charlie: javad zarif is here. he served as the ambassador to the u.n. from iran. he is here for the nonproliferation summit. he met with john kerry yesterday to discuss nuclear negotiations. i am pleased to welcome mr. is a wreath -- mr. zarif back to the table. i'm pleased to have you back. mr. zarif: good to be back. charlie: i am looking forward to having a full conversation about various issues. you met with secretary.

give us a report. mr. zarif: we have made significant progress. people two years andgo could not imagine we could come this far. that did not work. sanctions, all sorts of sanctions. they were imposed on iran. i believe they did not achieve their objective and that is why people opted for negotiations. we have made significant progress. after we agree to it, a lot of people believed we would never implement it. but we did. the international atomic agency agency and even president obama

has said we have complied fully for the past 1.5 years. we are now almost ready to go for a long-term agreement. which will ensure iran's program will always remain peaceful. from our perspective, that is not much. we have never had any of the attentions. it will provide the possibility for iran to engage with the west in a more normal fashion. i'm not saying the international community, because yesterday i spoke to a conference on behalf of a significant portion. charlie: the non-proliferation treaty conference. mr. zarif: i was the first person to speak to the committee. charlie: iran is a signatory. mr. zarif: we are a signatory

and a chairman of the movement. which brings together 120 countries. all of them have views very similar to iran about nuclear nonproliferation. we believe we should read the world -- rid the world of nuclear arms. we don't want more people owning these dangerous weapons. charlie: what happens if these negotiations fail? mr. zarif: it will not be a disaster but it would be an important missed opportunity. it is unique. the people went to the polls a year and a half ago and chose a president who was calling for engagement based on mutual respect. now we have this opportunity that has been given both to us

in the iranian government as well as the international community to engage. if our people see engagement will not produce the necessary reciprocal respect we expect this would be an important missed opportunity that will not only prevent us from resolving this issue, which in our view is a non-issue because as i told you, we did not have a program to develop nuclear weapons. we consider them a rational and immoral. as charlie: why should the u.s. believe you are the key five plus one countries believe you? mr. zarif: it is a problem of this trust confounded this trust. we don't expect anybody to believe the other side. we do not have the possibility of putting confidence and trust to the u.s. or others members.

certainly not the western members. there is a history of problems, grievances, going back to the time they overthrew our democratically elected government. all the way to recent times. i assume that the u.s. and other countries have created reasons not to trust us. we don't leave they are founded. what we need to do is have a serious program. a serious agreement that would enable every side to build this trust. the important thing is this process should build confidence, not destroy confidence. unfortunately what we see. the debate is not productive.

mr. jarif: that is for a foreign government. we don't looking to the domestic politics because that makes international life impossible. if you had to decide how to deal with congress, the judiciary the executive branch, it would make it impossible. we deal with the government of the u.s.. we need rhetoric that helps build confidence. charlie: i noticed after he returned, you are given a hero's welcome. unusual for a foreign minister. what was that about?

is there, on the part of the average citizen somehow they want to rejoin the world? calling the u.s. the great satan and all of that. mr. jarif: the iranian people are rational. they resist pressure intimidation. i said on the show some time ago they are allergic to pressure. whenever there is pressure, the iranians react and react strongly. you have seen what the pressure has brought. maybe from 200 centrifuges when we last spoke on this show to 20,000 now. what is important is the iranian

people did not like that. they were prepared to go and resist it but did not like it. that was not our preference. the preference was for dialogue. because the people witnessed that there were representatives were being dealt with through a process of negotiations, they were happy. but the same people would resist if they see the agreement is not respectful of their rights their dignity. they would prefer pressure rather than to accept a bad agreement. charlie: there is a believe in america that sanctions brought you to the negotiating table. that is the reason you are there. mr. jarif: i think they are wrong. what brought us to the table is the belief that this government has and this was the platform

that was chosen by the arabian people. there were six candidates. some were much better than the current in dealing with economic problems. he chose a candidate who believed in respect and engagement. that is why we are at the negotiating table. the proposals that we have. the possibilities and options we present are the same as we presented to the international community eight years ago were 10 years ago. -- eight years ago or 10 years ago. they fail to recognize the significance and regretted the missed opportunity. they have another opportunity. it is not because of sanctions, it is because of a choice we have made to engage.

if that does not succeed, we have other avenues open. charlie: let me make sure i understand. this agreement has nothing to say about the future conduct of iran beyond the nuclear issue. it is not about iranian support of any other group. it is not about iran supporting hezbollah or anybody else. it is only about the nuclear issue. like her you say that if there is an agreement, -- do i hear you say that if there is an agreement that then the u.s. and iran can build a relationship that will have to do with a wide variety of issues and have a respect for iran? mr. jarif: i'm not precluding that, but i'm not saying we can guarantee it. we want to engage with the west based on mutual respect. we do not want to have animosity

with the west. we want to be able to enjoy the benefits of interaction. we insist on our dignity, on being able to engage based on mutual respect. that is important for us. charlie: as soon as you say that, many believe that the supreme leader has had for a long time a negative opinion to say it graciously of the u.s. believes that the united states, and in fact has benefited from his rhetoric. at the same time, the u.s. president has reached out and sent letters to the supreme letter. mr. jarif: which he replied to. the point is, the iranian public. it is not just the supreme leader. the general public are

skeptical of u.s. intentions. this is unfortunate but a reality. the reality is the general public are very mindful. they remember the united states overthrowing a government. mr. jarif: as you know, the u.s. remembers the taking of american hostages. --mr. jarif: there is a bad history, which has led to mistrust. we don't want to debate what happened to first, who was responsible. we should understand, we should realize, the historical background. c weather, through cooperation to resolve the issue, we can dent the wall of mistrust that exists between the u.s. and iran and see whether that provides us with an opportunity to move forward. the supreme leader has been

clear he does not trust the u.s., like most iranians. charlie: does he want to see a better relationship? mr. jarif: he made it clear, if this goes well, it may open the possibility for talks in other areas. we need to see how this works out. whether the u.s. is prepared to deal with the iranian people based on respect. charlie: do you have any doubt that the president of the u.s. does not respect that iranian people? mr. jarif: if you want to have an agreement and keep putting pressure on the people, that does not signify to me a respectful approach. if the president is prepared it requires leadership. it requires a great deal of courage, for iran to accept and take measures we are negotiating.

charlie: after 18 months, is it better? is there more respect because you spent time with secretary kerry? you spoke to the supreme leader and i assume you briefed him on the details you were involved with. it is said to you especially have his ear. you would not be where you are without his approval. mr. jarif: it is not the way you put. the iranian system is based on the will of the people. the people have chosen this government. the leader has always throughout his tenure as the leader, he has always supported the choice of the iranian people. because he the leader respects the choice of the people.

we have been talking. i have been reporting from it over the last 18 months, the united states can look at iran and say, iran complied with the obligations. unfortunately on our side their u.s. hasn't tangled itself in such a web of sanctions. even if they wanted to, it would be difficult to get out of it. charlie: you would acknowledge they have caused terrible damage. mr. jarif: but sanctions, if they were dissolved -- they did

not change the mind of the iranian government. the government went ahead with tilting more centrifuges -- the united states is not want to treat them well. the united states is trying to prevent them from buying medicine with their own money from abroad. if you go to a bank and tell them -- charlie: no one doubts these are successful sanctions. if you want to feel the pressure of a series of governments around the world trying to influence the government to talk about the nuclear issue because they don't want to see you, even though you say you don't want one, have a nuclear capability.

mr. jarif: the point is, if you want to intend denies the reigning people, if the u.s. government wants to antagonize the iranian people, and create feelings and misgivings about the u.s. then the sanctions have succeeded. if the intention was to bring iran to the negotiating table that it is not what they achieved. charlie: you are at the negotiating table. mr. jarif: we are because we were there even before the sanctions. we were always at the negotiating table. we were there earlier. president rouhani and myself were negotiating. then our successors continued to negotiate. it is now the u.s. that

has invented that idea of zero enrichment. if they had accepted the right for enrichment 10 years ago, we would not have had all this nonsense. charlie: the u.s. sees, as long as there are caps, it is ok. mr. jarif: that would have been possible. there were proposals, before a single united nations sanction was put in place, that would have provided a better option. but the u.s. decided to torpedo. the bush administration john bolton, decided to torpedo. the agreement being reached with the europeans at the time. now they lived to regret it. now they understand sanctions do not produce results.

negotiations produce results. ♪

charlie: i want to talk about several things. many americans, such as jim baker and henry kissinger, have raised caution about the agreement. when question, sanctions, and inspection.

the u.s. has said the sanctions should be phased out on the basis of good conduct and respect for the agreement. the supreme leader and you, this team leader said this publicly, we have to have the elimination of all sanctions at the time the final agreement is signed. all sanctions, gone. mr. jarif: we are talking about economic and financial sanctions. the parameters we reached our very clear. once we start implement in the first steps, the number of centrifuges the stockpile and what will happen to the redesign and rebuilding of a heavy water reactor these are all parameters of thee agreement.

charlie: you say at the beginning. the supreme leader says, now. mr. jarif: sanctions must be lifted as soon as iran implements its agreed part. we have an agreement. that agreement provides for the lifting of sanctions. economic and financial sanctions. those sections are lifted. the logic is clear. if you want an agreement, you have two options. you cannot mix them. it is as if iran once to keep some part -- charlie: will you grant me this? what the supreme leader said and john kerry said is different. mr. jarif: what i can say is

what we have agreed upon. charlie: doesn't agree with what secretary kerry said? mr. jarif: i allow him to say what he wants to say and defined the agreement. what i say is what will be at the agreement if there is one at the end of the day. it must be based on this logic. very clear. you cannot have two bank opposing tracks running at the same time. charlie: what are the opposing tracks? mr. jarif: one is to have an agreement and the other is to impose pressure. the counterpart to pressure would be iran building more centrifuges. charlie: someone suggested to me today, if the agreement is signed, there will be some date

in the future at which time the two bank parties will have had an opportunity to see how they handle this. at that time, perhaps they could get to that and examine inspections and see if they were as everybody hoped they would be, that the aie i had the opportunity to do the things they insist they be able to do. he would have the opportunity to evaluate whether the u.s. was living by the terms of the deal. they would have the chance, all the countries involved to see if you had lived by the deal. is that the way you are going to work out of this? have you thought about that idea? mr. jarif: no.

we will have hopefully, an agreement by june 30. if we have an agreement by june 30, it would set a procedure in motion. that procedure will start with iran taking preparatory measures. the u.s. and eu taking preparatory measures. all of them endorsed beforehand by the security council. in a resolution that will be binding on everybody including the u.s. the u.s. is a permanent member of the security council. nonetheless, all the decisions of the security council are binding on the u.s.. there will be a resolution of the security council. the two sides will start implement in the agreement. he will take measures, the u.s. will take measures. it is not a trial and error time

where we will test each other. we've had an opportunity to test each other. we have tested an agreement we signed in november 2013, four 18 months. now is the time to put in place very concrete measures. the measures iran will put in place are clear. we will reduce the number of centrifuges. the stockpile of enriched uranium. charlie: what is the time? mr. jarif: that which we have discussed and negotiated, 10 years. that is a very clear understanding. charlie: they don't say that herein they don't think you can eliminate everything at the beginning and then follow through. mr. jarif: you cannot have the

cake and eat it, too. you have to make a decision. whether you want to have an agreement or continue the path of pressure and resistance on the part of iran. they are mutually exclusive. we have a good deal. i believe we have the parameters of a good deal, which builds confidence and does not make anybody trust the other side. we are not prepared to trust anybody. charlie: the u.s. should not, either. mr. jarif: obviously. we don't expect any side, after such a long time of compounded this trust, we need to have an opportunity to build that combatants. it doesn't mean that i will take a part of the agreement that i am supposed to implement hostage for that trust to be built. we will limit our part of the

deal. immediately -- implement our part of the deal. immediately. charlie: what will you do immediately? charlie: we will agree to the set of parameters iran will have to implement immediately. the amount of centrifuges, stock, what will happen to our heavywater reactor. we have all agreed the heavywater reactor will be redesigned. it will not produce plutonium that will be capable of building a nuclear weapon. we never wanted this to build nuclear weapons. this is a medical isotope research reactor. it will do the same job. charlie: you say you never wanted to build a nuclear weapon. even though the decision has not made, you do what the capacity if you make the decision to build them to be accessible as if you had them. mr. jarif: people in the u.s. c

nuclear weapons as a panacea. they have not what anybody any security. we are more rational. we have a deep history. we have been around for millennia. charlie: americans respect that. mr. jarif: they should look at our history. in the last 250 years, we have not invaded any country. mr. jarif:charlie: you have not invaded any country, but you have people at your support engaged in warfare in other countries. mr. jarif: my friend, who did we support? charlie: the iranians are supporting military action in yemen. am i wrong? mr. jarif: you are wrong about

where you start your history. can we say the u.s. supported the taliban? saddam hussein in iraq? charlie: they supported saddam hussein in their war against iran, which we did not -- iranians have not forgotten. mr. jarif: we will not forget that our people were targeted by a chemical weapons and nobody raised an eyebrow. these are parts of history nobody will forget. the u.s. should not forget that it supported the wrong people in our part of the world. and continues to. we always resisted extremism in our region. we are the only country that is standing up against this group, this bunch of terrorists. charlie: you are the only group standing against dash?

mr. jarif: who is doing it other than iran and the people of syria? charlie: in iraq, when militia supported by iran and iran advises on the front line according to an interview i did with the iraqi prime minister, they have advisers on the front line, americans were engaged in airstrikes with the same objective. the taking of tikrit. is that true? mr. jarif: it is a bit too late. for four years, because of geopolitical considerations against syria and iran, a group has developed. has been nourished and armed. 1000 people every month are infiltrating through some of our neighbors borders into iraq and

syria. coming from 82 countries to join this very dangerous extremist group to kill the syrian people. charlie: essentially sunni. mr. jarif: it is not the issue of sunni shia. they have killed more sunnis. you remember the jordanian pilot? he was a sunni. most victims of this group are sunnis. charlie: that was because he had been a pilot. mr. jarif: this is not a sectarian issue. charlie: it is in part a sectarian issue. are you saying -- mr. jarif: people want to give it a sectarian flavor and it is dangerous if you give it a sectarian flavor. maybe people see short-term benefits giving it a sectarian flavor. you have to be clear this is an enemy of everybody.

it is an enemy of saudi arabia as much as iran. charlie: should the u.s. and iran be working together to defeat --? -- defeat dash? mr. jarif: we are working to defeat them. we believe it is a regional issue first and global issue later. there should be international corporation. is not the u.s. and iran. the world is not composed of only the u.s. and iran. a lot of other countries. we are engaged in this fight. in a very serious way. we believe everybody needs to be engaged. charlie: including the u.s. the threat of isil is a very high priority threat on the part of the u.s.

mr. jarif: i am happy to see it is becoming one. but before it started its operation against iraq, it was not the case because people were tolerating it when it was attacking the syrian government. that is unfortunate. history started some time ago. it did not start today. it did not start with dash moving into iraq a occupying mostul. charlie: this is where we end part one of the two-part conversation with mr. jarif:. thank you for joining us. see you tomorrow. ♪

want to consider a certain tv show. with all due respect. on the show, baltimore, but first, hillary clinton. she announced her campaign in a video, where she did not say much about anything. she then did some small-scale events in new hampshire that many thought were equally uneventful, but today for the first time, she took to a very big stage, an actual stage, and