's national security correspondent joins us with more. i wonder if you can put secretary carter's comments in context. what options is the permanent

talking aboutful. >> one of the things the pentagon asked planners to do is draw up a list of military options used to try to take out part of iran's nuclear programme if it came to that, and the pentagon said, and the white house said it remains on option. what secretary carter was saying is what people have been saying for years, there are limits to what a military strike can do. it can, in all likelihood, as the secretary said, degrade parts of the programme, it could delay iran's building to produce nuclear weapons, but it couldn't stop it. that's a draw back of the military option, and that is one of the arguments, that a deal, even an imperfect one. if it doesn't stop it entirely, it could set it back for longer.

a military strike estimated that it would put iran back three to four years in a quest to put nuclear weapons. >> so the pentagon is confident that it could set it back by a couple of years. what does it do in terms of the pentagon deal whether or not a strike should be ordered. obviously they would follow through. is there a sense from the pentagon about whether it's a wise idea in. >> two points i make on that - one is after secretary carter said it would only set them back four years, the chairman of the joint chiefs chimed in, don't forget the military option is not something you used once. in other words suggesting that one strict could follow a few years later. but, of course, there's wider consequences to striking iran, unlike iraq, where the united states had the ability to bomb

iraq, in a sense with impunity, because iraq had no ability to strike back. the risk of a military strike is not so much what would happen after a single strike, but you could end up with a war in iran against the middle east. that would like different. iran has a navy, we could see naval battles, and it would be a more difficult scenario. any time you unleek the power of war, iraq has shown that. >> jamie mcintyre, thank you as always, we appreciate it. >> next - what happiness if president obama and president hassan rouhani agree to a deal but the u.s. congress at home refuses to approve it. "on target" returns in a moment.

the talks with a nuclear

deal with iran fast approaching, president hassan rouhani is under a lot of pressure from his population, and the supreme leader to ensure a favourable agreement. if a deal is brokered how quickly will sanctions be lifted. joining me to tackle these questions is an iranian-american scholar spending 40 years in the united states, a founder of the iranian american council, a nonprofit trying to improve understanding between dialogue with the united states and roun. you are well-versed in terms of understanding the u.s. congress about iran. is it your sense that the u.s. congress would approve or rejected a deal that palma negotiates. likely it will rejected, but it will uphold the veto present with president obama. that is to say the congress will eject president obama in the

veto, and the congress will say the reason that will happen is the republicans wanted to use the deal for the prisoners, and to make it an obama deal. for the republicans, they are not interested in derailing, and they may not have the votes to overcome a president obama veto. what happens if the sanctions are not lifted and assets not released fast enough as far as iran is concerned. hassan rouhani will be in terrible state. hassan rouhani will basically not criticize his government, but most likely will let him go. the whole deed is on the sanctions. over the last two years, hassan rouhani has been telling m mr ayatollah khamenei, that he's

doing this to get the sanctions listed. if that doesn't come true everything falls apart in the country. in other words the economy is in terrible state, and you can expect the worst from the people, and they have been celebrating for tow years, day after day to get this done. that explains why there's a desire by the iranian port to have the sanctions lifted. is there hope that this is the compromise. you have elections in february, between iran and february, if iran shows it is complying with the deal, certain sanctions will be lifted to relieve political pressure on hassan rouhani. >> it depends on how fast the sanctions will impact the people's pockets. to have a deal and go back to the deal and make a propaganda is not going to work. in the last two years, twice, the hassan rouhani government

has waged propaganda campaigns saying they were a victorious side, but in both cases nothing materialized for the iranian people. they used to be very optimistic, losing home. what is the possibility that a conservative government replaces it. >> it's possible. the hardliners lost the last election, they are not dead. they have many votes of the populous, they had 35-40% of the public on their side.

i believe if mr hassan rouhani is not able to deliver what he has been promising, i'm almost certain that they'll be back again on a stage. >> there's a lot of concern in the united states about the supreme religious leader, how hold he is, and if he die, that it may be a moot point. whatever is agreed may not be. >> if the supreme leader die, there are plans to replace him. i think most likely the military, the revolutionary guard would be the boss in the country. at that point the u.s. government can deal with them. regardless of how radical they are, military is everywhere.

you can talk to them. there's a debate in the united states if a deal a reached. what is your view? >> unfortunately, this negotiation does not include u.s.-iran relations. the issue is focused on the nuclear. the most serious issue is the regional issue. security of the persian golf. you have syria, iraq, hezbollah and lebanon. these are serious matters. ayatollah khamenei is not preferring to open up that road. there is a revolution standing

between. this evolution from day one was anti-american, and has tried its best to say away from the u.s., feeling that they would one day overthrow it. mr ayatollah khamenei, will not come close to the u.s. while he is alive. let me say this, over the last 36 years, the attitude towards the u.s. has been what i call no war, no piece. any time the war is an issue, he has come inning trying to make peace and concessions, and show, you know, places like hassan rouhani and others. any time that peace gets a little too far, he goes back again to that patient side, the war side so he can always keep

the balance of no war, no peace. >> thank you for coming on the programme. the former iranian presidential candidate and board member. >> next, the long road to ending iran's nuclear programme. we look at the pressure and diplomacy applied to both sides, and go back to iran for final thoughts from ali velshi.

posturing, sanctions and hard-line policies, for decades, that's a story for iran and u.s. relations. both are poised to strike a deal. the road has not been easy, ali

velshi is in train and explains how we got here. >> reporter: september 27, 2013, president obama shocks the world, speaking with iranian president hassan rouhani over the phone. the first direct communication between u.s. and iranian president since 1979. but the move draws widespread criticism from both israeli leaders and hardliners. jan 12th, 2014, iran agrees to temporarily freeze much of its nuclear welcome in exchange for some sanctions relief. these negotiations sparked intense opposition, as republican lawmakers threatened particular sanctions. march 3rd, 2015. israeli prime minister binyamin netanyahu at the invitation of g ox p lawmakers addresses congress, despite options from the white house and calls for a tougher stance against tehran.

it's considered an unprecedented protocol. march 9th, 2015, 47 republican senators signed an open alert to iran warning its leaders about a deal. any agreement, they say, could be reversed by the next president, with the stroke of a pen april 2nd, 2015, after a marathon stretch of negotiations in lausanne switzerland, negotiators announced they had come up with a framework for a deal. iran would shrink its stockpile of low enriched iranian by 98%. and reduce centrifuges. the u.s. would join the european union and ease sanctions hobbling the economy. fast-forward to this week, negotiators extend talks until july 7th to give both sides more time. president obama offers no signs that an agreement is certain i will walk away from the

negotiations if, in fact, it's a bad deal. >> at stake, a landmark accord that would curtail western sanctions and determine the future of iran's nuclear programme. >> that was ali velshi reporting from tehran, iran, where all week he's had a first hand look at the issues from the table from the iranian perspective. a view hard to come by. he and the team had a remarkable week reporting on the talks and how it's impacting iranian society. here is a closer look. [ ♪ ] . >> i'm ali velshi in tehran. a farcy-language newspaper says nuclear zero hour. >> deals, distrust and deadlines. the world is watching. >> these are the things iran will not seem to do, allowing

the scientists to be interviewed. the foreign minister mohammad javad zarif returned to iran. >> i will walk away if it's a bad deal. >> they are determined to do everything they can. >> i'm not finding all sorts of people that want to come up and tell me what is wrong with the government. >> the economy stagnated. inflation is rampant. the currency devalued. i'm carrying in my pocket. in excess of a million units of their currency. that may be good to get my team dinner. this is a city that in a day has sa million people in it -- 15 million people in it. i keep running into people that seem to like america. the drink of choice around here seems to be coca-cola. more places are selling apple than i have seen in some cities in the united states. in iran, it's all about the sanctions. before the sanctions they would

send a 40 foot container a week of carpets to america. these beautiful artful persian rugs. now they don't sell to america. medicines you can't buy. you can't buy car parts. >> sanctions. our unprecedented action in the streets of this, the capital city of iran "on target" this 4 july weekend, who is an american. we'll look at immigrants entrusted to protect and serve the public on their path to the american dream. >> immigrants here legally can go to afghanistan and protect the united states of america. far too many cannot come back to their own community and serve and protect their neighbours. something is out of whack, when you think about it that way. >> you meet a generation of children. born in the u.s.a., they fight to survive miles away from their

american dream. that is on target tomorrow, 10. :30 pm. that's the show today. i'm david shuster, on behalf of ali velshi and the entire team on "on target", thanks for watching. threat assessment. >> we take every event in washington serious on high alert through the holiday weekend. a false alarm prove oaks a massive -- provokes a massive response amid heightened fees of an attack on america. >> spiralling crisis, greece locked