of the talk to expect it soon between european powers and the wrong one is nuclear program . days later, the man who tour up the last agreement, donald trump, will return to the white house. the way the things stand was this each site once that is inside sort of the

hello and welcome to the program. i'm a wrong con. iran says it will hold tools with the u. k. jim and even from geneva next week to discuss its nuclear program. an international deal 10 years ago, limits hanging around new to capability and exchange for reduced sanctions with scrapped by donald trump. he returns as us present this month, but well, strongly hostile to iran. he said then must be another deal. is writing a tax, the weakening of key allies and the collapse of the aside raising have shaken to iran in the past. yeah. so what is each side looking for and could a wrong because you a little hard line stones? well, is a deal really possible? well, hey, from august, surely 1st, this report from victoria gates and b, as it's been nearly a decade since world power assigned to land ma do with a rand. under the 7 nation, a quote around agreed to scale back its nuclear program at western nations agreed

to list financial trade and oil sanctions. that is isolated and crippled iran's economy. but donald trump pull the united states out of that agreement in 2018. he said he ran was a threat in the middle east and the new plan was needed. he re impose sanctions that squeezed a rams economy to run into and suspended some of its commitments. and then you could do an increased uranium enrichment european powers have been battling to save the 2015 do ever since the head of the international atomic energy agency, roughly i'll go see met toper, rainy and officials into around november including president masood position. he's expressed his willingness to renegotiate the 2015 nuclear do the i a says around his enrich uranium up to 60 percent. 90 percent is needed to reach weapons, grade level, the the atlantic republic of iran is ready for new clean negotiations and

cooperation within the framework of previous agreements. it depends on how serious the opposite policies are and this messa, ron made the nuclear agreement and implemented it with good will. it was the other policies who withdrew the the regents political landscape has changed dramatically since the last deal was agreed. rand and its proxies including hezbollah and him, us then we can buy israel in the past. j. israel also attacked who ran it, responded with me, saw strikes. well, trump pull down to the deal, painstaking me forged a decade ago. the bite and administration has not reinstated it, as you are paying powers and do ran, consider what to do next. that doing so with the uncertainty of what policies the incoming from presidency will pice you as victoria gates and b l g 0. the inside story the i

let's bring in august hass on i'm a d n a is a professor at the university of tyrone he joins us from the running capital at 8 grand man is the deputy director of middle east and north africa program. you are paying council on foreign relations to joins us from london and treat the policy. is the executive vice president of the quincy in seduce. he joins us from washington, dc. i will welcome to all of you. let's the entire on with hassan has on. why is this being done now? why is the european powers products u. k, germany reaching out to iran and vice versa, at this particular point as well there, there hasn't been really much in terms of the j. c, p o, a or developments for data to it. what is common and is the president trump back to power in washington and also and all the uh, basically the snack back and account as i'm that was imbedded in the deal is to

come up in october. so to these 2 issues, i have a potential to escalate things between a ron and the uh, you know, the, the, your cans and the united states. the right hands, of course, are trying to stop this kind of disconnection reaching the consensus or reconciliation with the europeans. though there are other issues that are affecting to the connected to the relationship with euro, in particular that, that you create an issue. and i was doing an issue, but i think these 2 matchers are the new things that are uh, add that are added to that, that are to be added to the uh, the, the file that has been basically uh, has been stopped by the united states. uh, back in 2018. uh now they, they are trying to stop, i think were on the uranium part. as you heard from me writing an offer shows they

are trying to basically stop any escalation, which is a heart thing. considering the rhetoric emanating from washington and also the hotline position that your cam parties are now speaking, with regards to avon, that's bringing teresa policy at this point. theresa, you have written a book on the genesis a wrong, actual deal with the us a you feel that it very closely. and the question that most people have is very simple. there was a deal on the table around didn't seem to what are on data stick to the deal, and then the deal was taken off by donald trump. so why not just go back to the deal that we had before? well, this is exactly what the biden ministration should have done and it didn't. instead of going back into the deal right away through an executive order, it decided to use trump's sanctions as leverage in order to see if we could get

a better deal. and instead of it got nothing, and as a result, you now have a situation in which the j, 6, you a, for all practical purposes is bad. snap back as professor i'm a young pointed out, maybe exercise by the europeans and then the next couple of months, which then most likely will trigger any ron in exits from the entity altogether. and we will see a complete disaster on this file has bite and gone back in with not only would we have avoided this, but most likely the volumes would also not be supporting the russians in ukraine in the matter that i currently are doing. so this is a, a cascade of, of events that have taken place, started off, of course, which i'm pulling out, but really getting aggravated by dividing ministration, choosing not to go back into the deal. was bringing natalie. hey, natalie, just what's, what's the european strategy? hey y a front of germany and the u. k. doing this now. that was

a big part of it. is that in preparation for the big uncertainty surrounding the incoming compet ministrations, the europeans wanted to show that they are still in the game of a diplomacy policy making, international policy making on your, on there is a concern. again, given the r nunes wrong president. trump, that he made for the north korea with her on and that the europeans will be sidelines. so i think one of the factors that the europeans went to show that after 20 years of sort of ship hitting this nuclear diplomacy would tend wrong that they stay in the game because in particular, countries lot fonts have huge stake in the system. the commercial system surrounding the nuclear preparation, and they wanted to show that some of the inspections and warm springs on rollback called the wrong in nuclear activities happen if there is new kind of go solutions . secondly, as proof of the, you know, pointed out the issue, snap back is really the last remaining tool of leverage that your opinions have at

the moment. these are the test, ron, and these meetings and sort of a reminder from the european side to, to, for on that there is a slow turning over to runs. head per se, that is, iran provides too far escalates to for nuclear activities that they were peas. we force triggers not bought earlier than they may have to get a ton of money is coming up in october when a critical decision has to be made. and also that leverage can be used to push pressed the wrong into nuclear diplomacy with the united states on terms that it may not necessarily want from the wrong inside, but feel compelled to give them what's happened on, on the regional landscape in recent months. but i suggest that that i think from the wrong side, there was also an interest to ensure that they sort of p law off the 3 the so of the 3 countries that are policies to nuclear diplomacy with the ross from

a potential maximum pressure campaign from president trump, in his 2nd time. so there's an interest from both sides to continue this diplomatic tongue go, go forward until the tips for them. we understand exactly where us policy goes on the wrong. well, that's bringing house on hey, how son, or is this the iranians peeling off as a and he just said, you created diplomacy? get a framework done right now. then present. donald trump has to follow a he'll be boxed in by. is that a strategy as well? i think the 2 parties are talking to one another with one eye on the white house to see what are the options that are on the table a come to january 20th, or the europeans as early as mentioned. i think they, they have a stake that they want to stay in the game and i think the reading ends on just stand by them. welcome that,

provided that these parties are not going to be more catholic than the pope putting more pressure on to run than it is already. and by snapping back a, the sanctions that you and sanctions now in terms of uh, the radium priorities, of course they don't want escalation for their ideal outcome is and we can see the ation may be in the short window of opportunity to do that. i think it is going to open with the new administrations, washington. it is a reconciliation that can basically re a re reinstate as sort of a deal that can resemble the j cpa not exactly the j 6 here by the saint. john would lower the sanctions that were imposed unilaterally by the united states on yvonne now snap back mechanics. and we'll do the opposite by basically

international revising the sanctions that are you in the lateral. now it will give it more, a legal brain international, the right. of course. that's a concern. but ron has, and i think it's part of the rational why they ran against are now talking to the europeans, considering really the harsh rhetoric we hear from you. okay. and capitals trade. so one of the things that donald trump said, one of the reasons for pulling out the deal is he said that iran didn't stick to the spirit of the deal that they were still supposed taking was now called the access of resistance. how boss has beloved the who fees, etc. so that's likely is a clue, isn't it likely that that is going to be part of any new deal? is that, do you think that's correct? i think it is quite likely that the next deal, if there is one, will contain other elements and regional aspects are obviously going to be quite

important, but whether they will be central to it, whether they will be t variables to it remains to be seen. i think actually the main concern of trump has, is not the regional aspect, but rather why did the original gdcp way not allow american companies to go in to the wrong in market a lot of chinese russian european companies to go in, but not the american ones because the by the obama administration did not towards primary sanctions, meaning the sanctions that the us imposes on its own companies. on the table. i think trump's key interest here is to make sure that if any deal this truck, that he can say he's got a better deal because it will benefit the american economy and the american businesses. and there is an opportunity there because the vanya is, are now realizing, i think, that they will not be any sustainable american sanctions release. unless there is

actually american companies, any board meeting that european companies will go into your, on, we'll leave on this on the minute. if the u. s. reimpose the sanctions, but if american companies are in the bonded, will be much more difficult for the us to ever go back to sanctions policy. so if you actually want to have sustainable sanctions, really, if you need to welcome in the america as into the learning economy. so i think there's an opportunity there. uh, since this is a key, trump interest the wrong, it seems to be realizing this. the question is, is if the mechanics and the movements of diplomacy actually enabled the 2 parties to even get to the stage of discussing these core issues. i think it's an interesting point is that because you've heard trace of policy that talk about the idea that when donald trump is a business president, you want the american interest put 1st, that might not chime very well with the europeans, but i mean, that's going to be sticking point when it comes to getting everybody together, surely like i think that's and for better for

us we are in a situation where there are so many tens points between your up either on the new fathers, obviously one of them. but you have the ross support to russia as the or p c. it in the board and ukraine, you have financial issues of the west, the detainees on just be held in iran. so we are in an environment, but even if there is a new could do that. uh, the options are positive, but i don't see that there's going to be a rush of your businesses to the wrong of european diplomats going to run in the same way. don't be sold with the opening of following the 2015 you can deal. i think what we are entering into is a much more direct negotiation and we've had the full between the us and iran. if indeed, as mr. pulse, he said there is going to be diplomacy, but that actually this time round in an ironic way is going to be the rub

axes, your arms neighbors that are going to take your traditional role in both to promote account reach whichever on but also the, the trauma can't reach this iran, i think this is understanding that there's going to be a triangulation of economic benefit. stop involved with the ride from a future deal that would 1st and foremost come from countries like for example, could talk the united aarp and ross and saudi arabia. and in this way, there is a pass for what, where the west obviously does the nuclear diplomacy. what's wrong on the, on the goals states around here on do some of the regional security discussions with the wrong. but the economic benefit set the right from us sanctions listing come from some of the runs neighbors 1st and foremost in ways that produce that. traditionally, we have seen come from europe, so i think the games is a very different one than what we saw in 2015 us on the game is a very different one from what we saw before. or is it wrong?

is us to give up the support for the excess of resistance and mass as black, such as we mention before, if it's off to 10. but it's regional influence. is that gonna fly with iran? is that going to be something they are willing to negotiate on what, what the red lines that i think they really is where clear back in 2015 that they will move towards regional agreement with the west provided that the nuclear deal would stick. and that would work for the right hands economically. i think the that the iranian experience is quite the opposite. that does not materialize. now i don't, i don't see any reading an objection to deal on a uh, on a bigger basically deal with the west on a bigger platform. actually it was you rhonda personally propose the grand bargain back in 24, but did not receive any answer from the united states that included regional

aspects of course. now with regards to trump, i think uh, i think uh, i mean, no matter what that excuse was one of the biggest deals that has been signed by who run the past 4 decades. what with was with boeing. so the ranges understood that they need to get engaged with the, with the, with the get the american companies engaged in. yvonne have done their interest also uh, an intent during the, when you in market. but that did not really stop trump. actually trump once a deal for himself, he did it like the 1st deal because it was obama cuz he wanted a new one. and the warranty as well. okay, but the way he pulls a, uh, pulls the united states out of the deal against its uh, basically the legality of the, of the, uh, the of the deal did, did not appeal to the waiting. and so they did that. they couldn't really well,

i mean, that's a very good point, but let me, let me pick the up with a trace of straight to, you know, trust is the cooling of diplomacy. it's the, the bedrock of deployment, say that was a deal. come ripped to all up. why should be around ins, trust a new deal coming from trump, even if it's a business based one, as you might suggest, could happen. why do they trust them? so i trust obviously is important, but trust is not something that you just get on the spot. trust is something that is built up actually to agreements over the course of a very long time. what you need to have in place is mechanisms and that it helps you build trust. and there are plenty of good reasons for the vonnie is not to trust drum to not to trust the united states and vice versa. the question is, do there interest a line? do they have an interest in trying to see if in that range been can be put in place? i think trump has an interest he wants to get out of the middle least he wants to

reduce the risk of the us getting dragged in it towards over there. he wants to be able to say, as a professor might be all said that he did a better deal that this is good for him. this is about his ego. if you take a look around, there's probably 3 major deals that can be struck by trump within the 1st year. one is between russia and ukraine. one is between israel and saudi arabia and one is between the us and the wrong between the 3. despite the fact that they're all very difficult, it seems to me that the vaughan may actually be the lowest hangings proved for many different reasons, including that the us is the main actor in the deal making. whereas it is not necessarily in the other ones. and as a result, they may very well end up being the trump prioritizes this issue, and that perhaps not immediately, but after realizing how difficult the others are. and then the question is, does that align with the volume interest? and if it does so, they will have to take a chance, both of them,

and then if it works out, then perhaps some trust will be built, if not further, trust depletion will take place. but if you make trust a pre condition for the you will not get a deal on the, almost any circumstance, at least an interesting point that treats and makes in, in washington dc. he's talking about the americans and that, you know, the push for diplomacy, this idea, it's a low hanging for eggs, so it's a deal that can get done. but there is a elephant in the room here as well. is israel? israel has a say in american foreign policy like, well, no, that's actually just the fact. so as well, these guys get involved in this as well. and as we've seen from israel, there's a hard line when it comes to any deal to be made. now whether you your opinions at um, along with all of this, and where is america with, with this idea of the israel, he's going to have to have a site as well as i think said, and keeping israel closely engaged in the discussions that happen

with iran. is something that your opinions and the us administration and you've been under biden, has on the students and assessed it to you to prevent them from icing as a spoiler. so i think going forward and there's going to have to be sort of a management of relations from both to ron and the united states actually. so on the west side, we have a president's an incoming president, trump that may actually unlike any other president and recent time be able to and let's say strong on israel into accepting a deal between the us that yvonne and i do think that the notes in yahoo administration will be willing to put up assuming that type of flight that we sort of put up under obama, against it trumpet ministration. i remember that there's going to be a whole series of trade offs that will be happening between the us and as well on issues like what's happening in gaza 11 in syria. so we are again,

as i mentioned in a very different game today than we are in 2015. so that needs to be understood. but again, president trump is going to be a president which will not want to be told what to do, of buying these really administration and is likely to push back. also, we're going to have a quite a strong hold of republicans in the us congress. and the last time a deal was agreed between the us and iran under president obama. there was a lot of work to be done in the us congress because they were also being essentially courted by is ready interest at that time. but i think now given that a loyalty to present to him is the number one priority for republicans. if there is a deal being pushed forward by president from you, your message get less pushed aside from the public inside and also less, less post spots from the democrats that are interested in avoiding major conference

with her on. and on the ronnie inside there will have to be relationship management with russia. i don't see, sorry, i have your running out of time and i do want to put you made some very interesting points today. and i want to put one of them to have fun. i think the idea of the negotiation teams right now is a very different time is a little, i guess, of said including you. then it was when the initial agreement was made. is iran going to push to a hard line agenda? have a much tougher negotiating stones this time around and knowing the stakes might be a lot higher. actually, yvonne has never patel. you very hard line a, you know, policy when it comes to negotiations with the last in the, after the jcp re, their uh, pro engagement reform mind its new president, president, position can, is actually, is very much into dealing on a credit mad. a crisis. and i think that's what 12 dictate runs position. moving

forward, i don't think a brand new hands are interested in any hotline position. they haven't been, they only stick to their basically, they were saying that, but just if you raise the basis for any reading engagement now i think it will be the basis for an uber engagement. and it, we haven't, i've restriction but is inclined to dealing based on it, but also with pragmatism. so no, there is no hard lining better hard line position. but at the same time, i mean 11 hand can my clap there is, there is another side that is the united states. uranium is r i n g washington to see what stands and what policy it will choose, what direction will choose. is it a maximum of pressure revert back to enforcement as they call it, or they want to get to a real serious and reconciliation whether you're wrong now or other issues, way in your including israel, a crane others. i think it's, it's very complicated,

but provided that there's a, well, there's a way. well, let's pull that to, to treat that. theresa, is this a cause for optimism? is a deal that we don't know know you called at low hanging fruit earlier, but having listened to a gas, do you think there's an easy deal or is this going to be yes and the make it, you know, i don't think it's easy at all and i wanna emphasize, i said, a relative low hanging fruit compared to the others. it's going to be very, very complicated. i do think, however, that some sort of a framework or roadmap agreement can be agreed upon on a relatively short basis. and from there on see whether it can be filled out with all of the different details that are necessary in order for there to be a final agreement. and such a roadmap or framework agreement. and in and of itself can be tremendously valuable because it can essentially stop the, the, the escalation that it's taking place. it can have

a d s can latoria effect in and of itself to just reach uh, a framework agreement in short order. given the fact that the region is on the verge of explosion, given what these railways are doing and live in on, in gaza, increasingly in syria as well. the firing from the who teased to israel, the risk of a larger war. having that type of a framework agreement, that kind of puts a lid on the escalation is in and of itself tremendously valuable. and that i think can be achieved in relatively short order, but little eyes on january 20th. then on the, you know, duration of the new us present. i wanna thank oh i guess i'm fine. i'm again l e. karen mae a entry, it's a policy and thank you to for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting all websites. i would, is there a dot com for further discussion? go to a facebook page about facebook dot com, forward slash a inside story. and you could also join the conversation on x on handle is at

a jayden side story for me and wrong. com. and the whole team here, bye for now, the, the democratic nations justified this kind of behaviors. collateral damage has collateral damage. that's watch. reality is leading to what we're seeing that will allow me to push back for a moment is the us is continuous, corporate israel, affecting it's a little bit standing from the impact to the us selections, the escalating conflict in the middle east of the urgency of climate action upfront sets the stage for serious debate on out jersey or examine the impact of today's headlines. know for empower, liberated issue in spending in syrians hands to determine how the future looks like setting agenda for tomorrow's discussions. if you all people from across the world

can collaborate, why can our world leaders international filmmakers, them world class journalists, bring programs to inform and inspire too many to justin pratt and much is it this should be on the agenda for now to sierra the there's no limit to how a dream contains sta in your own adventure, now counter and read. so one of the words wherever screeches numbers are plummeted due to deforestation. culture and climate change indian signed a fighting to puts it to one of the most important things to come to the species is coming during the habitat 101 east. we've used the bottle to save into use with oh

no, just the showcase of best. the next one on al jazeera, the i money insight into law. he had top stories on al jazeera. is there any military has killed 59 palestinians and injured at least 217 strikes across the gaza strip in the past 24 hours. on the strike on a cot, in con eunice, in southern gauze, i killed 5 palestinians, and bodies were taken to the doctor hospital. this is the optimal suff in his riley strike on the tent sites and their umbrella in central garza area was housing

palestinians that had been forced to flee that.