dismantled misconceptions and debate the contradiction. do we have a real democracy here in the united states? that's not a political party, that's a radical insurgency. mark lamarr hill, and it's time to get up front right here on our 0. me . ready ready holiday angela mcdonald's here in london with the top stories currently on al jazeera. at least 50 people have been killed in a missile strike on a train station in easton ukraine. us as it believes russia used to short range ballistic missile moscow denies involvement, claiming keep for attacking its own people without offering evidence. 12 month, 5 reports not form levine even by the standards of this was brutality. this was a shocking attack with ukrainian civilians bearing the brunt of the station. a

crime. a talk was crowded with passengers among them. many women and children trying to get a train to take them to safety, so as to find them. shirley bluff, every one was panicking, people were screaming and crying. then i saw a wounded woman. she was bleeding heavily. parts of a mis i'll lay nearby. ah, the vive railway station in the west. the end of a journey that's taken well over 24 hours, traveling almost the length of ukraine from crime, a tall, skinny east. this train set off well before friday morning's attack. bringing people who like the victims, were trying to escape the escalating fighting. it was a very bad situation. liana tells us all the time there was shelling and bombing, i suggested. what will you do now in levine? we ask, i've no idea. she says, just to get out was the main thing. and she heads off with her children, not knowing where in the town of bash tanker in southern ukraine,

people arrived to escape battles around kirsten and bic alive. the fighting has continued for weeks and does now move closer to their homes. about them. yesterday they started showing us, they started destroying the houses and everything with cannons. then the tanks appeared from the forest. so i decided to leave off many displaced people head for the relative safety of western ukraine. in the early days of the war, levine, railway station, and the western border crossings were overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of people. as the russian advance was halted, some refugees started returning. now they're being advised to leave again. the flow of people through the station is closely followed the course of the war from the start of with fears of a renewed russian offensive in the east. the viv another cities in the west and are bracing for a serge in people wanting to escape the fighting. anton and irina had arrived with

their 5 children escaping. fighting in the southeast were stacy's. russian federation started bond with o says we stay, we were. but to just make that decision, what the 1st bomb fall and me and my house, i take my children's in boys immediately gamlee with the dog. oh yes to these are a to me sales shut down the our home, the shrapnel, fallen outside. do they plan to leave you crane? how far as far away as possible? they say rob mcbride, al jazeera levine, ahead of the european commission has been an ukraine, where she called the attack on chroma toys, appalling and she lavon de leon was shown mass graves in the town of, boca, the russian forces, are accused of committing atrocities against civilians she then travelled to keep to meet with president romeo cilenzo from the land promised to speed up the process of ukraine. joining the european union focused on prime minister says he won't

recognize the government led by the opposition if parliament bolts to push him out of power in wrong con, address the nation. i had no confidence vote on that day, which he is expected to lose on thursday. the supreme court ruled that he acted unconstitutionally, by dissolving parliament and blocking a previous confidence motion con, says he's disappointed by the verdict, but has accepted the ruling. shrunk of central bank has doubled its key interest rates as it struggles to curb soaring inflation. the worst economic crisis in more than 70 years. students of clashes police in colombo, calling for president call to buy a roger pumps to step down here and i fully up to date those are our current stop stories are pushing catch up on our website, but the bottom line is coming up. next we do hope you stay with us, see very soon ah

hi, i'm steve clements and i have a question. if the iran nuclear deal isn't close to a done deal, or iran in the united states, back on a collision course to war, let's get to the bottom line. ah. after a tough year negotiations, iran in the united states seem to be this close to restoring the historic nuclear deal they signed in 2015. that deal was torn up by foreign president, donald trump, who replaced it with a policy of maximum pressure on the iranian government for years. but shortly after winning the 2020 election, the administration of president joe biden said the maximum pressure policy had failed. and the united states was ready to lift sanctions on iran in return for limits to the iran nuclear program. but the devil's in the details. and now both sides accuse each other a blocking progress and talks in vienna, austria. so where do things stand and what's at stake today?

we're talking with roxanne for mine, from my aunt, who teaches international politics of the middle east and north africa at the university of cambridge and treat a party, the executive vice president of the quincy institute for responsible state craft, an author of treacherous alliance. the secret dealings of israel iran and the united states treat it. let me start where you, where are these talks stuck right now? and we're the actually close to getting a real deal. they were, without a doubt, a close and we are still very, very close. but there are some details that are made for one thing, the europeans are completely done with their elements of the deal. and the last things that are remaining are few sanctions issues. and the issue of whether the i r g c will remain on one of the us. ready terrorists listing a demand that the wrong was made the i've done it earlier before, but the reason why it's become such a problem right now is that it's become public. once it was leaked, both sides found themselves in possible position because now it's really difficult

for both of them to compromise, which is probably the intense behind those would be this information. well, i would ask you just to go one step further because i think, you know, trying to understand the politics of iran and look in the political situation in the united states. this deal, if it were to come about half the stand, the test of the light of day, you know, you have to have at least enough consensus. maybe consensus is the wrong word, but at least a majority view that it's a healthy, that's a resilient deal to get through and. and as i understand it, this i r g c foreign tort, terrorist organization designation is a hold up on the iranian side. are there other elements of the deal that are keeping it from moving forward? it really is it, i mean there's some minor sanction issues. beyond that, the us side is actually done with its request or what it wants from the audience. this is the last thing remaining its request, of course, from the audience. i think you're absolutely correct that under normal

circumstances, needs to be enough confidence in a deal and make sure there's enough support on both sides for it's long get ready to be able to be strong. but we have to be quite honest on the circumstances with or without this ira gcg listing issue. reality is that neither side has high hopes that this deal will survive the by that ministration. because of the political instability on the us side in which you merced high school, republicans have already made clear. they're going to rip this deal apart if they take the white house in 2025. just as trump did in 2016, dr. roxanne, farm on for my on you and i have discussed this issue before. i feel like we're going round the circle again to you know, to be here when we, when we discuss prospects for potential deal. i guess my question to you is, how do you see things right now where they're stuck and again, coming back to that political question, how i'm more familiar with washington where i sit right now. but how do we avoid

a circumstance where we just simply go through flip flop, maybe not just in white houses, but we were around the corner from an election in the united states. and doing a deal may in fact become treated parts. he knows as well. he worked in the us house of representatives, the us house of representatives, if it goes republican, may very well become, you know, a tortuous place for those people for forward this new iran nuclear deal. roxanne, well, i think one of the things that, that we hear often is that we've never been closer to a deal coming together. and we've also never been further away because the things that have to be resolved have been the problems right from the beginning. many of the other things were in some ways, the easier ones. and now we've gotten down to the most difficult and the street the says they've become public, which makes it considerably more difficult if you think back on the 2015 deal. most of what was negotiated then was completely hind doors until the whole deal was put

forward to the public. so this one has been all the way along much more on the front burner. it has, there been issues that have been brought up all the way through, which is what has given it many, much of the political impetus that has caused this ability of, of the republicans on the one side. and many democrats also who are not at all sure . they support this deal to express strong doubts and plans for how to handle it when it is signed and if and when it's signed. and i think that likewise, one of the issues is that you're on has a lot at stake now that the deal was something unknown at the time that it was signed in 2015 by the time that it was stopped and in 2018 by, by donald trump. it was clearer to the iranians, but the failures were of this deal. and so they're much less willing to step back from that and monitoring the sanctions, for example, that they really get lifted,

something like that has been an issue. and then certainly the element of the islamic revolutionary car, the i r g c, which has become in a sense, a football going back and forth. and is highly politicized, as well as being picked up very much by israel, which is a major player. and how this is all being negotiated on the global. thank you, treat it, you know, mid march. there was the rumor. and i don't know if it was real or not. you might, that the united states was going to try to move to d list the i r g c from that foreign terror operators list that, that, you know, sponsors a foreign terror list. and i guess my question to you is, you remember when the 1st iran nuclear deal was being negotiated. you had secretary, john kerry, your secretary ernie mo, knees you had secretary dept sector, wendy sherman. you know, people that felt like there was an enormous groggy toss and energy around it.

president obama himself knew every fine detail of this deal went out. talk to the american public. i don't get that sense of like high church high school. you know, a power players in circling the iran deal to kind of carry the ball forward. has this been relegated to a lower level of priority, or was that part of the strategy all along? it was part of the strategy and you're absolutely right. this is a completely different approach compared to what the obama administration pursued. i mean, this was high priority number one priority had the president's own strong involvement from the very, very outset. this does not have from the very beginning, dividing ministration, did not treat this as a high priority. and to certain extent, understand that the they came in and they saw a tremendous amount of domestic crisis that they have to attend to. and there was a political argument within the white house that's nothing on the foreign policy

sponge, should be allowed to jeopardize biden's domestic agenda. and that legacy has still lived on this is part of the reason why the vital ministration didn't do what would have been much easier, not easy, but much easier. and i think far more effective, which is to just go back into the deal when executive order and then resolve all of these thorny issues from inside the deal. while the iranians, as a result of the us returning to the deal, would have seized a lot of the nuclear activities and they certainly would not have been able to expand the things that they have done right now. so for instance, part of the challenge, the administration is facebook right now, is that the iranian breakout capability, which is a time it takes for them to make a decision, to build a bomb and then to have the ready material for the ball. it was at 12 months, as long as the deal was in place. it's now showing to me and weeks as a result of most of the activities the wrong is i think, gauged in santa barbara, came into office such as enrichment of 60 percent. it simply did not exist prior to

biters pregnancy and had he gone back into the deal from the very beginning. yes, that would have been a political cost. it would have been somewhat challenging and certainly some stony issues such i or g. c would still have been difficult to resolve, but most of the very, very problematic things that the vitamin stricken is faced with right now, including a much higher political cost to get this to congress would have been avoided or st . what, what treated just said is extraordinary. i mean, what he basically just said in my words, is that iran is an undeclared nuclear weapons power today. some years ago, and i think rita was at this dinner. i had a was participating a dinner with former iranian president, hot tommy, who told us that we were fools because iran at that moment when he was there, would have frozen reprocessing at a non industrial level, at a research level and brought the, you know, the centrifuges down there that we would have had iran in

a sort of slight or indeed level, you know, in perpetuity. and that every time we have, you know, change the game or, or move the goal post. iran has come up and been unwilling to kind of do back. i'd love to get your sense if you have any real. i don't know why iran, if it is as close that treated just said why it would ever give up as nuclear program now. well, it's a very good point that you make. i wouldn't say it is a nuclear weapons power yet. and i wouldn't even put it on the same level as japan, which has turn key capacity, which iran, as far as we know, just not. and one of the reasons is because the whole driver for iran really has been to use the nuclear program as leverage it has wanted to rejoin the the international community at once. sanction lifted, this goes back 40 years to the time of the hostage crisis that it has been trying to re, ah, assimilate itself back in the international. and so the,

one of the best tools to do that has been the nuclear program. certainly this is not a moment as we see the, the war and ukraine, and we're seeing what's happening with, with north korea. that this is a, a time for any country that has an option for nuclear weaponry to sit back and, and easily give it up. these are very difficult times we're in, but it is not a nuclear power yet, even though the possibility of becoming one has certainly become as, as treated as a matter weeks. and that means that it has enough weapons grade capacity to build a weapon, but it has not done so yet. roxanne, when asked it one other question here, and i'm not sure i'm gonna get it outright, but entreaty your view too. but i sort of wonder if america and the west have created a real problem. it what i would call our own nuclear snobbery. i remember an ambassador

of turkmenistan in the mid 1990 is coming and you know, giving an organization i was helping to run a very big portrait and i said, you can't give that to us. he says, no, no, you have to take it because you're the only ones in washington who talked to us. since we gave up our nuclear weapons without nuclear weapons, we have no status in washington dc. we can't meet anyone. now you see russia, we have nato and russia in 10th, but, but there were, was being very careful of red lines, not wanting to see a nuclear escalation in russia. ukraine, which gave up a nuclear weapons program, is seeing the horse deployed against it by an invading nation over sovereign territorial lines. you saw in libya, giving up a nuclear program as well. and we saw what happened in that nation. so i guess our, all of these lessons in history that we're seeing on fold, not something iran is noticing when it worries, when, when you know its domestic security is one of the driving forces of the perception of legitimacy of its own government. so i guess, i mean,

if i were advising the iranian government, i might say, why give up nuclear weapons if you see some of the other things that are going on out there? roxanne, well, it's a dangerous neighbourhood, as we all like to say. and i think that it's a bit more difficult to be on iran and have nuclear weapons. and one might say, because certainly the growing stand off aggression as shadow war that we're seeing between israel and iran is a, a problem. and israel has made very clear it will not accept that he ron has any kind of nuclear weapon. and we're seeing in a sense, a, a, an introduction to that kind of approach even now with a great deal of exchange of, of attacks, of drones, destruction of our, about many elements that have been going on this last year and a half that have really shown that israel will not allow iran to take that step.

likewise it's, it's quite difficult within the arena of multiple war, such as we have in that region to have a country now take on the actual development of nuclear weapons and view that as something that will add a, a degree of security. because in some ways it will only contribute to insecurity and the region treated. and what is your sense of that and, and are we creating a culture, we're having nuclear weapons gets respect and security. now, of course, that same rationale could apply to saudi arabia could apply to other countries in the region at once you proliferate in one or allow the proliferation to one. it's hard to imagine that calculus not being the same elsewhere in the region. and so we end up at a reactive situation rather one proactively where nuclear non proliferation regime for maintain. but what's your sense of how we've contributed to an environment the i think it would be very hard to give up that nuclear potential. if one had it,

i think i'm fortunate you're quite right. there is an incentive structure that has been created in which if not having the bomb, nevertheless, moving towards the provide, you would leverage. i think we should also keep in mind, however, the united states has been quite forceful in making sure that the cost of pursuing the past that north korea and iran has been on is a tremendously costly one. and i think it's also of a strong signal to other countries in terms of a deterrent not to think that this will really pay off. what i'm quite worried about is that the wrong? yes for a very long time. i do not think actually have last for a weapon. i think what sound is absolutely right. it was a leverage. it was a way of getting out of the containment that the united states in for the post and the balance is $979.00, which again was largely because of the bonds all and very radical and stabilizing a kid. but nevertheless, the plan was never to actually go for

a ball. what i'm fearful right now is that the internal debate in yvonne may be changing not only because of ukraine, but also because of the fact that stronger perception on the iranian side, that the sanctions that have been imposed on the vaughn are going to be there more or less permanent because of the very strong republican opposition to any kind of arrangement. so even if you've on agreed to get rid of big parts of its program, about 98 percent of its loans, enriched uranium stockpile. if it's still going to be on some form of a sanction, because every time a republican takes the white house, those sanctions are going to get snaps back. at some point the body is, are going to say, if we're already paying the price for having a bomb, what we don't have, the buyers will get $1.00 and perhaps that will change the situation. that's the problem which sanction, in terms of, if there isn't a clear and reliable path to get rid of the other side. and the sanction country

may start record concluding that the only way to get rid of them is to escalate further. and in the case of the law that would be to move towards a bomb or move very, very close to it. and that would be a very bad situation. in my view, roxanne, i think that the neighborhood, as you've mentioned before, is complicated. there are a lot of instabilities you've got yemen, the hudy's, we've got an hour or 2 to month hiatus, i suppose, a ceasefire that, you know, possibly, you know, with the saudis could, you know, create an opportunity to do some negotiating there. but, but part of this puzzle is that the u. a e, this saudi arabia and israel, which have legitimate security concerns in the region, have been long concern about iran nuclear program. they recently met secretary of state anthony blank and, and i'm just interested in, as you look at the signals from your purch, do you see any way or what kinds of concessions might bring? and israel a u. e and saudi arabia, into alignment with the buy in ministration on the, on the possibility of this deal moving forward, or do they become

a kind of permanent veto? well, i think that 1st of all, that, that growing alliance is very important. they both, they all, you know, those 3 along with egypt where, where, where there was also a recent meeting are very much of the views that they should be putting together a, an alliance that is partially directed a containing you ron. and it is very much something that i think we're seeing is engaging in the exchange of quite high level ammunitions and, and technology and surveillance. and we're seeing that happen at quite a case. and i also agree with you very much that i think one of the problems that they see is that once iran might get a bomb, that there would then be a rush for many of the states in that region to,

to get a nuclear program up and running as well. so a very rapid escalation in that area. so i think that itself is something that the saudi, you, any israeli coalition in the sense would like to have control over as, as that direction seems to be the one that we're seeing pursuit. and i think that there's also a sense that i'm at right at the moment. iran is also having real difficulty containing the groups that it's so horrified quite a bit of control over as having real difficulty in terms of the politics going on in iraq. at the moment. it is running into quite a bit of friction with the syrian establishment as well. it has certainly got no, not very much leverage of lebanon, which is so fragile, but in a sense, everybody's keeping hands off there at the moment, in case a war breaks out almost by, by default. so in many ways we're seeing that some of leverage that iraq hostile,

it's malicious and it's various shia crescent. my extension is in a way, right at the moment becoming a little bit more fragile or compromised. and so we're also seeing that that is playing a role at the moment into how far it can be pressed in as we go all the way full circle back to the negotiations. but the j. c, p, a, right? all of these elements are reflecting that that particular balance and how, how other states in the region are viewing it. i remember that before the 1st j, c, p o, a was struck, the 1st iran deal was struck. president obama said unambiguously, we have a choice. we either try to, ah, you know, basically freeze and stop, you know, iran's move to a certain kind of, you know, a nuclear possible capacity down the road. or we're going to be at war. and when he said that we're going to be at war, we're going to have that conflict that,

that collision at some point was very much part of the argument for why the j. c. p o, a came in. so i guess my question to you is, if this deal isn't done, does president obama's equation come back into effect? and where does restraint fit when it comes into the potential for iran, which is not exactly a buddy of ours in the world. we're to get a nuclear weapon. would that then justify a preemptive strike to try to stop that or a military incursion of some kind. i mean, it's an excellent question, steve, and i would start off by saying that i do believe that if there is no deal, the most likely scenario remains some form of a escalation towards a war. but i do think the situation is very different from 2012. what i think obama genuinely believed that if there wasn't a deal, he would be more or less forced to go to war. today we have a very different situation internally in united states. it is quite remarkable how

strong the anti war sentiments are amongst the american public. just take a look at the recent polls done by booking in terms of american attitudes towards the war and ukraine. a hor, in which the overwhelming majority of the american public leave it defaulted. russia did leave. the ukrainians are absolutely right. so more than 65 percent do not want to see any u. s. military involvement in that war. beyond simply providing arms and some training, but the red line is american lives. this is a very different situation compared to just 10 years ago. and i think that is imposing a significant restraint on biden, on yvonne as well as on ukraine. i mean, i think you would have seen a rather different posture 16 years ago if that were taking place there. but so when it comes to the constitution, i don't think it's going to be the same type of automatic escalation. what i do fear, however, is that both sides are going to teach some escalate story steps. and that's going to get them into an escalator cycle in which they will likely end up in some form

of competition, even though neither side grad right. getting to that point, i will will have to leave it there. fascinating, important, consequential conversation with both of you political scientists, roxanne pharma, for my on and treat of parsi, thank you so much for being with us today. thank you. so what's the bottom line? any deal between the u. s. in iran has its enemies. for the record, the u. s. regularly certified that iran was living up to its treaty obligations. but president trump wanted america to exit the deal, no matter what is real in the gulf countries while they fear or research and iran in the region. they prefer iran to be in a defensive position, not one where it can normalize. and on the iranian side, let's face it, some parts of the iranian system thrive from tension with the west, even as they're ordinary iranian citizens suffer. and then there's the problem of what's the point of signing a deal with america only to have it torn up every time the administration changes in the white house. that is the not we're stuck with on the iran deal. and my guess

is we're going to be stuck there a really long time, and that's the bottom line. ah ah, the big lake near attract tourists and under pins, the local economy. thousands depend on his precious souls. ah, i'll just hear a world explorer, the major environmental issues above and below the surface that threatened lake reckless, very existence, cynical speak later on out jesse cutter, one of the fastest growing nations in the way. bonnie, cato needed to oakland and development international shipping company to become a key, middle east and trade and learning skillfully met down 3 key areas of

develop, filling up from it. so connecting the world, connecting the future, won the cato. cortez gateway to whoa trade. oh hello. there, i'm chilling mcdonalds here in london with your top stories on al jazeera, at least 50 people have been killed in a missile strike in easton ukraine. it hit a train station in chroma. torque being used to evacuate civilians. 5 of those killed were children, president loaded me as a landscape called russia an evil with no limit for carrying it out. moscow denies involvement laming key for attacking its own people without offering evidence. they have the european commission has been in ukraine where she called the attack on comma tours, a polling.