>> from our studios in new york city this is "charlie rose." charlie: we begin this evening with the iran nuclear negotiations. european union foreign policy chief said talks had been a -- have entered a difficult and sensitive stage and would continue. joining us from vienna is david sanger of "the new york times." i'm pleased to have him on this program to talk about a subject he knows very well. david, tell me where you think we are at this moment. david: we are in an odd moment

where many of the technical issues that needed to get sorted out, including between the energy secretary and his iranian counterpart, both of m.i.t. sitting there for days, trying to work out questions of research and development. they have largely solved those. all the big issues that need to be resolved now are basically political positions. they are decisions that either the americans or the iranians are unwilling to go make to get to that last stage. there is a great deal of end of bargaining brinksmanship going on here. we have hit one of those moments where nobody believes in the deadlines anymore because the americans think the deadline that was set in congressional legislation, this thursday, was being used against them by the iranians, who figured out that

the americans might give up more simply to limit the amount of time that congress could review the agreement this summer. secretary kerry has basically said, i'm willing to go with a long-term review that is required if we go past the deadline, because he did not want to get jammed. that is the kind of gamesmanship you are seeing happen today. charlie: what are the political issues you are talking about? david: some of the big ones are what the status of the research and development program is going to be in a wrong. -- iran. this is a program that would enable the iranians to keep working on centrifuges and developing very advanced centrifuges while the first 10 year limitations are in place on what kind of work they can do to actually produce uranium. the fear is that if they are

working very hard on these advanced centrifuges, as soon as the agreement is over, and there is a slow period between year 10 and 15, where it faces out, they will be able to put these much more high tech centrifuges in place and begin industrial scale production. charlie, that gets to one of the critical issues you and i have discussed before, which is all this agreement does is delay the day that iran could become an industrial producer. it does not permanently stop them from doing that. it is a bet by the obama administration that in 10 to 15 years, you have a a friendlier and easier to work with iranian government. charlie: do they have every reason to believe that is going to be true? guest: 10 years ago we might have said it based on what we saw in the young generation of iranians who want greater trade and interchange with the west and who want to visas, -- who

want visas and you don't have it yet. you have the election of president rouhani, which is what enabled these negotiations to happen, that he is fighting his own political wars back in tehran, and the question here is, can the iranians emerge from these negotiations being able to make the argument that they have kept their national pride because they have kept so much equipment and they're able to continue to do research, while secretary kerry, who has been making his way between the hotel behind me where the negotiations are going on and his own hotel a few blocks away, is trying to make the argument that the united states has bought more time than they could have bought with a military strike, with cyberattacks with all the other things the u.s. has done to try to slow the iranian program. you will have one set of facts contained in an 80 page

agreement, and they will be interpreted entirely differently by both sides. charlie: as you know republicans and those others who are opponents of this deal suggest that -- and i know the secretary kerry and president obama are offended by this -- that they are looking to simply get a deal and move it to a later year so that it contributes to their legacy or their potential for a nobel prize and all of that. david: i have heard those arguments and i certainly think there is an argument you can make with the united states -- gave up some ground from its initial bargaining positions but that happens in negotiations. i think the secretary has been slowing down since he has gotten here. he's highly sensitive to that argument. he wants to reverse the perception, whether it was true or not, that he wanted to steal more than the iranians did, that these deadlines were forcing mechanisms.

today, the latest headlines, -- when they blew past the latest headlines, they did not announce new deadlines. they said we will stay for a few more days. in fact, the closest thing we got to an official announcement of an extension was a sign in the lobby of our hotel this morning saying that everybody's rooms have been extended. charlie: [laughter] david: that tells you how low the governments are to set new deadlines. charlie: you will be celebrating labor day in vienna. david: if you have got to get stuck in one place, you will not get much sympathy for me for being stuck in vienna. the question is, at what point does it become to secretary kerry's advantage to look to the iranians and say, if you're not ready to make these decisions, we will just go back and take the summer off and we will see you in new york in september. there are some people who

believe that would be a good strategy. the problem is that you lose the momentum that his negotiators maintain they have developed here, slow as that momentum may have been, and you have the problem of things you agreed to over the past two weeks get undone in the interim. then there is the bigger issue he is thinking about, if he can get this, this is going to be the biggest foreign policy accomplishment of the obama administration if you can actually begin to and 35 years of an adversary relationship with iran. charlie: is there any evidence to support the fact the united states is making concessions it might not have made a month ago because these things are approaching the end game? david: because we don't know what adjustments they are making, what they are arguing about in the closed rooms behind

us here, it's hard to know whether or not there are real concessions being made. but in that same story, i made the point that one of the big points of contention right now is, would the united states and its european partners be willing to lift the total arms embargo that the united nations security council has imposed in various stages since 2006 against iran? the u.s. is very reluctant to do that, and they're reluctant to do that because they believe if they lift the arms embargo, it is going to further inflame what is happening in iraq, in syria, as the iranians have even more arms and then because of the relief of sanctions, more money to pour into the shia militia. i think one of the big things to

look for if we are looking for end of negotiation concessions would be how they resolve this question. the u.s. has said they do not want to lift arms embargoes, and those were not purely about the iranian nuclear program, they were about iran's overall behavior around the world. that is a very good one to look at if you are trying to figure out there have been last-minute concessions. another big one to look at is what kind of research and development iran will be permitted to be doing on its centrifuges in the out years of this negotiation. charlie: we talked about that. david: that's right. we will know when we see the final document. an interesting question to ask is how much of this document will be published. most of it will be, but the administration has left open the possibility there will be classified annex. it strikes me that that is probably going to be a troublesome development for them

in congress as they would end up having to brief on nonpublic parts of the agreement. those would probably leak out selectively. charlie: do you think the iranians are trying to drive a wedge between russia and china on one hand, and other members of the security council on the other? china notwithstanding. david: definitely. one way they are doing that is with this arms embargo issue. because the russians and chinese both want to be able to sell arms to iran. that includes missile parts, conventional arms, and of course for europeans, are dead set against this, as are the united states. it is one of the wage -- wedge issues that would give the iranians an opportunity to divide what until now has been a well unified group of

negotiating partners here. ♪

♪ charlie: when you look at the question of snap backs, where's that, the idea that the sanctions can be quickly reimposed? david: we have not yet heard what the exact mechanism is going to be. it appears there is going to be some kind of a committee that will look at the question of

whether or not there have been violations by the irradiance -- the iranians that could allow sanctions to be reimposed. but yesterday we sat down with a senior iranian official who said, snap back works in both directions. so we want this committee to be able to look at the question of whether the sanctions have been lifted, or whether we are just talking about lifting them but not really opening up the tickets to iran. if the sanctions have not enlisted, as suggested -- have not been lifted, as suggested, iran might want to be able to go back and produce more uranium, up the ante. they want the committee to operate in both directions. that is certainly not the way you hear about it from the united states or from british, french, and german officials. charlie: do both sides believe they can argue that the deal that they can get is a good deal? you would assume the answer is obviously yes, but -- david: if they can't argue it is a good deal, they don't want to

get out of here. secretary kerry knows and he said yesterday, two days ago when he came out to speak to us briefly, he knows this agreement is not only going to be reviewed in congress, it's going to be reviewed by all of the nonproliferation experts scientists, physicists who will be looking to pick it apart. last week you and i talked about this letter that came from both democrats and republicans that included five members of president obama's former team, ironic iran team that laid out some very specific benchmarks that they believed any good agreement would have to reach. the first thing that will happen when we get a hold of this document is people are going to hold it up to that letter, and it will enable the republicans to then say, this does or does not match what your former advisor said you needed to accomplish. that will be the first level of scrutiny, and then many other

details will be examined. he has to out -- comne out with something that is pretty bulletproof. the iranians have to come out with a narrative. it seems most iranians are not looking at the details the way americans and europeans are. the iranians are looking at the question of, did we hold up our national pride, are we still going to be able to have a nuclear program, and how quickly will the sanctions get lifted. in some ways it is a heavier lift for secretary kerry than it is for his iranian counterparts. charlie: when do you think this will all come to an announcement by the two parties that they have an agreement? david: there is a sense here that thursday or friday would be the earliest they would get an agreement if they can get it. today they say they would be involved in discussions for several days more. some of the european ministers are leaving and saying they will come back if there is reason to at the end of the week. if this slips a day passed --

past thursday, then the administration has got to go into that much longer review of congress's mandate by the legislation. i do think that secretary kerry has hit the point where you think even if it requires going past the deadline, if you are that close, it's worth closing this up, it is that big a deal for this administration and for the united states after all these years of enmity with iran, i do not think they will get rid of it by the deadline set in a piece of legislation. charlie: david sanger from "the new york times" in vienna following closely the iran nuclear negotiations, primarily being negotiated by the united states and secretary john kerry. kerry's counterpart, the foreign minister of iran, you will see when we rebroadcast that conversation the kind of arguments being made by the iranians. ♪

sçkw?c?coó

♪ charlie: he has been foreign minister of iran. he served as his country's ambassador to the united nations. the foreign minister is in new york this week at the u.n. nonproliferation summit. he met with sechrist very -- secretary of state john kerry yesterday to discuss the ongoing nuclear negotiations. secretary kerry stressed the importance of the deal, saying

the hard work is far from over but if we can get there, the entire world will be safer. i am pleased to welcome him back to the stable. -- to this table. this is his 11th appearance at this table, most of them coming when he was ambassador to the united nations. i'm pleased to have you back. i look forward to having a full conversation not only about the nuclear, but also about iran's place in the world and ideas having to do with other countries as well. you met with secretary kerry. give us a status report. guest: we have made significant progress, certainly people two years ago could not imagine we could come this far. it is when you decide to go for dialogue rather than pressure and intimidation, that did not work. it was in place for quite some time -- sanctions, all sorts of sanctions were imposed on iran and i believe they did not

achieve their objective and that is why people opted for negotiations and serious discussion. we have made significant progress. what we achieved in november 2013 in terms of an interim agreement was something that so-called naysayers always believe would never be possible and then after we agreed to it a lot of people believed that iran would never implement it. well, we did. international atomic energy agency, even president obama and everybody else said that iran has complied fully. so, we are now almost ready to go for a long-term agreement that will ensure that iran's program will always remain peaceful. from our perspective, that is not much because we never had any other intentions. at the same time, 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 the mpt conference on behalf of a significant portion. charlie: the nonproliferation treaty conference? guest: the nonproliferation treaty conference. i was the first person to speak in that conference as a representative, 120 member states of this international community. iran is a signatory and chairman of the non-alliance movement which brings together 120 countries. and all of them have views very similar to iran about nuclear nonproliferation. we believe we should rid the world of nuclear arms. we believe that nobody should own nuclear weapons. certainly nonproliferation is an important step to reach that objective. we do not want even more people owning these very dangerous

weapons. charlie: so what happens if these negotiations fail? guest: it won't be a disaster, but it would be a very important missed opportunity because it is a unique opportunity. the people of iran 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 and international community. if our people see that engagement will not produce the necessary reciprocal respect that we expect, then this would be in my view an extremely important missed opportunity that will not only prevent us from resolving this issue --

which in our view is a non-issue because we did not have any program to develop nuclear weapons anyway, we consider nuclear weapons both irrational and immoral -- charlie: why should the united states believe you or the p5 plus one countries believe you? guest: it is a problem of mutual mistrust. compounded mutual mistrust. we don't expect anybody to believe the other side, as we do not at this stage have the possibility of simply putting our confidence and trust in the words of the united states or other members of p5 plus one certainly not the western members of p5 plus one. there is a history of problems, grievances on the part of the iranian people going back to the time they overthrew our democratically elected government all the way to the recent times, and i assume the united states and some of the western countries have created reasons for themselves not to trust us. we don't believe that those are

founded. so what we need to have a serious program, a serious agreement that will enable every side to build this trust. the important thing is that this process should build confidence, not destroy confidence. unfortunately what we see, the rhetoric that is coming out of washington, particularly the debate, is not conducive to building trust. charlie: you mean the assertion of congress that they have a role here? guest: i don't interfere in the internal affairs of the united states. that is for the american government to decide. for us, as a foreign government, all foreign governments need the other foreign government as an entity. we don't look into the domestic politics because that makes international life impossible. if you wanted to decide how to deal with congress, how to deal with the judiciary, how to deal with the executive branch of every government, it would make it impossible.

we deal with the government of the united states. but we want to hear statements and rhetoric from washington that helps to build confidence rather than destroy confidence. this is not -- charlie: let's talk about confidence. number one, we all noticed that when you returned after the framework agreement had been signed, you were given a hero's welcome. you rode through cheering crowds in an open-air car. unusual for a foreign minister i would assume. what was that about? was it on the part of the rank-and-file average iranian citizen, somehow they want to rejoin the world and they want to stop this conflict with the united states and this calling of the united states, the great satan, and all of that? guest: the iranian people are rational people. they are people who resist pressure, resist intimidation.

i think i said on this show some time ago that iranians are allergic to pressure. whenever there is pressure, the iranians react strongly. you have seen what the pressure over the last eight years has brought the international community. maybe from 200 centrifuges, we -- when we last spoke on this show, 220,000 centrifuges now. -- 20,000 -- to 20,000 centrifuges now. what is important is that the iranian people will prepare to go and resist that but did not like it. that was not our preference. our preference was for dialogue. because the iranian people witness their representatives being dealt with through a process of negotiations based on neutral respect, they were happy. but i can tell you the same people will resist if they see

that the agreement is not respectful of their right or dignity. they will certainly prefer to withstand pressure rather than accept a bad agreement. charlie: there is a considerable believe in america that sanctions brought you to the negotiating table. that is the reason you are there. guest: i think they are wrong. what brought us to the negotiating table is a belief that this government has -- and this was the platform that was chosen by the iranian people. some were much better than the current candidate in dealing with the economic problems. but they chose a candidate who believes 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 exactly the same options that we presented to the international community eight years ago or 10 years ago, and they failed to recognize the significance of those proposals at that time. and they then lived to regret that missed opportunity. now they have another opportunity. they should understand this is not because of sanctions, this is because of a choice that we have made to engage. if that does not succeed, then 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's not about iranian support of any other group, iran supporting hezbollah or anything else. this is only about the nuclear issue. do i hear you saying that you hope that if there is a nuclear

issue settled and there is an agreement, that you hope the u.s. and iran can then build a relationship that will have to do with a wide range of issues and respect for iran and an awareness of iran's history and influence in the region? guest: i'm not precluding that. we want to be able 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 and we insist on our dignity, we insist on being able to engage based on mutual respect. that for us is extremely important. charlie: as soon as you say that, many believe that the supreme leader has had for a

long time a negative opinion of the united states, and believes that the united states -- and has benefited from his rhetoric. at the same time, the u.s. president has reached out and sent letters to the supreme leader. guest: which he replied to. the point is, the iranian public is not just a supreme leader. the iranian public are very skeptical of u.s. intentions. this is unfortunate, but a reality. the reality is that the iranian general public are very mindful of history. they remember the united states overthrowing a government, supporting a repressive regime. charlie: the united states remembers the taking of american hostages. guest: there is a bad history, a public psyche in the two

countries that have led to an atmosphere of mistrust. we do not want to debate what happened first, who is responsible for this, but we should realize this historical background and see whether through cooperation to resolve this issue we can in fact dent that wall of mistrust and see whether that provides us with an opportunity to move forward. the supreme leader has been very creative that he does not trust the united states, like most iranians. charlie: does he want to see a better relationship with united states? guest: he made it clear in his statement that if this goes well, it may open the possibility for talks in other areas. this we need to decide, we need to see how this works out. we need to see whether the united states is prepared to deal with the iranian people based on respect.

charlie: do you have any doubt that the president of the united states does not respect the iranian people? guest: if you want to have an agreement and keep putting pressure and sanctions on the iranian people, that does not signify to me a respectful approach. if the president is prepared -- it requires leadership. it takes a great deal of courage for iran to accept measures we are negotiating. charlie: is there more respect -- because you have spent 18 months in the trenches with secretary kerry, you have gone back to tehran and spoken to the supreme leader. i assume you have briefed him on all the details. it is said by people who analyze these things that you especially have his ear, that you would not be where you are without his approval.

guest: it's not the way you portrayed it. the iranian system is based on the will of the people, and the people have chosen this government. and the leader has always, throughout his tenure as a leader, he has always supported the choice of the iranian people. [indiscernible] he respects the choice of the people. now, we have been talking. i have been reporting -- unfortunately over the last 18 months, the united states can look at iran and say over the last 18 months, iran complied with all the obligations. unfortunately on our side, the united states has entangled itself in such a web of sanctions against iran but even if it wanted to, it would've been difficult for it to get out

of it. sometimes we saw that some overzealous politicians had more insistence on keeping sanctions and removing sanctions. charlie: we will of knowledge the sanctions have done terrible damage to your economy. guest: of course they have. but sanctions, you muster member, if sanctions were designed to help the iranian people -- charlie: to change the mind of the iranian government, not to change the mind of the iranian people. guest: the iranian government went ahead with building more centrifuges. what the site -- sanctions did was to create an atmosphere among the rain in population that the united states does not want to treat them well, that the united states is trying to put pressure on them, that the united states is trying to prevent them from even buying medicine with their own money from abroad. the united states is saying that iran can purchase medicine.

but if you go to a bank and say, i want to send medicine to iran, you cannot do that. charlie: no one doubts they have been successful sanctions. if you want to feel the pressure of a series of governments around the world, china to influence the government to come to the table and 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. guest: no, you see, my friend -- the point is, if you wanted to antagonize the iranian people, if the united states government wanted to create feelings and misgivings about united states amongst the general iranian population, then the sanctions have succeeded. but if the intention of the sanctions were to bring iran to the negotiating table, that's

not what they achieve. charlie: you are at the negotiating table. guest: because people like us were at the negotiating table even before this election. my predecessors when negotiating. we were always at the negotiating table. we were at the negotiating table during the administration and iran. president rouhani and myself were negotiating. then our successors continue to negotiate. it is now the united states that has abandoned that idea of zero enrichment great if the united states accepted that iran had the right to enrich 10 years ago, we would not have had all of this nonsense for the last 10 years. so if you want to -- charlie: the u.s. sees as long as there are caps on iranian enrichment, at least that's ok.

guest: there are proposals on the table 10 years ago, before a single united nations sanction was put in place that would have provided even a better option, but the united states decided to torpedo. the bush administration decided to torpedo the agreement that was being reached with the europeans at that time, and now they live to regret it. and now they understand that sanctions do not produce results. negotiations produce results. charlie: there's a lot of americans you respect, i assume. they have raised real caution about the agreement they understand. one question we will talk about frist, sanctions another question, inspection, then there are other issues. the united states has said that the sanctions should be phased out on the basis of good conduct and respect for the agreement.

the supreme leader and you -- and certainly the supreme leader said this publicly -- we have to have the elimination of all sanctions at the time of this final agreement. all sanctions gone. guest: we are talking about economic and financial sanctions and what we agreed the parameters of the agreement that we reached our very clear that once we start implementing the first steps, and the first steps -- the number of centrifuges what will happen to the redesign and building of a heavy water reactor in iraq, these are all parameters of the sanctions, all this agreement. all sanctions, all economic and financial sanctions must go. charlie: you say based on good conduct, and you say at the beginning.

the supreme leader says now, before we sign the agreement. guest: not before we sign it. sanctions must be lifted as soon as iran implements its part. have an agreement that provides for the lifting of all sanctions, all economic and financial sanctions. the sanctions are lifted trade the logic is very clear. if you want an agreement, you have two options. option of pressure, option of agreement. you cannot mix it. it is as if iran was to keep some part. charlie: what the supreme leader said and what secretary kerry said about sanctions is different, two different interpretations. guest: what i can say is what we have agreed upon. what we have agreed upon -- charlie: does it agree with what secretary kerry said?

guest: i allow secretary kerry to say what he wants to say. what i will say is what will be in the agreement if there is an agreement at the end of the day. if we have an agreement, that agreement must be based on this logic, very clear logic, that you cannot have two opposing tracks running at the same time. charlie: you mean building up of sanctions? guest: the two opposing tracks one is to have an agreement, another one is to impose pressure. imposition of pressure has its counterparts. charlie: if in fact there was a nuclear agreement, is it likely to lead to more cooperation in terms of u.s.-iranian relations, u.s.-iranian cooperation

u.s.-iranian joint efforts if it finds itself on the same side? do you somehow make the argument that if we can get past this nuclear agreement, we can work together to defeat our common enemy, in this case, isil, which is the common enemy of your competitors in the region, the saudi's, for example? guest: i see a possibility for regional cooperation which exists even now on dealing with all these issues. i believe the united states needs to make a very serious assessment of how policies that were based on a paradigm that is from our perspective outdated, does not work for this time in

world history -- this is a bit philosophical, and i've had six years of being philosophical -- you have to look at it this way, in a globalized world, zero sum game, you trying to impose a cost on somebody you don't consider to be friendly -- we have common challenges. we did to work for the so-called win-win situation needs to make again. you cannot make security at the gain of insecurity of others. i believe the united states is moving in that direction, i hope. if you look at the nuclear issue, the united states -- some at least in the united states, including those you mentioned, they consider their game to be our loss -- again to be our loss -- gain to be our loss.

this is fundamentally flawed. charlie: do you view an american law is -- loss as a win for iran? guest: not necessarily. i do not believe in a globalized world anybody with any rationality can look at the international situation as a zero-sum game. unfortunately, many people do. charlie: does your government see the united states as the great satan? guest: well, our people -- the government in iran follows the people. it's not the other way around. if you look at the polls, the polls that were even conducted by american polling establishments, including pew, a lot of polls indicate that the iranian people are skeptical of

u.s. intentions, even when it comes to nuclear negotiations. i believe the united states needs to convince the iranians that it does not harbor ill intentions against the iranian people. charlie: the iranian government needs to convince the american people that he does not want nuclear weapons, which would lead to a proliferation of weapons in the middle east, in your region of the gulf are you need to convince the american people of that because that is what they fear. they fear if iran gets nuclear weapons -- everybody all of a sudden will have nuclear weapons. the saudi's will reach out, and the pakistanis, and everybody will want nuclear weapons. is that a real possibility? guest: several secretaries of state roads in "the wall street journal" sometime ago that it is time for everybody to think of a

world without nuclear weapons because that is the ultimate. you have to make yourself accountable to the same criteria you want the rest of the world to be accountable to, and the united states, which has used nuclear weapons in europe shema and nagasaki -- in hiroshima and nagasaki does not have the authority to advise others what to do and not to do. we believe the nuclear weapons did not provide security for anybody, they will not provide security for anybody. we have made a solid determination the nuclear weapons run counter to our islamic values. charlie: rouhani said that to me. why do you think the world is not trust you? -- doesn't trust you? guest: lies have been spread by of all people, the israelis, the only ones in our region who

possess nuclear weapons, the only ones who are not a member in our region. yesterday i was talking to the egyptian foreign minister. we want to establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east. what don't you push israel to accept this? because tomorrow, if you have everybody in the middle east accepting and everybody is there ready to accept no nuclear weapons in the middle east, with all the inspections you want in the world, that we will not have nuclear weapons. netanyahu does not have any authority to become nonproliferation guru of the world. this guy sits on 200 nuclear warheads which are illegal, have been developed in contravention of every international treaty on nonproliferation. let's be serious. iran never wanted nuclear weapons.

charlie: i granted the point you made about israel, they do have nuclear weapons and did not sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, and everybody is aware of that fact. guest: so why don't you deal with that fact? this is the fact on the ground and i don't see anybody -- iran did not invade its neighbors. israel every two years invades gaza. charlie: i don't want to go off into that. guest: i know you don't. charlie: you get into the question of who provoked who. it looks like your friends hamas has survived this. they will argue they survived that war and came out stronger in some cases. guest: usually people who resist aggression came out stronger. charlie: why don't you want to provide a history that john kerry and others have asked you

to provide so they would have a basis to look at, they would know more about what you had done and have a basis to make an evaluation about the future? you refuse to include that. guest: we didn't. come on. hold on. let's take one step at a time. somebody makes an allegation against you. it's up to them to prove it, not for you to disprove it. allegations have been made against iran one after the other. iran has been inspected in the last 10 years more than any other country in the world, save for japan. the only country that has been inspected more than iran -- i'm referring not to the report recently, based on 2013. more money was spent on iran than any country other than japan.

charlie: do you recognize iaea says there are 10 basic unanswered questions? if you want to prove your point -- guest: did you ask when they got the questions? based on allegations that israel provided to them. if people who are themselves [indiscernible] continue to accuse others who have a track record of complying with their obligations -- what we can do, and what we have been trying is to develop a framework for us to answer those questions, but it has to be clear that proving the negative is impossible. you know that. any lawyer will tell you it is impossible to prove a negative. someone who makes an allegation,

who presents an allegation, must provide the evidence for that. the problem is the iaea has been searching iran for the last 10 years, has spent more time in iran -- charlie: if you have nothing to hide, let them in. guest: they got in. charlie: you are saying we have nothing to hide. we have centrifuges. we want to use them for peaceful purposes. i say inspection is a big deal for trust and verification or non-trust and on verification. whatever you want to define it as, it's a big deal for the americans and for the iaea. guest: if there is a deal, iran will accept the highest international level of inspections. that is the additional protocol. come on. go anywhere, anytime. you're talking about sovereign countries. there are international standards.

go anywhere anytime where? which country is prepared to give you go anywhere anytime? all countries have industrial secrets, military secrets. if there are basis -- there is an international criteria. people come up with these hysteric arguments. we have an international set of measures being implemented in a lot of countries, and iran has said that if there is an agreement, that if we choose the path of cooperation instead of the path of confrontation -- because you cannot choose the path of confrontation and expect this site to cooperate -- it's either/or. verification and trust, that requires you to accept certain norms, certain international practices that are now agreed upon and available to all

countries. iran is prepared to accept the highest level of international inspections available. charlie: in the interest of what little i do know about the deal and what i have understood from different people, secretary kerry has said in conversations when the question was raised of him like i am raising the questions with you by margaret brennan, the state department correspondent at cbs, ask him about inspections and why should we believe inspections this time when they were ported in the past, john kerry said, these are the most extensive inspections we have ever seen. those that are proposed as part of this agreement. is that true or not? guest: the secretary says -- what the secretary says is true speak to the american people and he can say and present the

inspections that are going to take place under what is known internationally as the additional protocol. charlie: do you believe these are the most extensive intrusive inspections you have ever been subjected to? those that are encapsulated in this agreement? guest: iran is agreeing to implement the protocol. the protocol is the highest standard of inspections available in the world. if iran implements the additional protocol, iran would be implement and the highest standards of inspection. that is not exclusive to iran, that is the standards of inspection that some other countries are implementing. let me to you something. iran was prepared to implement that in 2003. charlie: why did everything fail in 2003? guest: we have lamented the additional protocol from 2003 to 2005. the united states government

chose the path of confrontation and torpedoed the possibilities for cooperation. the same people who killed the opportunity for cooperation then are advising now to kill this opportunity. charlie: thank you for coming. the conversation with the foreign minister of iran. thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

rishaad: "this is trending business. another wild ride as china faces a -- stocks suspended. value blown away. to make things worse, two typhoons are about to hit.

mark mobius saying it is an act of desperation. do not forget the hashtag. juliette: a bit of buying coming back in hong kong. the hang seng following to -- falling to the lows level since 2009 but more buying in the exchanges. you did mention the typhoon. hong kong exchange saying they will close if it gets too close. shanghai composite, down 1%. extending the rout. one of