200 year anniversary. ♪ >> hello again. here are the headlines. ukraine is set to hold independence day celebrations after warnings russia may ramp up attacks. a strict curfew is in place in kharkiv and authorities in the capitol kyiv have banned mass gatherings. photos have emerged of russian-backed separatists building prison cages at the chamber philharmonic to hold a trial for ukrainian prisoners of war. russia's supreme court declared

them a terrorist group earlier this month. the u.n. has expressed concerns about the potential trial. >> there are photos and video footage in the melody -- in the media and social media showing cages being built, massive cages. apparently the idea is to restrain the prisoners of war during proceedings in these cages. this is not acceptable. this is humiliating as well to the prisoners of war, and it adds to our concerns about how they are being treated, and whether the presumption of innocence is being upheld. the construction of these cages coupled with statements made by high-level russian officials: these people terrorists a -- calling these people terrorists and nazius before a trial has been held is deeply worrying. >> they are calling for the

immediate withdrawal of troops and the demilitarization of the area. in the u.s., a former police officer has pleaded guilty for her role in the death of breonna taylor, a black woman shone killed during a police raid at her home. federal investigators say she conspired to create a cover story. breonna taylor's death sparked protests overt racial injustice and police brutality across the u.s. up next, "inside story." stay with us. ♪ laura: is a return to the iran

nuclear deal imminent? tehran has responded to the eu's plan to restore the 2015 accord. all sides are waiting for the u.s. so what are the final hurdles to a new agreement? this is "inside story." ♪ hello and welcome to the program. i am laura kyle. diplomats say they believe they are close to restoring the 2015 iran nuclear deal. former president donald trump pulled the u.s. out in 2018, but for the past 16 months negotiators from washington and tehran have been working with the other signatories to reestablish the accord. the european union laid down what it called it for -- its final offer earlier this month. you details have been made public.

the new deal will be rolled out in four phases over two 60 day periods. sanctions will be lifted. iran will scale back its nuclear ambitions and be able to export 50 million barrels of oil a day. the eu's foreign policy chief says tehran has given a reasonable response to the proposal. he said he expects the u.s. to reply this week. >> i understand this to be the point of equilibrium, where either one side of the other can make things better. it was communicated to the participants of the negotiation, basically, iranians and north americans. everyone, british, german, french, chinese, russian. there was an iranian response i considered reasonable. it was transmitted to the united states. we are waiting for the response. laura: iran has accused the u.s. of delaying its response.

>> we can talk about this round of talks being fruitful only when the europeans announced they have received a response by the americans. laura: washington has denied strong the talks. the state department says tehran appears to have dropped some demands, such as removing iran's revolutionary guards from its list of terror organizations. >> the president has been clear, he has been firm, he has been consistent that he will not lift the terrorism designation on the irgc. iran's demand we do so have been removed from the latest version of the text that we have seen. that's part of the reason why a deal is closer now than it was two weeks ago. but the outcome of these ongoing discussions still remains uncertain, as gaps remain. laura: how did we get to this point? in 2015, iran and six world

powers agreed to a historic deal. it limited tehran's nuclear activities and allowed international inspectors to monitor. in return, crippling canonic sanctions on the country were lifted. in 2018, the u.s. a leader lateral decision to withdraw under donald trump. washington reimposed sanctions and tehran retaliated by breaching iranian enrichment limit. in 2021, talks to regard the nuclear deal began in vienna after joe biden succeeded trump. several rounds have taken place a deal has so far been evasive. let's bring in our guests now. in tehran we have mohammad marandi, advisor to the iranian negotiation team in vienna. in berlin is hamidreza azizi, visiting fellow at the german institute for international and security affairs. and in washington, d.c. is alex vatanka, senior fellow and founder of the iran program at

the middle east institute. a very warm welcome to all of you. mohammad marandi, let's start with you, because the signs are good. is there a workable proposal to revive the 20q5 deal on -- 2015 deal on the table? mohammad: first of all, i have to point out that iran did not withdraw any demand. i think the americans are trying to sell this at home. i've been saying this for months, that removing the guards from the u.s. terrorist list is not something -- was not a precondition. and i have said this often, people can check my interviews, i publicly stated on al jazeera multiple times. so the statements coming from washington don't make any sense. iran will continue to have them on their terrorist organization list. but yes, i do agree that a lot

has been achieved over the past few months, and iranians were able to gain significant ground on all the different fronts, whether it is sanctions, or whether it has to do with verification, or sequencing, and assurances. and the eu foreign policy chief, the statement that was quoted earlier on in the package, in it, he says the iranian proposals, or the iranian points that they made in their response, were reasonable. so obviously the ball is not only in the american court in the eyes of iranians, but according to the eu. laura: just to be clear on your first point, you are saying the iranians were never demanding the revolutionary guard be taken

off the terrorist list in the u.s. before a deal could be revived? mohammad: yes. iranians never demanded guards being removed from the so-called fto list, the foreign terrorist organization list. anyone who doubts that, they can use a search engine, check my interviews, probably a few on al jazeera, and on my twitter account. laura: alex, is that something you can incorporate from washington, d.c.? alex: i don't know what he did on this issue in the last few months. i think the consensus here in washington would certainly be that is an issue iranians were pressing for hard. if i remember right, a very senior member of the iranian regime, i believe at the doha form he made that point, that the revolutionary guards needed to be off the u.s. terrorism list. so i don't know exactly where

different players were, but this was certainly a factor for a while, although it seems to not. be a factor at the moment. . laura: i was going to say regardless of the status, it seems to be a moot point because it appears the revolutionary guard are not on the table anymore. hamidreza azizi, how close do you think we are to getting the 2015 deal revived? hamidreza: to my understanding we are closer than any other time. because at some point we were actually witnessing kind of mexico must -- maximalist demands on the iranian side, w hich were somehow not accepted by the u.s. side. but as we heard recently, on issues like the irgc or other points, i think iran has made a

lot of, a series of reasonable concessions, and that is reason the eu foreign policy chief has called iran's response reasonable. so at this moment, i think the statement was in important that he mentioned that it's up to the united states now to decide. because whatever the european side could do, i think they have already done. as was mentioned before, it's kind of a final offer, taking into account the basic positions on both sides. so that is now the situation. it's very much up to the united states to come up with a response. laura: it is generally excepted

the ball is in the u.s.'s court, but is by installing? -- but is biden stalling? alex: there is a lot of politics around this issue in washington and tehran. in tehran, the president and his team want to give the public the idea that a deal is so much better than what would have been negotiated. this is part of iranian politics, the so-called reformers and hardliners, each wanting to be the national champions. they have been playing this game for months. in washington, the democratic party is not doing well, president biden's approval rating is at a historic low. he cannot to seem that she cannot afford to seem -- he cannot afford to seem weak. a lot of democrats in congress are already on the fence, if not opposing the deal because of political reasons. unfortunately politics in washington and tehran is not helping the diplomatic process. laura: mohammad, would you agree

with that? do you say there is pressure in the political echelons of tehran to negotiate a better deal than rouhani could have negotiated? mohammad: look, i was with dr. azizi in vienna in 2015 during the three weeks and i was with the current team in yemen during the whole period when they were negotiating. and it is very obvious to me that while both teams did their best, but for whatever reason, the iranians have been able to gain enormous concessions this time around. in fact, to correct a point that was previously made, mr. borel spoke favorably about the points the iranians made. which were linked to the so-called final text. in other words, the iranians

were saying this final text has deficiencies need to be addressed, and when he read and when they studied the iranian proposals, he said that they were reasonable. so, the united states had to give concessions, but the fact i s that the concessions that the iranians gave were all about implementing the jcpoa, nothing more than that. with the americans want to do is have a jcpoa where they do not abide by their commitments in full and the iranians do so, and the iranians were not going to have that again. when obama signed the deal he systematically violated the deal from day one. he was supposed to help facilitate the normalization of iranian trade and business, and what he did in reality through the treasury was threatened banks, financial institutions, shifting big business not to work with iran. that was a clear violation of the deal.

then trump tour of the deal. -- tore up the deal. and biden -- iranians are looking at past american violations, where as we all know that iranians were abiding by the commitments. this time around the iranians gave these concessions basically to make sure the americans alongside the iranians abide by their commitments. laura: hamidreza azizi, is one of those concessions raised in the media that the u.s. will face a fine if a future president renges on the deal? is that in this proposal? hamidreza: as you know, what we've heard or seen in the media has been based on linked audio from the iranian side. there is no detail on the european side, at least as far as i know. but based on my understanding, there might be some provisions like what you mentioned in terms

of a formal line or something like that, if the u.s. decides to withdraw again. but i seriously doubt that any kind of guarantee or compensation like that would actually be implementable. because there is a matter of to what extent any kind of agreement -- i mean, the deal itself would be binding, let alone the issue of compensation. so i think this is something more related to iran's domestic politics, because at the end of the day, they need to sell the agreement to the public as something stronger than rouhani, and this issue of guarantees has been something they have been maneuvering on. this might well serve that purpose. laura: alex, you can understand the iranians' lack of trust given that the u.s. unilaterally

pulled out of the deal in 2018. but are there any guarantees that are workable within the u.s. political and legal system? alex: look, the short answer to that is no american president can guarantee a deal permanently. you need to go through congress, you need to ratify a treaty to have that state of course going forward, regardless of who is in the white house. now, the republic of iran has very few friends in the united states congress. this is a point that goes back to what we heard earlier in terms of u.s. intentions. look, number one, it is a mistake, it is a folly and has been from day one, to assume you're going to have anything permanent. the iranian side should have looked at the biden term in office, he might be a two-term president, one-term, but there

was a one ter -- but instead they played politics. i understand i didn't want to fall onto the same trap, but they tried to make biden pay for the sins of trump. that was a mistake. there's still two years left. there is a lot that can be negotiated. i think it is acer team it -- it is a strategic mistake for them to talk to nuclear talks only. they should have broadened the conversation and admit that a rennie foreign policy would benefit from being more balanced, to talk to the west and not put all of their eggs in the likes of russia and china. this is a political, ideological decision. if they do that, i think any deal that might be reached would have so much more likelihood to succeed beyond a biden presidency. and if there is time i would like to talk about something else the u.s. can do. laura: we will definitely give

you more time in a moment, but a lot of things to answer there. i want to put it to you whether the iranian people might consider biden made a mistake in missing the opportunity to renegotiate this deal in rouhani's final months in 2021. might that have been an easier task? mohammad: yes. the problem was biden wanted more than what he deserved. he wanted iran to implement in full and he wanted the u.s. to gain added concessions. that is what trump was after. so why would iran resist trump's excessive demands and appease trump, and then later on -- and refrain from appeasing trump, and then later appease biden? no, that would be ridiculous. actually what the iranians have done at the negotiations, one thing they did was they created inherent insurances.

in other words, if the west does not live up to its obligations, the iranians can very quickly return to enriching uranium at the pace they are doing now. that makes the americans pay a price for leaving the deal. the problem that we had under obama, and biden was his vice president, was the u.s. did not pay a price for violating the deal. the problem under trump was the u.s. didn't pay a price for leaving the deal. these negotiations were to ensure the u.s. pays a price. this is a good thing for the deal, because it protects the deal. if both sides feel that staying in the deal is a better thing is good for the deal. one final point i would like to make, and that is that in 2015, when the deal was signed, the iranian leader, ayatollah khamenei, said if the united states abides by its commitments in good faith, other issues could be discussed. and in that speech he said although i do not believe the

united states will abide by its commitments in good faith, and he was absolutely correct. the united states wasted an opportunity. why should the iranians speak about other issues when the united states is not abiding by the commitments it signed onto? so if the united states in future once you start talking to the iranians about multiple issues, first they have to show that they are reasonable in t -- with regards to their obligations in any future nuclear deal. laura: hamidreza, how difficult has it been to try and keep this deal alive, as eu member states, china, russia, also trying to keep this deal going? but you have two very different sides who will not even sit at the same table during these particular negotiations. hamidreza: of course we know when you have the two sides that are not really -- at least one of them is not ready to

negotiate with the other party, and you have to have both parties to agree to negotiations, and also to play the role of a mediator, it is quite difficult. to my understanding, this has been one of the main reasons it took so long for us to reach the point where we are. and this is still kind of an uncertain situation. but here, speaking of the eu, we have witnessed a very interesting change in the eu's role. what eu used to do before was somehow play the role of mediator, more like a messenger. it is bur -- it has been reduced to the role of messenger. but we're witnessing an increased role of the eu in terms of its own initiatives, like the proposal that we saw. and of course there are a few reasons like the potential for

iran to go back to the energy market, and its potential for increasing its oil production if sanctions are removed. also the fact that europeans did not want a new war in europe's close neighborhoods. these actors have contributed to a more active role. and without that, i don't think we could reach the point where we are to moment. laura: on the other side, we have israel looming large, doing what it can to stop the deal. axios reporting a few days ago that the prime minister told the u.s. to walk away from these talks. we know that joe biden is taking his time to respond. is this because of israel's leverage within the u.s.? alex: i say two things about the role of the israelis in all this. number one is, put yourself in issues of the israelis.

you are in a country of under 10 million people and you have iran not far away, a country of any 5 million, which has vowed -- 85 million, and is a country that has vowed to destroy you. now, i am not for a second defending with the israelis are doing vis-a-vis palestinians or any other criticisms. but on that existential threat -- and don't take my word for it. listen to the speeches of khamenei, who has been a supreme leader since 1989. laura: we only have three minutes left. we know the antagonism between israel and iran. i just want to know how much israel is stymieing the u.s. respondent it is deal. alex: i think israelis don't have much of a plan here. the best israel can do is help the u.s. they don't have a military strike option against iran. they would have done it a long time ago if they had it. all israel should do to support the u.s. in any way possible to

make sure that iran and the rest of the world come to an agreement in terms of iran's nuclear program. laura: does iran have a plan b b if this deal is not -- mohammad: iran wants this racist regime to end. laura: this is a whole other debate, so please, let's stick to the nuclear deal. mohammad: the iranians, if the u.s. at this point, when both the europeans and the iranians are saying the ball is in the u.s. court, if the americans are not reasonable, the iranians will expand their peaceful nuclear program. also, we're closing in on winter. the weather is going to bit very cold in europe. europeans are going to suffer and so is the u.s. the price of energy is high, so if the u.s. wants to ease pressure on ordinary europeans, instead of sacrificing them, they should listen to joseph.

laura: hamidreza azizi, you hear that iran will continue expanding its peaceful nuclear program. it has enriched uranium 260%, it has to be enriched to 90% to be a nuclear bomb. and we have had the supreme leader senior advisor in july saying iran is technically capable of making a nuclear bomb. if this deal does not happen, how dangerous a situation is the region in? hamidreza: of course we will witness an escalation on the tensions, especially between iran and israel. because of course as was just mentioned, there's not a lot of options israel has. one option it has been resorting to has been these activities against -- an iranian response would exacerbate the situation.

one very quick point. there's a kind of misunderstanding regarding the position of the eu. the eu's energy needs are quite obvious, but if eu wanted to also ignore threat lines, they would've already reached an agreement with russia. this whole debate is about the very fact that europeans have their own lives as well. i don't think iran will further escalate, and also escalating nuclear program would be helpful in getting more from the europeans or the americans. laura: a very interesting discussion, but we have to leave it there for the moment. mohammad marandi, hamidreza azizi, and alex vatanka. thank you all very much for joining us. and thank you for watching. you can see the program again any time by visiting our website, aljazeera.com. and do go to our facebook page,

facebook.com/ajinsidestory. you can also join the story on twitter. from me in the whole team here, bye for now. ♪ óñóñóñóñóñóñ f■wwññ■ñ■ñ■ 8

- [mike]: i started coming to this mall in 1982 when it opened. was... e place be. - y angee, this is mike, jasper mall. i have few emp space [upbeasynth p] ♪ [ambient mus] - [announcer]: major funding for reel south was provided by: etv endowment, the national endowment for the arts, center for asian-american media,