i saw man till next to his son. i have only once in my life seen men who are scared to death. 30 years on from the start of the war. pulse near the camp on al jazeera. ah, ah, i am sammy's day dan in dar. how with a look at the headlines here now, jesse are now the ukranian government is describing the attack on the crime, a tall sk train station as deliberate slaughter, and a crime against humanity. at least 52 people. many of them children were killed by a ballistic missile that hit the station in these and city thousands of people who had been hoping to port trains to safety. the kremlin is denying responsibility. a president for the minister landscape tells al jazeera russia could renew its attack

on cave, if ukrainian forces fail on the east in france. so we can see that the war is not over yet, but so many people are excited and happy that some areas have been liberated. and i'm pleased to speak about such places because in others, people are dying. some because of the blockades and others because they're being killed by russian soldiers. but we have put up a face response and they have failed to take cave. a while a lot of attention is focused on cramp towards people and other parts of ukraine remain desperate for hell. zimmerman con explains more. oh good. i need you to know that will know this woman like many others in a suburb of churney, that feels forgotten. forgotten by her government, forgotten by the media. forgotten by aid agencies. she can't live in her home any more. she tells us it was showed last month by russian artillery naylor has no idea how to even tidy

up, much less moved back in. so follow. busy and says that towns like butcher and her pain near the capital of received aid help and attention while hear nothing. the girl was it, this is done is not her house didn't know what happened here. i can't register the damage because the government because i don't have electricity or in there. now, if i could register perhaps they might help. but for now, we just have to help ourselves 9 that in a wooden pursuit to what level gonna be it would depend on the civil administration in geneva is overwhelmed. and so community groups have stepped in to help where once they sold cause they now distribute food a while this might look like a lot of food. it will be gone in a couple of hours, leaving hundreds outside with nothing. this food distribution point operated

throughout the russian onslaught. when they had food, they would open for more often than not. they had nothing today though is a good day. they have at least something to distribute. oh, really uh what i. so clover though, what i see net anxious, mostly people ask for bread and water, you know. but water less now because they have running water. canned food is in high demand. take that in fact anything edible should is they take family. so what does this leave? this man tells us his house was flattered by russian tanks, and no one has come here to offer help. he trudges over the damage with no clue where to even begin rebuilding. the russian president vladimir putin insist that his forces on to targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure. but the evidence against that once again is overwhelming. and in this village

across a large area. and this is where some of the civilians who were also killed or buried. the authorities had to clear part of the woods to make space. these freshly dug graves all bear the same month's march 2022 will be remembered. even if those who survived feel forgotten. now funeral has been held for a palestinian man who was shot dead by israeli troops during a raid in janine earlier on saturday. the 24 year old belong to the military wing of islamic jihad, 13 other palestinians were wounded israel. the army has now left janine after trying to seize the father of a palestinian man who killed 3 people in an attack and tel aviv on thursday. as the headlines, the news continues after the bottom line, stay with us. i

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 of 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 blocking progress and talks in vienna, austria. so where did things stand and what's at stake today,

we're talking with roxanne firm on from my on who teaches international politics of the middle east and north africa at the university of cambridge and treat parssi, 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 uh 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 close and we are still very, very close. but there are some details that are remain ah, for one thing the europeans are completely done with their elements of the deal. and the last things 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 ron was of may the have done it earlier before, but the reason why it's become such a problem right now, it's that it's become public. once it was leaked, both sides found themselves in a impossible position because now it's really difficult for both of them to

compromise, which is probably the intense behind those will be. 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 half the have at least enough, a consensus maybe consensus as the wrong word. but at least the majority view that it's a healthy, that's a resilient deal to get through and. and as i understand it, this a i r, g, c, a 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 sanctions issues. beyond that, the us side is actually done with its request, 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,

there 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 listening 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 merge high school republicans are 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 a 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 treat or 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 a tortuous place for those people to forward this new iran nuclear deal. roxanne, well, i think one of the things 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 is treat, 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 money. 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. if and when it's signed. and i think that like why is one of the issues is that iran 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 what 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 are 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, 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 in foreign terror list and i guess my question to you is you, do you remember when the 1st iran nuclear deal was being negotiated? you had secretary, john kerry, your secretary, ernie mo, knees you had secretary desk secretary, wendy sherman, your 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, 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. you an executive order and then resolve all of these thorny issues from inside the deal. while the iranians, as a result of the u. s. 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 shot to mere weeks as a result of most of the activities. the wrong, as 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 cause. it would have been somewhat challenging and certainly some stony is just 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. saying 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 peter was at this dinner. i had was participating dinner with former iranian president hop tommy who told us that we were fools because iran at that moment when he was there, would have frozen re processing at a non industrial level at a research level and brought the, you know,

the centrifuge down there that we would have had iran and it's sort of flight or indeed level, you know, in perpetuity, and that every time we have, you know, change the game or, or, or move the goalpost. 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 tree to 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, rejoined 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 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 given 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 of weeks. and that means that it has enough weapons, great capacity to build a weapon, but it, it has not done so yet. roxanne, when, as it one of the question here, and i'm not sure many get it outright but entreaty your view too. but i sort of wonder if america and the west have created a real problem and 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 in 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 a iran and have nuclear weapons. and one might st because certainly the, the growing i 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 iran has any kind of nuclear weapon. and what 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 are 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 wars 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 or 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 that provide you with 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 not a tremendously costly one. and i think it's also of a strong signal to other countries in terms of a deterrent. it's not to think that this will really pay off. what i'm quite worried about is that the wrong is for very long time i do nothing actually has last for a weapon, i think looks and is absolutely right. it was a leverage. there was a way of getting out of the containment that the united states postal yvonne since 979, which again, was largely because of yvonne's all and very radical and destabilizing a kid. but nevertheless, the plan was never, i me to actually go for

a bomb. 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 yvonne are going to be there more or less permanent because of the very strong republican opposition to any kind of arrangement. so even if yvonne agrees to get rid of the parts of its program, she about 98 percent of its low and enriched uranium stockpile. if it's still going to be on, there's 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 volunteers are going to say if we're already paying the price for having a bomb, but what we don't have, the buyers will get one 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 the ball move very, very close to it. and that would be a very bad situation in my view, you know, russian, i think the neighborhood, as you've mentioned before, is complicated. there are a lot of instabilities. you've got yemen, that hudy's, it will get an hour to, 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 concerned 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 buyer. and 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 at 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 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, 80 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 at right at the moment, iran is also having real difficulty containing the groups that it's so far as i had 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 its various shia crescent 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 with 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 tours 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 bookings 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, they believe 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 americans live. 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 is that both sides are going to teach some escalate worry 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. get into that. 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 israel 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 at some parts of the iranian system, thrive from tension with the west, even as their 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, so the manual, my g to ship and be set with turmoil and punches on holidays. now, as the president seats a new term in office, a fall, right, this become his biggest electric challenge with, with will it's hard line rhetoric the overshadowed by international event. people in power investigates, frances, fearful campaign. on a just you gotta one of the fastest growing nations in the world. news on the cuts of needed to oakland and development, who international shipping company to become a key,

middle east and trade and money skillfully knocked down 3 key areas of develop, filling up from it. so connecting the world, connecting the future, won the cost cutters gateway to whoa trade. oh, i'm sorry, a dining hall with a look at the headlines here now just here and now ukraine says a miss on attack on climate source could train station in east and ukraine was deliberate slaughter. at least 52 people were killed. many of the children, thousands had been hoping to bore trains to safety. your opinion is from the thing to speed up the process of making you cry and a member of the belong. european commission president does that have on the lie and made the comments during the visit con.