>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin today with the historic argument at the u.s. supreme court about same-sex marriage. we talked to adam liptak of the "new york times" and david boies, the attorney. >> if this issue can be resolved democratically at the polls through ballot referendums through elected representatives and legislators, the supreme court could be a little wary of stepping in and putting an end to what chief justice roberts called a fast-moving debate. he referred to the public opinion polls and said this is getting settled on the ground. is it really for us nine unelected judges unrelated to the ballot box to step in and tell the american public what each state has to decide on these issues?

and that point was echoed by one of the liberal justices justice stephen breyer. this shift which is without precedent is mostly a sign the court is likely to rule in favor of same-sex marriage. >> rose: we conclude with part one of a two-part conversation with the iranian foreign minister javad zarif. what happens if these negotiations fail? >> well, it won't be a disaster, but it would be a very important missed opportunity because it's 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 to us, the iranian government, and the international community by the

people of riern to engage. if our people see the engagement will not produce the necessary reciprocal respect we expect this would be an extremely important missed opportunity that will not only prevent us from resolving this issue which, in our view is a non-issue because, ace told you, we didn't -- because as i told you we didn't have any program to develop nuclear weapons anyway, we consider them irrational and immoral. >> rose: same-sex marriage and iranian foreign minister on nuclear negotiations. coming up. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by:

>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. captioning sponsored by >> rose: we begin this evening with marriage equality. the supreme court heard oral arguments today in a case that could resolve one of the greatest civil rights issues of our time. the justices are considering two questions -- whether the constitution requires states to license same-sex marriages and if states must recognize the marriages performed in other states. the issues arise from four lawsuits brought by same sex couples. joining me is adam liptak of the "new york times" and david boies who successfully argued against

california same-sex marriage ban proposition 8, i am pleased to have both on this program this evening. adam, set the scene for us. you were in the room at the supreme court building and watched the advocates make their case and listened to the questions of the justices as they tried to go through it. tell me about it. >> the room was absolutely packed charlie. it was full of same-sex couples gay rights leaders and i think they left feeling pretty good but not as good as they might have. the questioning was more mixed than they might have liked. justice anthony kennedy asked some questions that he thought maybe the court was moving too fast in this area, that maybe it should hesitate to change a definition of marriage which he said we've had for millenia but in the second half of the argument made strong points about the dignity of gay families, the importance to

children that their same-sex parents have all the benefits of marriage. so i think, on the whole and given how much more emphatically he made the second set of points, it's very likely justice kennedy who's written all three gay rights landmarks at the supreme court will continue down that path. but i will have to say the evidence is more mixed than i would have anticipated. >> rose: do you think adam is correct? >> no, it obviously would be very disappointing if we lost this case, but i think what justice kennedy was recognizing in the beginning was simply this is an important case that need to be decided and has nod been decided and this country has moved considerably. public opinion has moved considerably. i think all of us look alt equal rights differently than we did when i was born. so i think what justice kennedy was doing in the beginning was

simply recognizing the magnitude of this decision. i think the substance of what he says in the second half of the argument is very powerful. remember justice kennedy just two years ago wrote the windsor decision. you can't read that reasoning, i believe, and come to the conclusion that you are not going to have a recognition of equal marriage equality today. i just don't see how you can reconcile those. justice scalia, whom i don't always agree with but who is always perceptive and almost always right to the point, i think in his dissent, and windsor likely laid it out is the principles are the principles that compel a favor of marriage equality. >> rose: adam, speak to thanks i think david is quite right. before the argument in the morning when all we knew was

justice kennedy's reasoning in his windsor decision, there was a lot of reason to think he was prepared to go all the way and would say so today. he stopped short of saying so today. will he say so in june? i agree with david very likely yes. but his questioning suggested that he knows he's on the brink of a major transformation of american society and one that would largely be accomplished by court rulings and not democracy and that seemed to make him a little bit nervous. >> rose: what more did you glean from watching this about the justices beyond kennedy and about the advocates? >> both sides presented their arguments well. the lawyers were good. the more liberal justices were skeptical of the justifications the states offered for banning same-sex marriage. the states said somehow in banning same-sex marriage it would make traditional marriage more secure, it would make children better off and justices

kagan, ginsburg sotomayor went after them on that saying whatever you say about traditional marriage, it's not clear how banning same-sex marriage will do any harm to that institution. >> yeah, i grow with that. i -- yeah, i agree with that. i also thought it was interesting that you saw both in the chief justice's comments and justice alito's comments a search to see whether there was some middle ground. one of the questions justice alito asked in the second half of the argument when they were talking about whether states had to recognize other states' marriages, even if they did not recognize marriage equality in their own state justice alito said, well maybe they've got enough of an interest not to have those marriages performed

in their state but not enough of an interest to prevent recognition, full faith and credit, other states' marriages. he said that's possible. opinion thought it was interesting to see justice alito who i think a lot of people would say would be against marriage equality in any form trying to find in the civil rights area some middle ground that he could be comfortable with. >> rose: and where is that middle ground? >> i think the middle ground he was suggesting -- i don't mean to suggest he's going to come out here -- but i think the middle ground he was asking about was the middle ground between not having a right to marry in a particular state if the state doesn't want you to but that state has to recognize your marriage if you have been married someplace else. that was the second question the supreme court had set for review. and when the chief justice asked, well, maybe this is a violation of gender eequality

because one man can marry a particular woman but could not marry another man and that is purely a sexual distinction which obviously has a very high bar to be justified. so i think it was interesting to see that a number of the justices that i think some people might have said were just going to be almost all automatically against the proponents of marriage eequality searching to see whether there was a middle ground or way to reach that. >> rose: rugh bader ginsburg and elena kagan said allowing same-sex marriage would do no harm, which is the argument many people do make would do no harm to the marriages of opposite-sex couples, it's not going to

destroy the traditional marriage. >> it's only going to make the institution of marriage stronger, children more healthier and stable and secure. i think that was one of the points justice kennedy was making so eloquently is this is an institution that is important for children. marriage equality is important obviously for the two people involved in the marriage but also terribly important for the children being raised. i think that was one of the things justice kennedy mentioned two years ago in the windsor and perry arguments and came back to it again in the second half of the first argument today. i think that's a very powerful and important point. against those benefits you don't have anything to bounce. the state doesn't have any interest in preventing marriage equality. it's not going to harm heterosexual marriages. that's a silly argument at this point. if there's no harm in it, how can a state possibly have an

interest in preventing something that simply increases people's happiness and security? >> rose: solicitor general don varili said in the "new york times" a decision based on equal protection would have more practical muscle in other areas of the law but a symbolic blow to gay rights for the court to stop short of saying directly that gay couples have a right to marry. >> i think he's saying if you have an equal protection argument, what he's saying is you have to treat people equally regardless of sexual orientation, and if that has impact outside of the marriage equality issue. on the other hand, one of the things -- one of the reasons i think we're all interested in seeing a due process rationale as well is that that demonstrates that the state cannot deprive people based on sexual orientation of these important fundamental rights.

remember that loving against virginia in 1967 when the supreme court destroyed the ban invalidated the bans in interracial marriage was a cite on both grounds, due process and equal protection. >> rose: the solicitor general dferred from some of the arguments made by the plaintiffs' attorneys in seriously of the arguments he was making. >> he was making a more narrow or focused argument which is not unusual for the solicitor general. in the perry case when he came in on our side he, nevertheless made a considerably narrower argument. but i think the important thing is going to be the result here. the important thing is to get recognition of marriage equality nationwide and then you want to have that, as much as possible based on a broad jurisprudence that says we're putting this terrible chapter of

discrimination behind us. we're moving on just as we're trying to move on, not entirely successful, but just as we're trying to move on from the period of racial discrimination. we need to move on from the time of discrimination against people based on sexual orientation. >> rose: i'm not sure if it even compares to it, but have you seen the country change on such a significant issue as it did. >> it's been terrific just to watch the change in this country. one of the things that has been most gratifying is the fact that the american people, when they focus on an issue and understand an issue really come out in favor of our basic principles of liberty and equality. i think the thing that happened over the last number of years is people have an opportunity to think about this question and look at it and consider their gay or lesbian friend, neighbor, doctor, teacher, student cousin father child and athese

people deserve equality just like everybody else. they're no different than i am. they deserve no lesser rights. they do not deserve to have their own state discriminate against them and say you're not equal, you're not worthy of the institution of marriage. >> rose: chief justice john roberts had questioned before about the political power of same-sex couples. did that come up? >> it sure did and follows on to david's very good point that society is moving very fast. but in court that may cut both ways. if this issue can be resolved democratically at the polls through ballot referendums through elected representatives and legislatures, the supreme court could be a little wary of stepping in and putting an end to what chief justice roberts called a fast-moving debate and he referred to the public opinion polls. he said this is getting settled

on the grouped. is it really for us nine unelected justices, unrelated to the ballot box to step in and tell the american public what they have to decide, what each state has to decide on these issues? and that point was echoed by even one of the liberal justices, justice stephen breyer. so this enormous societal shift which is really without precedent is mostly a sign the court is likely to rule in favor of same-sex marriage but does give rise to an argument that cuts the opposite way as well. >> rose: go ahead. something we have to focus on there, though, that is although public opinion has moved tremendously, there are a handful of states in which realistically, we're not going to get marriage equality for a very, very long time, in the absence of a recognition of a constitutional right. and that was exactly the situation in 1967 in loving against virginia and it's

basically the same states. the same states that had to have a constitutional decision from the supreme court to say you've got to recognize racial equality in terms of marriage are the same states that have to be told constitutionally you have to recognize marriage equality based on sexual orientation. this is one constitution where one country, we are one constitution, we have one set of rights. people don't have less rights in alabama or georgia than they do in massachusetts or california. and the constitution is written and the court is there to enforce it for all the citizens of the united states no matter where they live. >> rose: adam, the liberal wing, you wrote, of the supreme court -- and we know who they are -- has played its cards brilliantly. how so? >> as recently as october, 19 states allowed same-sex

marriage. we're up to 36 or 37 now entirely a consequence of actions taken by the supreme court in not reviewing lower court decisions and that means that the map of the united states has expanded to a point where, as david says it looks very much like it did when the court struck down bans on interracial marriage. when you have about 15 states left, that's when the court tends to act. looks like brown v board of education went about 15 states. in staying out of the way long enough for the map to expand the court brought itself into line with historical practices and i think should it decide to establish a right to same-sex marriage, it will be more easily accepted as a consequence of the recent -- >> rose: okay but having said that, are you writing that, in

fact, for everybody concerned it would be better for the congress to do this rather than the supreme court? >> that's not for me to say but that was certainly the view expressed by several justices and not only on the conservative side. >> rose: not only on the conservative side. >> justice breyer expressed some hesitation of being one of nine unelected judges to make this really transformational change from a room in washington rather than let people out in the land come to the conclusion for themselves. >> rose: what's the argument? the reason twheaft nine unelected justices is to enforce the guarantees of our constitution. if we were prepared to leave basic human and civil rights up to a majority vote in a state legislature or in the congress of the united states, we wouldn't need a written constitution. the reason that our founders insisted on a bill of right

insisted on rights for all people, all americans, and insisted on courts to enforce those rights buzz was that certain rights, freedom of speech freedom of press freedom of religion, the right to go to the same schools and marry the person you love are so basic and fundamental that we're not going to leave those to any majority vote. that's what the court was there to do. nine unelected justices decided we would end segregation. nine unelected justices decided bans on interracial marriage was wrong. nine unelected justices have led the way to rights of freedom of speech and press and all the rights we hold dear as americans. the fact that the constitution has given the court this responsibility -- and it is an awful responsibility -- is something i think every justice feels and i think they may comout differently but i don't

think any justice will shrink from the duty to enforce the constitution simply because they say let somebody else do it. >> rose: good to have you david boies. adam, thank you. >> great to be here. >> rose: thank you for joining us. be right back. >> rose: mohammed javad zarif is here. he served as his country's ambassador to the united nations. he's in new york this week for the summit. he met with secretary john kerry yesterday to discuss the ongoing nuclear negotiations. secretary kerry stressed the importance of a deal saying the hard work is far from over but if we can get there this entire world will be safer. i am pleased foreign minister zarif to this table. this is his 11th appearance. pleased to have you back.

>> good to be back. >> rose: much has happened and i am looking forward to having the full conversation not only the nuclear deal but iran and its place in the world and having to do with other countries as well. give us a status report of your meeting with secretary kerry. >> we have made significant progress. certainly people two years ago could not have imagined we could have come this far. it is when you decide to go for dialogue rather than pressure and intimidation -- that didn't work. it was in place for quite some time, all sorts of sanctions were imposed on iran, and i believe they didn't achieve their objective and that's people opted for negotiations and for serious discussions. we have made significant progress. what we achieved in november of 2013 in terms of an interim agreement was something that

people, the so-called naysayers always believed would never be possible, and after we agreed to it a lot of people believed iran would never implement it but we did. the national atomic energy agency and even president obama and everybody else has said iran has complied fully with whatever we agreed to comply with for the past one and a half years. so we're now almost ready to go for an agreement that will ensure that iran's program will remain peaceful. from our perspective that's 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 -- the nonproliferation treaty conference, i was the first person to speak in that conference, as represented 120 member states in this international community. >> rose: and iran is a signatory. >> a signatory and chairman of the non-alignment movement which brings together 120 countries, and all of them have views very similar to iran about nuclear nonproliferation. we believe that we should rid the world of nuclear arms. we believe knobbed should own nuclear weapons. certainly nonproliferation is an important step to reach the objective. we certainly do not want more people owning these very dangerous weapons. >> rose: so what happens if these negotiations fail? >> well, it won't be a disaster but it would be a very important missed opportunity because it's 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 andin the iranian government and the international community by the people of iran to engage, and if our people see that the 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, as i told you we didn't have any program to develop nuclear weapons. we consider nuclear weapons irrational and immoral. >> rose: why should the united states believe you or the p5 plus 1 companies believe you? >> as problem of compounded

mutual mistrust and 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 1 certainly not the western members of p5 plus 1. there is a history of problems, grievances on the part of iranian people going back to the time they overthrew our democratically elected government all the way to the recent times, and i assume that 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 do is to have a serious program a serious program, a serious agreement that will enable every side to build this trust. but the important thing is this process should build confidence not destroy confidence. unfortunately, what we see, the

rhetoric coming out of washington particularly the debate going on in washington, is not conducive to building -- >> >> rose: you mean the assertion of the congress that they have a role here? >> no, i don't interfere with the united states. all foreign governments meet with other foreign governments 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, with the judiciary, with the executive branch of every government, it would make it impossible. so 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 -- >> rose: let's talk about confidence. number one, we all knots when you returned after the

agreement -- the framework agreement had been signed, you were given a hero's welcome. you rode through cheering crowds, an open air car unusual for a secretary, foreign minister, i assume. what was that about? what is there on the part of the rank-and-file, average iranian citizen, smo how they want to rejoin the world and stop this conflict with the united states and this calling of the united states the great satan and all that? >> the iran iranian people are rational people, people who resist pressure and 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, and you've seen what the pressure over the last eight years has

brought the international community or at least the eight years where the pressure was a primary tactic of dealing with iran, maybe from 200 centrifuges when we last spoke on the show to 20,000 centrifuges now. so what is important is that the iranian people did not like that. they were prepared to go and to resist that but didn't like it. that was not our preference. our preference was for dialogue. and because the iranian people witnessed that their representatives were being dealt with through a process of negotiations based on mutual respect, they were happy. but i can tell you that the same people will resist if they see that the agreement is not respectful of their right respectful of their dignity. they will certainly prefer to withstand pressure rather than accept a bad agreement. >> rose: there is a consider

belief in america that sanctions brought you to the negotiating table. that's the reason you're there. >> well, i think they're wrong. what brought us to the negotiating table is the belief that this government has -- and this was the platform that was chosen by the iranian people. there were six candidates, some much better than the current candidate in dealing with the economic problems, but they chose a candidate who believed in respect and engagement. that is why we are at the negotiating table. the proposals that we have, the possibilities and options that we present are exactly the same options that we presented to the national community eight years ago or ten 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 that this is not because of sanctions. this is because of a choice that we have made to engage. if that doesn't succeed then we have other avenues open. >> rose: we'll talk about that, but let's 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. it's not about iran supporting hezbollah or anyone else, this is only about the nuclear issue. but do i hear you saying you know that if there's a nuclear issue settled and an agreement that you hope the u.s. and iran can then build a relationship that will have to do with the wide range of issues and a respect for iran and an awareness of iran's history and

its influence in the region? >> i'm not precluding that but i'm not saying this is an eventuality that we can guarantee. >> rose: but what do you want. we want to engage with the u.s. based on mutual respect. we do not want animosity with the west. we want to be able to enjoy the benefits of interaction. but we insist on our dignity. we insist on being able to engage based on mutual respect. that for us is extremely important. >> rose: but as soon as you say that, everyone believes -- many people believe the supreme leader had for a long time a negative opinion, to say it graciously, of the united states and believes that the united states and, in fact, has benefited from his rhetoric, at the same time the u.s. president has reached out and sent letters

to the supreme leader. >> which he replied to. >> rose: which he replied to. the point is the iranian public, it's not just the supreme leader, the iranian public, the general public are very skeptical of u.s. intentions. this is unimportant but a reality. the reality is that the iranians -- general public in iran -- are very mindful of history, very much so. they remember the united states overthrowing a government, supporting a -- >> rose: and as you know the united states remembers the taking of american hostages. >> yes. >> rose: both have an historical memory. >> yes, there is bad history there is a public psyche in the two countries that add to an atmosphere of mistrust and we do not want to debate what happened first, who is responsible for this, but we should understand, we should realize this historical background and see whether true cooperation to

resolve this issue, we can bring down the wall of mistrust between us and the united states and see whether that provides an opportunity to move over. the supreme leader has been clear he doesn't trust the united states like most iranians. >> rose: but does he want to see a better relationship with the united states is the question. >> he made it clear in his latest 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. >> rose: do you have any doubt that the president of the united states doesn't respect the iranian people? >> well, if you want to have an agreement and keep putting pressure and sanctions on the iranian people, that doesn't

signify to me a respectful approach. now, if the president is prepared -- it requires a great deal of courage for iran to accept to take measures that we are negotiating, it requires a great deal of -- >> rose: after 18 months, is it much better? is there more respect since you spent 18 months in the trenches with secretary kerry, you went back to iran and have spoke on the supreme leader, i assume you briefed him on all the details you are involved in, it is said by people who analyze these things that you especially have his ear and you will not be where you are without his approval. >> well, it's not the way you portray 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

the leader he has always supported the choice of the iranian people. >> rose: so ahmadinejad supports him -- >> because he, the leader, respects the choice of the people. we have been talking i have been reporting, unfortunately, over the past 18 months, the united states can look at iran and say, over the last 18 months iran complied with all the obligations. >> they have essentially said that. >> they have said that. unfortunately on our side the united states has entangled itself in such a web of sanctions against iran that even if it wanted to it would have been difficult for it to get out of it and sometimes we saw that some overzealous politicians had more insistence on keeping sanctions than on removing sanctions they agreed to remove. >> rose: you will acknowledge that sanctions have done terrible damage to your economy. >> of course they have! >> rose: you can't sell your

oil or do one thing after another. >> but you must remember, if sanctions were designed to hurt the iranian people if sanctions were designed -- >> rose: to change the mind of the iranian government, not hurt the iranian people. >> well, they didn't. the sanctions didn't change the mind of the iranian government. the iranian government actually went ahead with building more centrifuges. so what the sanctions did was to create an atmosphere among the iranian population that the united states doesn't 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. you know -- i mean, the united states is saying that iran can purchase medicine, but if you go to a bank and tell them i want to send medicine to iran they say i can't open an account for you. >> rose: no one doubts these are successful sanctions. >> this is not what we call success. >> rose: if you want to feel the pressure of app series of

governments around the world trying 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. >> no, you see, my friend -- >> rose: yes? -- the point is, if you wanted to antagonize the iranian people -- not you -- if the united states government wanted to an tag nites the iranian people, if the united states government wanted to create feelings and misgivings about the united states among the general iranian population then the sanctions have succeeded. but if the intention of these sanctions were to bring iran to the negotiating table that's not what they achieved. what they -- >> rose: how can you say that? you're at the negotiating table. >> we are at the negotiating table because people like us were at the negotiating table even before the selection. my predecessors were

negotiating. we were always at the negotiating table. we were at the negotiating table during the administration in iran. rouhani and myself were negotiating. then our successors continue to negotiate. it is the united states which has abandoned that idea of zero enrichment. if the united states accepted that iran had the right to enrich ten years ago we wouldn't have had this -- all of this nonsense for the last ten years. so -- >> rose: the u.s. now sees that as long as there are caps on yiewn uranium enrichment it's okay. >> there were negotiation that would have provide add better option but the united states decided to torpedo -- the bush

administration, john bolton, 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. >> rose: let me talk about sanctions. >> negotiations produce results. >> rose: i want to talk about several things. a lot of americans you respect, jim maker henry kissinger or schultz, have raised caution about the agreement they understand. one question, we'll talk about first sanctions inspections and other issues, but let's talk about sanctions in terms of this agreement. the united states said that the sanction should be phased out on the basis of good conduct and respect for the agreement. supreme leader and you -- certainly the supreme leader said this publicly, we have to have the elimination of all sanctions at the time this final agreement is signed, all

sanctions gone. >> we are talking about the economic and financial sanctions and what we agreed the parameters of the agreement that we reached are very clear, that once we start implementing the first steps and they're clear the number of centrifuges, the stockpile, what will happen to the redesign and rebuilding of the heavy water reactor in iraq, these are all parameters of the sanctions -- of this agreement. all economic and financial sanctions must go. that is, all the u.n. sanctions -- >> rose: the u.s. has phased -- you say based on good conduct, and you say at the beginning. the supreme leader states before we sign the agreement. >> no, no. >> rose: at the time we sign the agreement. >> no. sanctions must be lifted as soon as iran implements its agreed

part. we have an agreement. that agreement provides for the lifting of all sanctions, all economic and financial sanctions and those sanctions are lifted because the logic is very clear. the logic is if you want an agreement, you have two options. the option of pressure, the option of agreement. you cannot mix the two. >> rose: okay. it's as if iran wants to keep some part -- >> rose: but will you grant me that what the supreme leader said and secretary kerry said about sanctions is different? two different interpretations? >> what i can say is what we have agreed upon. what we have agreed upon -- >> rose: does it agree with what secretary kerry said? >> i allow secretary kerry to say what he wants to say and to define the agreement in the way he wants to define it. 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. you either have -- >> rose: building up of sanctions or what do you mean? what are the two opposing tracks? >> one is to have an agreement the other one is to impose pressure. imposition of pressure has its counterparts. the counterpart to imposition of pressure will be around building more centrifuges. >> rose: is there a way around this? for example, someone suggested to me today that if the agreement is signed, there will be some date certain in the future, you know, at which time the two parties will have had an opportunity to see how they handle this and at that time perhaps they could get to that and had a chance to examine inspections and see if they were as everybody hoped they would be on the side of the p5 plus 1 and you cooperate with that, that

the aiea had an opportunity to do the kinds of things that they have insisted they be able to do and by november 15 or some date in the future certain you would have a chance to evaluate whether the united states was prepared and living by the terms of the deal, and they would have a chance -- all the countries involved -- to see if you had lived by the terms of the deal. is that the way you're going to work out of this? >> not really. >> rose: have you thought about that idea? >> no. we have had plenty of time to see how we can do this. we will have, hopefully, an agreement by june 30. if we have an agreement by june 30, it would set a procedure in motion. that procedure will start with iran taking some preparatory measures and the united states and the e.u. taking some

preparatory measures, all of them endorsed beforehand by the security council in a resolution that will be binding on everybody, including on the united states. the united states is a permanent member of the security council but never the best, all the decisions are binding upon the united states like any other member of the international community. so there will be a resolution to have the security council we'll set the terms of the agreement and the two sides will start implementing the agreement simultaneously. we'll take measures, the united states will take measurers. it's not a trial and error period where we will test each other. we have had opportunity to test each other the last many years. we have had an opportunity to test the agreement we signed in november 2013 for about 18 months. so now is the time to put in place were con veed crete measures -- put in place very concrete measurers.

we will reduce the number of ourster funerals for a period of time and our stock of enriched uranium for a period of time -- >> rose: a period of time? the period of time we have discussed and negotiated, mostly ten years. >> rose: right. and then the sanctions will be lifted. not after that period of time, at the beginning of that period of time. that's a very clear understanding. >> rose: it's not a clear understanding in terms of how america's of significance -- and they don't think that you can eliminate all the sanctions at the beginning and then follow through. >> you cannot have the cake and eat it too. you have to make a decision as we have to make a decision. the decision has to be whether you want to have an agreement or whether you want to continue the path of pressure and resistance on the part of iran. these two are mutually exclusive. we can in fact -- we have a good deal. i believe we have the parameters

of a good deal which builds confidence, doesn't make anybody trust the other side. i mean, we're not prepared to trust anybody. >> rose: and the united states shouldn't either. >> no. >> rose: neither side should trust the other at this stage. >> obviously. >> rose: right? obviously, we don't expect any side to, after such a long period of compounded mistrust we need to have an opportunity to build that confidence. but it doesn't mean that i will take a part of the agreement that i'm supposed to implement hostage for that trust to be built. we will implement our part of the deal immediately. basically -- >> rose: what will you do immediately? >> we will agree to the set of parameters that iran will have to implement immediately -- the number of centrifuges, the amount of stock, what will happen to our heavy water

reactor, and we have all agreed that this heavy water reactor will be redesigned. it will remain as a heavy water reactor but not produce plutonium to build a nuclear weapon. we never wanted to build a nuclear weapon. >> rose: when you say you never wanted to build a nuclear weapon even though the decision everybody agrees has not been made, you do want the capacity, if you make a decision to build nuclear weapons, to be accessible as if you had nuclear weapons? >> my problem, my friend, is that people in the united states see nuclear weapons as a panacea. nuclear weapons have not brought anybody any security. we are more rational. we have a deep history. we have been around for millenia for several millenia. >> rose: and that history americans respect. >> i think they should look at our history. in the past 250 years, we have

not invaded any country. we are content with our size our population. >> rose: but you have -- you haven't invaded any country -- no country comes to these kinds of conversations without having some involvement around the world of varying degrees. but the people you you want are engaged in warfare in other countries. >> my friend -- >> rose: hezbollah blah is is engaged iranians are engaged in military action in yemen. >> my friend you wrong about your history. can we say the united states supported the taliban, saddam hussein of iraq? >> rose: they supported him in his war against iran which the iranians have not forgotten. >> and we will not forget. >> rose: it was a brutal war against the iranians. >> we will not forget the fact our people civilians, were

targeted with chemical weapons and nobody raised an eyebrow about it. these are parts of history we will not forget. >> rose: you shouldn't. we shouldn't forget. and the united states shouldn't forget it supported the wrong people in our part of the world and continues to support them. we always resisted extremism in our region. we resisted -- we're the only country that is standing up against this group of -- this bunch of terrorist -- >> rose: which? daesh. >> rose: you're the only group who stood against daesh? >> who is doing it other than iran and iraq and the people of syria? >> rose: may i make a small suggestion? >> yes please do. >> rose: in iraq when iraqi militia supported by iran and iran advisors on the front line, according to an interview i did with the iraqi prime minister last week, iraq advisors on the front line americans and

people, part of the coalition were engaged in airstrikes with the same objective, the taking of tikrit. is that true or not? >> well, it's a bit vague. >> rose: but is that true? it's a bit vague. it's a bit too late. for four years because of geopolitical considerations, unfortunately in our region against syria and against iran a group has developed, has been nourished, has been armed, 1,000 people every month are infiltrating through some of our neighbors' borders into iraq and syria, coming from 82 countries to join this very dangerous extremist group to kill the syrian people. >> rose: the issue of sunnis. and they've killed more sunnis. can you remember the jordanian pilot who was burned alive?

yes. >> was he a shia? he was a sunni. >> rose: yes. most victims of this group are sunni. >> rose: that's because he had been a pilot and -- >> no, this is not a sectarian issue. >> rose: it is a sectarian issue -- are you saying to me -- >> no, no, people want to give it the sectarian flavor, charlie, and it's very, very dangerous if you give this a sectarian flavor. maybe not people will see very short-sighted benefits in giving that a sectarian flavor but you've got to be clear that this is an enemy of everybody. daesh is an enany of saudi arabia as much as an enemy of iran. >> rose: should the united states and iran be working together to defeat daesh? it's an easy question. >> we are certainly working to defeat daesh to thetic the the extent that the governments in the region, iraq and syria asked us to be

involved. we believe it is a regional issue first and global later. there should be international cooperation. it's not the united states and iran. the world is not composed of only the united states and iran. a lot of other countries in the region. we are engaged in this fight in a very serious way and we believe that everybody needs to be engaged. >> rose: including the united states? the threat of i.s.i.l daesh, is a very high priority threat on the united states. >> i'm happy to see it's becoming one. before it started its operation against iraq it wasn't the case because people were tolerating it when it was attacking the syrian government. that's unfortunate.

but you've got to remember, history started some time ago. it didn't start today. it didn't start with daesh moving into iraq and occupying mosul. >> rose: this is where we end part one of our two-part conversation with iran's foreign minister javad zarif. thank you for joining us. see you next time. for more about this program and earlier episodes, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: on the next charlie rose, part two of a conversation with the iranian foreign minister about the relationship between his country and the united states. join us. >> in a globalized world zero-sum games -- that is you trying to impose a cost on somebody you don't consider to be friendly -- does not work. we have common enemies. we have common challenges. we need to work for this so-called win-win situation where everybody makes a game.

you cannot gain security at the expense of insecurity of others. this must have become clear.

this is "nightly business " with tyler mathisen and sue herera. miss tweets. shares of twitter plunged nearly 20% after earnings were leaked early on what else? twitter. battling back. hammering the global pharmaceutical and what they are doing to get back. and what the top money mathers expect from the federal reserve as they begin a two-day policy meet all of that and more for tuesd february 28th. i'm tyler mathisen s herera has the night off. call it a taste of a two-fleet tweet.