/iran relations. his latest book, iran and the united states, an insider's view on the failed past and the road to peace, was released in may 2014. and he's just come back from several weeks, yeah, in iran. i think he has a very good sense of how iranians are viewing the debate that's going on in this country and in the region and in european capitals. so, let us begin. we have the impression, certainly have gotten the impression from some of the statements that have been coming, particularly from saudi arabia and from the united arab emirates that they are very happy about the shift in approach of the united states. they like the trump administration's approach to iran. they thought that president obama was much too soft on iran. that he didn't understand the dynamics of the region. >> mm-hmm. >> i guess the question is, do these countries, and we'll talk about the gcc as a whole, is is not monolithic, but let's start with saudi arabia and uae, do they want the jcpoa to continue? or do they want it t

versus iran. the west versus iran. it was really a global concern. i think that is what we should do right now. >> right here. can we get the microphone? >> thank you for this amazing panel. my question is, my nuclear technology has been curtailed. you don't want the iranians to develop missile technology. what happens if the iran/iraq war, something like that erupts again, if i'm sitting in iran, i wouldn't want to be completely defenseless and not be able to defend myself. during the iran/iraq war, nobody helped iran defend itself, so why would they not develop their missile technology. why this missile talk is coming into the nuclear agreement talk. >> does eu share this preoccupation with iran's missiles? >> yes, we do. >> if iran says it is for deterrence. >> we have a security council resolution that speaks clearly about the missile tests. we think it is inconsistent with this security council resolution that iran is launching those tests, those missiles and is undertaking those tests. also in recent days that is not helpful. that has been part

it's not i in iran. we are a country that is confident of its power, confident of its size, confident of its people. we don't purchase security from outside. we get our security from our own people. >> rose: suggesting that the saudis are purchasing their security from outside? >> i'm not suggesting. ( laughter ) >> rose: what is iran's attitude and what is its program having to do with the development an deployment of missiles which is mott part of -- not part of the nuclear deal? >> thank you for reminding us it's not part of the nuclear deal. but you see, you want to deal with missiles, you need to look at our history. >> rose: you argue they are for deterrence purposes. >> they are. >> rose: you can imagine other people don't necessarily assume they should accept at your face value your definition of what they're about. >> fine. what we need to do is look at the facts. last year, saudi arabia spent $67 billion on weapons. the united arab emirates, which is, what, less than a million, we are 80 millio

i can say that seeing that iran deal has brought for people is a better and that you have iran which brought in more tourists so i hear you there i want to bring up a couple of things because you mentioned a lot there so that people plus one take a look here at this info graphic from radio free europe these are the parties involved in the iran deal taking a little step back and this is iran and the united states france germany russia china and the united kingdom of course that's the p five plus one and then your tweet mention saying this is also a radio free europe radio liberty they take a look at what iran will gain what iran will give up iran nuclear deal sanctions relief and assistance of valerie as part of this deal one of the incentives was a lifting of these sanctions but as we heard from saturday it hasn't really trickled down to all of those who needed why is that and can we see more lifting or easing of these sanctions as they were meant to be when this was laid out yeah well the sanctions the sanctions that were lifted as part of the nuclear agreement were a specific subse

iran. with the negotiation and implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action, we had hoped we could focus on the future of u.s./iran relations as bolstered by the agreement. as it turns out, this may not be the case. on its side, iran has continued its missile development, its support for hezbollah and other terrorist groups, its intervention in syria in ways that are very counterproductive. and its bad human rights policy. but on the other hand, it has faithfully implemented according to the iaea, the jcpoa, and before that, the interim nuclear agreement in 2013. it now appears that washington rather than iran may be a bigger threat to the jcpoa. as the sunset clauses in the jcpoa approach, it is indeed perfectly reasonable to consider a follow-up agreement. but the way to get there is not that threatening to tear up something that's curbing iran's ability in the near term to develop nuclear programs for at least the next decade. europe has and will continue to play a critical r

what you're trying to say is that iran can iran's missiles can carry these nuclear warheads the problem is iran doesn't have nuclear warheads if you are in doubt please be my guest and ask the i.a.e.a. and go through all its you know reports and investigations over the past couple of years they have made it absolutely clear that iran has not violated the terms of the nuclear agreement with the world powers and the international community iran does not have a nuclear weapons program because iran doesn't need a nuclear weapons program you don't only need missile defense capabilities to defend itself within its own borders for the simple fact that the trump white house and this madman in tel aviv who is called benjamin netanyahu keeps threatening us with so-called military options please be a little bit fair and go through the eye over the last couple of months or years. we all understand that iran does not have a nuclear weapon and it is prohibited and it is said it has no intention but the fact is that it used to have a nuclear weapons program associated with its missile program and in t

iran's leaders know this. they are counting on the world brushing up relatively mild infractions were relatively major ones. they are counting on the united states and other parties to the agreement being so invested in its success that they overlook iranian cheating. that is exactly what our previous administration did. it is this unwillingness to challenge iranian behavior for fear of damaging than the year agreement that gets to the heart of the threat the deal imposes to our national security. the iranian new year deal was designed to be too big to fail. the deal to an artificial line between the iranian regime's nuclear development and the rest of its lawless behavior. it said we have made this deal on the nuclear side so none of the regime's other bad behavior is important enough to threaten the nuclear payment. the result is that for advocates of the deal, everything in our relationship with the iranian regime must now be subordinated to the preservation of the agreement. the iranians understand this dy

as long as iran's regime seeks the destruction of israel, iran will face no fiercer enemy than israel. but i also have a message today for the people of iran: you are not our enemy. you are our friends. shoma duste ma hesteed. one day, my iranian friends, you will be free from the evil regime that terrorizes you, hangs gays, jails journalists, tortures political prisoners and shoots innocent women like neda soltan, leaving her choking on her own blood on the streets of tehran. i have not forgotten neda. i'm sure you haven't, too. and so, the people of iran, when your day of liberation finally comes, the friendship between our two ancient peoples will surely flourish once again. ladies and gentlemen, israel knows that in confronting the iranian regime, we are not alone. we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those in the arab world who share our hopes for a brighter future. we've made peace with jordan and egypt, whose courageous president, abdel-fattah al-sissi i met here last night. i appreciate president al-sissi's support for peace, and i hope to work closely with him and other leaders

iran will have reduced benefits from the j c p o iran deal and iran might eventually decide that it is not in its interest to continue or it will want to up the ante and and try to provoke or threaten the united states by resuming. nuclear enrichment. r. and d. research and development at a higher level or something else so i think i think the crisis is going to be on putting in stages over the past few months maybe we have to talk about that again on your show i'm sure we will gentleman the clock has beaten us as ever on inside story thank you so much for your company today thanks to all our guests the former prime minister of sweden called built and bonnet mark fitzpatrick and thank you too for watching you can see the program again whatever you want on the website al-jazeera dot com and for further discussion check out the facebook page facebook dot com forward slash a.j. inside story or tweet me i'll switch you back pizza topping one join the conversation on twitter for me he said i'll be entertained here in the heart thank you for your company all seem very sort of. tensions ar

how can it be said that iran somehow iran is in default of the spirit of that? >> i think the malign activities now i'd be happy to take your question. >> the language says they anticipate the full implementation of this jcpoa will positively contribute to international peace and security. they say nothing about iran contributing to international peace and security. they just say the full implementation they expect so i don't see how iran is not in compliance with that. you are saying, although set in the preface was carrying out the deal will help. >> i don't have that in front of me and i can look and bring you that next time. let's move onto something else. >> are you looking to have a meeting of the jcpoa countries, signatories in new york next week and has iran agreed? >> it's under discussion at this time. we don't have any meetings set on that as soon as we do, that were to happen it would be an eu meeting so they would have to confirm that but i know it's under discussion. >> and iran is not part of that meeting? >> i don't have an answer to that. i'm no

to take a stronger line with iran. this is 25 minutes. >> the general assembly will have a statement by the prime minister of the state of israel. to escortest protocol his excellency? [applause] >> mr. president, ladies and gentlemen, we're in the midst of a great revolution. a revolution in israel's standing among the nations. this is happening because so many countries around the world have finally woken up to what israel can do for them. those countries now recognize what brilliant investors, like warren buffet, and great companies, like google and intel, what they've recognized and known for years: that israel is the innovation nation. the place for cutting-edge technology and agriculture, in water, in cybersecurity, in medicine, in autonomous vehicles. you name it, we've got it. those countries now also recognize israel's exceptional capabilities in fighting terrorism. in recent years, israel has provided intelligence that has prevented dozens of major terrorist attacks around the world. we have saved countless l

but obama had also underestimated iran. clearly it was hurting, but iran did not break. nor was it without a response. just as the iranians responded to bush's refusal to negotiate by doubling down on their nuclear program, they responded to sanctions by building more centrifuges. and eventually what ended up coming out of this was that if the american calculation was that sanctions would cause the iranian cost benefit calculus to change and make the iranians realize it would be too costly and painful for them to go forward with a a nuclear program, the iranian calculation was by just expanding the program as much as possible, white make the sanctions policy too costly for the futures. let me give you a quote from rouhani's chief of stamp the mentalities to break the mentality of the other side by showing them that pressure doesn't work. we escalated our nuclear activities to show what pressure actually would produce. the end result was that the united states inched closer and closer to collapsing the iranian economy, the israelis nitched closer and closer to taking mili

i represent the same iran that has historically assisted the oppressed. centuries ago, we supported the rights of the jewish people. and today, we insist on the restoration of the rights of the palestinian people. iran is still the same country supporting justice and seeking tranquility. today, we are on the front lines of fighting terror and religious extremism in the middle east. not for sectarian or ethnic reasons, but for an ethical humanitarian and strategic one. iran does not seek to restore its ancient empire, impose its official religion on others or export its revolution through the force of arms. we are so confident in the d epth of our culture, the truth of our faith, and tenacity and longevity of our revolution that we will never see to export any of them in the way neo-colonialists do with a heavy -- the heavy boots of soldiers. we enter hearts and engage minds. we recite our poetry and engage in discourse on philosophy. ,ur ambassadors are our poets our mystics, and are philosophers. we have reached the shores this side of the atlantic throu

groups -- iraner group in yemen. there is a dangerous situation there because you have the gulf and the otherse helping. it is not like they are really helping good guys. they are helping less bad guys in some cases against them. that is something being to keep an eye on. the two places where i think iranian influence is right now is most important to the united is iraq, syria and afghanistan. we have wars going on impulse of those. we have a plan were i think the nice thing is, we are at the endgame in iraq. what is going on in syria? anybody know? nobody knows what the answer is. it is not good, and it has not ended, it is closer to the end. we need to plan for a post-isis phase in both those countries. one thing that has to happen is that we have to stop the advance of iran into both of those areas, and we have to push them back. and onehe main dangers, of iran's biggest goals has been to create what some call a shiite crescent, or a land bridge to the mediterranean. if you go through iraq and syria, you get to th

in iraq and iran influencing syria and iran the influence in lebanon with. this would be a huge problem and we believe as i said before that this is something that needs to be the international community well its interest. you say that because the view in moscow and let me know if you disagree with that is that the iranian influence is indeed a growing there is no do dispute about that but most believe that partially it is growing because of israel's own policies or the policies of israel's closest allies it all started to be with the invasion of iraq which allowed iran to gain a foothold there was a campaign in the israeli complain in lebanon the beach consecutively allowed to hizbollah gaining more influence and dot country down was syria and now there is yemen don't you think that at least in part the iranian influence that you are so concerned about is growing because all of the opportunities that were handed to it by israel or israel's allies no way i mean to accuse east for iran being a state that would not accept the right to fish oil to exist that su

by the same token he talks about israel a talks about iran and the iran nuclear deal by which iran will no longer be able to develop nuclear weapons while israel itself is a role. nuclear state. it's almost nose eating if not if you want to be positive fascinating here you have a nuclear state with something like two hundred nuclear weapons it's called the state of israel in violation of international law of an everyday nonproliferation treaty it's occupying another land violating all sorts of you and security council resolutions and u.n. general assembly resolution and at the same time complaining about the un and complaining about the nuclear deal signed by six world powers with iran in order for iran to stop developing you go over so all in all very selective speech a lot of bombast an attempt at humor while at the same time neglecting the very important issues of palestinian rights of regional stability and of course of military occupation one thank you for that obviously stay with us we will be going backwards and forwards as more speeches come up but let's go back to james bays li

iran has defensive needs.$400 billion of so-called beautiful military equipment from the united states. iran needs to develop its own defenses. we have said time and again, and we have proven, that our missiles are for defense. you know, we go back to a history where our cities were being showered with missiles from saddam hussein. but at that time, saddam hussein was a sweetheart for the united states and some western countries. nobody turned any eyebrow against saddam hussein for his use of all these missiles. and iran did not have a single missile to work as a deterrent against its citizens, its civilians being target of almost daily missile attacks even against the capital. >> what about the arabs say you are spreading a kind of shiite crescent of influence from bahrain to yemen to lebanon, iraq, syria. they see a growing presence of iran that has to be countered. >> the problem is, they have made the wrong choices. they supported saddam hussein. let's start where it started. they supported saddam hussein

it took many years but in the end it did limit iran's possibilities for nuclear disarmament. meanwhile germany's foreign minister sigma gabriele has been speaking out about the iran nuclear deal another donald trump's targets was to gabrielle is due to address the u.n. general assembly later t.w. will carry that speech live speaking on the sidelines of the event she said the current deal with iran was necessary to prevent nuclear proliferation and suggested that it might offer a model for resolving the crisis with north korea since first target is to see that it's almost tragic when the only functioning agreement to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons is in jeopardy at a time when we're seeing other countries like north korea acquiring nuclear weapons and we've got a lead in the us under the lend of the north korea. we now need these kinds of negotiations more than ever and was annoyed. so where does this leave iran nuclear deal to batter by as an author and consultant on iranian affairs he joins us from t.w. studios in brussels welcome donald trump says the daily's

pushing pushing on iran for north korea to say oh even when they make a deal as in the case of iran this trump administration is not going to want to keep the deal so why should north korea then make a deal well that's the perfect segue to my next question which was if the u.n. security council or the u.s. can dial back the craziness of the trumpet ministration with regard to north korea can they dial it back with regard to iran the deal was certified by or was it i'm not sure if the if the iran deal was certified by or run through the u.n. or was it just of six parties it's six parties yes but you know the six parties represent the. security the security council and they don't want to see this deal dial back and i think just today. angela merkel came forward and said we like the iranian nuclear deal we helped negotiate it we would like to negotiate something similar in the case of north korea so there are leaders that are coming forward to say not only do we not support the u.s. in this position we're ready to take the lead to see that this is dial back because nato is saying oh if ther

the iran deal goes from here. i know that's a really broad question but do you i mean do you have any fears that it could fall apart based on simply again what we're hearing of president trump well it's ambiguous at this point we have to see is the next statement i think can make you haley even said his statement does not mean that he wants to break the deal as last statements cryptic statement but i think this is the way trump operates in all matters all diplomatic matters he likes and ambiguity he thinks that's a strength he likes brinksmanship as keeping people on their toes not knowing which movie will make next is one of part of his strategy it's a dangerous strategy especially in cases like north korea and iran where you have a lot of other contingencies at play and i think personally i mean you know it is it is it is a return to a policy which he himself denounced in his own campaign of interventionism interventionism and regime changes left and right that's ok let's pause for a second month because we've g

at the end, is the goal tonight, is it a renegotiation of the iran deal? >> well, if we are going to stick with the iran deal, there has to be changes made to it. the sunset provision simply is not a sensible way forward. it's kicking the can down the road again, for someone in the future to deal with. the president takes responsibility seriously. he takes his responsibilities seriously and that's why he's giving. very careful consideration as to what's the best way to address the issue. >> bret: mr. secretary, we appreciate your time tonight on a busy day in new york. we welcome you back any time. >> thank you, bret.

it is about iran.t is the biggest fault line, one of the biggest fault lines, possibly the biggest, now fracturing the middle east, versus the smaller one between qatar, saudi arabia, and the emirates. charlie: why don't the saudis at some point say, enough is enough, they are supporting people that are opposed to us and they are supporting terrorism? that's what they said about qatar. they said, we've got these 13 demands. turns out most of them boil down to not so much al jazeera and all those other things, but boiled down to some sense of please stop supporting revolutions against us and our allies. yes or no? you tell me, you're there. what is at the heart of this? again, i think it comes down to power. in their eyes, qatar, from its inception, has been a maverick rogue nation. they punch above their weight. you listen to the qatari, they say we should be able to forge our own independent policy. we have big ambitions and we are very wealthy. charlie: we've play all size, we have a big american bas

it -- iran does.rms of its responsibilities under the nuclear deal, so far has no one found them out of compliance. >> bret: reaction to this overall is that u.n. speech is sometimes have the nuance. this was not bad. this was clear, direct. >> i have to tell you i was on air this morning on radio. i was taking the pulse of the listeners. person after person after person called in and said this is what we've been waiting to hear from a president at the united nations. bold, strong, unabashedly pro-american. a few years ago, president obama addressed the trave on martin -- trayvon martin case at the united nations. dick cheney said going to the discussing america's problems is not what we expect from a president. that's not what you heard from donald trump. he said we have been a force for good and we will continue to be. my responsibility and duty is to the people of america. he hit the soviet union and cuba and the death struggle over communism and what it's done the people. i think mara is right for

let's talk about iran first, jake.s he setting the stage to break out of it october 15th, the next deadline, to certify that iran is complying with the nuclear terms, or is he saying something else? >> well, he certainly is laying down rhetoric that suggests that whether it's in october or later, the united states is going to walk away from this deal. what we're hearing from the administration is that they don't want to do it directly, they want to kind of back into the collapse of the deal. but either way, however it ends, if the united states ends up pulling out of the iran nuclear deal and it collapses, it will leave us less safe and secure. there is a reason that today we're not talking about iran testing a nuclear device the way we're talking about north korea doing it or iran sending a missile to the united states. it's because we did it without firing a single shot. i believe what the president is saying today and he's signalling the administration may do here is the height of irresponsibility. it will make us w

iran is in compliance and all the other signatories of the agreement say iran is in compliance. so that would be a political, not an evidentiary decision, which would have very negative consequences not just in terms of iran resuming its program at a more rapid pace but the credibility of the united states and the word it gives when it agrees to a deal would be seriously undermined. we just heard talk of north korea and that's extraordinary that we would not only be creating a nuclear crisis when we don't need one, but that we would be sending a message to the north koreans, don't believe our diplomacy or any agreement we enter with you because we could rescind it the next month. >> woodruff: what do you think of the president not recertifying. >> not just nat iran is in compliance with the deal but that it continues to be in the national interest of the united states to remain within the deal, and that's a judgment that the president is supposed to make. and he's made clearly, in his opinion, it's not in the national interest to remain in the deal. >> woodruff: he's talking abo

iran's nuclear. program and general activities so is is this test or these missiles a violation of any of the sanctions that iran is under and they're under a couple of different sets of sanctions. well they are why elation of the u.s. sanctions but. from that perspective many other things are a violation of u.s. sanctions so. and that's basically what doesn't what the iranian leadership doesn't care much about but they are not a violation of. join the comprehensive plan of action or here they are on date in their new nuclear the door j c p o a and they are not in violation of un resolution two two three one in the sense that iran interprets it. because like . resolution you have. like the iran has pledged not to. carry out ballistic missile casts designed to carry warheads and like they did the argument on the ring aside is that these. these myside the iran but basically because it's not seeking nuclear weapons and doesn't have orbit basically you by default these missile are not designed to carry o

been veryyou have vocal on the shortcomings of the iran deal and iran's behavior. beyond the confines of your job, where does that come from? is it your own direct opinion after hearing about iranian behavior here? or through conversations with the president? talk a little bit about that. ambassador haley: i conversations with the president and he was concerned about iran and the deal. i went to learn about it. i found out information, i looked at the violations. it was digging deep on the information of what we found and that is why i give this each on the scenario that the president is being faced with with the decisions to be made. this situation is not easy by any means, because you look at north korea and you look at the fact that for 25 years were -- we were looking at bad deal after bad deal after bad deal and broken promises. here we are again, and we do not want to be dealing with the next north korea. that is why he is taking it seriously. he is looking at every aspect in making sure it is in the best interest of the american public. reporter: the german

trump keep suggesting he is going to kill the iran deal? but he won't tell us exactly what he will do. why is he stringing this out? why is he speaking of the agreement in the way that he is? sec. tillerson: all in due time. >> why say what the decision is now instead of keeping people in suspense? sec. tillerson: there is additional work to go with that decision. it is easy to make up unilateral decision. let the cards fall where they may. let the dust hit the ground where it hits. but in terms of, how do we want to prepare ourselves and others for a decision. so, i think the president is going about it in the correct way. he is being deliberative. he has heard the arguments from both sides. if no one wanted to make that argument, then someone would put that case together and say we have to think about it from that perspective. he has listened to all of that, and i think we have had sufficient time to get our own direct understanding of this agreement, and how it functions, and see how the implementation works. see how the iaea works. i th

speech against iran. >> the lead table of nations. north korea isn't the first one and to use his words the murderous regime of iran is the second one. but i think most people would say charlie that it's not, it's not essentially a religious fight it's a political fight. it's between the saudi arabia and iran. it's a battle for influence across the region. saudi arabia does feel threatened by what they see they still see it despite iranians repeated denial that they want to exploit the revolution of 19 the. iran under sanctions became the prevailing power in iraq. they see it in yemen -- >> rose: they were bound by religion there. in terms of shi'a has power in iraq -- >> it is about shi'a but when you get down to it it is about power, it is about access to the government, access to power in the government, access to money, access to position, access to determining the future course of a country. and the saudis now are trying to get more involved in iraq because they want to challenge iran on its, in its years of influence. i think th

it was a letter with this agreement we don't believe that iran is doing so iran he iran has never sought nuclear weapons will never be and right now it's not the argument right now is against enrichment not a nuclear bomb we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos turmoil and terror discords of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the united nations is based in equating iran with north korea president trump has raised yet another question he is unable to answer how could north korea except his disarmament for recognition in good faith if he pulls out of a commitment made to iran by the u.s. government back in two thousand and fifteen when our president trump appears to be conducting diplomacy along the lines of a reality show teasing the audience with the phrase frequently used in recent days . there's of the. i've decided he says again i've decided i'll let you know what the decision is. now the e.u. has been hosting a meeting at the un on the iran nuclear deal that speak to mike hanna who's fly for us