coming your way in just a moment. you know how sometimes you see a story and it seems so for like you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture.

hello and welcome to cross talk where all things are considered i'm peter lavelle talking the talk or serious in meaningful negotiations this is the question always asked when it comes to the western powers approach to iran's nuclear program soon the two sides will meet again in search of mutual agreement other too many red lines and toxic history for this to happen and who really needs to unclench their fist.

to cross talking when's nuclear program i'm joined by mohammad marandi and turan he is a professor at the university of tehran in tampa. day he was a foreign policy expert and president of the international american council and in washington we cross the border he is an investigative historian and journalist or a gentleman cross-talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want professor marandi and if i can go to you first the two parties are going to meeting kazakhstan what's different this time around if anything. well i don't think much has changed the united states has increased pressure on iran has increased sanctions that has had a negative effect on ordinary iranians the fact that. senior government officials including the former secretary of state of said that the sanctions are there to force to put pressure on ordinary iranians to bring about change i think in iran is

seen as something quite. uncivilized and inhuman to try to hurt ordinary civilians to put pressure on the government i don't think it's going to change i have no doubt that it will not change the policy of the iranian government so in general nothing has changed the iranians feel that there's a general an assault on the country cyber attacks scientists being assassinated the iranian central bank being shut down by the europeans and americans making it difficult even import or export medicine in food stuff and because of a shortage of some medicines people have died so iranians feel blood is on the hands of the americans and the e.u. . under such circumstances the iranians feel that they really cannot give anything at the negotiating table because the europeans and americans will interpret this as a sign of weakness so the iranians are going to wait and see if the europeans and americans make any reasonable change in their policy they might do it in tampa if

the americans go there with good intentions do they really want to agreement or is it just talk the talk. well i'm just going to compare a little bit this administration with the previous and i think this administration we can say i think it's been more willing to negotiate with a ring and when obama came to power i think they extended their hand they sent letters to the supreme leader ayatollah khomeini and i think they didn't get responses i think they try to use diplomacy track to i think they would be much more willing than previous administration to use i think to engage iran interim solution but i think the problem here i think it's it's more deep i think we can't just cherry pick this event and focus on this and i think we have to look at the broader context and what is. happening i think the underlying principles of the islamic republic of iran and the reason for it there's on the table and therefore

it's survival it's the enmity toward the united states i think the iranian government cannot afford having a relationship any gauge with the united states and the reason is that if they if they have a relationship with the united states that would mean that they cannot suppress and they cannot crack down on the opposition inside the country by labeling them american. american conspirators or foreign bad american for back to groups i think one of the strategies that the iranian government even you is i mean i grew up in that country i worked there i studied there and besides us academic quarter i have experience of living in that country i think the iranian government order to survive they need to any to call the united states as the enemy otherwise if they make that relationship i think that will endangered the survival of the regime so they will use the engagement policies what they what they have been using.

talking about engagement policy is more i think tactical i think strategy in all. just the two. by time i think they are running on is very high can come in happen like this i think many of the program buying time gareth go ahead jump in well yeah i also think that we need to take a longer historical perspective on this current situation of talks on the nuclear program and the only difference that i have is that i think you have to begin with the radical. imbalance of power between the united states and iran as the key factor that has shaped the diplomacy between the two countries from the beginning now you know i understand that there was a lot of hostility over the. shah particularly in one thousand nine hundred eighty nine and that created illwill from the very beginning but over the last thirty

years i think we have to understand that fundamentally it has been the preponderance of power of the united states over iran and it's over confidence that it could coerce iran with that had germany had amount of power that has really been at the root of the problem all along that is to say the problem of diplomacy with regard to the nuclear issue i'm writing a book on this right now and what has struck me in my research is the degree to which the united states government particularly. since two thousand and one has but i would say going back to the clinton administration has had this overweening self-confidence that it could coerce iran because the iranians must be afraid of american military power and of course this was particularly true during the bush administration when they invaded and occupied iraq i have several sources

have told me that. the or bush administration was extremely overconfident and that's why they made no effort whatsoever to negotiate they refused to negotiate at all with iran despite the fact and and here i differ with my on the idea that a iran refuses engagement with the united states the bush administration refused to even consider or accept. to acknowledge the receipt of the two thousand and three diplomatic initiative and that could have indeed begun a very meaningful interaction in my view is so i think that that's really the fundamental problem it's like i could tell you the nominee i think all very interesting that is that the americans that want to legitimize the regime in tehran that's it it's the other way around. yes i think it's quite obvious i mean first of all when mr obama became president and he spoke about talking to iran

the iranian leader ayatollah khomeini's while he explained the grievances that iran had from the coup d'etat nine hundred fifty three the support for the shah chemical weapons for saddam hussein and so on he said if the united states changes we will change he was very clear on that and we have had previous experiences in iran with the united states during mr rafsanjani period as president of iran awarded conoco a contract in the persian gulf an oil field iran the united states slapped iran with sanctions in afghanistan iran spoke with the united states then iran was labeled the axis of evil when the brazilian president and the turkish prime minister came to tehran with a letter from obama stating the conditions in which he would agree with a negotiated settlement settlement with iran and the iranians and the turks and the brazilians within that framework signed the declaration immediately obama went back

and impose sanctions on iran and basically stopped the brazilians and the turks in the face so the iranians have on numerous occasions tried to find a solution to the problems with the united states but it's been the united states has that has more or less that has basically behaved aggressively and irrationally in response the iranians feel that the problem really is that the united states has never come to the recognition of iran as an independent country with an independent foreign policy and that the united states is fearful that this virus would spread throughout the middle east now right now the iranians are willing to resolve the situation but the problem is is that the united states is carrying out all sorts of hostile actions against iran in fact the united states is now and the year e.u. is now blocking iranian television stations and persian arabic english and. anish across the globe euro sat sat all of these have stop broadcasting iranian

television so the iranians are no longer even allowed to speak out press t.v. and other t.v. channels are no longer allowed to be viewed in the united states so american hostility really has gone to extraordinary extremes ok much if you want to reply to that in tampa well first of all i mean there are a lot of points that want to apply where i think we don't have the time but first of all. when we talk about the sanctions we were just just saying the united states not just you know that it's an international consensus that even russia china for round of sanctions there have been international consensus and second of all when they will examine i get let's just be clear here or not i will tell you saying and saying ok not all countries have the same sanctions this is be clear ok go ahead i mean i mean there are the u.s. has unilateral sanctions but i think. robust sanctions they would be an international consensus but i think the point is that i was talking about the weaker legs i mean we saw that regional countries except syria. except

syria regional countries they expressed their concerns about iran's hegemony and visions in the region they expressed their concerns about iran's pursuit of nuclear weapon capabilities and there. are those are really sure that it is now a case that is always a. pinions ok they're not necessarily facts so they were it's not opinion i mean they were pushing the united states who had to really address this problem i think can we say all these countries in the region are wrong all these western round of sanctions that don't buy all five members of. america there they go marjorie could i just go ahead in granbury mr garrett go ahead before the break go ahead. yeah on this point of the attitudes of. arab people in the in the middle east toward the iranian nuclear program i think it's

pertinent here to point out that opinion polls that were done by the people. people in the rest of maryland have shown that a majority of a clear majority of arabs around the middle east who are carol let me jump in here leave generally and i'm going to have to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on iran state with our king. live. do we speak your language of the will or not at the. news programs and documentaries and spanish what matters to you breaking news

a little tonnage of angola's keaton stories. are you here to. see detroit altie spanish find out more visit i to allahabad all tito it's comb. my juggling job. do hack work and get caught when lobbyists money and lawmakers are combined together that's where the problem of corruption comes from. i don't know the document's. keep up a smart look. there is also. another way behind that which is how to influence these situations steer clear of

provocations don't answer any question. came into the office and found banners hanging around the office and lots of strange faces around so i said what's what's happening will somebody please tell me what's going on and they said oh we've come to occupy your building. possibly they want to do a confrontation possibly they wanted me to ring up the police to have the police come in through the man but. didn't seem to be a good idea to learn the european way with brussels business and in the ocracy it's one person one fault but. it's one euro one fold wealthy british style. it's time to.

market why not. find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike stronger or a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our. welcome back to cross talk for all things considered i'm peter lavelle remind you we're talking about the west's engagement with iran. ok guys i want to go back to you i had to cut you off before the break go ahead and finish your point and then i want to talk about what negotiation should really be about go ahead yes thanks i just i was just saying that it seems very pertinent to

point out that opinion polls taken by u.s. polling organization over the last few years have shown a clear majority of arabs have regarded the. that iran has a an absolute right to its nuclear program they disagree with the policy of the united states and its allies on this issue so i don't think that it's really quite accurate to simply take a broad brush on this question of the views from the middle east on on iran's nuclear program ok well i'm going to change the subject here i mean what is the you know what can iran give up that hasn't already given up because they have always had the perception the americans who want iran to simply surrender they will have an agreement. well i answer this by just quickly have to say that the international community actually supports iran because the nonaligned movement consists of three of the countries of the world and from the very beginning of this issue decade ago they have repeatedly supported iran's position and they oppose all sanctions and as

you pointed out most of the very harsh stanching sanctions that are directed at ordinary people are american in the e.u. sanctions but i think with regards to what iran would have to give up the iranians i think are quite willing to open up to give more be more open about their nuclear program to allow more intrusive inspections but the problem is that the iranians don't see an end game the united states constantly wants iran to give concessions and to give nothing in return and that's what we saw in the declaration for example in for two years iran completely halted nuclear enrichment and allowed intrusive inspection inspections and effectively accepted the protocol and after two years almost all of the major issues between iran and the i.a.e.a. were resolved under mr al baradei in fact right now the part chain complex which is being discussed was already visited twice by i.a.e.a.

inspectors and they were able to visit wherever they wanted to and they discovered nothing but after two years of cooperation the iranians got nothing in return just more pressure and more expectations from the west so what the iranians are saying is that you have the west basically has to make the first step they have to show goodwill if they show goodwill then the iranians will take a step forward and a step by step approach will be it will resolve the issue but the iranians believe that the united states and the europeans simply are not serious it is a really good will in washington. well i think we can say that united states foreign policy is a pragmatic i think foreign policy they've been able to make a relation can i mean our invasion of iraq. i think perfect example go ahead i think i think what i think was just going to point i think it may have made a relationship with china i think becomes china so i don't i don't think there is

really. any i think negative sides from the united i think it's the iranian government that again i said they can't afford having a relationship with iran and i just. go back just one of the points of your major i think it's we're talking about some of the things that iran should give up i think one of the things that it's just the basic human rights that we're talking about i think we're talking about just if iran can really respect i think the aspiration of people i think if they can stop executing gays if they can stop stoning people for adultery if they can i mean. if they can just a low people to have freedom of so i mean we're talking about. women and get out of maybe into ran does that maybe we will stop the droning program would that be fair killing innocent people while iran will not disarm and right always you were not because it's hypocritical. well i mean when human rights are not going to he railed

in this what your human rights are not going to be raised by the united states under any circumstances that's simply not going to happen i think that's extraneous to the issue it has never been a factor in u.s. policy in the middle east under any circumstances it's not going to be now and it shouldn't be under the present circumstances we need to focus on finding a fair just and reasonable solution to this problem of the nuclear and guarantee lastly what would that be karen do something then i guess what your formula well i think there's there's been an awful lot of literature laying out a reasonable proposal or a set of reasonable proposals for a solution by a lot of people outside the u.s. government. they've all said that first of all the united states is going to have to recognize the right to enrich and and in return iran is going to have to agree to some limitations on how much and at what level it can enrich and of course

agreed to very stringent conditions in terms of i.a.e.a. surveillance and again i agree with dr marandi that the iranians have signaled more than once the willingness to agree to that kind of solution and the details. you know can be worked out if the united states is really ready to make a deal i think again i go back to the fundamental point that i make that the obama administration is still sort of caught with the legacy of the past in terms of u.s. policy toward iran which is a policy that in fact does not acknowledge the legitimate interests of iran in the process of making proposals it simply has never been allowed that washington. in fact recognizes that that iran doesn't fact

have legitimate interests in the middle east it has a legitimate interest in self defense and in basically being. accepted as a player a seat at the table if you will in middle eastern politics that has been denied systematically over the years i think that's still the problem with the obama administration even though you know one one can hope one can always hope that that can change and the departure of dennis ross certainly has a positive but the fact that the white house apparently still continues to have conversations with dennis ross is quite a negative in that regard mohammad everything the garret just said you said the winning government agrees to more or less. yeah i think that it's obvious that the iranians are quite willing to cooperate within the framework of the n.p.t. and i and the regulations of the i.a.e.a. iran does not want any rights beyond those that exists in international law and

they will not accept anything less and i think that the problem with the united states has nothing to do with human rights iran has a constitution america's closest allies in the region like saudi arabia and qatar do not even have a constitution they do not even have elections iran has elections just recently you had rallies throughout the country on the anniversary of the revolution there was a high turnout this is this sort of thing is quite clear i mean if we want to speak about human rights drone attacks is just the tip of the iceberg the united states invaded iraq afghanistan they helped create a civil war in syria they say with the with the help of nato they destroyed the infrastructure in libya now we see what's going on in mali israel's cities that israel commits in lebanon and in gaza the siege of gaza for years was supported by the united states in the e.u. basically preventing people from being able to eat and properly and to have

medicine so and i personally i'm a survivor of two chemical attacks are in the ring the iran iraq war these chemicals were provided to saddam hussein by e.u. countries e.c. countries at the time and the and the united states the technology and the support the u.n. security council blocked any condemnation of iraq so the crimes that have been created against humanity when it come is really we have to look to europe in the united states to see the real culprits while whereas the iranians have never engaged in an attack iran even never even used chemical weapons when chemical weapons were used against iran iran never you can produce chemical weapons so i think that at the end of the day it's quite obvious that the united states its policy towards iran is based upon. an irrational form of hatred and i think that unless people begin to speak out against this sort of policy the united states may once again attempt to drag the region into

a greater crisis the iranians don't believe that the united states will attack iran again because the united states is on the decline they have economic crises in europe in the united states people are tired of war but pushing for greater confrontation at a time when the home middle east is in political uproar is something that no sensible leader would pursue yet we so far we have no we see no sign that the united states wants to behave more humanely towards iran and more reasonably go ahead jump in. the syria. syria so i was in syria i did research syria to i think i think there is no doubt that one of the. syrian war is exasperates iran iraq iran. is iran iran your support for the regime i think there is no doubt about that. i grew up in these two most notorious governments of. harmony i think.

i think where we're talking about democratic they say democratic god is iran is a democratic government i think if you if you're the guardian council from the beginning if you're not supporting this law macleod they will just they will strip you away from the election second of all i think many in the constitution he the president is not the powerful person in the country. powerful as many he has the right to veto to abolish to spawn to suspend any laws in the country i think this is this is called some sort of getting out of the little. game guaranteed to sharon. who has the clenched fist here. well i this is it's clear that the united states has the bigger clenched fist and the longer lasting clenched fish the one that goes back farther and i would there's one way in which i differ from dr marandi is analysis and that is that i don't think that this is

fundamentally about irrational hatred by the united states i think that it is related fundamentally to the needs of the national security state of the united states by which i mean going down the anchor i'm going to have to just say here that's not there gentlemen thank you much for a fascinating discussion many thanks indeed and i guess in washington and into iran and i want to thank the viewer for watching us here i can see you next time and remember crosstalk pools. please. choose your language. we can we know if anyone else.

chooses to use the consensus you. choose to tell us that you think to. choose the stories to. choose access to. let. us speak. with.

that little. secret laboratory was able to build the world's most sophisticated robots which fortunately doesn't give a darn about anything tim's mission to teach the creation of life should care about humans and. this is why you should care only. illo.

live. lead . lives.