seeking to serve those interests mr dalton i think you would agree especially a sincere. dedicated here entire career to diplomacy that reciprocity is the golden rule of a diploma stand if you want something from your partner you have to be ready to reciprocate and i think iran really feels that it is being asked to give up everything up front with out there whereas really committing to anything substantial well that certainly wasn't the case when i was involved in these negotiations from two thousand and three to two thousand and five the three european countries offered to iran the best deal in international relations that they had ever been offered and iran threw over the table and refused to negotiate but they didn't need jesus taken to do that mr dalton but they did suspend uranium enrichment for a year and a half on their own accord that's quite a substantial concession when it comes to iran but it was fundamentally in their

interests to do so because otherwise they would have been taken to the united nations security council and there would probably in due course have been sanctions imposed on them in respect of the failures to live up to the letter and the spirit but those actions were imposed on them anyway whether or not they made those that you are dismissed pacific question about the period two thousand and three to two thousand and five i do not accept that iran was badly treated in that period by those countries negotiating with it but the question is really whether they're. the west really offered the iran enough to raise that issue of mutual missed trast. well certainly iran didn't offer us enough to raise the issues of mutual distrust the european union in its extensive dialogues with iran was negotiating on the middle east peace process on counterterrorism on weapons of mass destruction and on human rights and we've made almost zero progress on all of those but i don't think

it is fair to tie all those geopolitical major geopolitical questions to the nuclear issue each iran sees that as it's in the alley in the ride but back to the point of trust or mistrust i think in insecurity policy trust comes with many shades of grey and it is essentially a about the risk you are willing to accept so i would argue that the west in particular is subjecting iran to a standard that is so well that pretty much impossible to live up to no other country is asking the same thing well i'm very happy to talk about the situation in two thousand and thirteen you know and i do believe that the correct position in the international negotiations with iran is the position being adopted by russia and i don't agree with my own government's policy and i don't agree with the other countries who influence strongly the western position namely israel and the united

states is what you then agreed that contrary to the popular saying trust in international politics is not earned it is given. trust is undoubtedly earned the only way of establishing trust is to build it up slowly through initially small steps but where i disagree with the current policies being pursued by my government that they won't give a clear idea of the destination to which those negotiations is tending therefore it's very difficult to get iran to accept the preliminary first steps which are essential i admit that they are essential to enable trust to be built up well and i think it would also agree that there are many other countries saudi arabia for example that is not inherently more trustworthy than iran the. absolutely no issues with regards to trust when it comes to saudi arabia or the united states supplying that country with. acquired advanced weaponry even that despite the fact that it is

also a theocracy and quite the radical and brutal want some could out again. yes i disagree with the way saudi arabia manages its internal affairs and with some of its external policies but there's no doubt and stepping aside here from my own views and looking at it from the point of view of western governments whether you're looking at the middle east peace process between the arab countries and israel particular palestine or whether you are looking at lebanon or syria or indeed the nuclear question iran tends to act contrary to western interests but dad i mean i'm curious if you think that rhymes from the ground you where that comes from and you can see that it originates in the fault of the west but i'm not prepared to get into that discussion i'm just presenting to you the position of western governments in this whatever they're trying to do in those areas of dispute saudi arabia tends not to be anything like as unhelpful as iran does but mr dalton

why would you punish any given country whether it is iran or not for its geopolitical stance on certain issues with something so basic as its right to our pursue scientific exploration and i think you would agree with me that physics is a day forefront of scientific progress so why would you deny any given country this right just because you don't like that policies or that politics for that matter. well your question is absurd the fact is we're not denying scientific and technical process to iran that is pure iranian propaganda what we are doing is saying that until iran has negotiated a settlement as part of which it adopts the additional protocol to its safeguards agreement and probably outside the framework of the nonproliferation treaty agrees

to some restrictions and limitations temperate in the temporary in nature to civil nuclear program then it cannot expect to have the full and free and unfettered aspects of its rights under the nonproliferation dog and this is this has been a western line of rhetoric for more than time here is if anything iran has progressed in its capacity to enrich uranium a couple of years ago we were talking about five percent enrichment and at some point iran and was ready to stop there now we are talking about twenty percent enrichment so i think you can conclude that while there in policy with regards to iran is not really bringing anything if anything the very. well a belligerent you can describe it as belligerent stands in iran is counterproductive to the west's only interest i think both sides are being belligerent in this respect i think both sides have missed opportunities both sides

are not showing sufficient flexibility we should by now have an agreement between iran and the international atomic energy agency on the investigation of the potential military dimensions of iran's past activities ostensibly within its civil nuclear program but quite possibly having had military elements as well absolutely but i think when you're talking about compliance or iran not being fully compliant with the i eight requirements and with what. washington and some other western governments would like to see i think the crucial work here is for not compliance i think what you would agree that iran is complying with the. non-proliferation treaty to a significant extent yes there are some issues but again the compliance the overall compliance is there i would agree with that entirely you are right there is no evidence that iran is diverting nuclear materials to military purposes so there's

no evidence that taken the decision to develop nuclear weapons that's true and i think the air years national intelligence has just confirmed that this year but then if you have absolutely no evidence why would you ask something so dramatic from iran because what they west is really asking now is to suspend to suspend nuclear enrichment nothing less than that. well as i've already said i think that iran needs to be shown a roadmap to full recognition of its rights under the nonproliferation treaty to have nuclear enrichment programs on its own territory and a road map to the lifting of sanctions but in turn iran needs to be given assurance that its major objectives namely lifting sanctions and recognition of its rights will be open to it at the end of the process well exactly and they would like to have it in writing not just

a declaration of intentions they would like to have it in writing because precisely the role of the ad that you just mentioned for iran is just going around in circles because they feel that they have made some progress but again they haven't got anything in return and again western parties especially western parties are not ready you're talking no if you're going have no instance why why is it going you're talking from an extreme iranian point of view you're not looking at these matters objective lee we're not been going round and so just because of the activities this until there's a chance because you don't see exactly what you don't treat me as a spokesman for those six countries i'm not well i'm not a spokesman for the iranian cause by the just because i tend to agree with some of their points doesn't make me a propagandist for the iranian government i would like to steer the conversation at a little bit towards the united states which i think you would agree a major player in all those international organizations that we have already

mentioned here and the u.s. intelligence agencies have just released their latest assessment of security threats so you of the united states and here's what general james clapper director of national intelligence had to say. almost fifty years in the doldrums i do not recall period in which we confronted them were the first really of core issues and show. as a rule. this makes it was true even more encouraging so it seems that the share a number of threats that the united states faces is growing by the day the amount of money available to deal with those challenges is being conned but in this ever changing world there is one constant and this is the boogie man over iran why do you see. americans of all in brits to some extent us so resistant to changing their mental picture of iran because regardless of what you think about that idea i think

you would you would agree that iran today is different from what the country used to be ten years ago when you were there let alone thirty years ago why is the west still stuck in the past when it comes to iran. no iran is not a different country from what it was ten years ago it is still in external and security affairs directed by the same person supreme leader ayatollah common a and the issues in dispute. excuse me between the iranians and a section of the rest of the world all the same the fact is a new policy and american policy has elements within it designed to do the other homme and this corresponds with the vision which each country has all of its own interests and its own ideology so if that is to be a detente between the two it's no good simply requiring the united states to do

all the heavy lifting while i agree with you that both countries that quite hostile to each other it's worth mentioning that they extend the harm that i married to iran and the level of interference in tiranny nefarious is no match for iranian interference in american affairs but let's come back to that point after the break . you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm trying hard because a big picture. speak

your language. programs and documentaries in arabic it's all here on. reporting from the world talks about the v.o.i.p. interview intriguing story to tell you.

arabic to find out more visit arabic t.v. it's called. mission. critical three. for a charge of. greed. greed. greed. old freeboard video for your media project a freebie audio dog r t v dot com. welcome back to worlds apart we're discussing iran and the west irrational rationality or vice versa if you're so inclined to serve the travolta and the former you can bassett or to run mr dalton bailouts the irrationality of the iranian regime is often cited as the main reason by some american politicians and policy makers of why iran should not be trusted with peaceful nuclear program but of course to many

iranian people be that ability to excel in nuclear research is the very proof of that irrationality there is almost a cult of educate. and signs in iran so it's not just denying them that right is not just about security here it's about denying iran national identity denying them who they really are and how they see themselves well again your taking an inflated view of what american policy is you quote some circles within the united states it is not united states policy to deny iran science and technology or even civil nuclear power look at the many statements signed from two thousand and eight on woods by the united states with its partners in the negotiations if you want proof of that well that there may be or not it is going that i mean we're hearing a lot of pronouncing the line but i think you would agree with me that in

a fact that's exactly what is leading up to i don't agree with that no what is your evidence this issue has been going on for more than a decade so if you are really interested in striking a compromise again during your time and there were some opportunities for that opportunity was missed the same could be said of iran iran has missed opportunities to but why would why why would we put these two sides on on an equal footing because arguably america's influence is much larger than that of iran so over with power comes responsibility greater responsibility would you agree with that. in every negotiation on a round table the parties are equal they may be differed in the degree of power but on this issue each side is negotiating with the other and trying to reach an agreement and there are problems with the positions of both sides but it isn't the case that americans are simply saying that iran should not be trusted and when you

when you pick any given country for any specific reason well that does smack of racism iran is saying that america should not be trusted and if you actually there is a. reason to believe in the bilateral track the initiative to develop a bilateral trade in the negotiations was vetoed by common a not by the americans but mr gelb and would you agree that the iranian people and that the supreme leader have legitimate historical grievances have legitimate reasons of mistrusting the united states after everything the united states has done to their countries i mean i don't need to mention the cia who the imposition of the more you would agree wouldn't you agree also that the united states has legitimate reasons to distrust iran not so if you're not i would not agree on those . well beirut precisely because of one of what what about the middle east peace

process one of our human rights groups one of our counterterrorism well mr i think you would agree with me in that in fact i actually heard you saying that nobody is owned absolute security in the united states has plenty of reasons to mistrust russia to mistrust china to mistrust that you can on some matters but it is well i think it's its ability to impose its will carry so you take my point you're agreeing with me that this is not a one sided mountain why guy totally agree with you but i don't there i don't understand why iran in particular should be subjected to a higher level of trust and mistrust when it comes to the united states. having mistrust of any given country the united states well i can we move off the united states i think you know i think you know the history starting with the hostages of starting with numerous failed to promote a condition is between the two and including the many areas of conflict within the middle east region which i've already mentioned i would also mention another which

is that rightly or wrongly the united states has alliances with members of the gulf cooperation council countries which look across the persian gulf to run those countries are even more distrustful of iran. the ones we've been talking about like united states but as we discussed earlier trust a mistrust is something that is especially in the air centrally in the eye of the beholder you cannot control or in fact i don't think you can influence how much trust or mistrust any given party have has in relation to you but since you want to move on. you know that iran is to hold presidential elections pretty pretty soon and one of the top presidential contenders sayed djalili the country's top nuclear negotiator was here in moscow a couple of months ago and i had a chance to sit down for an interview with him and i want to play to you something that he had to say. why does the international community that claims to live under

the rule of law just situation we need the rules are violated and countries seeking to exercise their legitimate droids or discriminated against so what essentially you hear him saying here is that iran really wants to be treated like any other country it's not asking for any special privileges it's just wants to be treated as equal and be granted drives that are. indeed extended to anyone under the amputee treaty where's i would argue and you or me disagree with me that the west is really trying to legitimize discrimination of iran. we've already dealt with this come on we've already discussed how to deal with a situation of distrust and where iran is not in conformity with the recent resolutions of the governing board of the international atomic energy agency and the united nations security council there has to be discussions starting with

confidence building steps to deal with the areas of mistrust and building up to a comprehensive deal which includes clear route maps for full recognition of iran's rights the removal of sanctions the outgoing president ahmadinejad. was also expected to follow down that road map well apparently he didn't succeed but what do you agree that. if you look at his domestic policies and his vision for iran it was somewhat different from that of the supreme leader here had a following in the country so you can really argue that. well and initially at least in his tenure he was more willing to negotiate with the west he even wrote that. letter it's you a bomb so what do you agree that. really represented some opening some chance in each chance for for the west and for iran to come to terms but that

child unfortunately i would argue was blown. yes yet again you tend to think the right is all on one side and the wrong is all on the other and in a complex world with a lot of history behind it as in the middle east as in the case of iran that is simply not the case now mistakes were made the tract which the religious left which. sent to obama and which the americans did not reply to. was full of the kind of hostility to the united states which united states would like to get away from but hasn't found a way to do that but if these names or say if the interest haitian to engage it was also an invitation to engage in adult absolutely right when the americans made a mistake in not replying to it it wasn't just president in his article represented and you offer any during your time as and that's as

a massacre in iran mohammad khatami was in power and i think some would argue that he was probably some of the most reformist and liberal of the iranian leaders in history and again he suspended the uranium enrichment but that was never enough again so my question to you now and it's probably the last one that i can ask you is. do you think there will average be an iranian leader that would be good enough for the for the americans and for the west because my sense is that they will essentially answer the way to the. president. and his successor. were never and will not be in the future the key personality the president of iran is a chief executive he's not even as powerful as a prime minister say of the united kingdom. the person who sets the tone and agrees the detail of negotiating positions for iran is the supremes leader and nobody

including. the united states fools themselves into thinking they can change the nature of government in the united states they may dislike that government and it's certainly the case that iran detests loads of bombing a tz and despises the governments of our countries and regularly expresses it but that dislike should not be a bar to constructive negotiation in which there is give and take from both sides so i don't accept that the international community or the west or united states is waiting for a new shar this issue is far too urgent for that and the realists within the united states strategic community know that full well there may be outliers in the republican party or elsewhere who think that a legitimate aim of u.s. government policy should be regime change in the near term but that is not the

policy which the current united states government or any united states government i have dealt with has been working for as a solution to the nuclear question oh mr dahlan let me challenge you on that here just sad that you don't think that. while they're waiting for a new shot on the other hand you are saying that essentially the air these presidents their puppets and they decide nothing but considering that the united states and iran have no diplomatic ties and haven't had any diplomatic ties for thirty years one dad be a start at least do you. precede negotiations in a constructive manner rather than turning out for your nose to somebody that who was appointed or least elected i don't think i don't want to get into the discussion of iran political system i think that's not the point i think that the west has no nothing to did to do with it i think they have to be able to negotiate

with whoever is represented at the negotiating table. that is what is happening at present and that is what the iranians should permit on a wider front they should permit a sensible dialogue between the united states themselves on the full range of its use in dispute but you saw what happened after the munich security conference when it looked as though such a dialogue was going to be opened we had highly discouraging remarks almost amounting to a veto coming from the supreme leader ayatollah holiday but i think last point and rationality or irrationalities assessed on based on not what somebody is saying but rather on somebody actions or the outcome of those actions and so far these negotiations really let us know where but unfortunately this is all we have time for so please join us again same place same time here in a while the part. of. the

civilized world produces more foods that it needs. while people die of hunger in other countries. millions of victims every year. where remedial is the most. flood or droughts to blame. it was a bad year without a train. we couldn't plant anything with what we would but there was great hunger and so. what was it that help comes too late and with no good intentions.

charity diplomacy and business owners. i will be here. with. you. thank. you. you and i think. thank. you. thank you.

thank you to. the. nobody chooses to be holes no one chooses to me and all sorrow. is did was for the show to. get in the six pm get out six feet six. they were. to me the class before the. days the words against. it's tough to think about all of them comes to. an end to know that many may not have only been the last to choose should never be but they're also due to

for closures that never should have. been. real i live below. the speed. of her. wish i. was mislead good. just see the amount. of her i come out on i'm

a better little. violence in turkish streets shows no sign of abating rival he's again used tear gas and water cannon against anti-government protesters who are rallying for a ninth night while prime minister though on refuses to address the demonstrators demands. you know the stories that shape this week private bradley manning accused of leaking u.s. military documents faces a possible life sentence as he goes before an army court you look at how washington destroys it. its secrets. the trial comes as a fresh bombshell drops revealing the massive scale of u.s. surveillance with documents proving the government has been secretly collecting people's phone records and spied on their online activity for years.