everything to do with iran is present in the west through the prism of irrationality you get anyone who's ever been to iran but it's in the country where science and education a simplistic moral national identity was really being irrational here in iran for its accusers to discuss based on knowledge joined by survey chilled dolton one where you can boss 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 upfront we have 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 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 as its inalienable right 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 zero 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 all this stablish ing 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 you 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 quiet the radical and brutal want some could argue. 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 that 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 our own currency 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 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 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 it's a 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 a fracture ache 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 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 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 simple 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 are talking no if you're going have no instance why why is it don't you are talking from one extreme iranian point of view you're not looking at these matters objective lee we're not been going round in just because of the activities this time tell them six times because you don't see here just because 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 reach 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 huell 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. as a rule. 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 this is the amount of 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 di geology 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 so 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 khamenei 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 harm and this corresponds with the vision which each country has of 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 americans do to run and the level of interference in tiranny in affairs is no match for iranian interference in american affairs but let's come back to that point after the break . as you. do here is to. give you. a it.

is. going broke. i think. they need to be. given. access to. the.

well see british. it's not on. the. market. find out what's really happening to the global economy for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines you guys are reporting on our t.v. . welcome back to worlds apart we're discussing iran and the west irrational rationality or vice versa if you're so inclined to serve richer adult and the former you can pass or to run mr dalton 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 a peaceful nuclear program but of course to many iranian people the that ability to

excel in nuclear research is the very proof of that irrationality there's 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 are 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 stay. 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 that is what i mean 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 opportunity for that opportunity was missed the same could be said of iran iran has missed opportunities to buy why would why why would he 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 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 of 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 story. reason to believe in the by the true track the initiative to develop a bilateral trek in the negotiations was vetoed by common a not by the americans but mr bolton would here 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 that the united states has a legitimate reasons to distrust iran no it's not i would not agree that those. well david precisely because of those one of what what about the middle east peace process what about human rights groups about counter-terrorism well mr going to

syria 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 on carry so you take my point you're agreeing with me that this is not a one sided monster 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 countries of the united states while i can remove 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 contender is. really 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 the situation we need rules are violated and countries

seeking to exercise their judgment 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. while 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 and you chance for for the west and for iran to come to terms but. 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 hand 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 that these names or say oh it's really interesting to engage it was also an invitation to engage in adult absolutely might really americans made a mistake in not replying to it it wasn't just present at the represented and you offer any during your time as a bat'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 any 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 or. 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 supreme 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 shahr 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 be here 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 and 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 allowed us nowhere but unfortunately this is all we have time for yourself please join us again same place same time here in a while the part. nobody

chooses to be homeless nobody chooses to be in sorrow. is the world for the show to. get in the six pm get out six b six. they were. there in school. to be the class people. use the word against the word. it's tough to think. of the. two no million may not have only been the last two should never meet. but there are also due to foreclosures that never should have been live.

live live . live. live . close.

download the official. language stream quality and enjoy your favorite. if you're away from your television just doesn't matter now with your mobile device you can watch on t.v. any time any way.

or another night of violence in the turkish capital with protesters blaring heavy handed police and an aloof prime minister. as private bradley manning trial opens prosecutors for trade. and treacherous his defense in exposing alleged war atrocities though he simply wanted to make the world a better place. journalist brace for washington's latest manhunt this for the informant to expose the parallel surveillance network that is spying on the lives of hundreds of millions in america alone. keep your sweet british police urged twitter users to tone it down after a series of arrests for abusive messages.