pbs." tonight, is the iran nuclear deal finally on the verge of collapse as europe and the united states square off over sanctions and iran threatens to restart its nuclear activities. from london my conversation with the top iranian diplomat and ambassador to the uk. plus from new york, rob ryaner joins me on his new political thriller shock and awe exposing america to the truth and the lies that led america into the iraq war. good evening, everyone. and welcome to the program.

i'm christiane amanpour in london. the iran nuclear deal is in serious trouble. america's closest allies in europe are throwing a hail mary pass to save it. pleading with the trump administration to respect their sovereignty and quit threatening their own european companies that are trying to do business in iran. when the president defied the global consensus and withdrew america from the deal last month, europe immediately said they would abide by it for their own safety and security, and in the absence of any alternative. now top eu, british, french and german ministers write, quote, as allies we expect that the united states will refrain from taking action to harm europe's security interests. u.s. secondary sanctions could prevent the european union from continuing meaning sanctions

relief to iran. and now iran is baffling europe by threatening to step up its uranium enrichment. we have iran's ambassador to the uk joining me now. welcome back to the program. we spoke a few weeks ago when all this happened. when the u.s. pulled itself out of the deal. so are we correct, is the deal on the verge of collapse? >> not yet, but it could be. we are trying hard, everybody, iran and the partners, to see how we can salvage the deal. so we are in a very hectic situation because the united states has threatened everybody that not only the united states would be complying with obligations but threatening others that they should not be in a position to work with iran. and breaching very clearly the terms of the deal. now it depends on other partners to decide on their policies how

they can be assuring iran that jcpoa can be fully implemented. >> you had a meeting in tehran today, i understand, right? >> yes, there has been a meeting in tehran with a number of experts to explore ways and means to get some assurances that jcpoa could be completed. >> so this is with all the signatories to the deal, except obviously the u.s. officials? >> of course. >> what do you make of that letter? that is quite an interesting development. writing a letter to the u.s. officials and saying for their own national security and sovereignty that the united states needs to stop threatening their companies. >> in our letter or their letter? >> the european letter. >> that's a very serious situation for europe. because they are right to say

that the uk -- uk companies working with iran, and they are very legitimate to do that because jcpoa was implemented and they were right to enter into agreement with iran on different things, economic things and everything. now they are threatened that they should leave iran, and that is a very serious situation. >> we have a list, we've compiled a graphic. and we're going to put it up. it's quite a long list of companies, all of whom came to do business with you, who are either leaving or planning to leave iran in the not too distant future because of these threats by the u.s. how bad is that for, a, your economy, but also, how much time do you give europe to stop this

exiting before you say the deal is dead? >> the reality is we should be clearing our position rather soon because the situation is very hectic. and as you said, the european companies are distressed about the situation. so they want to make decisions for themselves. so we really hope that we can find a solution, and in this context, the letter has been signed by the european ministers is important because they want to show the americans that this is a very serious issues for the government, their national and their companies. they want to be sure that what they have done, they should be punished about this. so i assume that this would be a very important issue in front of the summit in canada. >> in canada, which is -- yeah it looks like it's going to be pretty -- it does seem to be interesting because the europeans are really going to

bat for this deal. i mean, they have said, both the french president and the german chancellor, said they won't sign a declaration, the traditional end of summit declaration, unless there is progress on a number of issues, paris, the climate deal but also the iran nuclear deal. they do seem to be doing all that they can. the question is, does teheran have faith they can achieve what they promise to do? >> we know that there are limitations. we're cognizant about this. but we are also pragmatic. we want to know what, in practice, they can do. we know that they are very determined to do that, but in reality we need some assurances that they can guarantee their companies to continue to work with iran. so we are working with practical solutions and not only the policies. so when we see the practical solutions are on the ground, then we can assess how much it seriously can give assurances to

the european companies to continue working with tehran. >> here's what the secretary of state, mike pompeo has said about this very issue and i'll get your reaction after this. >> any time sanctions are put in place, countries have to give up economic activity. so the americans have given up economic activity now for an awfully long time. and i'll concede there are american companies who would love to do business with the islamic republic. but everyone has to understand we cannot continue to create wealth. >> he made it very personal. he used the name of the leader of the iranian revolutionary guard. i wonder -- well, you see that, what's your reaction to it? >> i think that the u.s.

officials are very delusioned about the role of the u.s. and the important role of the u.s., i think, in national policy. we know the u.s. is a very powerful country, resources, the military power. but the question is now that we are in a situation that there are other importance there at the international level, we have russia, china, we have europe, we have even regional partners who are very active on their feet. but the question is, i think they're very delusioned about how the country is prepared to take orders from u.s. that's not the reality. the reality is the country want to have an international relation based on law and what the united states is saying is completely against international law because they are abdicatiin

a u.n. security council constitution. so in reality, if they have international law, now the united states would be, from the security council, condemned by the security council, punished by the security council, sanctioned by the security council, but we know the reality is something else. but the question is, that the country's not take instructions and orders from the united states. >> as i said, companies are. they are worried about the consequences for their u.s. business and they are speaking with their dollars and leaving iran or planning to leave iran. so they are. the other question is, at this moment, why would the supreme leader, the officials, further rattle europe by saying you're going to go back to status queue or you're going to increase uranium enrichment.

why would you say that now? why would you do that now? >> because time is very important. now we should be clear that time is limited, and we should make proper decisions. and we are also waiting to see what are the final decisions in europe. of course, at this moment, we are using a right under the parameters of the jcpoa, we are not going beyond the jcpoa, everything is done within the parameters. but one important element is not all companies are the same level. we know there are some multinational companies. in fact, particularly exposed to the u.s. market and u.s. financial system. but not all the european or asian or whatever companies are very concerned about policies. this has been an experienced we

had before the jcpoa under the international sanctions and u.s. sanctions, but even at that time they're willing to work with a number of european companies, a number of asian companies and a number of important companies. so the door would not be closed for working with iran. we know there are some companies who have particular interest in the u.s. market, they would be more conflicted. but there are other possibilities. >> to broaden it out, you know because it's been said by everybody, the u.s., that obviously they want a new deal. they want an add-on deal. they want it to include your activities in syria, in yemen, they want to include missiles, all the stuff that they don't like what iran is doing. this, however, is what the supreme leader said about that.

>> translator: so europeans are talking about iran coping with the sanctions and limiting our defensive missile program, which is essential for the future of the country. i am telling these governments this is a dream that will never come true. >> so is he just ruling out any negotiation over any of these other issues that trouble even your european allies, much less the president of the united states and the prime minister of israel? everybody thinks there should be further negotiations on some of this other behavior. >> exactly on this point now it's more than clear that the united states has deceived the international community for more than a year. because they were telling everybody that we want to complement the jcpoa, we want to add elements or clarify some more elements, but now as you know from the united states withdrew from the deal, they mentioned very clearly that iran

should stop enriching uranium. that made clear that, in fact -- more than a year they were trying to deceive international community by saying the u.s. position was to include something more -- >> which is not the position or the requirement under the jcpoa. >> yes. >> it doesn't stop. >> exactly. this is the foundation of the jcpoa that iran can have a program. now they are more blunt to say we want iran to stop the enrichment. i remember the first meeting, and bill burns was the head of the u.s. delegation at the time, the first question we put to the u.s. is that, are you able to accept that we would have enr h enrichment program or not? if not, no point to have a

program. now, after this time, after a year, they're saying iran should stop enrichment. that is completely against the foundation of the jcpoa. >> that's very clear indeed. ambassador, thank you for coming i. >> iran was a big winner out of the u.s. decision to invade iraq backing the majority there and gaining outside political influence after the united states took out saddam hussein. how bush sold the war and how the press played along is at the heart of a new film by rob reiner. the night they got it right in the run-up to the iraq war. look at this clip. >> they're dialing up the rhetoric on iraq. let's see if we can nail them down. >> let's get to work. >> working on a theory that the administration has decided to go

to war and now focussed on how to justify it. >> it's not a theory. >> a group has been set up in the building i work. >> which building is that? >> the one with five sides. >> it is a story of a few good men standing up to the presidency and much of the press, a few good men by the way is another great rob reiner film. he stands at the heart of american culture, starring in the tv comedy, "all in the family" back in the 1970s, directing an array of movies, including 'stand by me," "when harry met sally". and, of course, rob reiner joined me to talk about the movie. welcome to the program. >> thank you. >> what was it that inspired you about these reporters and that "newsroom." >> i was in dra-- of draft age

the vietnam war. with the invasion of iraq i couldn't wrap my head around the fact that we were going to war a second time based on lies. we have a line in the film where i say it's like watching your child run into the street, and being helpless in saving them before they get hit by the truck. that's the way i felt about it, in seeing us go to war, and i wanted to make a film about this for the last many, many years and i didn't quite know how to approach it and how to tell the story. initially i thought maybe i'd do it as a satire. i've done some satires in the past i thought maybe it would be like a "dr. strangelove" or something like that. then i saw a documentary by bill moyers and he interviewed these four journalists who got it right.

i said, that's my way into the story. >> i knew jonathan lan dy and still do from the wars. we were conscious of what they were doing in this case of pushing back and i think some of us at cnn were horrified at the lack of rigorous questioning of the bush administration and the sort of march to war, and we called -- i did, anyway, fox news the foot soldier of the bush administration in that regard. it was very controversial. here you are now doing a film about it. i say all this to set up a clip because you play john wolcot, the night bureau chief, you manage these news men, and you were giving them a pep talk when they were demoralized about the spin coming out of washington and the rest of the main stream media. let's play this clip. >> if every other news organization wants to be ste no

gra -- stenographers for the bush administration, let them. we don't write for people who send other people's kids to war. we write for people whose kids get sent to war. >> that is really profound and really what it's all about, whose kids get sent to war. >> we start the film with a quote from bill moyer, who was a famous journalist and press secretary to lyndon johnson. where he talks about the -- a free and independent press. and the need for a free and independent press if we are going to have a democracy. it is one of the pillars of democracy. and here we are, at a time when the president of the united states is calling the press the enemy of the people, saying it's fake news, and the job of the press is always, and there's a,

quote, in that same speech which is by the way, john wolcot said those things to his reporters in the "newsroom." he said, and i think the most important line in the film is when the government says something, you as reporters only have one question to ask, is it true? and that really is where we are now. the press is under attack like never before. you've got a presidency that is essentially backed up by a big swath of media, which you could arguably called state-run media with fox and sinclare and "breitbart" and alex jones and so on. it's even more difficult now for the press to break through with the truth. so it's more important now than ever for main stream journalism to really initiate and activate

the real principles of journalism to hold a power accountable. >> let me get to the film again because we talked about your character, john wolcot, who you weren't the original first choice for that part, it was alec baldwin. >> it was. >> i don't know why he left the film. are you pleased with the fact that it fell to you in the end? how did it turn out? >> i mean, he -- alec baldwin left two days before he was supposed to shoot. we had already shot a week of the film with woodly harrelson and tommy lee jones, i didn't know what to do. and my wife, who produced the film with me, said why don't you do it? i said, oh, my god, i don't like directing and acting. so i said i would do it. she gave me one direction because john wolcot, who i'm playing, she said to me, just try to make it less jewish.

that's her direction to me. i don't know how successful i was. >> you know, anyway, you did a great job. so again, i know jonathan landy, and, in fact, on this program a few years ago, i actually interviewed him, the main journalists who you profiled and you put a clip in your film, and i want to play it because it goes to the heart of what they did different from what all the other bigger journalistic fish did during the iraq war. >> there's a problem with journalism in washington. "new york times" and others had access to the top officials spinning this line. we reported on those as well. but it was spined -- >> lower levels. >> lower levels. the types journalists normally don't talk to. >> they're the two real journalists talking to me about how they did their craft. it sounds basic, but so few of them actually did that. they stood out for doing that.

>> yes. and most your journalists are looking foraccess. they want access to the upper echelon and john wolcot said, your sources, the value of your sources, are directly proportional to the level of writing. he says, if you want to know what's going on in a war, don't go to the headquarters and talk to the top generals. talk to the staff sergeants, talk to the lieutenants on the ground, and they'll give you the truth. that's what these guys did. they went and talked to people who are patriots, who were willing to talk and tell the truth. >> just an interesting fact because you're very partisan if i can put it that way, but you put up a new committee, a new endeavor a long with a lot of prominent republicans, david frum, george w. bush's speech

writer, whose access of evil speech was one of the lines that sort of justified the wars. what are you doing and how does he like this film? >> well, you know, he hasn't seen it yet, but i think he will like it. i have found myself in the last year and a half becoming very good friends with principles republica republicans. for the first time you're seeing the really principled republicans and democrats coming together because this idea of whether or not we preserve democracy that cuts across party lines. that's not about whether or not you agree with lower taxes, less government or greater social programs. this is about whether this 241 year experiment in self-rule survives. so i find a lot of principled republicans that i've become very close friends with. >> finally, just to go back to

the early days where it all started for you as an actor, how tired or not do you get of hearing donald trump compared and likened to archie bunker? >> you know something, here's the thing, it's exhausting. in the case of "all in the family" it was a fiction. we were making fun of a racist, a bigoted man. now we have a racist in the white house. and it's spreading and giving a free reign to people who believe in that way of thinking, giving them a platform. it's exhausting. and very depressing for those of us who care about this country to see it coopted by somebody who had racist views, misogynist you c misogynistic views. it's very disturbing and disheartening. it's not funny. it's not funny.

at least in "all in the family" we were getting laughs making fun of this. this isn't funny in as much as we have people out there doing that for us. the reality is we have this guy in the white house and some horrible things are happening in the country. >> i want to put a button on it, to see your reaction, steve bannon one could call him the idealoge behind the trump administration. he's been asked these issues, too, why when they're accused of being racist, he said donald trump is not racist, look at the african-american population in the united states, their unemployment level has gone down since he's become president. how do you respond to that? >> what does that have to do with donald trump? that has nothing to do with donald trump. the unemployment rate has been going down for the last almost ten years after barack obama took office. i mean, that's a crazy thing.

for him to say, you know, here's my african-american over here, or to refer to certain countries in africa and around the world as "s" hole countries and so on, this is ridiculous. there's good people on both sides in charlottesville. these are racist thoughts, racist ideas. so please, that's a ridiculous argument. >>i >>ing. >> on that note, rob reiner, director of "shock and awe". thank you for joining us. >> thank you for joining us. >> that is it for "amanpour on pbs." join us again tomorrow night. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com

katty: you are watching "beyond 100 days" on pbs. donald trump won't get a warm welcome at the g7 meeting. christian: there's speculation in washington that he doesn't really want to go to the summit anyway and prefers to focus on his one-on-one with kim jong-un. katty: he's getting a polite response from japan's prime minister at the white house. the president says the summit is a go and he's as ready as he needs to be. >> i think i'm very well prepared. i don't think i have to prepare very much. christian: also, can the global economy survive the current shocks ahead of the g7 summit?