leader's erratic policies everything to do with iran is presented in the west through the prism of irrationality you get anyone who has ever been to iran but it's in the country where science and education are seen as dick more national identity was really being irrational here in iran for its accusers to discuss this i'm now joined by serving chilled dolton big ben where you can boss it to run thank you very much for your time sir now you served in iran during the years one iran was probably the most call for to the international community on the west in particular on the nuclear issue they even suspended uranium enrichment for a year and a half do you think they guard their fair share of concessions in return. yes i think they did but first to address your question about rationality or irrationality i believe that western countries russia and iran are all basically the same they have an ideology and times they need to serve that ideology they also

have interests and most of the time they are seeking to serve those interests as 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 without the west 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 as you asked miss 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 to 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 what do you then agree 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 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 despite the fact that it is also a theocracy and quite the radical and brutal want some without 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 down on crowds is your favorite comes from you where that comes from and you can say 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 helpful 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 pursue scientific exploration and i think you would agree with me that physics is at the forefront of scientific progress so why would you deny any given country this ride 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 doctrine this is this has been a western line of rhetoric for more than time here is if anything iran has progressed on 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 western 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 only interest i think both sides of 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 word here is for north 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 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 while exec 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 are talking no if you're going have no instance why why is it don't you are 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 them six times because you don't see where he was 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 if rats hugh 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 threats core issues until. just a rumor rule. was true even more in korea 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 big amount of iran why do you see. americans of all and brits to some extent us so resistant to changing their

mental picture of iran because regardless of what you think about diageo logy 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 promenade and the issues in dispute. excuse me between the iranians and a fair 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 harm and this corresponds with the vision which each country has always its own interests and its own ideology so if there 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 are quite hostile to each other and it's worth mentioning that the extent of harm that i marry can see 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. choose your language. call if we could with the influential political some of.

the concerns to. choose the opinions that you think a great tool. to use to stories that impact might choose to to access. shark seals are born to run on the ice fields of the white sea. throughout the twentieth century the pups were hunted for their snow white furs. russia imposed a ban on this trade and hunters have since been replaced by tourists but will these pups stay safe forever. saving seals on r.t.e. .

i would rather ask questions for people in positions of power instead of speaking on their behalf and that's why you can find my show larry king now right here on r.t. question more. welcome back to worlds apart we're discussing iran and the west's irrational rationality or vice versa if you're so inclined to serve richard of bolton the former you can bassett iran mr bolton the rationality 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 the ability to excel in nuclear research is the very proof of that irrationality there is almost a cult of education and science in. iran so it's not just denying them that's right it's 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 you're taking an inflated view of what american policy is you quote some circles within the united states which is not united states policy to deny iran science and technology or even civil nuclear look at the many statements signed from two thousand and only 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 down where you

know no other person on the line but i think you would agree with me that in the fact that's exactly what is leading up to i don't agree with that 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 buy why would 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 overthe power comes responsibility greater responsibility of what 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 of problems with the positions of both sides but isn't it 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 story. 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 are the imposition of the more you would agree wouldn't you agree also that the united states has

a legitimate reasons to distrust iran not to live in not i would not agree that those. well beirut precisely because of those one of what what about the middle east peace process is one of our human rights groups one of our counterterrorism well mr i think you would agree with me and 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 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 matter why great totally agree with you but i don't get how 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 of the countries of the united states while 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 area 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 except just situation we need the rules are violated and countries seeking to exercise their legitimate rights 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 and 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 chance 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 tracked 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 that these names or say oh it's really interesting asian to engage it was also an invitation to engage in adult absolutely my really americans made a mistake in not replying to it it wasn't just president when he represented

a new 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 a real 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 be waiting to be. 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 loathes abominate 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 mrs delane 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 you. precede negotiations in a constructive manner rather than turning outweigh your nose to somebody that was appointed or lick elected i don't play i don't want to get into the discussion of iran's political system i think that's not the point i think that they west has no

nothing to did to do with it i think that 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 told a common a but i think a 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 yourself please join us again same place same time here on

a well that part. well. technology innovation all the developments around russia we've got the future of covered. to build. on anything. to teach me why it should care about. this is why you should care.

he says you're very. very sensitive. to that. thought is. that. you think that you disagree. with you. need to be. given. access to. the.

emission free. education free in-store chargers free. range month free. free. to tide free. download free broadcast quality video for your media project a free media. dot com. download the official publication to yourself choose your language stream quality and enjoy your favorite. if you're away from your television well it just doesn't do so now with your mobile device so you can watch your t.v. anytime anywhere.

cyrus cries and tear gas bill another night of violence in the turkish capital with protesters blaming heavy handed police and a lose prime minister. as private bradley manning's trial opens prosecutors portray him as a tory a center a tourist his defense insists exposing alleged a u.s. warship atrocities meant he simply wanted to make the world a better place. journalist brace for washington's latest met on this for the informant who exposed the perils surveillance network that spying on the lives of hundreds of millions in america alone. and keep your tweets sweet british police urged twitter users to tone it down.