♪ from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." conversationght, a with the man who negotiated iran's nuclear deal with the united states and directly with the secretary of state john kerry. we spoke at the asia society in an extended conversation about iran, its neighbors, terrorism, nuclear weapons, and the u.s./iranian relationship. this is an expert -- excerpt from my conversation last night in which they talk about some of the accusations against iran. let me turn to iran.

they also suffered some rhetorical assault from the president. he said not only was the deal and embarrassment that he called iran a corrupt regime and rogue nation. why is he doing that? why is that necessary? >> let me tee up the problem and let my diplomat friend solve it for us. there are two buckets. one is the iranian nuclear weapons program. iraniannd is misbehavior in the region. their own conducting of terrorism, or support to insurgents, their desire for regional influence, their desire that israel be wiped off the face of the planet. that set of issues. believe thessue, i nuclear deal has put that issue in a box for the next 10 to 15

years. it is not perfect. but it is pretty good because it has put them in a box for 10 to 15 years. know, the iranians are living up to almost the entirety of the agreement. there is just a handful of small issues with they are not in lance. but those are minor issues. ae president has to make decision about how to handle the first one. he also needs to make a decision on how to handle the second one. the iranianser from this misbehavior in the region? that is the second thing we have to do. that has to be done against the most interesting politics inside iran and a long time. there is a real struggle playing out publicly between the hardliners in what i call the centrists.

rouhani is a centrist. the supreme leader is a hardliner. it is a struggle over whether iran will remain a revolutionary nation. it was fought publicly. charlie: i asked foreign minister that question. he said we want to be both. >> you cannot be both. both cannot coexist at the same time. this debate played out publicly on the debate stage between rouhani and his very conservative candidate for president. the iranian people voted overwhelmingly they wanted to go in a certain direction. the question is, in trying to manage the nuclear issue that the president is going to have to make the decision on sin and managing the regional misbehavior, how do you do that in a way that is not strengthen the hardliners and weaken the centrists?

charlie: when we talk about supporting terrorism, the charge against iran is they are heavily involved in yemen. that is one. go ahead. conducts terrorism around the world against israeli and jewish targets and against the targets of its neighbors. charlie: how do they do that? what are they doing? -- a fascinating? >> of the saudi ambassador in the united states couple of years ago. it was interrupted. there was an attack in europe several years ago that the iranians were involved in. i think it is fair to say they are the only state in the world that still practices terrorism

as statecraft. they provide support to terrorist groups. hezbollah, hamas, and others. hezbollah did not exist without the support it gets from iran. support to insurgents in the region trying to overthrow sunni bahrain,mes in yemen, eastern provinces of saudi arabia. their support for people like president assad is a whole other issue. by regional.i mean >> i think president trump is right to try to push the iranians back on the big struggle for power in the middle east and he is wrong to try to wiggle out of the wrong nuclear deal. there is a big shia-sunni struggle for power. we have taken sides on that, haven't we? we said we support the saudis which represent the sunnis. >> president trump is right to

do that. charlie: why is he right? president obama's tactic was different. i thought president obama's tactic was to try to recognize iran had legitimate interests in the region and get the saudis to talk to them. the foreign minister said here at this table we cannot get them to talk to us. isn't that what the president wanted to do, obama? he wanted the saudi's to talk to the iranians. >> it is hard to do that when the iranians are launching military offenses trying to establish a continuous line from lebanon.o damascus to the greek shia power, iran, is punching a hole in the sunni world challenging the power of the sunni state. this is an existential issue for the gulf arabs, egypt, and israel. israeli relations with these

countries are the best ever because they have a common enemy. i think president trump has been right. despite my deep respect for president obama and support for him, i did not think he was as effective on this. we have got to be sending military aid and acting politically in a way we try to isolate the iranians. charlie: we made a deal to sell weapons to the saudi's. >> i think we were right to do that. i was the point person on a run for the bush administration. we spent our time sanctioning the iranians. we never got to the negotiating table. i think it would be a great mistake for president trump to walk away. ♪

♪ the view from iran with a man i have no more than 10 years took place at the asia society on wednesday night in new york. here is that conversation. to the man i have had many conversations with. mr. foreign minister, it is a pleasure to see you again. >> it is good to see you and be with this distinguished audience. at the united nations last week, the president called

iran a corrupt dictatorship, a rogue nation. he said the u.n. deal was an embarrassment. said iran wasani a country inclined toward moderation, had no expansion ambitions, and was unmoved by the threat. and it would be a pity if iran was destroyed by a rogue newcomer to the world of politics. about youralk meeting with the american secretary of state, rex tillerson. what did you talk about? what was the tone of that conversation? meeting. a civilized [laughter] i think after that speech, secretary tillerson set the bar very low. just not throwing shoes at each

other. [laughter] >> we certainly achieved that. we did not throw shoes at each other. group, we meete bilaterally. remindeded to be this is a multilateral agreement. with theng took place security council where we started the process four years ago with secretary kerry. it was a reminder to everybody this deal is not a treaty. it is not a multilateral agreement which needs ratification by the u.s. senate. it is in fact a security council resolution, and we were sitting in the informal consultation room where these resolutions are worked out usually. this one was not worked out in that room. it was worked out during two

years of tedious negotiations in vienna. and prior to that, 10 years of posturing. i'm sorry to see we are going back to the posturing, pre-negotiation posturing. everybody in the room reminded secretary tillerson this was a good deal. there is no perfect deal. no need to be perfect because perfect for one side would be a disaster for the other. it cannot be zero-sum. we decided to define the objective in the beginning of the process in a way that was amenable to a solution. we decided not to resolve all of our differences. positiontely, the u.s. was reiterated by secretary tillerson about what they

perceived to be -- charlie: did secretary tillerson say if certain things did not happen, if was not modified or renegotiated, the united states would leave the deal? >> no, he did not. this administration, these people get it. [laughter] >> [indiscernible] maybe and after butte in foreign policy but unreliability is not. charlie: the notion that there is much misunderstanding about it. i want to understand from your perspective. significance of the 10 years? >> we believe iran has not violated any international agreement and if iran accepted certain increased monitoring of its activities, greater transparency, it did not need to go through extra limitations.

united states and some believed we needed that. this was the subject of great negotiations. we agreed to 10 years of limitations for iran's enrichment activities. we agreed to keep our stockpile at 300 kilograms. we agreed to reducing centrifuges. iran will be bound by very strict monitoring mechanisms. we agreed to implement -- let me tell you something. deal is built of confidence or trust. charlie: it is trust and verify. >> it is don't trust and verify because neither side trusts the other side. there has to be trust. we don't trust the united states .

in the united states obviously did not trust us. everything is based on reciprocity on both sides. behaves, six years from now, eight years from the signing of the agreement, we the additionalng protocols. additional protocols is the most inclusive inspection regime available in the international community. is implementing its own protocol because we are not confident about the behavior by the u.s. you will become an official party to the additional protocol in six years time, provided the united states takes care of its responsibility. and that would mean iran would be permanent because additional protocol [indiscernible] does not have you cannot withdraw from the additional protocol. when we ratify it, it means iran

will be permanent under the most intrusive inspection regime available. beyond that, we become a normal member. a normal number would be obliged not to pursue nuclear weapons. iran would be obliged not to pursue nuclear weapons. evidently, you and your president made a number of statements. thembviously do not want to was draw because you believe this is a good deal for both sides. >> as i said, it is not a perfect deal. it leaves a lot to be desired from our perspective. charlie: what happens if the united states government decides to withdraw? basisl, this would be the

for iran to make a decision to withdraw. but that would depend on a number of factors at play, including how europe would react to this. know, i cannot predict what would happen in iran's politics. debate goingvely on in the public sphere in iran, broadcast on television between presidential candidates. charlie: what did president rouhani mean when he said iran is inclined towards moderation? >> listen to the two speeches and you will understand from the tone of the speeches that iran is inclined toward moderation. respect forrudence,

international law, respect for the rights of your citizens, respect for the interests of everybody trying to reach non-zero-sum deals where the interest of everybody is preserved, are the ways towards sustainable international life these days. we live in a different environment. world have become intertwined. you cannot have security at the expense of insecurity of others. you cannot have prosperity while others live in poverty. these are all elements of iran's moderation. charlie: many people around the world do not see a moderation policy? had beenk iran aggressive in the nonnuclear arrangement details of policy between iran and the rest of the in terms of your

engagement around the world. violatestherefore, it the spirit. the spirit of the deal was coming out of this relationship between iran and the six countries would be perhaps progress towards making other kinds of arrangements that would bring iran into the nuclear nations even more. that was the idea. >> first of all, the united states is not in compliance with the letter of the deal. statement by president trump before the general assembly, which was not a campaign rally, u.n., the highest global institution, was a violation of the lecture of the deal. regionalak to the situation.

i'm talking to you. [laughter] >> from 1980 to 1988, who supported saddam hussein and who fought saddam hussein? when saddam hussein invaded kuwait, who supported kuwait? overthe taliban took afghanistan, who supported the legitimate government of afghanistan? charlie: that is an interesting point. >> who supported the taliban? charlie: people now believe iran is supporting the taliban. >> they are not. charlie: in no way is iran supporting the taliban in afghanistan hoping it will somehow be to your benefit if the taliban -- killed 11 iranian diplomats. we almost went to war with the

allies when the u.s. recognize the taliban as a legitimate government of afghanistan. i am not finished. in 2003, who was the first country to recognize the and who didf iraq everything to undermine that government? in 2001, who was behind the establishment of a new democratic government in afghanistan? and who continue to support the taliban? from 2003 to 2011, who was behind every move to undermine the iraqi government? who overthrew the government of the taliban? allies, the ones accusing us, for recognizing the taliban -- then who was behind isis in syria and iraq?

who supported financially isis? your allies. now they are exposing one another after this persian gulf crisis between four or five of your allies. they are accusing each other. they are exposing each other who supported more the terrorists. all of them did. who supported hezbollah in syria? join the syrian government in defending it? >> who prevented damascus, baghdad from falling into the hands of isis? charlie: i think president putin might say he did. >> president putin cannot say he did. we went to the support of the kurds.

charlie: i have heard this before. that you heartant me when you continue to repeat the same allegations. [laughter] charlie: you continue to repeat the same points. >> i am making a historical point. i am asking you. i am challenging anybody who can wentnybody other than iran to prevent isis from taking over. all the person are vets -- peshmergas were leaving everything as isis was moving in. called us andani asked for our help and we went. inrlie: i assume you are favor of what he would like to do with respect to the referendum on the kurds having independence. as people who are friends of

the kurds, we will remain eternal friends of the kurds. but we believe that was a major strategic mistake. we are the ones who went in and helped them, but we believe it was a strategic mistake. it has consequences that will not be limited. charlie: it is important to hear you say that because i know how passionate you are on behalf of your country. in many cases, you lay out an argument for wear them on has come to the support -- where iran has come to the support of people we have been close to. macron has said perhaps we should be having a conversation that would look at these cases in which there is disagreement about iran's engagement, whether it is yemen or syria or lebanon were afghanistan. are you open to looking at these questions of how iran is engaged

in its behavior to these other countries? >> we have always been an active participant in peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts. you want me to go back through history? the one who represented the united states in 2001, ask them who saved the day. and he will tell him your's truly. charlie: you being iran. when saddam was invading kuwait, join and iran to suggested if he was successful iraqiran and kuwait and would share the spoils. >> and he sent all his fighter jets to iran, but we did not

take the bait. coalition,join the but we helped kuwait. we were the first country to condemn the iraqi invasion of kuwait. equally important historical fact for people to remember. charlie: characterize your relationship with the united states today. [laughter] >> do i need to? charlie: please do. >> i think the united states is making a strategic mistake of sending a message to the world it is not reliable as a negotiating partner. deal, deal, to reach a you give concessions and you take concessions on the other side. new deal will be sustainable if you take concessions and ask for more after. nobody else will negotiate with the united states. united states will become known

as an unreliable partner. i believe even europeans are saying if the united states were to break the deal, nobody else would trust them. i think the united states has to prove it is a reliable partner. charlie: if the united states withdraws from the deal, what will iran do? he suggested the united states will suffer credibility issues. what about iran? >> we will make the appropriate decision based on the circumstances. iran is not the monitor. i did not make the decision, nor will anybody else. we will have a debate in iran about the consequences. we will have a variety of views. even today, there are people in iran who believe the united states has been less than compliant with other aspects of the deal. and therefore, iran should not stay committed to the deal. that is an argument being made the citrus the in iran --

vociferously in iran by a vocal minority. that argument has gained greater had the and support united states decided to leave the deal. charlie: what sides are winning in iran? reelected.ouhani was does that mean moderates are on the ascendancy? would you describe him as a moderate in terms of iranian politics? >> well, i believe he had a platform. , and he triedorm to explain that platform, domestic and global agenda. he received the support of the most population. it was not certain he would win. he did. next election --

charlie: i am asking about the trend of where iran is going. >> it depends. i'm asking about the trends in the united states. you vote republican, democrat, trump. it depends. charlie: we had the foreign minister here who knows the players. we are asking you here at the asia society as to where things go. >> i don't have a crystal ball. you know the players in the u.s.. if i ask who will win the next presidential election in the u.s., can you tell me who will our societies are not that different. maybe president trump likes to think of iran as -- i think it is interesting they haven't even seen a valid box in the country. may, this is a process created i don't know

what would happen. is important is we -- unlike your friends. from the beautiful military command of the united states. [applause] charlie: is the conflict between saudi arabia and iran a conflict of influence between the region, twot a conflict between countries who have different missions? guest: i think it is a conflict based on one .erspective i want to tell you one of those choices. all of the wrong choices.

it is -- is it our hope? illusion from the this region. we believe saudi arabia important in the region. we expect saudi arabia to also that we are an important part of this region. they can never exclude iran, as we would never try to exclude saudi arabia. i sent a message to the late saudi foreign minister, told him we are prepared to come each other and the reason. me it is none of your business. the air world is none of your business.

we need to work together for security of this region. and we are prepared to work together for the security of this region. i ask you to ask people who are in the know. we try to put an end to this conflict for it started. we try to use our influence to have a cease-fire. instead of talked about the nuclear issue we talk about yemen. it wasn't iran that reneged on its promise. attempt the other side has put a possibility for negotiated syndications in yemen. we believe yemen requires a political solution.

we believe syria requires a political solution. we believe none of these issues can be resolved militarily. prepared -- charlie: would you acknowledge you have a stronger presence in terms of iran or in terms of hezbollah on the ground in syria than it terms of saudi arabia? >> they make their own choices, theyepeating that created make their own choices and the presence is diminishing. our solution for yemen is cease-fire, humanitarian assistance. so that we can have an inclusive government. same for syria. this is been on the table for four years, the solution is >> why did soa

many countries question what iran's ambitions are in the region? >> i cannot judge why others are doing inks. it has become fashionable in washington the blame it on every thing. partiesference other who raised questions. >> we're talking about human readings and countries. we talk about policy. iselieve iranian policy clear. people have to bring themselves to the level of mutual respect. behaviorlk about the of other countries, talk about their policies, talk about their practices and see who has done

more to fight it. who has more consistency to fight terrorism? >> with you say to the question posed by henry kissinger iran has to decide where he has to be? >> the united states make that decision. she makes a decision that the nonstate is no longer enough. betweenthis dichotomy being the cause is an erroneous dichotomy. a policyd your eyes that has been doomed to failure. when president trump talks about

a dictatorship under the devise of democracy, in countries that are analyzing the united states, the concept of ballot docs does not exist. >> something you would like to see? what ought to be the conversation between the united states and iran about future relationship between the countries? your brotherhood and ask her inheritance. the united states needs to prove it is reliable. we have spent two years, probably we spent more time together negotiating.

let's respect them being negotiated. it is 100% in my favor. the united states would be inclined to accept. it has to be imposed by one side. if you asking me about the united states -- charlie: what is the path to a better relationship? one of the things president obama argued is that he wants this fee in the --ion more dialogue tween and recognition of competing interests come but dialogue between saudi arabia and iran. >> after we agree to the nuclear

was made by the the nowirman of the gcc -- qatar was done the chairman of the -- saudi's are auto. then the foreign minister of behalf thatsting on we engage in dialogue. and responded positively to that suggestion. the president was asked to put that in writing. and then the count prince of saudi arabia had an american news outlet saying they never engaged in dialogue.

what is iran's attitude and its program having to do with the development and deployment of missiles, which is not part of the nuclear deal? >> you need to look at history. >> you argue they are there for terrorist purposes.

don't seepeople assume they should accepted at face value. >> what we need to do is look at the path. saudi arabia spent $67 billion on weapons. emirates, which is 8 million- population, spent 14 billion and iran spent x billion dollars. these people, the iranian people are subject did to. weapons, nobody can. our member going to the president of the security council 25 years ago.

chemical weapons against iran. authorized.t our people have been warmed by the missiles area -- people have been bombed by missiles. from 1985 to 1988 there are six reports by secretary-general of the united nations saying that chemical weapons were used. a single council resolution and people are telling me chemical weapons are redline for them. iranian, no iranian wants chemical weapons on the red line because you tolerated their use?

when the government you supported in syria -- >> when the government you supported in soria -- in syria was using chemical weapons were you -- moe denounced them. charlie: at the same time the united states denounced them. guest: we denounced the use of chemical weapons. >> it was a government and country you are supporting and using chemical weapons. they argued that would not have survived. >> can i respond to your question? for a federal investigation. to determine who had used them. >> re: questioning of the syrian government may not have used chemical weapons. we are in syria not to

support anybody but to fight isis. we asked the international community to examine the evidence. >> were friends and you have to understand. that's why he's here with me and wanted me to do this. just making sure that was understood. >> it doesn't look like it. to understand try for historical respect. >> the united nations investigate war crimes to determine whether allegations -- that's what we asked. we held with disarming syria. we were very instrumental in

instrumental were in implementing it. and you supported that. to reach that. what would it take to convince you that syrians were using chemical weapons? >> an active investigation. >> you do not know in your own mind. >> that's the question. that's the question we have asked. we have no proof that is the case. we are ready to engage anybody.

>> a country has been destroyed by a war in syria. because iran has been a part of that in times of who is supporting it in terms of hezbollah. some will argue that what the government of iran wants is a clear crescent. reason we'ree supporting turkey? is that the reason we support the government? people create the paper targets they can find.

these are strong assumptions. why did we help? was turkey a government? why do we oppose the takeover of qatar? >> no one doubts that iran is opposed. that's not even a question. but on the question of afghanistan you have the same interest as the united states, you support the government in power. >> i certainly hope so.

>> this conversation is looking into areas where there may be an opportunity for the united states and iran and other countries as well to troubled region areas. it has regional inventions and regional influence. and it is part of the community. >> we want to live in a secure region. >> the united states respects that. neglect and that is the reason why the united onees has gotten itself after another in our region. allre you prepared to say issues may be raised by the united states or other countries can be on the table?

sat around the same table and insisted on a political solution, my statement and others, none of the statements issued by the serious support group, you have a simple statement for the solution. you don't have it. don't believe a word of what i >>, read the statements area do you believe the united states has a military solution? >> there are friends who believe it. the united states wants this. i'm not saying it doesn't. i talked to president putin, i know he wants to find a plate -- find a peaceful solution to syria. the united states is prepared to do it.

>> neither of my. we will take some questions from this audience. you mentioned the possibility of an exchange. aboutans are concerned imprisonment. americanscerned about in the iranians in prison. elsewhere on the united states extradition questec. sanctions no longer exist eight years ago. >> was hoping to keep it at the level that clearly the united

states will argue that debate held wrongfully in iran. what is the possibility? are the names being exchanged? >> no. >> why not? >> not the foreign minister of the united states. as you can see it takes two to tango. we had extensive discussions and were able to exchange some prison's. prisoners -- we still have some in the united states. and we have not been able to engage in an exchange. iran has no --of ofhave yet the ready

specific circumstances. that opportunity has not been presented. >> but hope it will be. say thatng you want to you have not been able to say? you have a long relationship here in america. and we appreciate you being on this stage here. i have enjoyed this long association. and i want and by giving you an opportunity not understood. reason.ieve there is no suffer underuld

the circumstances through dialogue. i believe that the threats that , frome from extremism stores to people dying from cholera. we have nothing against working with our neighbors to achieve within theurity area countries and in the region. we make our differences, we may i believerievances, if your suggestion that we sit around the table discussion elections, i'm sure the iranian people at --

it should be on the table. and we have been prepared in the past to put them on the table. that can stayrs behind. look at the situation. we make the right choices. we live in a very dangerous neighborhood. >> that's why it's so important. >> i believe it is important. we should talk to our neighbors. and we have done everything possible. don't give them that smoke ring. >> thank you for coming.

[applause] thank you for joining us, we will see you next time. [applause]

>> 7:00 a.m. in hong kong. i am yvonne man. welcome to "daybreak asia." top story this tuesday, the deadliest shooting in modern u.s. history. 59 are dead. more than 500 injured. police say the killer possible to the is a mystery. president trump is to visit las vegas on wednesday. the white house says now is not the time to discuss gun control. betty: from bloomberg global headquarters, i am betty liu in new york, where it is past 7:00 p.m. on monday. facebook overhauling its rules on political ads. staffers will review the process.