>> it's good to have you with us. the headlines on al jazeera. the world health organization says that the omicron variant has been detected in 38 countries, up from 20 32 days ago. it's calling on countries to focus on preparing health systems instead of imposing travel restrictions. >> let's also not forget that the predominant variant right now still remains the delta variant. omicron may be on the rise and we may come to a point where it

takes over to be the dominant variant. at this point, the very dominant variant remains delta. >> the top health official in the u.s. says vaccine manufacturers are working on contingency plans including the possibility of an omicron specific booster. the variant has been confirmed in at least nine states. >> they do have plans that have multiple contingency. one is to rev up the production of the vaccines that they already have. the next is to make a bivalent where you have the vaccine against both the ancestral strain and the new variant. the other is to make a variant specific boost. the degree to which they will be doing that, they are now assuming they may have to do that and are being prepared for that. >> iran street negotiator told us that world powers cannot reject draft proposals they've

submitted during talks in vienna. the negotiations are aimed at bringing the u.s. back into the packed and ensuring that iran is compliant with it. the u.s. is again warning that is prepared to take action against russia if it invades ukraine. the number of russian troops have been rising along the border but the kremlin says it's nothing to worry about. ukraine believes that russia could mount an offensive as soon as next month. libya's foreign minister has accused europe of pushing its migrant crisis onto the north african country. european leaders offer only superficial solutions. a decade of instability has made libya a crossing point for people trying to reach europe. those are the headlines. more news for you on al jazeera after today's inside story, coming up next. ♪

anchor: a deal within reach if the west shows goodwill. that's the message from iran after its proposals to revive the nuclear agreement. there's goto enough. can a new deal hold this time? this is inside story. ♪ hello and welcome to the program. iran has submitted to draft proposals to european powers negotiating the revival of the 2050 nuclear agreement. the seventh round of talks in vienna is aimed at bringing around and the u.s. back into the deal. they are expect it resume next week. competing visions of the countries involved makes success

a very long shot. the talks are meant to limit iran's nuclear program in exchange for sections relief. the u.s. secretary of state says there's little cse for optimism. tehran is doubting washings -- washington's determination to revive the accord. iran's chief negotiator told al jazeera in an exclusive interview, world powers cannot reject its draft proposals. reporter: iran's deputy foreign minister spoke to al jazeera in an exclusive interview. he explained his country's posture was about nuclear talks taking place in vienna. >> iran cannot be rejected at all because they are based on the provisions of the 2015 nuclear agreement. in principle, the countries which are still the participants do not want to ruin the nuclear document. all the sanctions which have been imposed under the maximum

pressure campaign of the united states should be removed immediately. >> there are two proposals that were submitted to the world powers and there are no options to refuse them because they were built on what was agreed upon in e 2015 dl. they also denied reports that tehran is planning to enrich uranium up to 90%. he said that these were reported by israeli media and that the chief refuted them and denied them. they said they would not take such measures. many issues were tackled in the interview.

he said that israel would not dream to do that because it ceased to exist. inside story from vienna. anchor: how this all began. the nuclear deal was signed in 2015 with the so-called p5 plus one. it was designed to limit their nuclear ambitions in exchange for sections relief. in 2018, the u.s. out of the nuclear record, calling it the worst deal ever negotiated and began re-imposing sanctions on iran. tehran responded by scaling back its commitments to the deal and enriching uranium beyond the agreed cap. biden says iran much -- must curb its nuclear activities before prepared to join. ♪ joining me now are our guests in vienna where the talks are being

held. hillary is a negotiator with iran and co-authored a book about america excepting the islamic republic. in berlin, we have a specialist on iran foreign policy a visiting fellow at the german institute for international and security affairs. warm welcome to you all. i would like to begin with you. you are obviously there in vienna, advising the negotiating team there. what details can you share on the draft proposals which have been submitted to the europeans? i believe the third one is waiting in the wings. has there been any response to them so far? >> well then, we will know more later on.

what is important is that the documents are based on the jcpoa and their deal. they iranians have not demanded anything more than what was given to them in accordance with the nuclear deal which was signed in 2015. the fact that the americans and europeans are nagging and complaining is because they don't want to implement the nuclear deal in full. their intention was never to implement the deal. when obama agreed to the deal, immediately afterwards, he signed one thing. in reality, he told his treasury department to force banks, to warn banks not to cooperate with iran and that was a clear violation of the deal. from the very start, the united

states had no amputate -- idea of implanting the deal. they iranians are insisting that a framework has to be created where the americans are obliged to abide by their commitments in full. this makes them unhappy but it's the only way forward. anchor: i want to put that to hillary. when we spoke to you, you said there was a reluctance in the biden administration to go back to the jcpoa at all. do you think that is still the case? >> i think it is. there are a lot of problems in the jcpoa for the biden administration. first and foremost, if they went back into the jcpoa, the biden administration would have to go to congress by 2023 to get congress to lift all sanctions. the bind administration knows that's not possible. i'm not sure why the obama administration committed to that given the domestic politics in the united states. it seems like it was a pipe dream then and it's not a reality today.

in terms of the flaws in the jcpoa, the biden administration doesn't want to go back to it fully. and portly, the bind administration does see some benefit to the jcpoa. i say this not necessarily in a positive sense. they see benefit in being full members of the jcpoa in order to use the jcpoa for two reasons. one, to invoke its snake -- sanctions clause which means the united states could go into the secured counsel at any time and snapback sanctions not just from the united states or the europeans but for china and russia as well. the other reason that the united states sees the gcl poa is useful is that it's a platform to discuss and pressure around on authorship -- other issues like it's missiles and the like. anchor: i would like to bring

you in, you are a specialist on foreign policy. these are the first talks in five months, the first since they elected their new president. given everything we've heard from our contributors to this point, what is it that -- that got all the sides to the negotiating table to revive these talks now? >> first of all, i should say that i'm not opposed to this round of talks. as we just heard from our colleagues, as we've been seeing in the formal statements made by different sides during the talks, what i can see is that both sides are demanding jcpoa -- jcpoa plus. they are demanding some extra benefits from the talks that were not actually within the jcpoa. on the u.s. side as you were just mentioning, there's a

desire to use these talks as a platform for further negotiations. on the iranian side, it seems that there's this intention to keep at least part of the achievements they have made in the form of nuclear advances. this round of negotiations has been testing the watchers to see to what extent these objectives are achievable. for this reason, i'm not so optimistic on risks. the two sides move from their current positions toward each other and that's the only way that the compromise can be found. otherwise, as i said, jcpoa plus demands that both sides have it. i don't see any prospect for a successful deal.

anchor: is that the case? is iran demanding a jcpoa plus with extra benefits to keep some of its nuclear advances? >> no. definitely not. the iranians have lost hundreds of billions of dollars as a result of the u.s. violations of the nuclear deal, both hunter biden, trump, and obama as well. the iranians only began restarting elements of the nuclear program that they stopped were they slow down a year after the united states and europeans effectively left the deal and tore up the deal. only then did the iranians gradually decrease their commitments. either way, they decrease those commitments within the framework of the nuclear deal itself. article 26 and 36 allow iran to decrease its commitment when the other side does not abide by its commitments.

if iran has achieved anything, it's because the other side violated the deal. if iran has cheated -- achieved anything, it was because the other side was harming the iranian economy well before iran restarted these elements of the nuclear program. so there's no moral equivalence here. iran is clearly the victim. if iran has achieved something as a result of the other sides violation which caused hundreds of billions of dollars for the iranian people, i don't think we can call that a jcpoa plus. the americans want something more than what they get in the jcpoa. in reality, if we want to be fair, iran should demand compensation for what the americans and the europeans dead to the iranian people. people died in hospitals. people died because of a lack of medicines. lives were broken and families were broken. it affected communities dramatically. the problem is, for europeans

and americans, lives are not part of the world. they don't mean much. anchor: i would like to put something you said to hillary. it is ironic clearly the victim as far as the u.s. is concerned? >> i think there's a lot of objective data in terms of, when president trump tore up the deal , we impose sanctions. plainly, there was harm from that. i think it's important to understand that it's not even just a question of what u.s. governments do. at this point, the atmosphere, the political culture has really become so distorted that there was a poll released yesterday by the brooking institution that shows that the majority of americans, both republicans and democrats, the majority of americans believe that a ron has a nuclear weapons arsenal. the same majority of americans

do not believe that israel has a nuclear arsenal. the whole situation has become so distorted and so poisonous. i think for the biden administration, regardless of where one's some of these may lie with the iranian people, the bind administration looks at the politics here and doesn't see a win other than to try to hold iran into some kind of position where the united states is holding around accountable for whatever it is in terms of their nuclear program. anchor: the u.n. nuclear watchdog says iran is expanding its uranium arrangement capabilities, there's been a scaling back in terms of i eaa access to some nuclear sites. western diplomats have said without a full understanding of their capabilities, it's hard to reach an agreement. what if there -- what is their calculation then? >> i think it's partly about

calculations. another very important part in this development on nuclear activities is what we can call a reaction. it's a reaction not only to u.s. maximum pressure but also, more importantly to the recent wave of israeli attacks against its nuclear activities. basically, we can see the develop and's on the ground. the more israel tries to slow down the program, the more they are determined to develop their nuclear program. this has been one of the main issues behind this development. on the other hand, in terms of calculations, a very important part of the calculation has been to use it as leverage.

just imagine the situation if, after the maximum pressure and sanctions, if they wanted to come to the negotiating table, and the position that it was before trump's withdrawal, it would be in a very weak position. that was one of the main reasons that they started in the first place to advance their nuclear activities. the combination of these factors has led us to the situation that we are in now. anchor: as president-elect, he said that his government's foreign policy would need -- neither begin or end with the jcpoa. indicating that it wouldn't be quite the foreign policy focus that it had been in the past. has their position going into these talks this time, has it changed at all? >> not at all. i think one of the mistakes of the former president was to

constantly say that the jcpoa or the nuclear negotiations weren't his priority. that gave americans leverage. constantly saying that we needed deal was like poison for the iranian position and negotiating team. what the president is saying is that luckett, we will do a deal if they accept the jcpoa in full. we will sign up to it. we've been implementing it. we still are implementing it. the fact that we are not implement in the deal is itself a right in accordance to the articles that i mentioned earlier. the fact that the president has said, our priority is to develop ties with regional countries, with asian countries, this is sending a signal to the united states that we are not going to be waiting for the jcpoa. we aren't going to be waiting

for it. if you want to commit yourself to the deal, fine. if you don't, we will develop our economy based on the resources that we haven't had. we aren't going to sit there and hope that you are going to see the light. >> you talked about the impact of u.s. sanctions. how much difference let make if the agreement is restored? if the next u.s. president does the same thing that trump does, could that not be a warning sign or mean banks and businesses don't have the confidence that they once did? >> yes. that's a major concern. the iranian negotiators have it. the united states has become an unreliable country. there is so much instability in u.s. politics. we can't gauge what is going to happen tomorrow. what is a fact is that the united states today is much

weaker than it was in 2015. it's a divided country with major economic, social, and political problems. it's confronting rising powers, china and russia and ukraine and taiwan over artificial intelligence. u.s. allies and waste asia -- in west asia are plundering. the iranian nuclear program has developed it. the iranian position is much stronger today than it was in 2015. time is not on the side of the americans. the problem is that the americans often are looking at it from a position of arrogance. they don't see that the reality on the ground is changing. if they do, they don't have the will to do something about it. anchor: do you agree with that assessment of america's strength or otherwise? from the u.s. perspective, have anything changed given their new leadership? >> this question about whether

the u.s. is a power in decline is of course an important question. the reality is, as long as the international community continues to trade and price everything, including oil and the dollar, the u.s. dominance over the international financial system is really what will determine many matters that -- at the end of the day. so it may be that other countries are rising, other countries are challenging. even in china, there continues to be a reliance on the dollar. as long as the united states continues to have what may be called dollar hegemony, they will still have a powerful role. it may even be more dangerous because if the united states is in fact a power in decline, as the professor said, riddled with all sorts of problems domestically, that could meet in america that is more willing to strike out overseas. as we saw during the trump administration.

many people didn't like president trump, many people ridiculed him. he was a dangerous figure. there were real repercussions for that kind of behavior in the middle east. regardless of whether one likes the u.s. government, it's important to deal with the united states, constrain the worst aspects of u.s. behavior by international agreements like the jcpoa. as flawed as it is, i think it's important to try to get back to either the jcpoa or something that at least tries to bind all parties to some semblance of international standards and law. anchor: is the window of opportunity closing? is there a time limit on these talks? can they continue ad nauseam? >> of course, there is no official kind of formal time limits. it seems that both sides are

continuing to increase their leverage. there can be a point when the talks will become meaningless. on the one hand, each round of negotiations is failing to persuade the united states to lift sanctions. iran continues with its nuclear activity and its developments. at the same time, we have witnessed more tensions in the region in terms of iran backed groups in syria increasing their activities against u.s. targets. israel also acting against iran. at the same time, there's a final point to this development. imagine a situation early on,

capacity enrichments. what's next? that's what i mean. the sooner we get a deal, the better. the thing is, even if iran decides to go for 90% or whatever, there could be a backlash from its partners from russia and china. the iranian file can go back to the un security council. in that sense, even iran will be one of the losers. that will be a kind of lose lose situation. just hoping that working with neighbors and working with china and russia can really help alleviate iran's economic wounds that it has suffered over the past few years. i don't think that it's going to bear results in the short term. >> ok.

we are coming to the end of the program. iran's chief negotiator in an interview said that world powers cannot reject iran's draft proposal. we know a saying -- we know saying that is one thing. how much hope do you think there is really of a resolution that is satisfactory to all sides at this point? >> the fact is that iran has the moral high ground. that's important in itself, no matter how you calculated. the iranians have a stronger hand than the americans. the economy is not doing well. the maximum pressure campaign has failed. there's no doubt about that. until the united states understands and comprehends that , we won't have a solution. i don't believe that the united states and iran are going to come to an agreement very soon because i don't believe that the united states can come down from

its high horse. at least for the moment. the tide has turned against the united states. i'm not saying that they are on the verge of collapse. what i'm saying is that things are increasingly difficult for the united states. if the united states wants to cut costs in this region, the only sane thing to do is to implement the nuclear deal. all iran wants is the full implementation of the nuclear deal with verification. anchor: we will have to leave it there for time. thank you to all of our guests. thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter. for the whole team here in doha, goodbye for now. ♪

>>9÷y=÷,>,ñ ♪

♪ >> just walking in this garden of the hill and down the hill, you don't need to go to a gym. come to the garden. >>