30 years old from the start of the war, near the camp on al jazeera, a showcase of the best documentary films from across the network on al jazeera. ah, with your challenges there with me. so robin in doha, reminder of all top news stories, bucket stones, parliament has removed. iran con is prime minister. he held a vote of no confidence after several delays and a supreme court challenge. the parliament level house will meet on monday to vote for a new prime minister. well, con had warned that he would not recognizing opposition government if he was answered from power. he had promised to crate the lives of jobs, reformed the tax system and root and corruption. but instead he faced public anger because of soaring inflation, a plummeting rupee, and crippling that come,

all hider has more from the capital, is slumber bog on the day's events. edwards high drama that concluded eventually when the speaker of the national assembly decided to resign and give the podium to the opposition. or den went ahead with that vote of no confidence should be remembered. that edward is back in 2018 when amber on con, came in with big numbers. and i've got a kid in the election. he had 155 kids in that parliament, the highest number of him by any political party. and although the opposition and you are aware also that digital position is an alliance of a political party, they have a history of better rivalry, but they all united or no one point a gender to get rid of m ron khan. and of course, we're able to create that. however, m ron hahn may be down. he's not out. he's already called a supporters of protest,

garage markets, dawn on sunday evening after the evening. prayers. and of course, that the opposition wireless rejoicing will be confronted with many challenges because the country, the economy, is in bad shape some of their days because of the fact the international crisis, the oil prices, not to forget the pandemic, which he gulped. read very well by an article in the country. so m, ron cron, after dad was going to a residence in bonnie gala just on the outskirts of rich lama bought and via wiring to fight back by going back to a ship or another. these british prime minister boris johnson has pledged to age ukraine. after holding talks, it presents landscape keith johnson promised to intensify sanctions against russia and provide more military assistance. he's the latest in the line of foreign leaders who have been traveling to the country to offer support you need officials

are urging civilians in the eastern regent of hands to immediately travel to safe areas. warning that russia is amassing forces for new offensive residents are being evacuated from the city of come on, false. i swear strike on the railway station on friday. killed more than 50 people . ukraine says russia 5 missiles at the station, but russia insists keith was responsible. global donors of promised $11000000000.00 to the vote. refugees from ukraine of the internally displaced the european commission and governments like canada amongst the notable backers. more than 4400000 ukrainians and refugees and millions more internally displaced the member states are doing an outstanding job. it's phenomenal. the n g o are working on the ground, the communities, the local communities standing in receiving the refugees. but as i said,

more is needed and any pledge will help a refugee here in the european union. but also this is so important. any pledge will help a person that is internally displayed, so lost their home because of the bumping and shelling of proteins. army within your crane, the israel has imposed collective measures again palestinian inhabitants of janine and the occupied west bank. after 2 of the areas residents carried out to tanks and israel. it follows arrayed in the town during which a palace to the man was shot dead and a dozen more injured at refugee camp. at least 13 african migrants have died after their boat sank off the coast to nicea 8 to dizzy into digital officials as 10 others are still missing books. the bodies recovered were full women and full childrens. those headlines you follow the stories on a website at al jazeera dot com back with more news and half. now next it's the bottom line to stay for the 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 blocking progress and talks in vienna, austria. so where did 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 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 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 ron was, have made, they had done it earlier before, but the reason why it becomes such a problem right now,

it's 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 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 requests, what it wants from the audience. this is the last thing remaining at the 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 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 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, 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 treatise as they 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 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 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 in 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 a 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. funds should be allowed to jeopardize biden's domestic agenda and that legacy has still lived on this is part of the reason why the vitamin destruction 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 tony 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 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 reading material for the ball. it was at 12 months, as long as the deal was in place. it's now shrunk 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 issues such i or do you see which still have been difficult to resolve. but most of the very, very problematic things that the vitamin situation is based wood right now, including a much higher political cost to get this to congress would have been avoided or said 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 treated was at this dinner. i had a was participating 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 posts. 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 want sanctions 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 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 of weeks. and that means that it has enough weapons grade capacity to build a weapon, but it has not done so yet. well, roxanne, when ask 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 in 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 walk, 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, i think that it's a bit more difficult to be on iran and have nuclear weapons and run my 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 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 wars such as we have in that region to have a country now take on the actual development of nuclear weapons and viewed 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 it. 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 that 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 in a reactive situation rather one proactively where nuclear non proliferation regime

for maintained. 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 not a tremendously costly one. and i think it's also of a strong signal to other countries in terms of a deter, it is 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. it was a way of getting out of the containment that the united states postal yvonne since 979, which again,

was largely because of the bonds all and very radical and stabilizing 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 factor, but 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 you've on agreed to get rid of big parts of its program, about 98 percent of its low and enriched uranium stockpile. 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 snap stock. at some point the volunteers are going to say if we're already paying the price for having a bomb, what we don't have, we might as well 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 that on 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 that the neighborhood, as you've mentioned before, is complicated. there are a lot of instabilities you've got yemen, the 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 concern about iran's 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, you a 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 pace. 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, a 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 and lebanon, which is so fragile, but in the 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 leverage that iraq is hostile it's malicious army, 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 adjacent p, o a. 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 away 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 it is 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 my bookings in terms of american attitudes towards the warranty, 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 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. 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, i'm counting, the biden old is what he says is an unprecedented. we each have oil. we says when it brings life is down, can germany, we need self off rush and gas in 2 years and taxing crypto currency profits in india. how will it affect investing? counting the cost on i'll just yeah. with

ah your challenges there with me the whole rahman in doha reminder of all top stories focus on parliament has removed. among con is prime minister. he held the vote of confidence after several days under supreme court challenge. now the parliament slower house will meet on monday to vote for a new prime minister. him on con, had warned that he would not recognise no position government if he was ousted from power. he had promised to create millions of jobs reform, the tax system and routine corruption, but instead he's faced public anger because of soaring inflation. a.