>> rose: welcome to the program. as the iran nuclear negotiations come to the end game a deal or not a deal, we talk to david sanger of the "new york times." he is in vienna, austria. >> one of the big bones of contention now is will the united states and its european partners be willing to lift the total arms embargo that the united nations security council has imposed in various stages since 2006 against iran. and the u.s. is very reluctant to do that because they believe if they lift the arms embargo it's going to further inflame what's happening in iraq what's happening in syria as the iranians have even more arms and then because of the relief of sanctions, more money to pour into the shia militia.

so i think one of the big things to look for if we're looking for end of negotiation concessions will be how they resolve the question. >> rose: to appreciate the argument made by the iranians, we rebroadcast a conversation in airplane with javad zarif the foreign minister of iran, negotiator for that country meeting often with secretary of state john kerry. >> i want you and the american public to understand that it's not the sanctions that has brought iran here. we were always at the negotiating table. we were always prepared to reach a negotiated solution. it was unfortunately segments of the united states administration whobled, and unfortunately continue to believe, that they can impose their views on the rest of the world. they can't. and the sooner they realize that, the better we all will be. >> rose: the iran negotiations

approach the end. as we continue. >> 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. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: we begin this evening with iran nuclear negotiations. the talks have been extended for the second time after the negotiators failed to reach an agreement by tuesday's self-imposed deadline. european union foreign policy chief said the talks reached a difficult and sensitive stage

and would continue for the next couple of days. joining me from vienna is david sanger from the "new york times" to talk about a subject he knows very well. where do you think we are at this moment? >> we're at an odd moment now where many of the technical issues that needed to get sorted out, including between the energy secretary ernst ernest moniz and his iranian counterpart both i.t.s sitting there for days trying to work out questions of research and development and so forth. they've largely solved those. all the big issues that needs to get resolved now are basically political decisions. they are decisions that either the americans or the iranians are unwilling to go make to get to that last stage and there's a great deal of end of bargaining brinksmanship going

on here. so we've hit a moment where no one believes in the deadlines anymore because the americans think the deadline set in congressional legislation which was this thursday was being used against them by the iranians who quite astutely figured out that the americans might well give up more simply to limit the amount of time that congress could review the agreement this summer. so secretary kerry basically said i'm willing to go with the longer review that is required in that if we go past the deadline because he didn't want to get jammed. so that's the kind of gamesmanship you're seeing happening today. >> rose: what are the political issues you are taking about? >> some of the big once, charlie, are what the status of the research and development program is going to be in iran. this is the program that would enable the iranians to keep working on centrifuges and developing very advanced

centrifuges while the first ten-year limitations are in place on what kind of work that they can do to actually produce uranium. the fear is that if they are working very hard on these advanced center centrifuges, as soon as the agreement is over, and there's sort of a slow period between year 10 and year 15 where it phases out they will be able to put these much more high-tech centrifuges in place and begin industrial-scale production. and, charlie that gets to one of the critical issues you and i discussed before which is all this agreement does is delay the day iran could become an industrial producer, it doesn't permanently stop them from doing that. so it's a bet and it's a bet by the obama administration that in the end of 15 years he's got a friendlier and easier to work with iranian government. >> rose: do they have any reason to believe that's going to be true? >> you know, ten years ago we

might have said it based on what we saw in the young generation of iranians who want greater trade and interchange with the west, want visas want to be able to come to university and the united states and throughout europe, and yet you don't quite have it yet. you have the election of president rouhani, which is what enabled these negotiations to happen, but he's fighting his own political wars back in tehran, and i think the question here is can the iranians emerge from this entire set of negotiations being able to make the argument that they have kept their national pride because they have kept so much equipment and they are able to continue to do research while secretary kerry, who has been making his way between the hotel behind me where the negotiations are going on and his own hotel a few blocks away is trying to make the argument that the united states has bought more time than

they ever could with a military strike, cyber attacks and all the other things the u.s. has done to try to slow the iranian program. so you're going to have one set of facts contained in an 80-page agreement, and they will be interpreted entirely differently by both sides. >> rose: as you know, republicans and those others who are opponents of this deal suggest that -- and i know and president obama are offended by this -- you know, that they are looking to simply get it off a -- get a deal and move it to a later year so that a it contributes to their legacy or their potential for a nobel prize and all of that. >> you know, i've heard those arguments, and i certainly think that there is an argument that you can make that the united states gave up some ground from its initial going-in bargaining positions, but that happens in negotiations. i think that the secretary has

been slowing down since he's gotten here. he's highly sensitive, i think to that argument. he wants to reverse the perception, whether it was true or not that he wanted this deal more than the iranians did but these deadlines were forcing mechanisms, so today when they blew past the this deadline they didn't announce new ones. the closest thing we got to an official announcement of an extension was a sign in the lobby of our hotel this morning saying everybody's rooms have been extended. so that tells you how loathe the governments are to set new deadlines here. >> rose: you will be celebrating labor day in vienna. (laughter) >> well, if you have to get stuck someplace, you won't get much sympathy for getting stuck

in vienna. but it raise as question that at what point does it become to secretary kerry's advantage to look to the iranians and say you know, if you're not ready to make these decisions, we'll just go back, take the summer off and see you in new york in september when you come to the opening of the united nations and there are some people who believe that would be a good strategy. the problem is that you lose the momentum that negotiators maintain they have developed here, slow as that momentum may have been, and you always have a problem the things you agreed to over the past two weeks here get undone in the interim. so that's the very tactical calculus he's going through. then there's the bigger issue he's thinking about which is, you know if he can get this, you know, this is going to be the biggest foreign policy accomplishment of the obama administration if you can actually begin to end 35 years of an adversarial relationship with iran. >> rose: is there any evidence to support the fact that the

united states is making concessions it might not have made a month ago because these things are approaching the end game? >> you know, charlie because we don't know what adjustments they're making, what exactly they're arguing about in the closed rooms behind us here, it's hard to know whether or not there are real concessions being made. but in that same story that our correspondent in iran and i wrote yesterday, i made the point that one of the big points of contention right now is would the united states and its european partners be willing to lift the total arms embargo that the united nations security council has imposed in various stages since 2006 against iran and the u.s. is very reluctant to do that and they're reluctant to do that because they believe that if they lift the arms embarring o it's going

to further inflame what's happening in iraq, what's happening in syria, as the iranians have even more arms and then, because of the relief of sanctions, more money to pour into the shia militia. and so, i think one of the big things to look for if we're looking for end of negotiation concessions will be how they resolve this question. the u.s. has said that they do not want to lift arms embargoes and that those were not purely about the iranian nuclear program, they were about iran's overall behavior around the world. so that's a very good one to look at if you're trying to figure out if there have been last-minute concessions. another big one to look at is what kind of research and development iran is going to be permitted to be doing on its centrifuges in the out years of this negotiation. >> rose: we talked about that. that's right. so we'll know when we see the final document. now, an interesting question to ask is how much of this development is going to be

published? and most of it, i think, will be but the administration has left open the possibility that there will be some classified annex. it strikes me that will be a troublesome development for them in congress because they would have to end up having to brief on parts of the agreement that will leak out selectively. >> rose: do you think the iranians are trying to drive a wedge between russia and china on the one hand and other members to have the security council on the other china notwithstanding? >> definitely, and one way they're doing that, charlie, is with the arms embargo issue because the russians and the chinese both want to be able to sell arms to iran, and that includes missile parts that includes conventional arms and of course, the europeans are

dead set against this as is the united states. so it's one of the wedge issues that would give the irannians an opportunity to divide what until now, has been a very well-unified group of negotiating partners here. >> rose: are they at one iran and the united states, about what the inspections will be and what kind of equipment will be used by the i.a.e.a.? >> i think they're more in agreement on what kind of equipment will be used by the i.a.e.a. than they are about where the inspectors will be free to go. you will remember that the supreme leader said on several occasions that the inspectors would not be free to go into military sites but the rules that iran is signing up to, that were followed by 120 other countries that are inspected by the i.a.e.a., clearly allow for inspections at military sites. so that's been one level of

haggling. the story that you referred to before has to do with the kind of technology that the i.a.e.a. inspectors who work out of the headquarters just a few miles from here on the danu will be able to install in iran. very high-tech equipment has been put in to beam back to headquarters 24-7 over satellite, over fiber optic so there is constant understanding of what's happening in most sensitive nuclear arenas. that's true in south korea japan, and many other countries with the i.a.e.a. inspections. it's not been true in iran. the iranians have kept the i.a.e.a. from installing the most high-tech equipment. instead they have been using older cameras where an inspector has to go and literally download the pictures and bring them back

to vienna for developing. that's not a system that would inspire great confidence when you think you don't have a huge amount of time to detect any violation. >> rose: when you look at the question of snapbacks, where is that, the idea that the sanctions can be quickly reimposed? >> charlie, we haven't yet heard what the exact mechanism is going to be. it appears there is going to be some kind of a committee that will look at the question of whether or not there have been violations by the iranians that could allow sanctions to be reimposed. but yesterday we sat down with a senior iranian official who said, hey, snap backward from both directions, so we want the committee to be able to look at the question of whether the sanctions really have been lifted or whether you're just talking about lifting them but not really opening up the tickets to iran. because if the sanctions haven't been lifted, iran might want to produce more uranium up the

ante. that's not how you hear about it from the united states or british german, french officials. >> rose: do both sides believe they can argue that the deal they can get is a good deal? you would assume the answer is obviously yes, but -- >> charlie if they can't argue it's a good deal, they don't want to get out of here, because secretary kerry knows and he said yesterday, two days ago when he came out to speak to us briefly, that he knows this agreement is not only going to be reviewed in congress, it's going to be reviewed by all the nonproliferation experts scientists physicists who will be looking to take it apart. and, you know, last week, you ant i talked about this letter that came from both democrats and republicans that included five members of president obama's former iran team that laid out very specific benchmarks that they believe any

good agreement would have to reach. so the first thing that's going to happen, when we get ahold of this document, is people are going to hold it up to that letter and it will enable therooms to then say look, this does or does not match what your own former advisors said you needed to accomplish. and, so, that's going to be the first level of scrutiny, and then many other details will be examined. so he's got to come out with something pretty bullet-proof. the iranians have a different problem. they have to come out with a narrative. seems most iranians aren't looking at details the way the americans and europeans are. the iranians are looking at the question of did we hold up our national pride are we still going to be able to have a nuclear program and how quickly are the sanctions going to get lifted. so in some ways it's a heavier lift for secretary kerry than for his iranian counterparts here. >> rose: when do you think perhaps, this will all come to an announcement by the two

parties that they have an agreement? >> charlie, there is a sense here that thursday or friday would be the earliest that they would get an agreement if they can get it. today, they said they would be involved in discussions for several days more. some of the european ministers are leaving and saying they will come back if there is reason to at the end of the week. of course if this slips just a day past thursday, then the administration has to go under a much longer review of congress as mandated by the legislation. i do think though, that secretary kerry's hit the point where he thinks even if it requires going past that deadline, if you're that close it's worth closing this up, it's just that big a deal for this administration and for the united states after all these 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.

>> announcer: the following kqed production was produced in high definition. calories, calories, calories! >> wow, it rocked my world! >> it just kind of reminded me of boot camp. >> i don't know what you had but this is great! >> it almost felt like country club food to me. >> don't touch it. it's hot! >> i gotta tell you, you people