>> from our studios in new york city this is charlie rose. charlie: we look this evening at the continuing negotiations with iran. the united states and its negotiating parters announced on tuesday that they are extending the deadline for talks until july 7. american officials hope to reach a final accord in order to submit it to congress for a 30-day review period. the u.s. warned early this week that the framework deal reached in switzerland in april must remain the basis for a final agreement. iran's supreme leader rejected key demands of the p5+1 in a speech last week. margaret brennan is the cbs

foreign affairs correspondent and lyse doucet is the chief international correspondent for the bbc. from princeton university, seyed hossein mousavian. he is iran's former chief nuclear spokesperson. with me here in new york, bret stephens, the global view columnist for the "wall street journal." i want to go to vienna first. i want to start with margaret. tell me where things stand now in terms of the negotiations and what do you say about this extension for a week? do we read into that that these two parties, the p5+1, as well as the iranians, believe that within a week, they desperately want a deal and they can make it happen? margaret: charlie, a top u.s. diplomat told me tonight that they put the odds of that greater than 60-40 in terms of leaning towards an actual deal. this is far from guaranteed.

the negotiators have given themselves almost exactly an extra week to try to put the fine print -- they are literally working on the text, all of these additional technical annexes to figure out how to implement what they had already probably agreed to back in april in switzerland. as you say, there has been this back and forth. is iran backsliding? u.s. officials would say we are sticking to the broad outlines. they are really trying to find creative ways around some of the roadblocks, specifically about how much access the u.s. is asking for and that will be implemented by u.n. watchdogs, inspectors will search any suspected nuclear site. that is really what is holding it up. the sanctions will come in phases. the legalistic terms they are trying to iron out right now. lyse: charlie, to pick up on your turn of phrase saying they

desperately want an agreement, all sides are trying to show that they are not desperate for the agreement. that would look like they will do everything possible to have a deal. the mantra on all sides is a good deal and what a good deal is, it is still clear they still have not reached the point of agreement that all sides can leave and say, we have made history with a good deal that both curbs iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb, but eases the crippling sanctions the iranians have lived under for so many years. the devil is in the detail. the framework agreement which they reached a few months ago had parts they knew they would have to come back to. they did not work out all the details. there were others which they now realize were open to interpretation or misinterpretation. what they are finding now is they don't quite agree on some of the key issues, whether it comes to the inspections of

nonmilitary sites, which are allowed under an additional protocol. or the kind of phasing of sanctions with responsibilities on both sides. yes, they would like a deal. the seven days are not a deadline. they could possibly go over that deadline. if they have their dream scenario, they would like to -- it is mainly an iranian and american negotiation. the real deadline is before they have to go to congress for the oversight. charlie: the reason i said they desperately want a deal, if you were working this hard to try to hammer out something, it is because you very much want this to happen. john kerry has been back and back and back. he went back to tehran to make the case. if they are trying this hard, it would seem to me that there is a great intensity to try to find a

solution to these very difficult points. margaret: that is exactly the case, charlie. john kerry brought a physical therapist and two doctors with him. he literally got off his recovery bed to make it here and is trying to close what could be a legacy making deal for president obama. there is great intensity. it is a game of chicken in some ways. in terms of ironing out these details and no one wants to pull that first. lyse: i asked, what was the mood? this person said, the mood was this has to be done. never have they been so close to a deal. this would end a 12-year standoff over iran's nuclear program. this would be an historic negotiation achieved without firing a single bullet, without

being a zero sum game, which is unprecedented in the very turbulent world in which we live. margaret mentions how john kerry has come on crutches. the chief scientist from iran has come from having two surgeries. it is both an historic negotiation, but it is a herculean human effort and they would like to have the deal, but a good deal. charlie: agreed. look at it from your experience in terms of what is happening in vienna and what has preceded it. where do you think we are? seyed: both parties have agreed with all measures with the nonproliferation treaty. there is no dispute left. we have seen npt. we have the safeguard agreement.

we have additional protocol. we have a subsidiary arrangement called 3.1. iran has agreed to implement all. iran would be committed at the maximum level of international rules and regulations on transparency measures. there is nothing beyond additional protocol. number two, iran has agreed to confidence building measures blocking pathways toward possible diversion toward nuclear weapons. iran has agreed to have reprocessing. if you have no reprocessing, it is impossible to make a nuclear bomb from heavywater. if you are exporting fuel, it is

impossible to make a nuclear bomb. iran has agreed to reduce plutonium to one kilogram, which would be non-weapon grade plutonium. all major measures assuring that iran would not make nuclear bombs from heavywater is already agreed. then we go to enrichment. iran has agreed to confidence building measures on non-divers and of uranium -- by version measures -- non-diversion measures. iran has agreed to reduce. iran has agreed not to have enrichment activities.

therefore, i would say all measures assuring that uranium heavywater facilities, and enrichment facilities would not direct toward weaponization. all of these measures are beyond -- iran has agreed to measures beyond npt as a goodwill. the problem is with excessive demands, far beyond protocols. charlie: you are opposed to this deal. bret: the reason my iran is being put to these additional tests is because iran has a lengthy record of deceiving the international community.

you can remember the announcement in new york several years ago, it it was a secret facility until it was revealed. secret facilities before they were brought to light by the international community. the international atomic energy agency still cannot get the iranians to come clean on possible military dimensions of their programs. we are not conducting a nuclear negotiation with luxenberg or korea or a country that we know is going to abide by the terms that it signs. it is conducting a negotiation with a regime that unfortunately has this lengthy record of deceiving the international community. charlie: what is the big hangup at this point? where is the conflict? margaret: one of them is access.

how much ability to search suspected nuclear sites or sites that could be related in any way to nuclear development and that will be carried out by you and inspectors under the -- by united nations inspectors under the iaea. they say look, we know, the united states does not allow inspectors in to most of our nuclear weapons sites. we have restrictions on that. that has to do with the sensitivity of material. we respect that. we have a way around that and some of that is going to be that international inspectors would work under what -- under the additional protocol. it has to do with who searches what when and how.

what is decided there is going to influence how much relief comes when in terms of sanctions. when people use the term immediate sanctions relief, they are kidding themselves. this is going to be a very drawnout slow process when it comes to rewarding iran for following through with compliance and what they say they are going to do. to verify they are not enriching beyond what they have agreed to and they are not trying to build a nuclear weapon. what your other guest was talking to in terms of weapon development, secretary kerry took a lot of flak for saying the u.s. knows iran was trying to build a weapon and they stopped. that was back in the early 2000. since that time, the u.s. has said, we do not need them to

come clean, but we need them to speak to the united nations about perhaps where they are now . answering some outstanding questions. that is going to equal sanctions relief. lyse: i want to pick up on what bret said. the iranians do not trust the americans and the americans do not trust the iranians. these negotiations could end a 30 year diplomatic deadlock, but there is no trust. this is based on an agreement -- they have talked about unprecedented verification. this is what everybody talks about. this is what the iaea will be mandated to do. a lot of details are still --

the sanctions are interesting. so much controversy about this. the supreme leader said we need all of the sanctions lifted immediately. that is not going to happen. there are so me different kinds of sanctions -- so many different kinds of sanctions. what i've heard from some iranians, they started thinking about, a lot of debate on iranian television. if the idea is talk to the negotiators, they understand there will be an up limitation process -- and of limitation process. what if we disable the reactor at the nuclear plant? and the americans decide, we do not want to lift those sanctions. iran will be faced with developing a new reactor. they are saying it should be sequential. they're coming up with some creative mechanism, because this is what it is all about. a creative formula whereby a

situation where there is no trust, that you can watch each other warily. they are making progress, but they are not there yet. margaret: it is how much do they give, how much do they get, and how can both sides walk away saying they dominated without losing face? charlie: can they do that within a week? margaret: what is negotiated here is not going to be a binding legal accord. this is a political agreement. it has to go to the united nations. they have to work on the language of that. russia has a veto right. they are key to the process and key to the implementation. this has to go to international verification and then and limitation. -- and then implementation.

congress cannot really kill this deal. they can impair it and heard it but they cannot stop a deal from being struck. seyed: it has to be watertight -- lyse: it has to be watertight and bulletproof. the deal is a deal and that is why it will take so long. charlie: do you have the same kind of visions within iran between the ayatollah and others? seyed: there is not much differences between the supreme leader and president, but we have different factions opposing the deal like republicans in the congress. i should say there is a big misinterpretation of the

ayatollahs statement. what he said implementation of irani and commitments -- iranian commitments should be synchronized with lifting sanctions. the process should be step-by-step with proportionate reciprocation from its parties. the issue of mistrust is completely correct. the mistrust is far beyond nuclear issues. when we are talking about weapons of mass destruction, we need to respect the fact, after the second world war, iran is the biggest victim of weapons of mass destruction. saddam hussein used chemical weapons. 100,000 iranians were either killed or in jail.

the u.s. supported saddam hussein and provided material and technology for saddam hussein to use weapons of mass destruction, killing and injuring 100,000 irani ends. what bret said, it is completely incorrect, i am sorry to say. it is about -- if you are a member of additional protocol, yes, you have to declare the site and the building and the project. iran was not a member of additional protocol. when iran was building, it was not member of additional protocol. if you are not a member of additional protocol and only a member of safeguard agreement, you need just to inform the iaea

180 days before introduction of gas centrifuge and. only 180 days before introduction of gas. we should not mislead the public opinion with important technical issues. ♪

charlie: since this began the idea of where they are within reach of an agreement is a remarkable they have come that far in the two things that stand out, on the one hand, was the degree and the synchronization -- how the sanctions would be lifted. secondly, the level of inspection. those two things seem to be more than anything else. there are so concerned -- some concern about how iran will be able to continue doing research. how fast they could move when that restrictions were over. it seems like they have come a long way and there is some optimism they can get this done. lyse: it is extraordinary how far they have come.

if you compare negotiations to where they were more than a year ago before the president came to power. wendi sherman took pains to say we did not have bilateral talks with the americans. everything was through translation. everything was that a snail's pace. since the new administration came to power, there has been a whole new set -- a whole new energy into these talks. look at these photographs. they are laughing around the table. there are personal relationships that have been built. a whole new chemistry. you are talking for 14 hours a day for weeks on end. john kerry has set records for

the hours he has spent negotiating. you do have to find a way to get through it on a personal level. you mentioned all of those things. we will not go through them on this half-hour. they have really come far in terms of trying to wrestle one of the big security challenges of our time. trying to curb iran's ability to develop the materials to produce a bomb. not less than a year that iran was veering from its commitment that it was pursuing a bomb they have a year that they can use a snapback. if things start going wrong they have a way to put it right. that is a critical disagreement. look at the images coming out of iran.

a younger generation which not only does not want the sanctions, but it wants to be part of the wider world. there is a bigger question, is this going to embolden iran or is this going to lead us to and around that will engage with the region? even some of the supporters and critics would say, this kind of a deal it removes the barrier that iran can sit around the table and will no longer be an enemy. you can talk to iran. all of these huge security problems that are shattering the middle east. charlie: you have followed john kerry. he has been a bulldog persistent showing a remarkable sense of endurance in pursuit of the middle east peace and the same thing here. take us inside the mind of john kerry. margaret: wow.

you asked earlier -- you are going to get me in trouble charlie. you asked if john kerry any ministration were too eager for a deal. any ministration is really sensitive -- the administration is really sensitive to that question. these negotiators have been in this palace behind me for a good month and have not talked to their families or have seen them except over skype and the like. the thing that is harder for them to defend against is the accusation that they are perhaps part of wishful thinking. that is something john kerry has been accused of quite often. the idea that something can be done about this. if you push it diplomacy hard enough, you can come to an agreement.

it is hard to think -- you compared it to middle east peace . harder to think of a more difficult question. on this diplomacy, just so many pieces that have to be aligned. this is a world partner. security council partners, and then you get germany and then you get iran and you have so many players=layers. when you ask about john kerry his top advisers will tell you it is about 60-40. far from guaranteed, but they are determined to see this through. he just had some pretty significant surgery and a pretty significant injury, having a bone broken in three places. he brought physicians with him. he is here because it is such a key mission. this is potentially nobel prize

winning material for a secretary of state. not only for him but for iran's chief diplomat. i do not think that is meaning this is a foregone conclusion. this is a really hard bargain. charlie: as a critic of this administration's negotiations and strategy and consequences do you believe they want it too much? bret: i think the president sees this as his nixon to china moment. secretary kerry sees this as his kissinger to china moment. charlie: if they were successful, it would be. if they could get iran to give up nuclear ambitions, that would be a huge -- bret: if iran might give up its

nuclear ambitions, iran can also be brought out into -- brought out from the cold. that was part of the china game in the early 1970's. bring china into the modern world and it was very successful. there are basic differences between china in the early 1970's and iran today. the chinese desperately wanted an agreement with the west because they felt profoundly threatened by the soviet union. china had been ravaged by the cultural revolution and they took confidence building measures. the famous ping-pong games between the american and the chinese players. look at what the irradiance are doing today -- iranians are doing today. they have a fellow reporter on trumped up espionage charges. they are arming -- the iranians

think they are playing against a weak administration and they are winning on most of their regional fronts. i do not see this deal moderating iran's behavior. i see it in bolding den -- in boldingemboldening them. charlie: how with the steal -- how would this deal change behavior? seyed: i believe we cannot resolve all differences animosities between iran and the u.s. about many different issues, from the israeli peace

process, human rights regional issues. it is unrealistic to imagine we can resolve everything through nuclear. we need to be realistic. iran and the world powers have already agreed the criteria for a deal and confidence building would be nonproliferation treaty , which there is no more dispute left. charlie, we should have in mind, all differences remain today. it is about measures beyond international rules. i would say a nonproliferation we need to be sincere and transparent. look at the reality. israel is the only country in the middle east with about 400 nuclear bombs. no other country has nuclear bombs in the middle east.

the u.s. has established strategic relations with pakistan, india, and israel. they have hundreds of nuclear bombs and the u.s. is putting all pressures, sanctions, coercions against iran, which does not even have one singular nuclear bomb. it is a very clear double standard. i believe the talks between iran and the u.s. will bring a huge change too many issues in the region. after 35 years, we have foreign ministers negotiating one of the major differences, they are almost 90% done. if they can resolve the nuclear dispute within the framework of international rules and regulations i believe iran and the u.s. would be able to open a

dialogue on regional issues. iran and the u.s. have many commonalities. stability in afghanistan is a commonality between iran and the u.s.. the stability in iraq is commonality between iran and the u.s.. after 2003, the fall of saddam, they have supported the same government. fighting isis, fighting extremism is the commonality between iran and the u.s. thes. is leading airstrikes and on the ground iran is leading strike against isis. i believe we have too much commonalities, common interests. the only way is diplomacy. nuclear should be resolved

within the nuclear proliferation treaty. we need to continue the direct talks between iran and the u.s.. the other differences second to utilize realize the issues of common interests. ♪

charlie: every iranian always says, iran does not want a

nuclear weapon. we do not want a nuclear weapon. it is almost a mantra. why are we going through this? let's do whatever we can to prove to you that we don't want a nuclear weapon. seyed: this is what iran already has done. iran has accepted already everything we have seen at the maximum level. there is nothing internationally more than what iran has accepted. iran has accepted many measures beyond npt, like capping the enrichment at 5%, like exporting fuel. no other country has accepted such limits. therefore iranians have shown goodwill and in practice, they have shown they are really

serious. let me bring you to one very important historical issue to believe why iran is not after a nuclear bomb. when irradiance -- went iranians were bombed by saddam by chemical weapons, when 100,000 iranians were killed or injured the military went to the supreme leader and asked him to reciprocate with chemical weapons. that time, the supreme leader said reciprocation with weapons of mass distraction is wrong because it is for bid and religiously. -- forbidden religiously. i would say if a nation during more is attacked by chemical weapons, iran did not

reciprocate with chemical weapons. this is the best proof and the best objective guarantees to believe this nation is not after weapons of mass destruction. charlie: i am sure that bret stephens is saying, if that is true, why so much absence of transparency and hidden sites that were only discovered later and confirmed after they had been discovered? seyed: that time, and iran was a member of the safeguard agreement. based on this agreement, you have to inform iaea only when you want to introduce centrifuges. if you are member of additional protocol, you need to inform everything from day one. this is something the public opinion should know that iran did not hide. iran was not legally obliged to

inform everything from day one. however, iran today has accepted everything at the maximum level of transparency at the maximum level of iaea regulations and there is no suspicious from the p5+1 about today's iranian nuclear program. bret mentioned issues related to the 1980's, not about the current nuclear program. bret: secretary kerry and i disagree about all kinds of things, but one area where we agree completely is that iran has thought to develop nuclear weapons and the quantity of information available on that score is remarkable in all of

this does not come from shady sources. this comes from the international atomic energy agency. a very public report on 2011. what is in the confidential domain is vastly more expansive. -- extensive. charlie: one of the articles -- margaret can help me understand this. i am told one of the arguments being made is the iranians release of a full explanation of their prior behavior and prior nuclear activities. margaret: that is one of the more difficult questions. the iaea has a lot of outstanding questions that it wants answered about what iran has done in the past.

what is being negotiated now is how to stop development in the future, how to freeze things for 10 years, and what to do after that time. . -- time period. one way around this is those international inspectors could perhaps question scientists under so-called managed access. it is basically limiting the access of inspectors, but still allowing them some to verify whether iran has any development going on. the united states of america and their intelligence agencies concluded that iran stopped trying to build a weapon as the 2003 -- weapons program as of 2003. this is what american diplomats would tell you. they had a covert program, they had enrichment.

that is why you have those difficult statements from secretary kerry that u.s. officials tried to walk back a few weeks ago. it is not so much coming clean, they are not asking for that. it would be too difficult for iran to do. but they do want some questions to be answered. lyse: the number is 18, they have a list of 18 scientists they want to question about the past programs. what iran is saying, listen, in the past, we give you names of scientists and they were killed. they are saying, we cannot give you the names of the scientists because it will enter the public documents and their lives will be at risk. listen, when it comes to the 10 year ban on severe limits on the

research and development program, what happens in year 11? scientists have to keep developing and we do not want to be pushed so far backward, as what they describe as a civilian nuclear program. these the kind of details they are discussing. highly scientific and deeply political. bret: the 2007 national intelligence estimates claiming that iran had abandoned its nuclear programs has largely been repudiated by the iaea and the american intelligence community. the problem is getting bogged down with a lot of these technical details we are getting away from the question of the nature of the iranian regime. if iran really wants to build

confidence on its -- on the nature of its program, free people make it clear that iran is a country that is interested in a new direction. the reason these negotiations are so difficult is that we are not negotiating with belgium. we are negotiating with a country with an extensive track record of not being a peaceful nation. if this regime wants to build confidence, he can start with some domestic measures at home. it would empower the very iranian people -- seyed: let's imagine iranians would come to negotiation table

and when you say iran should address other issues not related to nuclear let's imagine iranians would come to the negotiation table and would tell john kerry, you removed democratically elected prime minister and installed a dictator for 25 years. you supported corrupted dictators for 25 years. you americans have always supported corrupt regimes in the middle east. all of your principal values you are talking about. which one of your allies, like saudi arabia, are committed to these values? you have

assassinated our nuclear scientists. what is going to happen? we cannot resolve all issues of differences 35 years of mistrust only through one nuclear negotiation. we are talking about nuclear, the criteria for confidence building measures is international rules and regulations. iran has accepted everything. we are not going to get anywhere if you are going to bring all other issues. charlie: when he turned to vienna, he came with -- is his significance the fact that he is there significant? margaret: at these talks, is the chief nuclear scientist, the

head of the department of energy. the top nuclear scientist in iran. they say they have a great rapport. they both were m.i.t. trained. they did not know each other but they had the same mentor, which is really interesting. perhaps on some of the very technical elements, having him here could make a difference. lyse: interesting that all eyes were on him when he came back. he came back and he did bring the chief scientist, who had been through two operations. he was absolutely -- it was critical that he be here because he is the chief scientific brain for the iranian science

negotiation. he brought the brother of the president, who is very close to the foreign minister. also was the brother of the president. finally, he brought his wife. everyone said, he must really be here to make a deal because he has brought along his wife. three people, science politics and his family. he ingredients for a family -- for a deal. -- key ingredients for a deal. charlie: think about the alternative. if these talks fail, really fail, really not just kicking the can down the road, they agree they will never agree what is the consequences of that failure to come to an agreement? seyed: the consequences would be extremely negative.

look, charlie, the middle east is that the verge of collapse. iran is the most stable powerful country in the middle east. the u.s. is the most influential foreign country in the middle east. therefore, if a deal collapsed, imagine these two regional international power's are going to go to a greater confrontation . politically economically, covertly. then you can imagine with such a shaky region what will happen. therefore, i believe we have only one choice. diplomacy. to resolve the nuclear through international rules and regulations. to continue negotiations for peace and stability in the region. charlie: i see you everywhere.

give us a sense of how closely the rest of the world is watching this and what are the ramifications of the failure. lyse: the failure will resonate on the number of levels. the level of diplomacy. never has the middle east seen so many conflicts, conflicts with which we can see no solution in sight. therefore, you have one where there is a fighting chance that diplomacy can work. if this does not work, they will go home and say, we exhausted the diplomacy. we did everything we could. of course, then we are back to all options on the table, including military options. there are countries that would prefer a military option. secondly, we ask this question

repeatedly, what will be the consequence of iran being brought into the national -- international fold? the jury is still out. i think people are really clear. i have not heard a single person say the opposite. iran's hardliners in the supreme leader has always been suspicious of the note states that will be further deepened -- subissues -- suspicious of the united states, that will be further deepened. iran is a key and a growing player. i think the idea is it gets them around the table so you can discuss some of these issues rather than fighting it out. bret: iran is the greatest agent of instability in the middle

east. you just have to ask the people of syria. the shiite organizations in iraq. iran is a major agent of instability and fear and if the deal were to fail, ok, and if it were to fail for good reasons at least american allies in the middle east, whether they are arab or the israelis, could take comfort in knowing that this president does have some red lines. it is true we would have to walk away from this phase of diplomacy, but it is wrong to say that we would then have only a military option. we would return most likely to a coercive phase of diplomacy. maybe the iranians would

recognize they have to take this administration: a more seriously than they have in the past. one gets the feeling that the iranians can walk over mr. kerry and mr. obama because those two gentlemen are so desperate for a legacy making foreign policy achievement. charlie: we end with you, margaret brennan. margaret:lyse: when it comes to the repercussions, the resistance and the skepticism and hostility towards the deal along -- among the gulf states has not been mitigated at all by the camp david meeting. there is a danger of proliferation. there is a risk that this will increase the tensions. margaret: it is an important

point. the gulf states have been quieter about their opposition. it does not mean they are for it. they're waiting to see the final text. it is a different position than what the israelis have taken. what does this mean? you have both sides here continuing to push because both sides really wanted. the iranians needed and the americans will like it and the world can unity would really like to negotiation -- the world community would really like to negotiation this through. the obama administration will tell you this is a transaction and they do not think it will be transformational. everyone is hoping this will change something -- change the balance of power in the middle east. perhaps iran would look

different in 10 years when it's -- when its nuclear program becomes unfrozen at the end of this. perhaps the young generation that is more pro-american would have more power and be more empowered. the critics would tell you you are given a lifeline to a regime that should not remain in power. it is totally unclear and that is why it is so fascinating to watch this diplomacy play out. we will not know the answer for years to come. even if they can make that july 7 deadline. charlie: i may have to come back to you. thank you so much. seyed hossein mousavian thank you so much for the perspective

and the experience you brought to this conversation. bret stephens, t y. -- thank you. a pleasure. thank you for joining us. we will see you next time. ♪

>> relaxing the rules, china's regulator takes efforts to stem the markets wild ride. a new poll suggests greece will vote for deeper cuts and nissan on top. u.s. automakers see their best year in a decade. welcome to "first up." streaming on mobile and bloomberg.com. i am yvonne man. let's go straight