>> from our studio in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> i don't want to give the iranians the public excuse to flout the agreement.

a good lead our international partners to think that we are not honest. we did not mean it when we said that sanctions are not an end in themselves, but a tool to pressure the iranians into a diplomatic solution. >> mohammad khazaee is here. the election of rouhani last november was a major breakthrough. now the two countries face a common threat, extremists that are active from lebanon to iraq to syria. it remains to be seen whether this common enemy will force greater cooperation. the u.s. is committed to all assad leaving power. many believe that iran wants to keep him in power. i'm pleased to have the ambassador at this table. >> thank you charlie. it is a pleasure to the here

with you. >> you have helped me with a number of visits to tehran. here it is, the idea that the united states and iran might have a common interest. tell me how you see this from the iranian perspective. >> thank you. obviously you may point out some common interest in the region as well as some other issues around the world. i have to mention here that the cooperation in this is another issue. basically, iranian foreign- policy and our presence in the

region is based on the principles. differences may come between other countries. their policies may not come to us. on this particular issue, i have to say that defeating extremist groups, violence, and terrorist groups activity in the region is something that the islamic republic of iran has always been trying to work towards. in the case of afghanistan, we have been fighting many groups. they are doing the same thing. at some point we must work together.

on the issue of the situation today, also we are witnessing that the country is threatened by terrorist groups. it is very important for iran to try to help the iraqis govern in that country. stability and security is very important. regardless, the position of the extremist groups in the region -- we are doing our best with this government to overcome the problem that we have. the question is, does it mean that there is a possibility for cooperation between the two countries? it depends on many other issues. we are not relying on that matter.

this is the principle of foreign-policy, to try to keep the region secure and stable. we will offer how to the iraqi government to do it. >> how much of it is sunni versus shia? >> our experience in iran shows that sunnis and shia have never been fighting against each other. officially in iran, we do not have such issues. the point is that mainly, i think, some in the world are trying to show that this is a fight between sunni and shia. even if they are right, we have to try to stop it. >> you support hezbollah? you want to see assad stay in power is because it gives you access to send arms and other

material to hezbollah in lebanon. correct? >> this is not the whole story. the syrians help us a lot. what you say about syria, the instability, the integrity of the syrian is very important to us and the region. this is the responsibility of the syrian people. that is why we have supported any kind of an initiative to stop -- to bring together the opposition groups. i am not talking about the terrorist groups. we want to solve the problem and come up with what we want to see for the future of the country. >> how strong the commitment to the individual bashar al-assad?

would you, would iran, be part of some negotiation that would witness his removal from power if there were a division of power in syria? >> i do not believe that based on any international law, any country has any right to do anything about this. they cannot do anything about the government and other countries. what needs to happen syria should be led by the areas. it should be a decision -- it is the responsibility of the syrian people. either they want to go along with the assad government, or they want to choose another one. we should not force them to do something that they may not want. if they wanted, it is up to them. >> you are not necessarily predisposed to that government? >> we do not dictate anything on the syrian people.

this is what our guys to other countries is as well. >> how much of what is happening in the middle east is a contest for supremacy? especially in the persian gulf? >> of course it is the persian gulf. for thousands of years. >> how much of the conflict in the persian gulf is between the desire to be the dominant player between saudi arabia and iran? where is that as a factor today? >> talking to you is not an easy thing charlie.

let me say two facts. the first fact is that we have not and we are not trying to dominate the region. despite some disputes and misunderstandings, especially between iran and other countries in the region -- >> saudi arabia, the emirates. >> i will not name any countries. we have tried to maintain a relationship between iran and muslims. it has been said by president rouhani and others. we have to try to have normal and good relations with all of these muslim countries. this is the foreign-policy, the irani and foreign-policy principle. iran is a powerful country. nobody can deny it. the point is because iran is a powerful country and iran has a

rich history and so on, it does not mean that the iranians are looking for a kind of supremacy or dominating the region. even if you look at the situation case-by-case, you will see that we have been trying to bring peace and security to different countries, including disputes among certain countries. i totally reject any idea that suggest that the iranians are trying to dominate the region. >> is the war in syria a proxy war? between saudi arabia and qatar and iran? >> what you see today is based on the idea that every day, 100 people from opposition groups

are killing each other. they attack each other, rather than fighting with the government. but that is the new phenomenon. >> what is going on? some people may call it a proxy war. it is not really a proxy war. it is an unfortunate situation in which people are killing each other. those terrorist groups, they have not been able to decide if they are going to attend a conference or not. that is the situation. we have to try to avoid any kind of proxy war in syria. we have to get together to stop the bloodshed in syria. let me tell you something. when ban ki-moon visited iran for a heads of the state meeting, he was asked his views on syria.

he said, i think the first priority for syria is to help to stop the bloodshed and killing in syria. it will pave the ground for all of us to help syria decide what they want to be. >> are you doing that if you have the head of the coup forces in damascus? are you directing the forces against the rebels? >> i do not have any information to suggest that the irani and forces are leading in syria. >> therapy reports of a presence. >> i have no information on that. i cannot confirm it. >> but you are not denying it. >> thousands of people in yemen are sent into syria.

even if iran has a good relationship. >> why are they doing that? >> to destabilize the government. >> so it will become what? a failed state? a state that will be susceptible a kind of nation-state under the control of the most radical elements? >> if we want to discuss this issue, which is very important, we have to speak about the role of the syrians in the region for the past hundreds of years. you have to look at the threat coming from the israelis and egypt. you have to look at the relation between syria and lebanon, syria and its neighbors. this is not something to

describe in a short interview. the point that i want to make, the support of iran, for syria, and getting the syrian government -- it is very legitimate. the syrian government is a government. it has been recognized by the united nations. it is recognized by the international committee as a government. there are some problems over there, of course, we will not deny it. the most important thing is that we have to have people from syria -- >> that iran support will russia and the united states are trying to do with respect to the chemical weapons and getting them out of the country? and develop some kind of dialogue that will lead to a january 22, some conversations in geneva?

does iran want to participate as secretary of state kerry said they could be on the sidelines. what does iran want to get out of this? >> you are well aware that we and russia work together. unfortunately, we succeeded and came to a deal about the elimination of chemical weapons. we know that -- >> from iraq? >> we have been working and pushing for it. the chemical weapons issue in syria -- it is something that we and the russians are working on together. it should be appreciated. on the syrian situation, we have said that we are ready to

participate in a conference. we are ready to offer any kind of help that we can. >> what do you hope comes out of the geneva conference? we have to get the chemical weapons out of syria. >> that is another issue. >> that is part of it. the chemical weapons are the incentive to get a deal going. what is the endgame? >> the syrian government has to get together and other countries have to help them -- >> to do what? >> they have to pay the ground for the development of syria for their future. is it possible or not? i do not know. as far as the iranian participation is concerned, the invitation in our name --

participation in the sideline is something that we have to care about. >> you might be willing to accept precipitation on the sideline? the idea that you hope, your government hopes, is some kind of end of bloodshed. to see some what? >> some kind of action. >> between the rebels and the syrian government? >> they must come up with a plan for the future. whatever is decided should be led by the syrians. >> if it means the exit of bashar al-assad, decided by those people, then so be it. >> no country has the right to decide about the government of another country.

>> characterize for me the agreement between iran and the united states, the so-called interim agreement. i sat with people over the holidays, and this was always the conversation. what did the iranians give up? in terms of the development of their nuclear program? in terms of having the capacity and the centrifuges and one facility to create nuclear energy and possibly a nuclear weapon. did they give up anything? >> i thought it was an agreement. you got the reduction of sanctions.

>> that is a good question. i know it is in the mind of some people. the first issue is that what the iranians have been doing is their right based on -- the nonproliferation treaty. they have done nothing wrong. they have not found any diverse and india nuclear program. the second issue is sanctions against iran. they are against international rules and agreements. they are hurting people. we cannot compare this to each other. the point is -- >> they are hurting the government. >> other authorities in iran, especially with president

rouhani, we have the right to enrich uranium. >> the secretary of state said that that agreement did not give you right to enrich uranium. >> this is not something that we have the right or not. the point is, we need 20% enriched uranium for -- tehran. the main point is that if the concern of the united states and some of the other countries is that iranians may acquire the capability or the power to bills a bomb or something like that -- >> or have the capacity to get there very quickly.

>> that is not something you can hide from anybody. the point is that there are concerns about the iranian nuclear program. to make a bomb were something like that, it is not our policy. we are ready to cooperate with you and make it clear to you that we are peaceful and transparent. in that regard, if there are problems -- i think that the iranian negotiating team will remove these concerns. we do not have a bomb or something to remove. >> no one is suggesting that. not even americans would say -- >> the issue is trust.

there is suspicion. we believe that by negotiation, we can remove those kinds of issues. >> that is the benefit in our agreement. you can find some reason to develop, as reagan would say, trust and verify, some reason to trust. >> exactly. that is the main point in my view. >> how does iran convince others that they do not want enrichme of uranium because they want a nuclear bomb, but they want to do it for peaceful purposes? >> at least be there -- at least the last 30-35 years, we have been peaceful. there's a negotiation that we have had before. >> no it hasn't, with respect. it has done exactly the opposite. it has convinced more people to

your intent, because of not fully disclosing things that would become revealed -- the international community did not know about it. is that history that has caused people to be -- >> these kind of allegations and suspicions come from those countries and a regime in the region that they already have a nuclear bomb. >> fair enough. >> if they are really against these things, they have to do something about their own programs. there are some suspicions. we have said that we will do as much as we can to make it clear to you if you are really ready to work with us.

the problem is that we cannot trust fully the other side. >> and they cannot fully trust you. >> exactly. they must really be ready to take positive steps. fortunately, so far, negotiations between iran and the u.s. were positive. >> since the election of rouhani. >> yes. we are hopeful that tomorrow's meeting will be successful. let's look at the future. let's see what we can do together. we do not have any intention to create issues. if there are any problems and suspicions, let's work together. but the press come in as well.

>> i know you have to go. i want to stay with this idea. >> you are not negotiating the nuclear issue of course? >> no. >> thank you. >> did something happen in iran with the election of hassan rouhani? did that reflect or create change? what does it represent? clearly there are still opposing and competing forces, as there are republicans and democrats in america. and there is labor and tory in britain. what did it represent and how strong is it? everyone knows that the ultimate power in iran is with the supreme leader.

it seems that he has said, let's see where these negotiations go. go make a deal. help me understand. >> again i have to talk for hours. i think the election in iran that president rouhani was elected with a good majority that supported them is a clear indication that the iranian system works. we are experiencing a kind of democracy in the region that is unique. it should be appreciated. of course, what happened in iran

that should be seen by the international community is first of all, the iranian political system is alive. other countries have democracies, they have opponents, groups, different parties, and so on. also, the iranian people have to support the islamic republic. the result of the election actually empowered iran and the islamic republic to continue with the iranians want and to be seen in the region and internationally as a power that can help the world. i think the response that we got from the general assembly on the

morning of extremists shows that the united nations and the international community has misunderstood the message that came from the election. it was a big issue. it was a phenomenon in iran. it proved that the iranians are trying to support the system by electing the right people and the right person. they are serious to continue on. >> thank you. >> it was a pleasure to see you. >> the ambassador of iran to united nations. back in a moment. stay with us. >> but i will say that we are

working with great intensity, serious purpose, and with a commitment to try to resolve this conflict that has gone on for many years too long. in which i think presents is now

with the possibility of trying to find a framework agreement which would really lay out the endgame. >> for decades, american diplomats have attempted to broker a palestinian-israeli peace deal. secretary of state john kerry kick started the process last july. he just returned from his 10th trip to the region. he promised that any framework would be fair and balanced. joining me now is riyad mansour, the permanent observer to the united nations for palestine. i am pleased to welcome him. where are we? >> one should admire the tenacity and determination of secretary of state kerry. he is visiting this region almost on a weekly basis for two

weeks. he is determined to try to deal with all of these complicated issues. he would like to accomplish the objective of ending the occupation that started in 1967 and for allowing for the independence of palestine so we can have the objective of a two state solution. there have been challenges before him, but he is determined to try to resolve these challenges. we hope that he succeeds in that objective. >> what do we know about what he is trying to do, for example. clearly the israeli objective is some kind of israeli defense forces in jordan, in the river valley. correct? it appears to be part of the conversation. >> for us, we said it is to end

the occupation that started in june of 1967, in order to allow for the two state solution, one state has been in existence since 1948. the otherwise struggling for independence. if we want to end the occupation, it means that we have to prepare both sides to be ready for removing institutions. this connection with regard to security in the jordan valley has occurred more than one time. if we want to end the occupation, israeli occupying forces cannot remain in the jordan valley. we accept the presence of a third-party presence there, including american forces.

they may stay for a reasonable amount of time that we mutually agree upon. >> you do not accept the presence of israeli troops? >> if we except that, we do not end the occupation. if we want to end the occupation, then we cannot keep the forces of the occupiers on our land. >> israelis always talk about security. you have argued that security would be maintained by the presence of some international force. >> that is the objective. but they do not trust anyone. why don't we have a party force there? a combination of u.s. forces, american forces? it is working in southern lebanon. it is working in the sinai. why should it not work between the state of palestine in the state of israel. >> we know that gaza is

controlled by hamas. correct? >> yes. >> israelis constantly make this point in conversation with me and other journalists. and in public forums. we ended the occupation of gaza and look what happened. what do you say to them? >> we told the israeli authorities in the year 2005, let us negotiate the withdrawal from gaza. they refused to do that. there was a redeployment of their forces. that was an action by them. they are responsible for that. however, we are saying that if we have peace with them, we can resolve all of our status issues. we can end this occupation and allow for the independence of palestine. all of those issues that they are raising with regard to the gaza strip, and to the other

parts of the occupied areas, will enter a new stage of phasing them out and therefore the the authority that the israelis have will start to evaporate. >> how close is secretary kerry to achieving his objective in the timeframe he has that? it seems like an insurmountable task. >> he has made a slight change in the course. in 6-9 months we would receive a peace treaty. the borders, the security in jerusalem, water, and refugees. now the discussions that are presented by heads of state, he is talking about the framework. the framework is like parameters.

if he wants to accomplish the objective of having an agreement within the next few months, before the expiration of the nine months, then it will become obvious that he needs additional time. we need additional time to negotiate a final treaty based on the framework of the boundaries. that is what he is trying to accomplish now, an agreement on a framework. it needs to be clearer, more precise, this is what he is trying to accomplish from now until april. >> many people talk about the demographic argument. they talk about the fact that there are increasingly a larger number of people who believe the

idea of a two state solution is slipping away. do you share that view? what are the implications of a one state solution? >> i think the extremists in israel, particularly those who are supporting the colonization enterprise are creating reality is from the ground that would make it difficult for a two state solution to be the solution that should be put in place. in spite of that objective, that they do not want to allow a palestinian state to acquire its independence israel, here we are talking about the west bank, including east jerusalem and the gaza strip. 22% of the land. if they do not pave the way for the separation and a two state solution to take place, then they are digging the ground for

the possibility of one state solution. they are not going to leave their land. they are staying there. the problems that they will face, if all of us lives in historic palestine, and the demography is approximately 50/50, palestinians versus jews in the same area, this would be defeating the objectives of zionism, of trying to build a state where the majority would be jews. >> do you have any problem with calling israeli a jewish state? >> israel can call itself whenever it wants. i have had meetings of many jewish leaders, including in the city of new york. they asked me this question. it is up to israel to call itself what it wants. they can change their name.

the iranian ambassador was here and he said they can change the name to the islamic republic of iran. for us to demands a name change, or to accept this name, it means that they have an additional agenda. what is that agenda? >> they have a claim to that lands. we have no right to be there. it includes 1.6 million palestinians who are israeli citizens. that is a debate that is taking place inside israel. it is up to them to decide what kind of the state they want to be. do they want to be a democrat a, where israel is the state for all its citizens? or do they want to be a state for the jewish people, and therefore for excluding 1.6 million palestinian arabs who are israelis. that is not our debate. >> it is your debate if they

insist that you recognize them as a jewish state. it is part of the agreement. >> the palestinian leadership, as far as i know, they will not accept that demands on us. >> secretary clinton believed that he got nowhere. >> that was an agreement for limited freeze, a moratorium they called it for 10 months. we negotiated during the last month: and we did not negotiate during the freeze. one in washington, d.c., and one in the presence of benjamin netanyahu.

these negotiations did not produce significant results during that last month of the freeze. we asked the americans at the time for an extension of the moratorium, hoping that there would be a change in attitude by the israelis. let me say this. if you want to end the occupation of 1967 in order to allow for the state of palestine, and if you wanted to live together in peace and harmony, you should be preparing your society for the eventuality of removing everything that was created by this occupation. you should not be increasing, building more settlements, bring more settlers. if you do that, this is a complete contradiction. you are saying, yes you want to

have peace. by your action is saying that you do not want to have peace. >> they are talking about more settlers. >> yes. if i negotiate with the israelis to end the occupation and they continue building more settlements and expanding settlements, are they truly going to allow for the independence of the state of palestine? should we stop settlement activities. we need an indication that they are serious about stopping this occupation. if you negotiate with us, your action is telling us that you are buying time. you do not want to really terminate this occupation. the settlers will win. it is something for the israeli leaders to decide.

we went back to negotiations without creating settlements because that is another indication of how the palestinian leadership is committed. the release of prisoners had nothing to do with the settlement. >> it had to do a good-faith. >> we delivered on that. we promised that we would not see joining un agencies and becoming part of those conventions. we are honoring that commitment in exchange for the release of prisoners. we did not make a commitment on an agreement with the israelis that in exchange of releasing the prisoners, they could build settlements. we never made that agreement. there is a global consensus that the settlements are illegal. we are saying, stop this illegal behavior while we negotiate.

give us an example that you are negotiating in good faith. >> some argue that these settlements would make it hard for a israeli prime minister to it drop. there would be a battle. >> that is what i am saying. the more they continue the settlement activities, the more the actions speak louder. they would not be able to withdraw. >> you understand clearly from what you have said, the israelis have a need for security. of course you understand that. i had another guest here who said that the palestinians want peace and justice, the israelis want peace and security. how can security be guaranteed? how do you build the confidence that that security, when you are

now more powerful, will not be threatened? >> the best security there is is peace. the development of technology and the issues about nuclear weapons, how can you guarantee the security of the state of israel in the age of rockets, ballistic rockets, and nuclear weapons? this is the best guarantee. we are saying that the united states of america is your closest ally let them be there, on our strategic ally. be there, on our side, would be nato forces and other forces. similar to what we have in the sinai desert since the signing of the camp david agreement.

if you do not trust the united states of america to give you security, who else is going to give you security? to use the pretext that you do not trust anyone, and you want to continue the occupation of the palestinian lands, it means that you do not want to be peaceful. they have to make up their minds. the best thing on the table, in addition to peace, is the presence of american forces. >> the israelis say that is unacceptable to them. do you believe that the israelis, the palestinians have offered the israelis a clear negotiating partner who can deliver on their side, on the promises that they make? >> i believe so.

they will never have better, more committed leadership to peace than the current president. he is committed to the core, to peace and nonviolence, and to finding a peaceful solution to the situation and the conflict between us and the israelis. if they refuse to appease with mahmoud abbas, and it appears to me that they may have to face the extremists, including those like hamas, and if they tell us that they can reach peace with such leaders, one would say that they are not serious. often i think this with the israeli ambassador. he says that mahmoud abbas does not represent all palestinians.

there is in control of certain areas. when we stop working with hamas, they tell us that mahood abbas as part of his government -- hamas people will not negotiate with them. if we are separated, we do not represent all the palestinians. if we are united, -- you have hamas as part of your political system. >> there's this historical fact. the former israeli prime minister, to this day he says that he negotiated a deal that would have delivered to the palestinians, much of what they want and abbas said that he will take it back and that he did not accept it. that is one more example of camp

david and other things were in the end, the palestinians would not accept what many people thought was a reasonable solution. >> that is partially accurate. what happened then is that the prime minister was deposed from the position of premier. if he had been in power, there would have been a better chance of continuing the discussion. we might have reached an agreement. he suggested constructive ideas >> but all of the issues were of contention. >> they had a discussion, and you dropped something like this and you say that -- you put it on a piece of paper like that. that is not negotiation. these are good ideas, and you are willing to discuss percentages of these while, and discuss issues related to

jerusalem, but you don't sign in that moment on something that is not a document. had the prime minister stated office for a longer period of time, there would've been a bigger chance of reaching an agreement that we need to leaders. there were constructive developments on many issues, -- >> there was a chance coming out of camp david. >> they continued the discussion. they reached more advanced ideas, more constructive ideas, beyond camp david, but unfortunately, the prime minister lost the election. >> what is different about john kerry and his ideas? all of the ideas have been proposed before.

what is different? >> i know that secretary of state kerry may be has an unfortunate need to have a legacy before he finishes his career. >> what is your leadership believe that? do they think they are seeing things and hearing things that say to them that there is a possibility -- >> they have not seen a leader that is visiting the region with such intensity, with such determination, and with such a positive attitude, and the patience to deal with so many issues and trying to find solutions to them i bring to the table other leaders, including our leaders and also including leaders in the arab region. perhaps it is something to develop.

you will be bringing larger numbers of players to the table to say that if we were able to find a diplomatic solution to the iranian file and find a diplomatic solution to the serious situation, why should we succeeded in finding a diplomatic solution to the palestinian and israeli situation. >> thank you for coming. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier three in san francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west" where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i'm emily chang. samsung's newest smartphone, the galaxy s five is coming this spring to my said to be released by april. it may include eye scanning technology. netflix is launching the new season of house of cards in ultra hd. the goal is to capture more ew