iran said to the i.a.e.a. . no work has been conducted with multipoint an issue this is multi-point initiation you've got to forgive this jargon the scientific terminology is something that is necessary to understand the production of nuclear weapons but here's what they say no work has been conducted with m.p.i. technology and hemispherical geometry but again the archives shows that this is a complete fabrication iran conducted extensive work with n.p.r. technology in hemispherical geometry is an example hundreds of more documents prove that iran said. to the agency that it did not conducted metallurgical work specifically designed for a nuclear device but the files again show that this is a lie iran conducted extensive metallurgical work specifically designed for a nuclear device it was an original winning photo plenty more in the in the archive so what i've shown you tonight. is just a fraction of the total material that we have but even from this sample. you can draw four main conclusions first iran lied abo

iran was required by the i.a.e.a. to come clean by the nuclear deal to come clean to the international atomic energy agency about its nuclear program this was an explicit condition for implementing the nuclear deal iran has to come clean so in december two thousand and fifteen the i.a.e.a. published its final assessment of what it called the military aspects of iran's nuclear program this is the report this was iran's chance to fully come clean to the i.a.e.a. they could tell the truth they could say that we had this program the secret program it's over and we showed that it doesn't exist we destroyed the material here's what iran actually told the. it said. iran denied the existence of a coordinated program aimed at the development of a nuclear explosive device and specifically denied that this specifically denied the existence of the amount planned. the material proves otherwise that iran authorized initiated and funded project ahmad a coordinated program aimed at the development of a nuclear explosive device here's

first of all i'd like to state that even though inspectors were there before these were from the i.a.e.a. and they were only inspecting civilian facilities so no international inspectors or personnel have ever seen or inspected any component of north korea's nuclear weapon program other than dr secret hecker who has shown their uranium enrichment plant and some plutonium some years ago secondly. if north korea is to denuclearize it needs to also bring in not only the international atomic energy agency but also the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty organization which is the only international entity that has the credibility to verify the closure or the north korean nuclear weapon test site just because american and south korean and diplomats or officials might visit the site is not sufficient for international credibility with forgot to your question about whether north korea whatever fire a nuclear weapon i seriously doubt that i also seriously doubt that the united states would mount a preemptive attack on north korea's nuclear facilities because north korea is holding seoul hostage

so long in deal the scrutiny of awful awful i.a.e.a. inspectors when korea was on that the n.p.t. the nuclear proliferation treaty which is pulled out of the treaty and so one can really imagine that happening yet it's clearly a thing that the north koreans will have to see to in order to to establish a confidence and trust that is doing something tangible and sort of kenya's mention of as he mentioned capping its current program and you know. good all efforts towards the end you believe it's a rising ocean but just imagine that's typical of me having soaring u.s. inspectors or inspectors news coming in to the to scrutinize its facilities into knowledge of the north korean public i mean that's something that's a bit difficult to square off don't want in terms of the kind of credibility and prestigious respect he's trying to build for his country will stage. michael. patrick your thoughts about this whether they will give access to the u.s. or to. inspect his i mean where do you see this denuclearization process heading if it does happen or i think they will give at least partial a

it turned out to be nothing so they've done that before and they can do that again they have the i.a.e.a. in before and they absolutely have to allow the i back him to at least inspect the clerical so it is that you're on the on the the reactor that have been producing plutonium the uranium enrichment the reprocessing facilities those are then declare it and it should be problematic in terms of of public area to use and so forth in north korea to allow the minute the problematic that they will be that the united states won't be satisfied with just going to a couple of sites they want to have greater verification throughout the country now is not something that north korea will and also in the past deals have often floundered on the degree of access for verification and that may well be the case here that it began a summit will produce a very positive outcome but that it all fall down in the ensuing months over verification what would be the positive outcome for this summit for the u.s. as you talk about the summit we have no date yet for it does a u.s. even have a strategy going into thi

and since two thousand and fifteen when the deal was signed the i.a.e.a. has actually published ten reports all of them saying that iran has been in full compliance of the deal secondly the united states does not believe that iran is after the bomb either i mean just a few weeks ago my compare what the time was the head of the cia and as now the secretary of state told the senate foreign relations committee that iran was not after the bomb even before the deal so let alone after the deal and third we have to remember that the person making these accusations benjamin netanyahu is actually a serial liar we all remember the conversation between barack obama nicolas sarkozy in two thousand and eleven and the g twenty summit when they actually told each other that netanyahu constantly lies and they can actually stand there so we have to take this with a very large grain of salt in re also have to remember the timing i mean this is coming less than two weeks before trying to make a decision right regarding if it's the united states wants to stay in visual so abs

and the i.a.e.a. has consistently reported that iran has fully obliged by the deal so there is no talk whatsoever of cheating even in the united states i don't think they believe that iran is enriching over four percent i mean just a few weeks ago mike compared to the head of the cia who is trying to become the new secretary of state told the senate foreign relations committee that he doesn't believe your honour's after the bomb even before the deal let alone after the deal so regarding the issue of verification i don't think there is any problem whatsoever there nevertheless what the united states is asking right now has nothing to do with verification the united states is talking about iran's ballistic missile program about iran's regional policies while the problem is that these issues have no place in the current deal there's not a single word about iran's missile program in the deal now regarding what iran will do i do not think that as a final decision has been made i think iran is still waiting

the i.a.e.a. is the global nuclear watchdog.ar sites and verify that is the country isn't going anything behind the scenes to build a bomb. iran agreed to allow i.a.e.a. inspectors to go anywhere at any time. tell us what the reaction is from tehran. may 12th is the date on when donald trump has to recertify this deal from the u.s. perspective only. but he's indicated he's not going to do that. what do the iranians think? >> there's a sense of foreboding and anger. foreign ministers spent the last week in new york in a last ditch attempt to salvage the deal. here in tehran president rouhani and others sensing the deal is in serious trouble are issuing threats, warning they have many options on the table, such as pulling out of the npt, the nonproliferation treaty and reviving the nuclear program at a much more aggressive pace. trump earlier this afternoon while he was with macron said if iran restarted their nuclear program, they'll have bigger problems than they've ever had before, also saying if iran threatens the u.s., they'l

changed are they really willing to sit down right now and say what you can have them you can have the i.a.e.a. to come in and investigate and make sure that we're not pursuing any secret nuclear program international inspectors can come in and look at our missiles are they really prepared to do that it will be a very big change if that is the case and also there's some concern that any kind of negotiations that might yield a statement of intent if nothing else missing out on what is a very important component of this hostility and that is that north korea's conventional weapons weaponry. yes you've got to remember this is a country and it's very old to talk about where all this is taking place the demilitarized zone because it's one of the most militarized there is on earth north korea has well over a million soldiers in its army yes some of its tanks are very rusty but they do have them and they do have the manpower they do have the guns and they do have the artillery which could be firing on the south korean capital well in range in seoul and on top of that you talk about nuclear well there

civil nuclear program which will be very intrusively watched over by the i.a.e.a. full scope see if guards etc etc but what that means for south korea is that of course they have this civil of very extensive civil nuclear program but there will be no strategic forces on their territory and they want to even be an extended deterrent to south korea provided by the us so long as there is complete nuclearization of the north now the parallel fact which north and south korea frankly need to work out because denuclearization is a sensually a topic of discussion between north korea and the united states with regard to conventional forces what the disposition of the end of the day needs to be that the peninsula is is kind of insulated from the larger the geopolitics off the north east asia south the south korea has already shown that it is not not terribly interested in getting into things like a regional ballistic missile shield well it's not interested in going to eilat for a line we're going to final we're going to find actually yeah we're going to find out just how far

civil nuclear program which will be very intrusively watched over by the i.a.e.a. full scope see if guards etc etc but what that means for south korea is that of course they have this civil of very extensive civil nuclear program but there will be no strategic forces on their territory and they want to even be an extended deterrent to south korea provided by the us so long as there is complete nuclearization of the north now the parallel fact which north and south korea frankly need to work out because denuclearization is essentially a topic of discussion between north korea and the united states with regard to conventional forces what the disposition at the end of the day needs to be that the peninsula is is kind of insulated from the larger the geopolitics off the north east asia south the south korea has already shown that it is not not terribly interested in getting into things like a regional ballistic well it's not interesting i'm going to eilat for a line we're going to find we're going to find actually let's yeah we're going to find out just how far the pen

ballistic activity which is not part of the g c p a way but it's also important to note that the i.a.e.a. the international atomic energy agency has verified that iran is in full compliance with the agreement just as recently as march and b. iran's a ballistic missiles are not capable of carrying nuclear warheads according to their foreign minister now trump argues the opposite but mccrone and trump reaching consensus on the j.c. p.o. way was something that other signatories failed to predict especially considering that five hundred french british and german m.p.'s wrote a letter to u.s. congress asking them to support the deal saying that the concerns should be addressed separately and not within the context of the j c p a way which is evidently in direct conflict with you so check out what the e.u. and russia have to say about it. and what can happen in the future will see the future but there is one deal existing it's working it needs to be preserved we are against the revision of these agreements and believe it's very counterproductive to de rail the longstanding international effort

civil nuclear program which will be very intrusively watched over by the i.a.e.a. full scope see if guards etc etc but what that means for south korea is that of course they have this civil of very extensive civil nuclear program but there will be no strategic forces on their territory and they want to even be an extended deterrent to south korea provided by the us so long as there is complete nuclearization of the north now the parallel fact which north and south korea frankly need to work out because denuclearization is a sensually a topic of discussion between north korea and the united states with regard to conventional forces what the disposition of the end of the day needs to be that the peninsula is is kind of insulated from the larger the geopolitics off the north east asia south the south korea has already shown that it is not in not terribly interested in getting into things like a regional ballistic missile shield well it's not interesting i'm going to eilat for a line we're going to find we're going to find actually let's yeah we're going to find out ju

civil nuclear program which will be very intrusively watched over by the i.a.e.a. full scope see if guards etc etc but what that means for south korea is that of course they have this civil of very extensive civil nuclear program but there will be no strategic forces on their territory and they want to even be an extended deterrent to south korea provided by the us so long as there is complete nuclearization of the north now the parallel fact which north and south korea frankly need to work out because the nuclearization is essentially a topic of discussion between north korea and the united states with regard to conventional forces what the disposition of the end of the day needs to be that the peninsula is is kind of insulated from the larger the geopolitics off the north east asia south the south korea has already shown that it is not in not terribly interested in getting into things like a regional ballistic missile shield well it's not interested in going to eilat for a line we're going to find we're going to find actually less yeah we're going to find out jus

and the i.a.e.a. inspectors can work on mine yards that would be great the north koreans probably asked for a whole bunch of concessions probably sanctions relief and maybe just a direct monetary payment for this kind of stuff the problem with that is that if we do that it does actually going to recognize that north korea is a nuclear power which is something that a lot of countries south korea japan the united states particularly have been loath to do right i mean once we actually say you're back again then we have to accept that they actually have these weapons and the declaration today was only that they would stop testing not that they would actually roll back but they have all those other powers willing to accept that nuke that north korea is a nuclear power and give the country sanctions relief they hit. probably not probably and a couple of years your viewers may recall that pakistan got nuclear weapons in the late one nine hundred ninety s. and there are sort of a lot of concern about that the

at a later date third iran lied again in two thousand and fifteen when he didn't come clean to the i.a.e.a. as required by the nuclear deal and finally the iran deal the nuclear issue is based on lars it's based on iranian lies in the rain in the separation. a senior political analyst marwan bashar says and his presentation contained no new revelations but it could represent another step toward a regional war a more aid for the region and one for the people of the region true we've been in a mess now for a number of years so we've had a number of civil wars but the way the ducks are lining up now with trump pushing people into some kind of an axes a new axis of good versus evil after so eurabia israel and the united states against iran and its allies of islamic fundamentalists and so on so forth. we'll be pushing the region to the brink of war the escalation in syria the bombardment of syria the bombardment of the allegedly iranian positions in syria via retaliation possibly by hezbollah or by the iranian themselves israel threatening that they will retaliate to any iranian retaliation aga

writing that president trump is jumping on a rehash of old allegations already dealt with by the i.a.e.a. to nix the deal how convenient coordinated timing of alleged intelligence revelations by the boy who cries wolf just days before may twelfth but trump's impetuousness to celebrate blew the cover so let's bring in alan fischer who is at the white house and the iranian foreign minister mohammad javad zarif tweet that alluding to the may twelfth deadline that president trump is facing as we approach that in a couple weeks that the bay of iran's nuclear program is becoming more how do we know about any communication between president trump and mess and yahoo before all off to this presentation. what we know that might compare who is the new us secretary of state was in jerusalem over the last few days so undoubtedly this was raised at that point we also know that benjamin netanyahu said that during his presentation which many people here in washington believe was a presentation to an audience of one that they cheered the information with the americans and they're willing to share it with

i.a.e.a. inspectors are not going anywhere. and if they did, the united states and the global community would have ample time to react to any breakout. in fact, the international community through the secretary general spoke out as to the importance of the jcpoa very recently. this position in light of your apparent support for u.s. policy of regime change in iran, really the contrast there really upsets me. in 2014 you said you would have preferred military strikes to the jcpoa. and i quote here, this is your quote, it is under 2,000 sorties to destroy the iranian nuclear capacity. this is not an insurmountable ta task. is this your current position? are you for a first military strike? >> i'm not. yoo i don't think that's what i said that day. with respect to the quote that you provided, i know a little bit more about what it would take today. in terms of what i described as the capacity to rachooieve what was speaking to, i think i'm still pretty close. this is no doubt in my view that the solution to preventing iran from ge