captioning sponsored by newshour productions, llc >> woodruff: time is running out for an iran nuclear deal. another deadline passes with a final agreement still out of reach. good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> ifill: and i'm gwen ifill. also ahead this tuesday: a different way of looking at the crisis in greece. how economic uncertainty leads to emotional despair >> if greece and its partners won't find a solution, the other better and we have more that is probably going to bring more suicides than we already have. >> woodruff: plus, a team of researchers hardwire underground volcanoes to discover the mysteries of eruptions and ocean life. >> ifill: those are some of the stories we're covering on tonight's pbs newshour.

>> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> and with the ongoing support of these institutions and... >> this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> woodruff: the government of afghanistan confirmed today it has opened direct talks with the taliban. it's their first, formal face- to-face encounter since a u.s. coalition ousted the taliban from power in 2001. afghan president ashraf ghani said the goal is to "change this 'meeting' into a process of

continuing talks." officials said the talks are taking place in pakistan's capital city, islamabad. >> ifill: u.s. strategy to defeat the islamic state came in for heavy criticism today from senate republicans. john mccain, chairing the armed services committee, challenged the president's policies on isis at a hearing. >> there is no compelling reason to believe that anything we are doing currently will be sufficient to achieve the president's long-stated goal of degrading or ultimately destroying isil, either in the short term or the long term. our means and our current level of effort are not aligned with our ends. that suggests we are not winning, and when you're not winning in war, you are losing. >> ifill: defense secretary ashton carter conceded only 60 syrians have been trained to fight islamic state forces so far. >> this number is much smaller than we'd hoped for at this point, partly because of the

vetting standards. we make sure that they, for example, aren't going to pose a green-on-blue threat to their trainers; that they don't have any history of atrocities. these are all things that are required of us, and that they're going-- they're willing to engage in the campaign in a way that's compliant with the law of armed conflict. >> ifill: meanwhile, inside syria, kurdish fighters, backed by u.s. air strikes, recaptured 10 villages from islamic state control. the kurds have been advancing toward the militants' de facto capital. >> woodruff: in yemen, fighting has flared again, and with it the number of deaths. local residents and shiite rebels say nearly 200 people were killed yesterday. many died in air strikes by saudi arabia and its allies. today, air assaults badly damaged the rebels' political offices. the group has iran's support while the saudis back yemen's government in exile. >> ifill: violence also surged again in nigeria, where a bomb

blast killed at least 25 people. it targeted civil servants at a government building on the outskirts of zaria, in the northern part of the country. attacks by the islamist militant group boko haram have killed several hundred people in recent days. >> woodruff: this was a day of remembrance in britain, marking ten years since the terrorist attacks in london on july 7, 2005. 52 people died when four suicide bombers attacked london's transport system. victims' relatives, politicians and royalty marked the day at a service in saint paul's cathedral in london. flower petals drifted down during a nationwide minute of silence. a separate service brought relatives and survivors to hyde park. emma craig was 14 years old at the time of the attacks. >> quite often people say, "it didn't break us. terrorism won't break us." the fact is, it may not have broken london, but it did break some of us.

sometimes i feel that people are so hellbent on trying to make a point about terrorism not breaking us that they forget about all the people that got caught up in it. not for my sake but for those that were killed on that day and their families, they are the people that we are here today to remember. may we never forget. >> woodruff: britain is currently on its second highest alert level, "severe." that's mainly because of the threat posed by britons who've become islamic state fighters. >> ifill: eurozone leaders today called a final summit on the greek crisis, for sunday. that came after they came away empty-handed from a meeting with prime minister alexis tsipras. instead, the parties spiraled closer to a so-called "grexit"-- a greek exit from the eurozone. jonathan rugman of independent television news reports from brussels. >> reporter: alexis tsipras, supposedly under pressure to present a new reform plan for

serious talks to begin. but this relaxed looking greek bearing no such written gift today. his unspoken message, perhaps, that he won't sign a bad deal just because the germans want him to. and the row over greece's future now perilously close to dividing its european creditors. francois hollande of france fearful of greece's exit and desperate for compromise. >> ( translated ): we want greece to stay in the eurozone. that is our aim. but to achieve this we expect greece to make some substantial and real proposals. we wait for them. >> rorter: yet the word forgiveness, forgiveness of more greek debt, is not in chancellor merkel's vocabulary. and she won't sign a bad deal for germany just because grexit is the alternative. >> ( translated ): it's not about weeks here anymore. it's about a few days. >> reporter: after more than five months of often acrimonious negotiations with the greeks, confidence in athens is at a very low ebb here.

all day we've heard senior european government officials saying that they are waiting for serious and credible proposals for greek reform. instead it seems that the greeks turned up with no concrete proposals at all. but the new greek finance minister euclid tsakalotos was giving nothing of his gameplan away. in stark contrast to his outspoken predecessor, who was sacked yesterday, to help pave the way for a deal. here's looking at euclid, as one irish newspaper put it today. the closest to concrete proposals: some bullet points paper. though a written document is expected to be delivered here tomorrow. latvia's finance minister telling me he could scarcely believe how little the greeks had told him. >> ( translated ): we were very surprised and shocked by what we saw. we were expecting more. we have beeng aiting for over five months. we have been waiting over the past two days to get a response

to see what the greeks ready to do in order to save their own country and to help themselves, but we haven't received that. >> reporter: and talk of greece leaving the euro now out in the open. >> i would like to be honest with you so i cannot exclude. >> reporter: so tonight, mr. tsipras has been talking to a german chancellor who has said there is no basis for negotiations. and so greek exit is more a probability tha it was only yesterday. >> ifill: the greek leader also spoke by phone with president obama. the white house urged europe to try to reach a resolution that promotes growth and stability in greece. >> woodruff: back in this country, there's a news report the u.s. army plans to cut 40,000 troops from its ranks in the next two years. and, 17,000 civilian workers will also be laid off. according to "usa today," the plan is to be announced this week.

it would leave an army of about 450,000 soldiers. some of the downsizing has been expected, as u.s. involvement in iraq and afghanistan wound down. >> ifill: the man accused in the mass shootings in charleston, south carolina was indicted today on additional charges. prosecutors added three counts of attempted murder against dylann roof. he'd already been charged with murdering nine people at a historic black church. >> woodruff: in the presidential campaign, democrat hillary clinton went after donald trump and his fellow republicans on immigration. she told cnn that the g.o.p. should have condemned trump for remarks on mexican migrants that drew widespread criticism. >> i feel very bad and disappointed with him and with the republican party for not responding immediately and saying enough, stop it. but they are all in the same

general area on immigration. >> woodruff: clinton said she favors a path to citizenship for migrants, while the republican hopefuls do not. >> ifill: heroin abuse in the u.s. has risen dramatically over the last decade. the centers for disease control and prevention reported today the number of users grew by nearly 300,000 people over the 10-year period between 2002 and 2013. use of the drug doubled among white americans, even as it leveled off in other racial groups. the increase was driven in part by the falling price of heroin. >> woodruff: the world health organization is urging more countries to hike taxes on cigarettes. the u.n. health agency reported today the tax needs to be more than 75% of the retail price before people are deterred from smoking. agency figures show around six million people die each year from tobacco-related illnesses. >> ifill: and on wall street today, the dow jones industrial

average gained more than 90 points to close above 17,775. the nasdaq rose five points, and the s&p added 12. still to come on the newshour: talks for a nuclear deal with iran are extended once again. a surge of suicides in financially troubled greece. violence heats up in cities across the u.s. and, a deposition shows bill cosby admitted he obtained drugs ad in order to have sex with women. >> woodruff: the latest deadline to reach a nuclear weapons agreement with iran came and went today, with no deal to show for it. iran, the united states, and five other major world powers will keep negotiating for a long-term agreement that tackles some of its most contentious issues. no new formal deadline has been

set, and at the white house today, press secretary josh earnest said there won't be a deal until the sticking points are resolved. >> the president will not accept any sort of an agreement that falls short of the political commitments that were made back in april and as secretary kerry himself said back on sunday, we have never been closer to reaching a final agreement than we are now. >> woodruff: for more on the iran nuclear talks, we turn to indira lakshmanan of bloomberg news. she is in vienna and i spoke to her a short while ago. indira, welcome. so what is the significance of missing this? the americans wanted this deadline. the iranians really didn't. >> well i mean, this is the fifth deadline diplomats have missed in the iran talks in the last two years. i say deadline but really

they're self-imposed target dates that the six powers in iran have set for each other trying to reach some aspect of the agreement at each point. now, we've missed this deadline. what they have done in the meantime is extended until friday the interim agreement that gives temporary limited advantages relief to iran in exchange for freezing their nuclear program where it is now and stopping the most sensitive nuclear work they do. but diplomats made clear on both sides that even though they're trying to get this deal by friday, now, there is no guarantee that will happen, that talks could continue after friday or could simply fail, we have been told. >> woodruff: what are the main unresolved issues? what's known about that? >> well, we heard from the russian foreign minister sergey lavrov that the arms embargo imposed on the united nations remains a big sticking point. iran wants it listed and the u.n. and negotiating partners

insisted it cannot be lifted and they've also said they want the missile program to not to be. if they can't get a deal by friday, it doubles the time the u.s. congress has to review the deal. if they get it by friday, congress only has 30 days to give a thumbs up or down. if they don't give it by friday congress has two months to go over and pick over every single detail of the deal. >> woodruff: indira, what are you hearing about the atmospherics, about how it's going behind closed doors? >> well, it's incredibly tense and exhausting, as you can imagine. this is 22 months of negotiations. a senior american official told us tonight they calculated they had taken 69 trips across the

atlantic. this is the second fourth of july the team spent in vienna. it's 100 degrees. the air conditioning is not up to snuff for that weather. there was quite a heated exchange last night between iranian foreign minister zarif and the other foreign ministers. no slamming of doors but tempers flared as they pressed him to make concessions he didn't want to make. so i think everybody is getting to the end of their rope. the americans have told us, no matter how tired they, are they're not going to settle for a deal that as the president said, is less than what they agreed to in april in lausanne, and if they can't get that good deal, there will be no deal. an american official said they felt it would be a tragedy if they had gotten this far but couldn't get a deal but at the same time are not willing to accept a substandard deal that wouldn't even make it through

congress' muster. >> woodruff: what are the expectations, that they will come together in the end and is the u.s. and its allies, the countries it's negotiating with across the table from iran, are they sticking together? >> so far, from what we understand, they are sticking together, which is interesting because there is certainly a lofto tensions between the united states and russia, to say the least, over ukraine, syria, and other issues. but what we're told by the americans that despite their differences they will stick together along with the europeans and chinese and have a solid position they're coming to iran with. one little development we heard today is the accent issue for u.n. atomic inspectors, looks like that may be something they may be in the process of resolving or may be resolved. the americans say nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. it'sreich a rubrics cube and every piece has to fall in place. i think it's more likely than not they will get a deal by friday but they prepared us for the possibility that, if iran

doesn't make the so-called tough political decisions it needs to, that these talks could, in fact collapse and we would be in completely new territory, judy. >> woodruff: well, indira you and the rest of the press corps and the rest of the world continues to wait. thank you. >> thank you. >> ifill: now, another look at how greece's strained economy is affecting its people. for the first four months of 2014, the budget for greece's 132 hospitals was $735 million. this year, that number dropped to $50 million, a precipitous decline that has placed predictable stress on the nation's medical system. now, psychiatrists and other medical practitioners warn that deepening poverty will lead to an increase in suicides and preventable deaths. newshour special correspondent malcolm brabant reports from athens.

>> reporter: it's a letter that no one should have to read. the suicide note left by 77- year-old pharmacist dimitris christoulas is now a treasured possession of his daughter emmy. >> ( translated ): if one greek was to take up a kalashnikov, i would be the second. but since i am too old to react actively and physically, i find no other solution than that of a dignified exit before i begin searching through the garbage for my food. i believe that one day, because the younger generation have no future, they will take up arms and hang the traitors of the nation upside down in syntagma square just as the italians did in 1945 with mussolini. >> reporter: christoulas shot himself beneath this pine tree in athens syntagma square, where opponents urged greek voters to reject the international austerity programme in last weekend's referendum, and right in front of parliament at which the suicide note was aimed. one of the first on the scenene years of enmity with iran. i don't think they will get driven by the deadline set that was in placed. >> rose: david sanger from the

"new york times," following closely the negotiations between iranian, and americans. >> rose: mohammad javad zarif is here, he has been foreign minister of iran since 2013, from 2002 to 2007, zarif served at his country's ambassador to thation. the foreign minister met with secretary of state john kerry yesterday to discuss ongoing nuclear negotiations. secretary kerry stressed importance of the deal saying the hard work is far from over but if we can get there the entire world will be safer. i am pleased to welcome minister zarif back at this table. this is his 11th i have a

appearance at this table, most coming when ambassador to the united nations. i am pleased to have you back. >> good to be back. >> rose: i am looking forward to the queetion not only by nuclear but iran's place in the world and ideas having to do with other countries as well. you met with secretary kerry. give us a status report. >> well, we have made significant progress. certainly people two, years ago could not have imagined we could have come this far. also when you decide to go for dialogue rather than pressure and intimidation. that didn't work. it was in place for quite some time. sanctions, all sorts of sanctions were imposed on iran, and i believe they did achieve that objective and that's why people opted for negotiations and serious discussion. we've made significant progress.

what we achieved in november 2013 in terms of an interim agreement was something people, so-called naysayers always believed would never be possible and then, after we agreed to it, a lot of people believed iran would never implement it, but we did and the national atomic energy agency and even president obama and everybody else said iran complied fully with whatever we agreed to comply with for the past one and a half years. so we now are almost ready to go for a long-term agreement that will ensure that iran's program will always remain peaceful. from our perspective, that's not much because we never had any other intention. and 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 n.p.t. conference on behalf of a significant portion. the nonproliferation treaty conference. i was the first person to speak in the conference as a representative of 120 member states of this international community. >> rose: and iran is a signatory. >> a signatory and a chairman of the 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 that nobody should own nuclear weapons. certainly nonproliferation is an important step to reach that objective. we certainly do not want even 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 and the iranian government as well as 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 is a non-issue because, as i told you, we didn't have any programs to develop nuclear weapons. any way we consider nuclear weapons both irrational as immoral. >> rose: why should the united

states believe you or the p5+1 countries believe you? >> well, it is a problem of mutual mistrust. >> rose: yes. 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+1, certainly not the western members of p5+1. there is a history of problems, grievances on the part of the iranian people going back to the time they overthrew our democratically reelected government all the way to the recent times, and i assume that the united states and some soft 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 that

this process should build confidence not destroy confidence. unfortunately, what we see the rhetoric that is coming out of washington, particularly the debate that is going on in washington, is not conducive to building trust. >> rose: you mean the assertion of congress that they have a role here? >> no, i mean, i don't interfere in the internal affairs of the united states. that's for the american government to decide, and for us as a foreign government, all foreign governments deal with the other foreign government as an entity. we don't look into their domestic politics because that makes international life impossible. if you wanted to decide how to deal with congress, thousand deal with the judiciary, how to deal 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.

>> rose: let's talk about confidence. number one, we all noticed that when you returned after the agreement -- after the framework agreement had been signed, you were given a hero's welcome. you rode through cheering crowds in an open-air car, unusual for a secretary foreign minister, i assume. what was it about? was there on part of the rank and file average iranian citizen, somehow they want to rejoin the world and stop this conflict with the united states and this calling of united states the great satan and all that? >> the iranian people are rational people. they are people who resist pressure, resist intimidation. i think i said on this show some time ago that iranians are allergic to pressure. whenever there is pressure, the

iranians react and 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 the primary tactical meeting with iran maybe from 200 centrifuges when we last spoke here on this 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 rights, respectful of their dignity. they will certainly prefer to withstand pressure rather than

accept a bad agreement. >> rose: there is a considerable 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 candidates 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 international 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 understood 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 to us. >> rose: we'll talk about that, but let me just make sure i understand because 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 hesbollah or anyone else. this is only about the nuclear issue. but do i hear you saying that you hope that if there's a nuclear issue settled and there's 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 respect for iran and an awareness of iran's history and it's influence in the region? >> i'm not precluding that but i'm not saying that this is an eventuality that we can guarantee. >> rose: what do you want to do? >> we want to be able to engage with the west based on mutual respect. we do not want to have animosity with the west. we want to be able to enjoy the benefits of interaction. but we insist on our dignity. we insist on being able to engage based on mutual wall respect -- on mutual respect. that for us is extremely important. >> rose: but as soon as you say that many people believe that the supreme leader had for a long time a negative opinion, to say it graciously, of the united states and believes that the natives 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. that is unfortunate but a reality. the reality is that the iranian -- general public in iran -- are very mindful of history, very much so. they remember the united states overthrowing a government. >> rose: and as you know the united states remembers the taking of american hostages. >> yes, it's bad history. there is a public psyche in the two countries that have led to an atmosphere of mistrust and we do not want to debate what happens first, who is

responsible for this but we should understand, we should realize this historical background and see whether through cooperation to resolve this issue we can, in fact, dent that wall of mistrust that exists between iran and the united states and see whether that provides us with an opportunity to move forward. so the supreme leader has been very clear that he doesn't trust the united states like most iranians. >> rose: but does he want to see a better relation with the united states? >> he made it very 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 leadership. it requires a great deal of courage for iran to accept to take measures that we are negotiating, it requires a great deal of leadership -- >> rose: after 18 months, is there more respect because you've spent 18 months in the trenches with secretary kerry went back and spoke to iran to the supreme leader and i suppose briefed him on all the details involved, it is said by people who analyze these things that you especially have his ear. you would 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. so it's not -- >> it's because he the leader respects the choice of the people. now unfortunately over the past 18 months, the united states can look at iran and say over the last 18 months, iran complied with 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 has more insistence on keeping sanctions than 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 sanctions, you must remember, if sanctions were designed to hurt the iranian people -- >> rose: to change the mind to have the iranian government, not to 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. i mean, the united states is saying that iran can purchase medicine burks if you go to a bank and tell them that i want to send medicine to iran, they say you cant. >> rose: no one doubts these

have been successful sanctions. >> this is not what i call success. >> rose: if you want to feel the pressure of a 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 -- i mean, not you -- if the united states government wanted to antagonize 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 achieve. >> 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 election. my predecessors were negotiating. we were always at the negotiating table. we were at the negotiating table during the presidency in iran. president rouhani and i were negotiating. it is now the united states which has abandoned the 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 if you want to -- >> rose: the u.s. now sees that as long as there are caps on iranian enrichment, it's okay. >> that would have been possible ten years ago too. there were proposals on the table ten years ago before a single united nations sanctions was put in place that would have

provided even a better option, but the united states decided to torpedo -- the bush administration, john bolton decided to torpedo the agreement 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 -- negotiations produce results. >> rose: i want to talk about several things. a lot of americans you respect whether jim baker, h henry kissinger or george schultz have raised real caution about the agreement they understand, and one question we'll talk about first sanctions, then inspections and other issues. but let's talk about sanctions in terms of this agreement. the united states has said that the sanctions 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 this final agreement is signed, all sanctions gone. >> we are talking about economic and financial sanctions and what we agreed the parameters of the agreement that we reached in lausanne are very clear that once we start implementing the first steps and the first steps are very clear but the number of centrifuges in fordow the reactors, all sanctions, all economic and financial sanctions must go. that is all the u.n. sanctions -- >> rose: the u.s. has phase and you say based on good conduct and you say at the beginning. the supreme leader says now before we sign the agreement. >> no, not before. >> rose: not before we sign the agreement? >> no, no, 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, option of agreement. you cannot mix the two. it's as if iran wants to keep some part -- but will you grant me this that what the supreme leader said and what secretary kerry has 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 define the agreement the way he

wants to define it. whatly 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 upon this logic very clear logic. >> rose: okay -- you cannot have two opposing facts running at the same time. you either -- >> rose: the building up of sanctions or what do do you mean? what two opposing tracks. >> one is to have an agreement the other one is to impose pressure. imposition of pressure has its counterparts. the the counterpart to imposition of pressure would be iran building more centrifuges. >> rose: if in fact there was a nuclear agreement, is it likely to lead to -- likely to lead to more cooperation in terms of u.s.-iranian relations u.s.-iranian cooperation u.s.-iranian joint efforts if it finds itself on the same side?

and do you somehow make the argument that if we can get past this nuclear agreement we can work together to defeat our common enemy in this case, i.s.i.l, which is also the common enemy of your competitors in the region, the saudis, for example? >> well, i see a possibility for regional cooperation which exists even now. i'm dealing with all these issues. i believe the united states needs to make a very serious assessment of how policies that are based on a paradigm that from our perspective is outdated, does not work for this time in world history. this is a bit maybe philosophical, and i've had six years of being philosophical when i was out of government, but you have to look at it this way that, 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. with we have common challenges. we need to work for this so-called win-win situations where everybody makes a gain. you cannot gain security at the expense of insecurity of others. this must have become clear. i believe the united states is moving in that direction i hope hasn't made that decision. i mean, it i still if you look at the nuclear issue the united states, some at least in the united states, including those you mentioned, they considered their gain to be our loss and our gain to be their loss. i think this is fundamentally flawed. >> rose: okay. but do you view an american loss as a win for iran?

>> not necessarily. not necessarily. >> rose: we look at a zero-sum game but you don't. >> i do not believe that in a globalized world anybody with any rationality can look at the international situation as a zero-sum game. it is not zero-sum. unfortunately, many people do. >> rose: does your government see the united states as the great satan? >> well -- >> rose: a phrase that's been used by ayatollahs. >> well, our people -- our people, the government in iran follows the people. it's not the other way around. our people -- if you look at the polls, if you look at the polls the polls that are even conducted by american polling establishments including pew, a lot of polls indicate the iranian people are skeptical of intentions even when it develops to nuclear negotiations. i believe the the united states

needs to convince the iranians that it does not harbor bad intentions against the iranian people. >> rose: and the iranian government needs to convince the american people that it does not want nuclear weapons which would lead to a proliferation of weapons in the middle east in our region of the gulf. you need convince the american people of that because that's what they fear. they fear that if iran gets -- it's not that they're going to attack somebody, it's just that everybody all of a sudden will have nuclear weapons. the saudis will reach out to the pakistanis and everybody else will want nuclear weapons and we'll have a -- >> i think -- >> rose: is that a real possibility? >> i think several secretaries of state wrote in the "wall street journal" i believe some time ago, it is time for everybody to think of a world without nuclear weapons because that's the ultimate answer. >> rose: so what about -- no, hold on. because you've got to make

yourself accountable to the same criteria you want the rest of the world to be accountable to, and the united states which has used nuclear weapons in hiroshima and nag nagasaki, it does not have the authority to advise others on what to do and not to do. but we have made our own decision. we believe that nuclear weapons did not provide security for anybody, they will not provide security for anybody. we have made a very solid determination that nuclear weapons run counter to our islamic values. >> rose: i understand. ahmadinejad said that to me and others said that. why do you think others don't trust you? >> because lies have been spread by all people, by the israelis who are the only ones in our region who possess nuclear weapons, the only ones who are not a member of the n.p.t. in our region. we want -- actually, yesterday i

was talking to the egyptian foreign minister, we want to all establish a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east. why don't you push israel to accept this? because tomorrow, if you have everybody in the middle east accepting -- and everybody is there ready to accept no nuclear weapons in the middle east, with all the inspections you want in the world that we will not have nuclear weapons. so it's not -- i mean netanyahu does not have any authority to become sort of nonproliferation guru of the world. this guy sits on 200 nuclear warheads which are illegal, have been developed in conflict of every international treaty on nonproliferation. so let's be serious. iran never wanted nuclear weapons. >> rose: granted the point you are making they have nuclear weapons, did not sign the n.p.t.

treaty and everybody is aware of that fact. >> so why don't you deal with the fact? that's the fact! this is the fact on the ground and i don't see anybody -- iran did not invade any of its neighbors. israel every two years invades gaza, every other year takes -- >> rose: i don't want to go off into that. >> i know you don't. >> rose: no, not because to have the reason you think -- no, not because of the reason you think because you get into who provoked who, as you know. and looks like your friends hamas have survived this and they will argue they survived the war and came out stronger in some cases. >> usually people who resist aggression came out stronger. >> rose: let me ask basic questions a lot of people want to know. one is why don't you want to provide? this is a simple thing to do, the history that john kerry and others asked for you to provide so that they would have a basis to look at. they would know more about what you had done and have a basis to make an evaluation about the

future. you refused to -- >> no, we didn't. >> rose: you have not allowed a history of your -- >> no, no, come on. hold on. let's take one step at a time. you make an allegation -- somebody makes an allegation against you, it's up to them to prove it not for you to disprove it. allegation also have been made against iran one after the other. iran -- hold on. iran has been inspected in the last ten years more than any other country in the world save for japan. the only other country who has been inspected more than iran, i'm referring to not to the i.80 report recently based on the report i.a.e.a. spent more money on any other country -- than any other country on japan. >> rose: they have at least

ten basic unanswered questions. >> 12. >> rose: unanswered questions. thiewptif you want to prove the point answer the questions. >> the i.a.e.a. got questions based on information israel provided to them. so people who themselves are violating the n.p.t. continue to accuse others who have a track record of complying with their obligations under the n.p.t. with allegations. what we can do and have been trying with the i.a.e.a. is to develop a framework to answer the questions burks it has to be -- questions, but it has to be clear that proving the negative is impossible. you know that, any lawyer will tell you that it is impossible to prove a negative. somebody who makes an allegation, who presents an allegation must provide the evidence for that. the problem is the i.a.e.a. has been searching iran for the last

ten years, has spent more time in iran than -- >> rose: if you've got nothing knot to hide, let them come in and do what they want to. because you are saying we have nothing to hide, want centrifuges tore peaceful purposes, so i say to you inspection is a big deal for trust and verification or non-trust and non-verification whatever you want to define it as, it's a big deal for the americans. >> it is a big deal. >> rose: and for the i.a.e.a. here's the deal -- iran will accept the highest international level of inspections, that is the additional protocol. >> rose: and go anywhere anytime -- >> come on go anywhere anytime? you're talking about sovereign countries. there are international standards. go anywhere anytime where? which country is prepared to give you go anywhere anytime? all countries have industrial

secrets, military steects, but if there are bases and there is an international criteria. people come up with these his tehrikhis -- hysteric arguments. iran has said if there is an agreement, that if we choose the path of cooperation instead of the path of confrontation because you cannot choose the path of confrontation and expect the other side to cooperate. i mean, it's either or. you cannot have -- we're trying to go in the direction of verification and trust. that requires you to accept certain norms certain international practices that are now agreed upon and available to all countries. iran is prepared to accept the highest level of international

inspection, that is available. >> rose: just to show you in the interest of what little i do know about the deal, what i've understood from different people, secretary kerry has said in conversations when the question was raised of him like i'm raising the questions of you by margaret brennan, the correspondent in cbs asked about the inspections and why should we believe the inspections this time if they were thwarted in the past? john kerry said these are the most extensive inspections we've ever seen, those proposed as part of this agreement. is that true or not?pwas the secretary speaking the truth? >> well, the secretary certainly speaks the truth to the american people and he can say and present the inspections that are going to take place under what is known internationally as the additional protocol -- >> rose: but do you believe

these are the most extensive intrusive inspections you've ever been subjected to those in this agreement? >> iran is accepting to implement the additional protocol which is the highest standard of inspections that is available in the world, so he's not lying. if iran implements the additional protocol, iran would be implementing the highest standard of inspection but that is not exclusive to iran. that is the standard of inspection that some other countries, not all other countries, are implementing. but let me tell you something iran was prepared to implement that in 2003. actually, we implemented the additional protocol from 2003 to 2005. the united states government, at that time, unfortunately, chose the path of confrontation and torpedoed the possibilities for

cooperation, and the same people who killed the opportunity for cooperation then are advising now to kill this opportunity. >> rose: thank you for coming. thank you. >> rose: our conversation with the foreign minister of iran. 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: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: additional funding provided by: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

this is >> massive turn around the dow plun reverse course and stage a from greece as that country's creditors schedule high stakes meeting this weekend. held hostage. th hope. to a special report on the big business of ransom. all that an >> good ev what began as a sell-off turned into a r choppy and volatile day of