♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." program.welcome to the it is the end of summer, and as we prepare for the next season, we bring our favorite conversations here on "charlie an our withht, iran's minister of foreign affairs. >> i believe everybody should come together in actually fighting these extremist ideologies and fighting them does not mean only through military. this is much deeper. it should be a comprehensive strategy to deal with extremis

him and terrorism. m and terrorism emanate from a lack of hope, in addition to hatred and exclusion. there is the necessary fertile ideologueshich these , or demagogues, recruit new soldiers, new terrorists. we need to drive that fertile ground. charlie: that is next. charlie: mohammad javad zarif is here. he has served as iran's minister of foreign affairs since 2015. -- since 2013. he was the chief negotiator on the iran nuclear deal in 2015. on monday, president trump certified iran was in compliance with the joint comprehensive plan of action, but on tuesday, the administration announced new sanctions, saying the united states will continue to aggressively target iran's malign activity, including their ongoing state support of

terrorism, ballistic missile programs, and human rights abuses. this is his 12th time at this table. i am pleased to have him back on the program. welcome. javad sharif: good to be back. charlie: lots has happened since the last time i saw you. characterize for me today how you think the relationship is between iran and the united states. >> i think the united states has had a hostile policy towards iran for some time. this administration is certainly hostile policy. i think it is a misguided policy. i think the allegations against iran are tired and don't stand any test in reality. i think it would be best for the united states, because if the united states would look at its achievements -- quote unquote -- in our region, and see what it has achieved. it has made all of the wrong choices. its allies are accusing each other of supporting terrorism. i believe the united states needs to take a fresh look at

the situation in our region and see how it is dealing with important issues of stability and security in our region. and decide for itself where it wants to stand. charlie: but as you know, at the conference in riyadh, the saudi -- the summit in riyadh, saudi arabia and some of the arab state allies asked the united states to join them in isolating iran. so they believe you are engaged in these activities that the united states suggests you are. javad sharif: i just want to ask you who was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks? charlie: who do you think was behind it gekko was this individuals or an attack by the state of saudi arabia? javad sharif: we know the individuals came from saudi arabia, 15 of them. we also know the ideology came from saudi arabia. if you just check, from 2001-now, or even from 1998 to

now, almost 49% if not more of -- 94%, if not more, of terrorist incidents throughout the world have been instigated and perpetrated by people belonging to that school of thought, which is the official ideology of saudi arabia, and promoted with billions of petrol dollars across the globe, spreading extremism everywhere. it's unfortunate, because we , we believe we need to have good relationships with our neighbors, and we want to have good relationships with our neighbors, but they need to decide about the policy. unfortunately for the united states, the yardstick is not whether the country supports terrorism or not, the yardstick is whether they are buying beautiful military equipment from the united states or not. charlie: do you think that's a test of the united states? javad sharif: it was stated by the president that he would not go to saudi arabia until he was sure those things were on the table. charlie: but he believes it will

create jobs, the effort to sell weapons to saudi arabia. may i just go back -- javad sharif: it's good that they create jobs, but that should not be the yardstick for who supports terrorism. charlie: one thing that i think is interesting for the american people is what is exactly a terrorist and who is a terrorist ? for example, al qaeda is a terrorist organization. you would agree? javad sharif: yes. charlie: isis? you would agree? javad sharif: yes. charlie: hezbollah, you would agree? javad sharif: i wouldn't. charlie: but they are on the terrorist list. javad sharif: they are on the united states terrorist list. again, let's apply a yardstick. let's take the united nations as an acceptable mechanism, an acceptable machinery to define for you who is a terrorist and who is not. ccept something

multilateral. we cannot accept the united states being the prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner, everything rolled into one. we can apply various yardsticks, but one would be to see who is on the list of terrorist states or terrorists in the security council, and the united states is a permanent member of the security council. we have no role on the security council. the security council considers taliban, al qaeda, isis, as terror organizations. charlie: and so does iran. each one of those -- javad sharif: saudi arabia and the united arab emirates are two of three states which recognize the taliban. only three states recognized the taliban before the united states overthrew them after 9/11. saudi arabia and uae were two of those three states. saudi arabia and uae -- these are u.s. allies.

i don't want to engage in saudi bashing. i am talking about the united states of accusing iran of itsorting terrorism, but own allies are exposing each other about who was first in supporting isis and al-nusra and other terrorist organizations. charlie: let me make this clear. i want to make sure we both have times -- both have time. do you believe saudi arabia supports al qaeda? do you believe saudi arabia supports aldosterone -- al-nusra? do you believe saudi arabia supports isis? javad sharif: i believe a lot of saudi money went to support these organizations. some of them are children of saudi arabia intelligence services. we know al qaeda, when it engaged the soviets, was a child of saudi intelligence services.

government, which was sponsoring al qaeda, was only recognized by three states. two of them were saudi arabia and the united arab emirates. charlie: the other was pakistan. javad sharif: well, that's a neighbor. as a neighbor, they have a problem. but for saudi arabia and united arab emirates, staying for -- far behind and far away from the actual scene, because iran is a neighborhood -- iran is a neighbor, pakistan is a neighbor, some of the other countries in the former soviet union are neighbors, but saudi arabia and united arab emirates are not even close. but they support it. they recognize the government. the money -- and it's clear. ask any intelligence person. the money that went to isis, most of it came from these countries. but more importantly -- charlie: not from the government, per se.

javad sharif: well, that is to be investigated. i not here to accuse anybody. we have been accused by a lot of people of a lot of things, and i don't know if it's good to accuse people. what i'm saying is the ideology came from saudi arabia. all of these people belong to the ideology that is promoted officially by saudi arabia, and it is spread throughout the world to people who are engaged in acts of terror. in one way or another, it has been affected. charlie: but you had a summit in which there was a call for, in a sense, a recognition of where radical extremist terrorism is coming from, and within islam, there had to be an understanding of what elements of who was using the religion to hijack the religion to engage in terror activities and that all muslims should be opposed. javad sharif: i would agree with that and i would applaud such an

effort. charlie: that was what they said. sharif: i believe everybody should come together in actually fighting these extremist ideologies. fighting them doesn't mean only through military. this is much deeper. it should be a comprehensive strategy to deal with extremism and terrorism. extremism and terrorism emanates from lack of hope. in addition to ideology and hatred based on exclusion, there is a necessary fertile ground from which these ideologues are -- or infected demagogues, recruit new soldiers, new terrorists. we need to drive at fertile ground. the way to do it -- we need to dry that fertile ground. the way to do it is to provide identity, hope, dignity, education, and to provide an economic future.

these are what is lacking in the region and beyond. charlie: when you look today, what does iran want? what role does it want to play in the world? sharif: iran has been able , despite pressure, despite the war, despite sanctions. we have been able to make progress, make scientific achievements in spite of the every restriction was imposed on our country and our people, even our students. they were prevented from studying physics and mechanics at western universities. but we made advances for one reason. size, content with our with our geography. charlie: you have no global

ambitions. javan sharif: we don't have global ambitions, and most importantly, we rely on our own people. we do not rely on foreigners for our independence, for our security, for our economic progress. we would love to work with the outside world, but we don't rely on them. security from our people. we derive our legitimate see -- our legitimacy run our people. secretary mattis the other day said that iran's presidential elections were a sham because somebody chose who should run in the presidential election. people in iran waited in line for 10 hours. even worse, people in los angeles waited in line for four hours. charlie: he remembered that there were people who wanted to

run that weren't allowed to run. you are talking about the ability to vote for those that were allowed to run. javan sharif: 1200 people registered to run for president. anybody, anywhere in the world, run an election with 1200 candidates? there has to be a process through which some who may not be qualified for the job could be eliminated. but -- arif: charlie: it could be argued they were to moderate in their views to be allowed. javan sharif: the fact is, in all democracies, you have a which candidates are excluded. here, you have the primaries and the caucasus. others have other means. javan sharif: they are -- charlie: they are all allowed to run. avan sharif: you still need number of signatures to be on the ballot. so every place, you have a

mechanism. i don't want to engage in interference in the internal affairs of other country. but as an observer, not as foreign minister, i can tell you that if you don't have enough money, if you don't have necessary financial contributions from big corporations or others, you may not be able to stand for an election. or like bernie sanders, who had a successful campaign and raise money from -- javan sharif: i have a lot of respect for senator sanders, but at the end of the day, you have a vetting process. what is important, people here, you have people who believe that in the united states, only members of this establishment can run. people can make a lot of allegations. at the end of the day, it is for the american people to decide whether they have the necessary choice, and they showed that by

coming to the polls. .ranians could've stayed home if they wanted to stay home and a ron, or if they wanted to stay home in los angeles, just answer this question. having livednians, in the u.s. for generations, stand in line for 4 hours in los angeles to vote? for a sham election? charlie: because there is always a love for the soil where you were born. engageharif: you don't in a futile exercise. of course there is a love. the love of my compatriots who live in the united states, and unfortunately, they have been insulted by president trump in the travel ban. they are loved for their country of origin as well as for their residence -- charlie: they have been insulted by the revolution, maybe they

lost their property or other things. javan sharif: just a small segment. that is a historical fact. there are procedures to address that. at the same time, these people who live in the united states, not simply out of love for their country, but out of the recognition that they had a real choice. charlie: several things about that. the german intelligence says, for example, you still have great desire to have a nuclear capability. javan sharif: we do have a nuclear capability. but we have undergone a nuclear vetting option. charlie: did you do that because of the pain of sanctions? javan sharif: we did that long before the sanctions started. i believe the sanctions were misguided and misplaced and didn't achieve any outcome other than increasing -- isrlie: conventional wisdom you were hurting so badly that you were willing to come to the negotiating table.

and you would take the sanctions away, we will agree. javan sharif: charlie, i presented a proposal to the french, the british, and the 23, 2005, march before all of these sanctions were presented. at that time, i was ambassador at the u.n. and i was the nuclear negotiator, the chief ourear negotiator was current president and i was negotiating on his behalf. i presented a proposal which is very similar to the final deal we reached 10 years later. charlie: what it -- why did it take that time? javan sharif: at that time, the ambassador was sitting in the state department preventing that deal from taking shape. today, he -- charlie: representing the bush administration. javan sharif: yes. and he is doing it all over

again. he is one of the most -- charlie: there was great division about the nuclear deal. javan sharif: the sanctions didn't bring iran to the negotiating table. the united states decided that it's zero enrichment option, 2003 it had to assume from to 2013, was not going to get it anything. what did sanctions produce? a produced economic hardship. i grant you that. was that the objective of the --ctions, or do you object didn't do you want to change iran's policy? i think it was to change iran's policy. charlie: on nuclear weapons? javan sharif: on centrifuges. in 2007, you had a national that statee estimate iran is no longer, from their

perspective, i am trying to be accurate in quoting, from our perspective, we never pursued nuclear weapons. during the bush administration, established, and ie iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. charlie: so the obama that youation thought were pursuing nuclear weapons? john kerry thought that. our negotiator thought that in said that. president obama thought that and has said that. javan sharif: don't suggest that -- charlie: -- body of work in america -- javan sharif: they make a wrong assertion. , the international atomic energy association, ofablished in 2015, november 2015, that the so-called military dimensions of iran's

nuclear program, not significant. that is why they closed the file. charlie: let me ask you about the idea of a shia crescent. it is said that the general, your esteemed leader, and why understand reports to the spring leader, you can help me understand where his level of reporting goes to. he is very much interested in having a clear route from iran to lebanon to support hezbollah. is that true? javan sharif: in 2004, when king abdulla made that statement, and it is interesting where he made the statement. he made it washington. with all due respect, and he knows i have a lot of respect for him, this was an attempt in fear mongering. an attempt in fear mongering that has continued, and has only brought misery and despair to our region.

there is no attempt to create a crescent. there is no attempt to create a corridor. iran has simply come to the aid of countries that have infighting extremism and terrorism. i believe everybody -- javan sharif: you didn't come -- charlie: you didn't come to date of lebanon, you came to the at -- they'd of has below. was lebanese it territory that was occupied, not hezbollah territory. charlie: occupied by the syrians. javan sharif: by the israelis. charlie: also by the syrians. javan sharif: as a consequence of the agreement in which we had no role, it was not our decision. it was a decision they took. they invited them to go and then they asked them to leave. so they did. i represent iran here. no other country. , in order toare help people fight terrorism. ♪

♪ charlie: what do you think of president bashar assault -- president bashar al-assad? javan sharif: it is my business -- it is not my business to think about him. it is the business of the people of syria. they should decide for themselves. charlie: for you to say that is in a sense --

javan sharif: i'm not. charlie: it's not my business, no matter what he does -- javan sharif: what happens in syria has been the consequence imposing outside syria redlines that this gentleman or another gentleman, or lady, should or should not be in the government. charlie: he said the use of chemical weapons -- javan sharif: but chemical weapons -- charlie: what happened in the iran-iraq war should be at the top of the list. people are saying of syria uses chemical weapons, it is a crime against humanity. javan sharif: we said that, and -- charlie: you shouldn't be supporting a regime that uses chemical weapons. javan sharif: you have to stop that, because who has -- i cannotthe fact

accept the united states, which is a party to the conflict, along with its allies, who are parties -- charlie: you are a party to the conflict. you are funding hezbollah -- javan sharif: you don't have to listen to me. you have to establish an independent international monetary mechanism to go and check. this is what we called for. the day after the allegation of ,he use of chemical weapons which was followed unfortunately by a huge military operation by theunited states, we asked international community to send a dedication to investigate on-site, both in the place of the alleged attack as well as an airbase where the allegedly, the chemical weapons were loaded onto the airplane's. chemical weapons, i mean, we were subject to the use of

chemical weapons. we invited the u.n. to send investigators. should i remind you that six times are seven times, the u.n. and established that iraq had used chemical weapons against iran, and not a single time did the united states condemned them? not a single time to the united states allow the security council to condemn it. i don't buy this, that it is a redline for the united states or other permanent members of the security council. charlie: because they didn't vote against it when it was used against you. javan sharif: it's not that they didn't vote at -- vote against it, they didn't, they actively played a role. charlie: they used their veto. javan sharif: they didn't even let it get to a vote. this is the sad irony of history. , we condemn the use of chemical weapons, no matter who uses them and no matter against whom it is used. p are and simple. charlie: but you deny --

toan sharif: don't expect me accept an allegation by the united states. we have asked for and investigations for an international impartial investigation of who used them. i am not saying what happened, because i wasn't there. charlie: they have video. they have everything else -- javan sharif: they have video of the victims. my heart goes out to the victims -- charlie: victims of gas. do you know what it does? javan sharif: no one knows better than me. here in new york, i received patients who had been victims of sarin gas. from iran and iraq. at kennedyem airport, i took them to hospitals, i showed them to diplomats, and nobody gave a dam. nobody. nobody issued a declaration in condemnation of the use.

so i know what sarin gas is. believe me, i do. charlie: therefore, you should be the most dominant argument against it, and holding countries who use it -- javan sharif: to account. charlie: exactly. javan sharif: we are prepared to do that. charlie: how many years has it been -- javan sharif: provided there is an international investigation establishing that fact. charlie: you doubt the facts? javan sharif: yes. charlie: you dealt the fact that -- charlie: this is -- javan sharif: this is the latest example. the united states responded, and -- charlie: the entirety -- javan sharif: my friend -- charlie: a war that has gone on for six years -- javan sharif:

>> i presented a plan in 2013 to end the war. it included a cease-fire. , national unity government people outside singh who should be in it who should not be in it. constitutional reform in syria, and an election based on that constitution. people started asking what would happen to president assad. i said you are putting the cart before the horse because if we are talking about constitutional reform, the constitutional reform may come up in the parliamentary system. charlie: the syrian people should decide what happens. >> the syrian people should decide the formal government, and after they decide the formal government, they should decide who is in it, so for people to have prolonged this conflict for at least four years, because this idea was on the table since

2013, and as secretary kerry has said time and again, this idea, my plan, formed the basis for security council resolution 2254 on syria, which unfortunately was adopted two years later. or even more than two years later. so we are talking about real situations. we need to bring these conflicts to an end. we need to bring the war in syria to an end. we need to bring the senseless bombing -- charlie: how do we bring the war in syria to an end? >> as i said cease-fire. believe ayou cease-fire in that small region will hold? >> there is a de-escalation in three larger reasons, iran, russia, and turkey, and now the cease-fire is holding more or less. the amount of suffering of the syrian people has been drastically reduced since

december of last year when this initiative by iran russia, and , turkey has been in place, and we believe it should he enlarged to include all of syria, except for fighting against isis and al-nusra. they cannot be part of the cease-fire. charlie: do you believe that iran and russia and america can work together to change syria? guest: i think everyone should work together in order to end this tragedy in syria. charlie: are you prepared and would like to work with the united states and russia? thee were a member of international syrian support group, which included the united states and russia, but we did not hesitate. it also included countries in the region, because he would not be a will to do this without the support and assistance of other countries in the region. i believe you will not be able to end the conflict in syria

without saudi arabia. you will not be able to end the conflict in syria without turkey, without qatar, without egypt. of course, you will not be able to in the conflict in syria without iraq, but most importantly, you will not be able to resolve the conflict without the syrians. the syrians should decide. the rest of us should facilitate. we should not dictate to the syrians. charlie: did you approve russia coming in? they make the point they were invited in by the assad government. were you ok with russia coming into prop up the assad government? guest: it was not. charlie: it wasn't? guest: russia was invited -- when the russians came to syria, assad was in a much firmer position than it was in 2012-2013. you're talking about

comparisons. you're talking about relative situations. but that is not a debate we want to engage in. that is not for me to debate that. what we have said very clearly is that we do not interfere in the decision by a sovereign government. i give you an even clearer example. we disagree. we disagree with the united states. we do not intervene against the united states cooperating with the iraqi government. we have not intervene against that, because we believe that is a decision the iraqi government should make. we may oppose it, but it is their decision. charlie: would you encourage the government of iraq to make sure that sunni, members of the sunni

islam do not get shut out from government so they do not see what we have seen time after time? first al qaeda and then isis. >> exactly. charlie: and therefore? >> we believe the iraqi government should be inclusive. charlie: do you encourage the iragi government to do that? >> he is a strong friend of iraq. every government in iraq, thankfully, has been a strong friend of iraq, and this is our advice to all of them, that iraq needs to be an inclusive government with all segments of the iraqi population represented in the government. iran maintains extremely good relations with all segments of the iragi population.

we have good relations with the sunni community. charlie: you do not deny, do you, or i am asking, that isis got support from sunni tribes because they felt like they had no voice in baghdad. guest: isis got support from people who believed, as i said, these are the results of disenfranchisement. i would not disagree with you that the perception of not having a voice in society leads people to join these extremist groups, and that is why i said in the beginning that we need a comprehensive strategy to deal with these extremist groups, and that comprehensive strategy include certainty. giving a voice to everybody. i think this is what the government of iraq is committed to. we heard it. you heard it from prime minister abbadi. you heard it from leaders of every community in iraq, and

this is something that iraq would wholeheartedly support, and we want every other country in the region to engage with us the iraqi and united nations to support national unity in iraq, particularly now that we have this prospect of a referendum and centrifugal activities. we need to call for unity. we need to call for inclusion. charlie: do we need to call for self-determination for the kurds? guest: i believe the kurds have certain autonomy, and i believe it is important -- charlie: within the constitution of iraq? you are not in favor of them having self-determination in their own government? >> self-determination is for all peoples, but the constitution of iraq, national unity of iraq, are of paramount importance for the kurdish population, very important for the rest of iraq. it is important for everybody. i believe there is consensus globally. ♪

so we need tablets installed... with the menu app ready to roll. in 12 weeks. yeah. ♪ ♪ the world of fast food is being changed by faster networks. ♪ ♪ data, applications, customer experience. ♪ ♪ which is why comcast business delivers consistent network performance and speed across all your locations. fast connections everywhere. that's how you outmaneuver.

♪ charlie: this was before the election of 2016, but occasionally, i would hear someone say, "five to 10 years from now, the united states will be closer to iran than it is to saudi arabia." guest: we are not competing. charlie: you know what i mean. the geopolitical world is

changing. guest: i think the united states needs to reevaluate the achievements of the united states and the failures of the united states in our region, and based on that reassessment, they will see the role and place of various countries in the region, we certainly hope. we are not competing with saudi arabia. we believe iran and saudi arabia should be a part of a regional dialogue. i wrote an op-ed in the new york times several years ago calling for a regional dialogue, and i believe that is what is lacking in our region. we are ready for it. i believe as soon as our saudi neighbors are ready to engage in dialogue, in resolving issues through dialogue, not through pressure, because unfortunately, this has become a habit of either using the united states in order to put pressure on different countries or with

countries where they can impose direct pressure. charlie: does this include israel? mohammed: i am modest. i am talking about our immediate neighborhood, and that is the persian gulf. all of the wars in recent years, from the iraqi invasion of your invasion ofthe kuwait, to u.s. operation to liberate kuwait from iraq, to later u.s. operation against iraq, to al qaeda, to daesh, to isis, to yemen, let us concentrate. let us not be too ambitious. let us concentrate on this region. charlie: no israel now? guest: which has been the odd of extremism, violence, and war and conflict, and let us deal with this. we are ready to deal with it. we are ready to resolve the problem. we are ready to engage in dialogue. we are ready to engage in confidence-building measures. we believe that others should

not look for an enemy. there is no need for an enemy. we don't need an enemy. we already have enough enemies. enemies -- charlie: you don't see the united states as an enemy? >> i am talking about our immediate neighborhood. united states can define its relations with iran at this time and for some time, the united states has defined its relations with iran in terms of hostility. this is nothing new, not particular to this administration. unfortunately, the united states has followed the hostile policy towards iran and it has received a reciprocal reality. president obama pursued a very hostile policy towards iran for many years. he came to the conclusion towards the end of his administration that he needed to find a negotiated way only regarding the nuclear, while the united states continued their

hostile policies vis-à-vis other issues. charlie: but it was also iran that said we don't want to talk about our behavior. we do not want to talk about -- deal, but the nuclear you did not want iranian behavior on the table. the united states would define it as supporting extremism. guest: we wanted to limit the immediate discussion to the nuclear issue so to not complicated. it was not the issue of behavior. iran has even more grievances about the u.s. behavior. how about the fact that the united states -- you and i have been at this table discussing the fact, in 2003, if you remember, where i predicted that the u.s. invasion of iraq would lead to more extremism in that region. -- we have grievances. we have problems with u.s. behavior.

but with the nuclear issue, we thought that this was a burning issue, needed to be resolved. it should not be further complicated by adding extraneous elements. but even then we said, if we can make progress on this issue to reduce the mutual lack of trust, then we can build on this issue to move to other issues. that is why we said very clearly -- charlie: is that still possible? guest: unfortunately, the behavior by the united states, even during the obama administration, but particularly since the new administration, with the stuff taking place, the statements coming from the white house, i mean, yesterday even, in order to certify that i ran complied, they made sure to put new designations against iran at the same time so they would prevent iran from benefiting from the economic dividends of

the nuclear business. it has been the persistent policy of the administration. this administration is more open instating it. i am happy the rest of the international community is continuing to do business with iran in spite of the intransigent rhetoric coming from washington. that is what is keeping the nuclear deal alive. i believe the nuclear deal is alive because the rest of the world and iran want to keep it alive. because it is a multilateral agreement, and it is being kept alive by people who are engaging with iran. i believe it will continue to be so. i believe the united states, in all honesty, as somebody who has studied the united states for a very long time, i can tell you, it is in the national interest of the united states to revisit its policy with regard to our region, to assess where it went wrong, this policy of applying

double standards to our region . i mean, the range of issues that you said would be of concern in our behavior to the united states. we have similar concerns, but we also, in addition to that, we have a concern about the application of double standards. on human rights, which of your allies, which of the united states' allies in the region have a record that is even close to iraq? charlie: every time anyone knows that you are going to be here, and i saw this with my colleague at cbs, they bring up one case after another, and the answer always is "look, that is up to the judiciary, not to the --" >> no, no. let us just make a comparison. iraq under saddam hussein was not being criticized for its

human rights violations until it invaded kuwait. other governments in the region never had a ballot box, never had a vote, have no representatives, even hardly have any rights, and nobody complains about their human rights. charlie: i mean -- guest: they are u.s. allies. they do not have any human rights -- are there any human rights sanctions against any? arab allies? why are they imposed on iran? with respect to saudi arabia, they do raise the question. >> yeah, very nicely, but not a single saudi individual is designated by the united states -- and i do not like them to be designated, because i believe it is the wrong policy. i do not believe it is the right policy. but just to compare, not a single individual in saudi arabia where innocent human

beings are beheaded has not been on the human rights designation list in the united states. that tells you a lot about these u.s. concerns about iranian behavior, because those concerns -- charlie: it is more a question of geopolitics that it is of values. guest: it is only a question of geopolitics. we lived under the shah. i had to escape, come to the united states, because of these filings of human rights. charlie: let us assume the united states should speak out ,gainst, and you are correct should speak out against human rights violations, not only with its allies, but within its own country. human rights ought to be the guide regardless of whether they are friend or foe. guest: that is, for iran, for instance, that is where we derive legitimacy and our

security and our economic well-being and prosperity, because we do not get that from outside to just look at the reality on the ground. with all the sanctions, with all the pressure, with all the wars, with all the containments. we are prospering. we are surviving. we are making progress. in scientificfive articles in the field of nanotechnology. we are among the top 10 in many areas of signs and technology. we achieve that by relying on our people. so that is why -- charlie: i would say to that , "good for you." guest: it is good for us. but we get it in spite of the fact that we are under restrictions. that tells you something about our relations with our own people. now, every country can improve its human rights record. charlie: including iran. guest: obviously including iran.

that is why the president of iran has put out a charter of the rights of the citizens. we believe that excesses exist. we need to address those excesses. and we need to resolve them. this is our own priority as an issue of national security for us, because that is how we derive our legitimacy, from our people. so we have to respect them, pure and simple. this was one of the major topics during our election campaign and president rouhani's platform is very clear on that. charlie: that we have to do better on human rights? guest: much better. much better. there are others in our region who are far behind, but the united states never complains about them. they are not designated by the united states. they support terrorism. not a single one of them is designated. they are sending terrorists to your territory.

15 on 9/11. charlie: you do have to be careful with that. but no onesaudis, has proven they were sent by the saudi government. guest: has anybody proven that anything about iran? ait, wait. guest: did you know that a court in new york condemned iran for participating in 9/11? fined us $11 billion for participating in 9/11. do you want me to buy this? come on. a court in new york. go read the court document. a court in new york awarded $11 billion to the victims of 9/11 against iran. are you telling me nobody has proven that saudi arabia was behind it? i think the final judgment came out. let me tell you something you're familiar with. charlie: ok. >> president trump banned citizens of six countries from

coming to the united states. it included iran. charlie: it did. >> iranians in the united states are outstanding citizens. charlie: they are. >> they are outstanding members of their own community. charlie: they are. >> good positions, good scientists. silicon valley may not be as prosperous as not for iranian scientists. charlie: i have just said that iranians have come to the united states and made huge contributions. >> so why -- >> well, let me finish. to who we are, they have. they made a huge contribution. charlie: why are they preventing grandmothers from coming in -- charlie: so have immigrants from all over the world who have come here. that is one of the values that the united states stands for. do you agree with that? >> yeah, i do. and that is why it is mind-boggling for me to see the that iranians have been singled out as one of the six countries

in the ban, the travel ban by president trump. that is an affront to the entire iranian society. charlie: does it therefore cause you to have great respect for the american system that courts have said it cannot happen? but at the end of the day they allowed it to go through. >> the courts have ruled again -- you know. multiple courts in the united states ruled against that. mohammad: and we applauded that. but at the end of the day, you know that that decision does charlie: most americans believe that a ban on the basis of religion is an affront to what america stands for. >> or nationality. charlie: or nationality. >> i would agree with that. does president trump agree? charlie: i cannot speak for president trump. i can't say that it is always a pleasure to have you here.

i think that when you here and we have a conversation -- you and i and you and others may disagree or admire many things, that what you said and what i believe in is that iran is a great country. the united states is a great country with a proud tradition. and that both would be better off if they tried to find common ground and figure out a way that those things that are not in the best interest -- mohammad: we did find common ground on the nuclear deal. i think the world is better for it. and i hope people will stick to it because that is a good deal. there can't be a better one, because at the end of the day, a deal is a give and take, and we gave some, and the united states gave some, because that is the name of the game. i think we need to recognize, it

is an important recognition in the state and age, that no one can win at the expense of others. maybe temporarily, but that is not sustainable. sustainable gains should be all-inclusive, should include everybody. i think that should apply to the iran nuclear deal. it should apply to the situation in syria. it should apply to the situation in yemen. it should apply to the security and cooperation in the persian gulf region. and i believe iran has shown its readiness to engage in a positive sum game in all these places. charlie: thank you for coming. mohammad: good to be with you again. charlie: it is good to have you here. >> thank you for the conversation. charlie: come back soon. thanks. ♪

>♪ there in the middle of asian trading day. welcome to bloomberg markets: asia. >> the un security council to meet as north korea fires a over japan. >> the new tensions sends gold to the highest level of the year. investors seek safety. jumps again after

profit triples. shares of 370% this year. giant,a creates a power combined assets total $270 billion. what's powering through today, north korea, and it is driving those safety haven plays, including gold. i want to dive into our bloomberg. 9456, and this is what we are talking about. let's do the elliott wave theory here. it is a little technical, but let's walk you through. what this elliott wave theory is that it looks at crowd factors inmoves and the extremism of investor psychology. the very optimistic compared to the very pessimistic.