welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. how good is the biden administration at multitasking when it comes to international security crises? this year, we're likely to find out. as the us continues to lead the western response to putin's all—out invasion of ukraine, it must prepare for another looming showdown with iran.

the attempt to revive a deal to curb tehran�*s nuclear ambitions is as good as dead. the iranian government is enriching uranium, repressing its people, and arming moscow with drones. my guest isjoe biden�*s iran envoy, robert malley. he's the arch diplomat. but where does the us go when diplomacy fails? robert malley in washington, dc, welcome to hardtalk. thanks for having me. it's great to have you on the show. you've had two years now,

trying to use diplomacy to diffuse the tensions, tackle the differences with iran. is it time to acknowledge that that diplomatic effort has failed? well, stephen, what i'd say is diplomacy never ends, even as we are doing other things — and we've always taken several steps against iran, whether it's sanctions, pressure, countering what they're doing in the region and also mobilizing the international community — even as we do all that, we had negotiations, indirect negotiations with iran. we've said publicly we're prepared to continue those indirect talks, but we will not hesitate to take other steps to stop iran's aggressive behaviour or to curb its nuclear programme. so, it's not an either/or, it's not diplomacy or the rest. everything goes hand in hand. right, it's a question, i guess, of where you place priorities. so, to sort of explore that more and get some context to this, would it be fair

to say that right now, you perceive iran to be a greater threat to us national security than it was whenjoe biden took office two—and—a—bit years ago? well, i think when we took office two—and—a—bit years ago, we already inherited a very dangerous situation because of the reckless decision by the prior administration to withdraw from a deal that was working... right, but i'm really keen to get your sense of the trajectory, the direction of travel in the last two years while you, working forjoe biden, have been responsible for iran policy. i think it's fair to say things have not gotten better, and that iran's nuclear programme has advanced. no doubt about it, no question. i do think it's important to know why we're here, but i understand you want to talk about where we are today. but several things have made us stronger — we are far more united with europe today than we were under president trump, united probably more than we've been in any time that i could recall. and so, that unity with our european partners and with others puts us in a much stronger position to confront iran.

so, you're right, things have gotten worse, iran has developed its nuclear programme in ways that are very dangerous. but we're more united, and we have a stronger position from which to counter iran. is the so—called jcpoa — that is the deal struck with western nations, plus other big powers to ensure that iran would not develop a nuclear weapon — a deal, of course, signed by tehran during the obama administration in 2015, is that deal now, as far as you in america are concerned, dead? so, stephen, i wasn't hired to write obituaries. i'm not a necrologist. i wouldn't pronounce one way or the other. what i'm saying is that iran turned down multiple opportunities to end this crisis and to get back into the deal, for us to get back into the deal, and for them to be back in compliance. they are the ones who turned their back on it. so, you could reach your conclusion, we've said we're prepared to continue talks with iran to reach

a diplomatic outcome... but it's not forjournalists like me to reach conclusions on our own. you know, we're not important, you're important, but even more important than you isjoe biden. and you know as well as i do thatjoe biden was captured on camera in december — at least, we're not sure when it was filmed, but it was released in december — a little bit of video where he was talking to a woman on a rope line in california, and he used that word. he said, "yeah, the agreement is dead. "it's a long story," he said, but he said it's dead. so, if your boss says it's dead, that's important messaging, isn't it? well, i think what's important to know, and i know you're going to come back to this, but what's important to know is there was a real chance to come back in. they turned their back on it. you know, we're not going to act as if that didn't happen. they're the ones who turned their back on an opportunity. so, whatever the diplomatic outcome is, we're prepared to pursue it, and we'll have to see if we can reach one and what it ultimately... yeah, but the point is, if there isn't a diplomatic track to go down any more,

we'd really need to focus on the realities of where iran is with the bomb. how close to acquiring a nuclear weapon — or, indeed, several — is iran right now? so, distinguishing between two things — how close are they to having enough weapons—grade uranium fora bomb? they're very, very close. how close they are to a bomb, that's a very different question. they haven't resumed their weaponisation programme, their efforts to acquire a weapon. if they did so, obviously, the circumstances would change. we're not that close, that's a much longer effort. but we're not comfortable with them being as close as they are today, and that's why we're both pursuing a diplomatic path. and, as president biden said, if that fails, other options, all options will be on the table. and he spelled out what one of those options would be, which was a military option. farfrom our preference, he said it would be a last resort, but we'll pursue diplomacy. but of course, we'll be prepared for other circumstances if iran forces our hand. we'll get to that military

option injust a moment, but let's go through this step—by—step. i noticed, just literally in the last day, the head of the nuclear watchdog, the iaea, rafael grossi, who's been a guest on this show several times, he has now said that he believes iran has amassed enough nuclear material for several nuclear weapons, not just one. and he's talking about that 60% enriched uranium which, of course, can then very quickly be converted into fissile material. so, do you agree with him? yeah, i think what he says is accurate, yes. right. you also, i guess, agree with him and others who point out that things have changed because the enrichment activity that iran is undertaking is now by and large, most of it, it seems, focused on this underground facility in fordow, inside a mountain, which we know is much harder to contemplate attacking if we get to this military option. how concerned are you that iran

has now developed this enrichment capability, and maybe the weaponisation capability, in a way which makes it much harder for you to imagine attacking it? so, not the weaponisation capability, at least, our best assessment is that they've not resumed that. but i don't want to underestimate the issue you raised, it is very concerning. and that's why we have tried hard to resolve it diplomatically, and why we will prepare other options if that fails. but of course, we're concerned at the levels of enrichment, which have absolutely no civilian justification. i think you've made that point with some of your iranian guests in the past. no justification other than to, you know, threaten the world and perhaps, at some point, decide to acquire a nuclear weapon, which is something that president biden won't allow. so, yes, we're concerned, and that's why we'll do everything it takes to stop it. right, so let's talk a little more about the military option, because nothing else is working right now. sanctions have been tried — "maximum pressure," donald trump called it. that didn't stop the enrichment of uranium. you don't appear to have any

new ideas about how a different form of sanctions could stop them doing what they're doing, so we do have to come back to this military option. how much difference does it make that benjamin netanyahu is back in power in israel? so, first, i do have to say, one thing did work in the past. it was pressure, plus a real diplomatic effort, multilateral effort that worked in 2015—16. i will not exclude the fact that that could work again... well, your boss says that's dead. i mean, we don't want to rehash the same argument again... no, but, stephen, stephen, i do have to make a point. he may have said — he said what he said, that's true. he never said diplomacy was dead. that the possibility of an understanding with iran was dead. in fact, we have said the exact opposite time and time again. so, i think there's, you know, we could play with words about what exactly is dead or not. as i said, that's not myjob, i don't write obituaries. i've been charged by the president to seek a diplomatic outcome. that's still what i'm doing, even as we take other steps to those steps. i don't think anyone can doubt

the military capacity of the united states, regardless of what other countries may do. it's not our first option. you know as well as i do that it is a very difficult option, it's a very dangerous option. it's not one that we would engage in, or president biden would engage in cavalierly. he would do it if necessary. you ask about israel — israel has its own interests, it has its own perception of iran. we've not always agreed on the tactics, i think we agree on the objective — which is to make sure that iran can't acquire a nuclear weapon. and we're working very closely with every israeli government. we worked with prime minister netanyahu when president biden first came into office, then with his successors, now with him again. and i'm sure there'll be some tactical differences, inevitably, but i'm also convinced that we'll co—ordinate on the big picture, which is to take whatever steps are necessary to make sure iran doesn't acquire a nuclear weapon. right, i just want to know exactly what is happening between the us and israel right now. i mean, aaron david miller, a former state department

diplomat whom you know very well as a friend and colleague, he says that no experts are disputing israeli leaks about, quote, "more intensive us—israeli planning for some "sort of strike on iran". and as we speak to each other, i believe i'm right in saying that there is still ongoing a joint us—israeli military exercise called juniper oak, which is being described by some people as the biggest—everjoint military exercise between the us and israel. is all of this designed to send a clear message to iran, that the us and israel together are right now actively preparing a military plan for an attack on iran? no, what it's designed to project is, number one, that we have israel's back and we'll work with israel, and that israel and the us together can work to defend their common interests. but it's also to project the fact that regardless of what's happening in ukraine,

regardless of what's happening in the russian theatre, in the european theatre, we could do other things. we can mobilize our military, if necessary, to defend our interests. so, i think it's a sign of our alliance with israel, it's a sign of our capacity to do more than one thing at once. and i'll let those around the world, friends and foes, interpret it as they wish. just a final thought on the us and israel, and what you are saying to each other about iran. does it make any difference to you — i mean, you're a very experienced diplomat who has a long experience of working with the israelis on various aspects of mideast peace — does it make any difference that there is now in power, led by netanyahu, a government more extreme, more nationalist? to quote moshe ya'alon, a former ally of netanyahu, former chief of staff of the israeli army, he said this recently. "who would believe that less than 80 years "after the holocaust and what befell our people, "a criminal, messianic,

fascist and corrupt government "would be established in israel, whose goal is to rescue an accused criminal?" — does it make a difference in your relationships with israel, with regard to iran and other things? so, i'm not going to comment on that description. i'll say, you know, myjob — fortunately for me, perhaps — is i deal with iran, and my relationship with israel has to do with iran. and on that, frankly, not a big difference between what we are hearing from this government, what we heard from the prime minister bennett, prime minister lapid. their views on iran are very similar. we often have a similar view. sometimes, we have different ones. i don't think that on iran, that has made... we're seeing a big difference so far. you have suggested to me — you haven't said it clearly, but i'm guessing it's something implied in things you've said — that your view of how the united states and allies deals with the nuclear problem in iran is compartmentalised and separated from what you see the iranian government doing towards its own people, in terms of brutal nationwide repression right now. have you compartmentalised it?

so, i mean, there's a degree to which we have to, in the sense that we can do two things at once — be very firm about our values, and we could talk about the extraordinary protests and the support that we've given to the people protesting, and defending our own national security interests, which is making sure that iran doesn't acquire a nuclear weapon. those are not incompatible. i think we could be very loud in terms of our support for human rights and basic freedom, and dignity in iran, but also very effective in pursuing our national interests, whether it's countering iranian support for russia or iran's threats to us citizens, or their advancing nuclear programme. there's no contradiction between all of those. well, we'll get to iran and russia in a minute, but just to stick with the nationwide protests and the iranian government repression, which has seen people already executed, more than 100 on death row, more than 19,000 people arrested. there are many activists both

inside and outside iran who are disappointed that the us government hasn't done more notjust to show rhetorical support for the protest movement, but to actually deliver them meaningful help. why haven't you done more? so, first, i think we've done an extraordinary amount. it won't be enough for those people who are suffering exactly the way you describe, they'll always want more. but i can't recall a case of a human rights crisis where the president, the vice president, secretary of state, head of the cia, everyone has spoken as frequently and as loudly about what's happening in iran. i can't remember a case where we moved so quickly to adjust our sanctions, to allow iranians to circumvent the wall of silence that the iranian regime tried to impose by allowing them access to the internet, to communicate with each other and with the outside world. and i can't recall a case where we mobilized the international community so quickly to get iran expelled from the commission on the status of women, an unprecedented step. so, this has been a big

focus of ours, we've worked very effectively. no doubt, the iranian... the protesters and others would want more, because what they would want is to be able to live freely, live with dignity and security. we're not in the business of regime change, and i think we've had enough of an experience, a very sad experience of trying to engineer regime changes, particularly in the middle east. that's not what our task is. 0ur task is to stand up for the iranian people and to do what we can, sanctioning, mobilizing the international community, putting iran sort of in the spotlight, and making sure that the voices of iranian protesters are heard... interestingly... ..and that's what we've been doing. yeah, interesting that you bring up that phrase "regime change" because, of course, you got hammered last october — the protests really began after obviously the killing of mahsa amini in september. but in october, you got hammered because you tweeted out that you felt the protesters wanted respect for their dignity and human rights. you did not make any reference to the fact that they are actually taking

to the streets, demanding regime change. and many iranians said, "look, robert malley "needs to get real. "this is about regime change, and we will not have "freedom and liberty, and basic human rights "until there is regime change." do you not accept that proposition? so, i'm sure you know, since you follow this controversy, that i immediately said i had been wrong. it's not up to me, it's not up to the us government to characterise what the iranian people want. they are doing a pretty good job expressing it themselves. what it is ourjob to do is to stand up for the basic rights of people everywhere around the world and, in particular, in iran. and that's what we should do, and i should not have strayed into trying to characterise what it is precisely they want. but i'm just struggling, if you don't mind me saying, robert malley, to understand what your offer is to people who care about human rights, freedom in iran, beyond rhetoric. imean... well, no, it's notjust rhetoric, stephen. i mean, it is... obviously, it's sanctions and sanctioning people,

including people who thought that they could hide behind the anonymity because they're some provincial head of a prison, but if they torture people, if we have the evidence, we'll sanction them. that's putting the spotlight on it. it's not allowing them to get away with it, because we bring it up at every occasion in multilateral institutions, the votes that have taken place that have isolated iran, expulsion from the commission on the status of women — that's not insignificant either. and so, you know, there's obviously more that people would like to see because they want to see much greater change that it's not in our capacity to produce. right, i'm just mindful at the beginning of this conversation, you did say to me, "stephen, i'm "a diplomat and i believe in the power of diplomacy". and there are reports that even in the midst of these protests and the brutal repression, you have still been talking to the iranian ambassador at the united nations. 0ne iranian news source claims that you've had three meetings with that ambassador

in the last couple of months. is that true? so, i think you've heard us say many times, we have never denied that we have ways of conveying messages to run, and that's important. and the messages have to do with our detainees. we haven't spoken about it, we have three hostages outrageously held, wrongfully detained in iran. talking about threats to the american people and to our presence, to our troops in iraq and syria. and also, the support that iran, unconscionable support that iran has given to russia. we send messages about that. i won't get into how we send those messages, but there's no doubt that we have ways of making sure that iran knows our views. and that's what diplomacy is about. i think you heard secretary blinken say that recently, you know i believe that strongly. we need to talk, including to those with whom we have the most profound disagreements. but i guess, i mean, i don't want to tell you yourjob, you know diplomacy much better than i do, but i guess there comes a point when there is no more point talking. and you talk about what iran is doing with russia. i mean, the facts are that hundreds of drones have been

sent from iran to russia. your colleague, anthony blinken, the secretary of state, has said, quote, "iran has now become russia's "top military backer". and it is also reported that iran and russia are at least talking about the possibility of iranian ballistic missiles being sent to russia. again... absolutely. right, so you're still having a dialogue of sorts with the iranians... no, i mean, let's not overstate... as i said, we convey messages and we convey messages precisely about this, about what the consequences would be if iran crossed that threshold and sent missiles or anything else. i mean, even what they're doing now is something that we find, and the world finds unacceptable, let alone... but you help me and the world, and tell me exactly what the consequences are going to be if iran ramps up its military aid to moscow. stephen, you know, i'm not going to spell out here what consequences they may be. i think that's not, it's not up to me to reveal it publicly. but clearly, there will be consequences. and the europeans have conveyed

similar messages to iran about what the consequences would be to their relationship — and they happen to have a relationship, which we don't — if iran crossed that threshold. and you hear the debate in europe, which has got... i mean, let's not... let's stop on one fact. when we, in 20... when president biden came into office, europe spent as much time criticising the us as it did criticising iran because of the positions that the trump administration took. today, we are united with europe on almost every aspect, if not every aspect of our policy towards iran. and that's very important, and that's a message that iran is now hearing loud and clear from us, from brussels, from paris, from london. it's the same message about the support for russia, about their oppression of their people, about their nuclear programme. that changes... i mean, iran is going to have to make a choice, whether it wants to continue to go down this path of greater isolation, greater pressure, more sanctions, no economic opportunity, or whether it chooses another one. that's also what diplomacy�*s about, is to make clear that

they understand the choice. right, even as i hear you lay out that choice, i'm thinking to myself — well, the truth here is that robert malley and the current administration have ultimately, maybe along with the europeans as well, come around to the notion of, quote—unquote, "maximum pressure", which was actually donald trump's strategy toward iran. you, in essence, are saying to iran, "you know what? "we've tried, but now, it is a case of maximum pressure." so, i mean, a huge difference is, because the term "maximum pressure" was the one the trump administration used, it was a unilateral attempt by the us, and the attempt was to get iran basically to agree to change its regime, because the demands that secretary pompeo had made, as you know, were not realistic demands that the iranian regime was, in any world, going to accept. we have a very different approach, in which we try, we made every effort to come back into the deal. we have re—stitched our alliances with europe,

so that now, we're speaking multilaterally, it's notjust our voice. and what we're asking for is, very simply, for iran to come back into compliance with its obligations under non—proliferation obligations, and to stop supporting russia in a war of aggression that no other country, as you said earlier, no other country is supporting russia in the way iran is. understood. so, that's. .. i think we could both agree that none of what you want iran to do is likely to happen any time soon. indeed, it seems to be going in very much the opposite direction. just a final quick thought for you. do you think, actually, given the nature of our conversation, that the greatest destabilisation in the world this year may not come from the ukraine war, it may come from iran, and yours and the other western powers�* policy on iran? well, we'll do everything to prevent that. and again, i know you sound a very pessimistic note — i still believe in the power of giving governments and regimes clear choices. and they have a clear choice,

and it's a realistic choice. it's in their power to stop this crisis. we're giving them a realistic choice. we're not asking them for something that would be tantamount to surrender. they'll have to make that decision. and if not, you're right, we will go down a path that is more dangerous. it's not our preferred path, but if they force our hand, that's a path that we will continue to, that we will go down. robert malley, it's been a pleasure having you on hardtalk. thank you. hello there. most of us had a fine day on monday with plenty of sunshine around. it was arguably one of the best days weather—wise we'll see

this week, with the sunshine and relatively mild air. it did tend to cloud over in the west later in the day. and that's clouds all associated with an area of low pressure that's up near iceland in the north atlantic. look at this weather front wrapped round and and round and round the centre of the deep low, kind of like water going down a plughole. now, this low is going to influence our weather because the weather fronts associated with that low, even though it's over 1000 miles away. all those fronts are actually dangling across the uk, a warm front followed by a cold front. so we've got a bit of rain from that feature. here comes the cold front southwards over the next few hours, bringing a little bit of rain across parts of england and wales, showers following into the northwest. now, although we did have an early dip in temperatures in the night down to about freezing, actually, temperatures by dawn coming up by about seven or eight degrees pretty widely. and into tuesday morning, the dregs of that weather system clearing the south pretty quickly. any rain, light and patchy. sunshine follows. there will be a few showers into the northwest of england and wales, but the majority of the day, showers for northern ireland and scotland, where some of the showers

will be falling as snow in the mountains, about 500 metres elevation. so for the most part it should be above the road network, really. not expecting any major problems. it's going to be a windy day wherever you are, but particularly so in scotland with gusts of wind reaching around 50 or 60 miles an hour and the winds get even stronger than that as we go through tuesday night. the iceland low passes close to the faroe islands, just kind of squeezes the east of us and give us wind gusts of 70 or even 80 miles an hour across parts of northern scotland. those winds could be disruptive then for a time, still very windy across these northern areas into wednesday before the winds start to ease down a little bit later in the day. it will still be pretty billowy. we've got a warm front that is going to be bringing some rain wednesday across northern ireland into southwest scotland, northwestern parts of england and wales, quite a bit of cloud elsewhere, a few breaks, but mild weather. temperatures 11 degrees across the south. and then looking at the weather picture later in the week, we've got relatively mild air coming around the top side of this area of high pressure.

so weather—wise, well, for many of us, it's going to be largely dry, probably quite a lot of cloud around and staying quite breezy. but look at these temperatures, 12 degrees for a time. for reference, in london this time of the year, the average is about seven. bye for now.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i'm karishma vaswani. the headlines: the us secretary of state says israel must resolve the conflict with the palestinians, underlining washington's support for a two—state solution. security has been stepped up in pakistan after at least 59 people were killed in a bomb attack on a mosque in peshawar. people here, some of them have severe burns, other have broken bones from falling rubble. the number of people coming and keeps rising and the death toll too has been going up. former brazilian president, jair bolsonaro, has applied for a tourist visa to allow him to extend his stay in the us.