al jazeera america's hard-hitting... >> today they will be arrested. >> ground-breaking... >> they're firing canisters of gas at us. >> emmy award-winning investigative series. "faultlines": death on the bakken shale. only on al jazeera america. i'm ali velshi, target from tehran, tonight, groundhog day all over again with less than 24 hours oto go with another final nuclear deadline. >> the free world cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon. >> how much could the states trust iran? wildly accusations against united states. >> this deal won't change iran for better. >> one of the most difficult and

long lasting national security problems we've faced in a very long time. >> i'm ali velshi from tehran. less than 24 hours to go until what could be that final zeal. i'm in tehran david schuster is in our target studios in new york. >> ali, in washington, president obama went to a big deal going to the pentagon with ash carter. in case a deal is not worked out. a lot of anticipation in washington, a lot of anticipation where you are in tehran. tell us what you're seeing. >> david folks are still optimistic but many have seen this before, these deadlines come and go and the impression that most people here have is that it's not iran's fault, that iran wants these sanctions lifted, they consider them illegal and that the united states and other powers have

crippled them wrongly. there are things they are not prepared to disagree to however, we have heard comments from the foreign minister and others at the negotiating table saying, as john kerry did, they are closer than they have ever been before that the west has got to understand that these sanction he have got to bshave got to bes there is an agreement. they don't feel there will be a deal by end of tuesday, they do feel there will be a deal maybe wednesday, maybe even thursday morning. there is optimism here, people thinking it is not going to happen but hoping it might david. >> are ali, the deadline has some big implications here in the united states. because if the deal is struck before you july 9, the members

of congress will have 30 days to review it. however it changes to 60 days if they get it after july 9. bob corker a tennessee republican says he urged secretary of state john kerry not to enter into a bad deal with iran, and that the united states has conceded too much to the talks. secretary kerry said while the two sides have never been closer to a deal success is not guaranteed. >> at this point, this negotiation could go either way. if hard choices get made in the next couple of days, and made quickly, we could get an agreement this week. but if they are not made, we will not. >> as the latest deadline approaches the situation appears to be getting more complicated

thanks oa new demand from iran. according to some reports iran wants any deal to include the lifting of an united nations arms embargo. the emg bar go is aimed at preventing iran from sending weapons to its allies in be yemen or other territories. diplomatic editor james bays, these reports are they accurate? stemming from the article in the you wall streein thewall street? >> i went to a briefing early on by a senior iranian official one closely involved in these negotiations and he paid it clear that yes iran has real problems with the arms embargo it would really not like there to be an arms embargo and it

doesn't really feel this has any link to the nuclear issue. but at the same time he said he didn't want this to become an issue in the nuclear deal, a barrier to a deal. so i don't see that as a specific sticking point, although the whole issue of sanctions which is wound up in is still one of the sticking points. because they do have the text of a deal here david. it's just that there are certain items that are left in brackets. and they are being left for political decisions from all the foreign ministers to fill in the items that will go in those gaps that are currently in brackets. >> so when you say there's a text it does sound like they are very close. what are some of the items in the brackets in addition to the lifting of sanctions and the schedule at which they would be lifted what are some of the issues that seem to be right now a sticking point. >> they are the same sticking points in many ways that we have been dealing with for many months. i think they have sorted parts of these issues out but some of the substance and some of the

language because remember this is a deal they have to then stole a wider audience and there are many very skeptical about it have not been resolved and they include iran's future research and development on nuclear passes, things like the length of a deal, what happens beyond ten years, beyond year 11, year 12, year 13, year 15, and also, the whole inflicte complicated n of inspectors, from iaea, where they would are able to go in iran what, sort of notice would they have to give, would you have some notice like any time anywhere inspections the iranians says no that's not all. >> are they all there in austria now and if so would that suggest we know perhaps in a day two whether or not there is in fact

a deal? >> reporter: yes. they're absolutely all here. the p-5 plus one, that's the international group of countries that's negotiating with iran, it's the five permanent members of the u.n. security council, united states, united kingdom france russia china and germfully they're the plus 1 and iran all their foreign ministers are here. we have had intense negotiation is going on for sometimes early on in the morning, for days and days, in the place of experts to get these points dealt with and remember at any time in this deal we always said that the most difficult points were going to be the ones left to the end. ministers are now doing the negotiations and as we speak they're still meeting. >> james bays, al jazeera's diplomatic editor in vienna. we appreciate it. missed deadlines in two

years of bargaining. now we're down to the wire and the stakes could not be possibly higher. they include the lifting of potential sanction he and international efforts to inspect and stop nuclear weapons in a nation that for more than three decades has stood as america's leading adversary. to help us break this down, president of the national iranian american council, he says letting this deal slip away would be as big as going to war in iraq. i wonder if you could explain that point. letting this slip away would be akin to going to war with iraq? >> i would say so. because the geopolitical shifts that could follow this deal meaning that the united states and iran have been at odds with each other for the last 35 years spent so much of their energy undermining each other in the region which has caused a lot of that stability. they can now transform that relationship as a result of this deal. i don't think they're going to become friends or partners or allies, but it is also clear

both of them are ready for a truce, ready to stop using their energy against each other. that could be a game changer in the region. united states and iran have a common enemy, that is i.s.i.s. iranians are already fighting i.s.i.s, any coordination or collaboration is very weak, and that could be important for u.s. national interests. >> if the iranians really want a deal and for peaceful purposes why then are they refusing to come clean about previous efforts to weaponnize the nuclear program and why are they refusing to allow inspectors to go anywhere, any time, if this is strictly for peaceful purchase they should not have a problem with either right? >> that is not exactly true david. first of all when it comes to access to military sites

et cetera they are signing on to the additional protocol. the propert protocol does give e ability to inspect proper sites. the iranians have signed on to that in the past, for 20 months they implemented that between 2003 and 2009 e-2005 and they are signing up for that again. that will start very immediately after an actual deal has been reached. moreover when it comes to military sites, it is interesting, iranians have given access to military sites in the last ten to 15 years, and it will do so more under the treaty convention -- >> secretary of state john kerry has said that iran and john kerry has backed away from the idea that iran must come clean about its previous weaponnization. iran will not come clean, that in 2006-2007 they were trying

weaponnize their you neublg nucr program. >> the iranian process what i've heard giving the access to the iaea is going to start as soon n as the u.s. congress has approved or failed to approve this deal. that's part of the reason the head of the iaea has been heading back and forth between you tehran and vienna right now. there are talks and hysteria that the u.s. is giving away the shop et cetera. i can tell you that's not the impression the people are giving on the ground. i.t. seems like both sides are driving very, very hard bargain and that's why it's taking so long. >> iran's nuclear program has nothing to did with whether iran supports hezbollah or iran's desire to ship weapons to others in the region. again why shouldn't the

americans look at this and say we left economic sanctions, would iran use that money to fund groups the u.s. has labeled terrorists. >> first of all, the u.s. insisted that this would be about the neucialg issue and not link it to other issues. part of the reason is obviously. this is not a u.s. iran negotiation clearly other issues would have been included. but this is a negotiation that also includes russia and china and other states. you needed to make sure that the p-5 plus one was completely united. if you bring in other issues you divide the p-5 plus one, you cannot have an effective and successful negotiation. that is why this is separated. having said that, i truly believe if you have this zeal and positive elements introduced in the u.s. iran relationship you will see certain ships when it comes to other policies as well. take for instance the way the

iranians are talking about israel today. it is quite different everyone i would have to admit compared to what the iranians were saying two years ago, when ahmadinejad was in power. when it comes to israel. >> what are some of the other issues where you might see some shifts in terms of regional issues that cause a lot of the difficulties between the united states and iran? >> there's plenty of issues and plenty of disagreements at the end of the day. i think what this deal does for the united states is that it enables the united states to have more options. in the past the u.s. has been very, very close to the saudis and limited its options. always having to defend itself against saudi actions, what's happening in yemen right now. attended piece and one of the benefits of this deal that it gives the ufts more options in the region. it will be able to find a new balance between iran and saudi arabia. it doesn't constantly have to go

in and take sides in the way that it did before. and that's important because it enables the united states not to be so entangled in many of the conflicts in the region that frankly has been bleeding the united states. and focus on globalling your political perspective in which be real competitor of the united states is not going to come out of the middle east but east asia. >> thank you so much for joining us on the program, we appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> you're welcome. up next plan b, what will iran and the united states do if they blow this potential deal? we'll ask somebody who's been involved in middle east negotiations before. stay with us. >> we've got the final agreement within our sites. >> many who think that the united states should not be sitting down with iran at all. >> there is possibilities of a conflict all around the region.

>> i'm david schuster "on target" here in new york. with another nuclear deal imminent, ali velshi from tehran iran. ali. >> i had an interesting conversation with some individuals, millennials if you will. i wanted to get a chance to see what they felt about these sanctions and i asked them in english are they tied to what their government is saying and doing or somewhat divorced from it. there were three young women, two of them said they are divorced from it. their daily life does not resolve around these negotiations what their government is doing not even

around sanctions. the third one said the relationship is complicated. i didn't get a chance to explore what "it's complicated" means but i suspect there are a lot of iranians who feel their relationship with their government is complicated. there is absolute and complete agreemenagreement amongst thosee been around these seven or eight days i've been here. what responsibility the iranian government holds in pursuing this nuclear program that some in the west is for armament not civilian energy production, and what responsibility iran bears with respect to how these negotiations are going. most people don't go there. and i don't know whether that's why they don't want to go there politically or it's because they just don't care one way or the

other. they do care about sanctions. they don't tie it to a nuclear program. iranians seem very, very proud of the technical accomplishments and achievements that led them to a nuclear program. but almost everyone i spoke to seemed willing to trade that up for economic prosperity which they believe will come from the lifting of sanctions. >> one of the biggest and perhaps worrisome questions about the nuclear talks with iran is what happens if a zeal is not reached. our next guest says it depends who's blamed for the surveil your. afternoon advisor for both republican and democratic administrations, at the wood rol wilsowoodrowwilson center. there's been a lot of talk about military options should the iran talks fail. is it wise for administration to be promoting that here at the end? >> you know, the reality is the administration has been quite

reluctant frankly to talk about military unilateral military options as deterrents or as consequence if no agreement has been reached. in fact it has been criticized by the republicans and even some democrats for taking that issue off the table. so no. you're in the end game and whether you're in the end game and there's a certain rhythm and flow to the negotiations all kinds of signals are sent. the iranians are sending their own of course by demanding that the export of military technology, the u.n. security resolutions restricting that or banning that, somehow be lifted as part of the deal. so no, i think it's frankly we are in the end game and i think president who is feeling very empowered, by the way as a consequence of tpa, the supreme

court's ruling not only on his own view of gay marriage but the affordable care act, now believes i think that he in fact is a truly consequential president and may well believe that unless he can get the deal he wants with his own red lines observed and adhered to that he'd just as soon hold back. so i'm not sure that's where we are. if i had a bet i'd still bet on a deal sometime this week. but there is that factor. one more thing and that is reality we've all persuaded ourselves that no deal either means war or the collapse of the sanctions regime. that's not necessarily the case. as i pointed out in my wall street journal piece, how the consequences collapse, is it the consequence of unreasonable demands or are the iranians being obstinate?

>> in the next focus assuming it doesn't work out is going to be an incredibly intense public relations war with each side blaming the other for the failure of the talks. >> there's no question about that but i think in a way that we've been extremely adept, to a fatality i suspect, at trying to compartmentalize the nuclear issue from repressive iranian policies at home which we don't like, including the four americans. one of whose whereabouts they won't or can't confirm and iran answeiran's own expansionist de, we have been very expansive, all of the tensions that influence and shape the u.s. iranian relationship are going to surface. well look as long as that war is kept on the rhetorical level, at

least for now it's better than the alternative. >> in the long term, let's assume there is no deal, at what point does united states and israel and iran trigger perhaps in sort of military exchange would it require iran actually going back on that they've done so far and starting to weaponize their nuclear program all over again? >> you know i think, and i don't want ton sanguin to be sanguinee process. it is going to create an iran stronger bolder with a lot more resources to fuel its expansionist designs in the region although i would lead to a slower more easily monitored program. without an agreement, without a process you're right. you invariably will be on some sort of slippery slope. and i suspect at some point the iranians would choose to accelerate their program, and if

not to try to break out or sneak out, to produce a weapon, then to remain in a state that is very, very close. and that might create a set of circumstances, whether it's tensions along the israeli-lebanese border or even, perhaps, a preemptive or preventative military strike by the israelis. i do not believe this administration would use force unless it was unmistakably clear, that the israelis were moving not to break out but to weaponize and then i do believe that this administration would have to make good on its commitment to prevent iran, not from becoming a nuclear weapons state but from becoming a nuclear power. and i suspect this president however risk averse he is with the use of military force would in fact make good on that commitment.

>> aaron david miller is a scholar at the woodrow wilson center in los angeles, thank you for joining us. >> it's a pleasure. >> let's head back to ali velshi in tehran with what seems to be a heck of a lot of money. ali. >> i'm going to come back in a minute and tell you what this is, why it matters and what it's got to do with ending the decades long question of whether iran should have nuclear capability. you are watching ali "on target" from iran. fest tehran.

>> i'm david schuster in new

york. let's go back to the latest in tehran, iran. ali velshi is standing by, what are you doing with all that money? >> david i've been on tv and talking about sanctions and how it's affecting all these people. this is a bit of a struggle, i have in my hands 3 million reale, this is the currency here. there are smaller bills, but if you wanted to get them in the smallest bills possible i got 600, 5,000 reale bills. this is worth $100. alt of this, 600 bills come out to $100. three years ago back in 2012 before the currency started devaluing. this was worth about $250. this is all about inflation. the sanctions mean things can't come in from overseas. anything that is imported increases in price.

anything made locally doesn't have imported competition so it goes up in price. when things go up in price the value of the currency decreases. the bank pays huge interest rates in order to get people to keep their money in the bank because this money continues to devalue. people would rather change it to pounds, euro zone euros, dollarp these bills because they devalue. the only way the bank can convince you to give them money is to pay you in excess of 20% interest. that's what people who deposit their money in iran get from the bank. this in a nutshell is what the problem, what sanctions are doing to this country. >> ali velshi underscoring the issues in iran. thanks as always. that's our show today, i'm david schuster for ali velshi and the entire team "on target," thanks

for watching. fighting back. long term campaign. >> our air strikes will continue to target the oil and gas facilities that fund so much of their operations the president defends military attacks against i.s.i.l., saying there'll be no quick victory top choices - greece's prime minister says no to austerity as the eurozone takes a tough tans. >>