Hello i am ray suarez. At this very moment iran is helping further the stated interests of the United States in iraq. Helping to arm and equip forces fighting the Islamic State of the iraq and levant. Isil. And at this very moment iran has been a an enormous irritant can challenge for the United States with its continuing Nuclear Enrichment program and oftenrepeated desire to see israel destroyed. Can a breakthrough in one arena help in the other . Its whispered hopefully in american are diplomatic circles, make one of washingtons long effort diplomat i think conflicts date back to the kidnapping of american diplomats in 1979 can be allowed to that you to the benefit of both country riz. Countries. The longrunning Nuclear Talks may be closer to ideal. Secretary of state john kersey on his way to vienna, austria this week hoping to hammer out of the remaining details of ideal with iran over its Nuclear Program. The meetings follow intense negotiations last week. The november 24th deadline is just around the corner, time is short for a breakthrough. We are gearing up and targeting november 24th. We are not talking about or thinking about going beyond that date. Thats a critical date. And we believe it is imperative for a lot of Different Reasons to get this done. Kerry will be traveling with a group of world leaders, called the p5 plus one. Five permanent members of the United Nations security council, the u. S. , russia, china, the united ding come and france, plus one, germany. The Sticking Point is irans uranium enrichment program, the six nations wants to extend the period it could take iran to mach a Nuclear Weapon, calling it the breakout time. Iran is willing to negotiate on time lines, but insists its Nuclear Program is for Energy Purposes only. And wants an end to the debilitating sanctions imposed bite west. Sanctions have never contributed to the resolution of this issue, sanctions are not a part of solutions, sanctions are the most important part of the problem. They are illegal in nature, they must be removed. They have not produced any positive result. One country loudly skeptical of the talks is israel. Iran is committed to the destruction of israel, just as the p5 plus one, the United States and the world powers are negotiating with iran a nuclear agreement, the ayatollah co mean the ruler of iran called for the annihilation of israel. He did that four days ago. Saudi arabia says even though it doesnt need a Nuclear Program it will start its own uranium enrichment at the levels agree to for iran. If no agreement is reached next week, there could be implications for the u. S. And iran from within. Congress gave the administration permission to wave some sanction to his keep the talks going with iran. But now hawks on both sides of the aisle are pushing for tougher sanctions if there is no agreement next week or if the deal doesnt go far enough. President Hassan Rouhanis relatively moderate stance could be under pressure inside iran, allowing hard liner opponents to gain back more ground. The p5 plus one iran, and the struggle to keep the Islamic Republican from becoming a nucleararmed power this time on the program. On what points are both sides willing to give even a little in order to get to ideal . How has the u. S. Managed the balancing act of punishing sanctions and opposition of Iranian Nuclear aspirations . And tacit approval of aid to Regional Forces fighting the socalled Islamic State . Do the Nuclear Talks carry the possibility of relaxing decades of hostility between washington and teheran. Joining us for that conversation, a fellow at the middle east program with the stimpson certainty. From new york. Executive director for the American Iranian Council and also from our d. C. Studio, matthew, resident fellow at the American Enterprise institute. He was also a Senior Expert for iran at the u. S. Central command. Welcome, everybody to the program. Let me start with you, it seems like every 10 to 14 days youll sigh a story in the youll see a story in the newspaper saying there has been sudden, Encouraging Movement in the talks over irans Nuclear Program. They are getting close to ideal. And then somebody on one sides of the other says, oh, no, we are not really that close. Whats going on. Well, the Nuclear Negotiations have been going on for 10 years. And for the first time actually last year around the same time knew, the interim deal was signed which put the restrictions on irans Nuclear Program and in return, yo you k, there was some laxing of sanks and also some revenue opened up from frozen accounts for revenue revenues receiving oil revenue. However, as you mention we get close but something happens. First this puts on the floor a what are the concerns . Are twofold on the p5 plus one side which involves the level of enrichment that iran is allowed to continue with. And secondly transparency and verification measures to insure that irans Nuclear Program is peace example there will not be a breakout cape bill. On the iranian side the second points are, type, welling take mess measures for transparency, confidence building and so forgue, with you but they want a time frame for sanctions to be removed and secondly to be acknowledged including enrich however whenever we get close and these are being negotiated out. A lot has already been resolve. On second call aspect, we are reaching a conclusion. However, it needs a political will for the final mile to actually reach an end. And here we have hawks on both sides in washington, a teheran and other capitals which are wary of a nuclear dear and have done their utmost to derail it. So we have on one side technical issues that are going to be resolved on the other side we need political will and thats where the lacking is at the moment. When we see those store stories, optimistic talk, then one party or another throwing cold water on it, whats going on, is the public being played . Sorts of pulled along with these talks trying to be convinced that there is something here thats not ready yet . Well, ray, i think this happens on both sides. If you notice that as the tape indicated from benjamin netanyahu, the Supreme Leader of iran issued several proposals for annihilating israel. So you would think well, if he wants the talks to succeed why would he do this at this critical juncture, you have other hard liners in iran saying, for example, that, you know, telling the United States, for example, dont think the nuclear deal is going to lead to negotiations on other issues i. E. , syria, iraq, isis. You would ask the question, why would these statements be made now . Its obviously to derail the process. On the u. S. Side, you have the same situation. You have people in congress saying, for example, even if there is ideal, sanctions arent going to be lifted for years. They are going try to obstruct any sanctions president obama might be able to lift through executive order. So you have threats on that side. So as he mentioned, there are a lot of people trying to derail this process, to some degree there are legitimate reasons. Matthew, if there are people trying to derail ideal on both sides, i guess the real question is, are they Strong Enough in their camps to keep it from happening . When the Supreme Leader undermines his own negotiators, when a prominent hawk in congress can scotch the happy talk coming out of the state department, do they really hold the cards . Those people who are trying to stop something from happening . Well, i think starting off with the stream leader, i guess in contrast to to to wha and to s been go ahead here i see the stream leader as someone back being this process from the beginning. I think there is a reason why iran is at the table now, that reason has not changed they need to get out from underneath the sanctions and need to find more breathing room in the region for the crisis that they are facing. So i think what you are seeing from hawks in iran, if you want to describe them as such, from the Supreme Leader, that this is part of the natural process of what happens in iranian politics. And i think that the regime has been fairly co haeufrpbt in supporting this process. On the u. S. Side what you are encountering is there is a lot of doubt on both sides of the aisle. Especially on the hill, about whether ideal will be sufficient to guarantee that iran will not pursue all nuclear women. There is a lot of reason to doubt that. And i think thats part of why you are seeing expressions not so much that we dont want ideal. If there was ideal that could really reassure the American Public , our allies that iran is not pursuing a Nuclear Weapon we would be for it. Its the details is what people are worried about. You just heard matthew talking about drying to get out from under the sanctions. If iran makes ideal that, leaves it falling short of its own declared national desires, with its Nuclear Program, but gets out from under the sanctions, arent there people would will declare that a loss inside iranian leadership circles. The iranians have invested a great deal in to the program. They have paid a high cost for it, both political and economic. Thats the iranian leadership, has supported the Nuclear Negotiations. Even though they are suspicious of the west and specifically the United States to deliver on their own concessions in the nuclear deal. I believe its not going to be a defeat for the iranians, because if you look at the interim deal and the contours. Final deal that will be hashed out, its very similar to what was negotiated in 2005 where then mr. Rouhani the current president led the Nuclear Talks. It was the United States in 2005 that stone walled and derailed that process. And if we look at, you know, where are we now in irans Nuclear Program, we have the development of irans Nuclear Program has expanded 19,000 centrifuges, tons of lowenriched uranium. Expansions of facilities. If the sanctions were supposed to undermine irans Nuclear Program they havent. But the Economic Hardship for iranian people have been harsh this is where the rouhani government would like to reverse economic conventions of the sanctions for its only Economic Development in iran. [speaking at the same time] i guess the people are really important in this. They are stakeholders too. Arent they pressing for a government that will deliver on their economic aspirations . Its been tough economic years for the people of iran. Yes, absolutely. This is in part how president rouhani won election that he ran on a platform of ending irans isolation with the west, of human rights, improvement of the human rights situation and making ideal with the west in order to end irans sanctions and isolation. So there is a popular base that supports ideal, of course. And in a sense, president rouhani needs this victory. I mean, if there is no deal, he could become politically irrelevant. Because the base is counting on him. The society is counting on him to deliver. So thats the risk form. Which is quite great. If there is no deal also this will allow the conservatives and i am not i think that we have to be clear about Supreme Leader he has been cautious to have one foot in each camp. One foot in the camp of the hard liners which are against ideal one foot in the camp of the more practicing pragmatists would want to deal. You will see, i think, if history is a lesson if there is no deal he will say i told you so you cant trust the americans as i have been saying all along. So there is a lot riding on this, i think much more than the iranians that president obama. Well be back with more inside story after a short break. When we return, a closer look at the iranian Nuclear Program. If terrain got the bomb, or once and for all moved way from it. What benefits might follow for the Islamic Republic. Stay with us. Whatever your beliefs, whatever your ideological bent, you might be willing to concede that nations do things for a reason. They want to accomplish something for themselves, they want to force their enemys hands, they see advantage in one activity as opposed to another. From the time iran began to enrich you ar uranium its facede its pleasure of the u. S. , international organizations, neighbors and a straightup promise to destroy their facility from israel. And yet, iran persists. Why . Matthew, the two most recent countries to go nuclear are pakistan and north korea. Looking from teheran over at islambad and pyongyang, are these instructive examples . Does it tell you, hum, we ought to press on with this or maybe we ought to stop . No, its an spwpg point. Because i think iran has been pursuing the capability to potentially have a Nuclear Weapon. Which i think has been the real question for u. S. Policy makers and allies, you know, why iran is doing all of this. Because its paid a heavy cost for its program. And sort of when you look at a place like pyongyang or islambad they were driven by their own calculations pakistan has to look towards india and north career harassed to look towards both the threat from the u. S. As well as russia or china. Whereas iran has to, you know, has a fear, i think an ex existential fear that people are trying to overthrow the regime. The idea of a potential Nuclear Weapon even if its an ambiguous one i like to think the strategic ambiguity iran is pursuing that where it doesnt get the arsenal but may have one. It does deter an invasion from the u. S. Or other military attacks, look at lib yeah, it learns a lesson, via north korea and it has pushed iran down the path as far as its gone. Over the years second lahr and clerical leaders in iran have reassured the rest of the world that the country doesnt want a bomb. For a variety of reasons it find it a repugnant or distast distasteful weapon and then contradict itself shortly thereafter. Where is the rest of the world supposed to put its faith in the idea that iran does want country or not . I ran has been very clear from the beginning that iran does not seek Nuclear Weapons. It does not see it, first of all religiously it is in the iranian religious leadership to consider the use and production of Nuclear Weapon, and other weapons of mass destruction as row had i been ted within islamic rule. Lets say at that thats one reason why iran doesnt want to seek it. Secondly the nature of irans Nuclear Program, which i want to just come back to your first question it, the separation between north korea, pakistan and irans Nuclear Program. Those other two countries are first and foremost not part ive nuclear pretty. They are Nuclear Weapons arsenal and they have they have gone that route. Irans Nuclear Program, if it wanting for a crude bomb, if you look at the nature and the facility, its very unusual for a country to develop 19,000 centrifuges if it wants to build a crude bomb. Irans facilities are also under constant iaea infections, thats the u. N. Nuclear watchdog. And if you look at the history of irans engagements with the iaea, and its relationship with the organization, will see that the iaea has invested a great deal of resources in monitoring and verifying irans Nuclear Program. That is why after a decades of negotiations, and spotlight on irans Nuclear Program there hasnt been a smoking begun that iran has Nuclear Weapons. And you have you dont have to take nigh word for it. You can look at the United States own inning testimony jenks ointelligence of 2011conce Nuclear Weapons hasnt made a decision to build them is their their honest nation of the u. S. Why would iran not stop its Nuclear Program. Because it wants an independent Nuclear Program where it can supply eights own nuclear fuel and its own nuclear fuel and this goes in to the historical prospective when iran needed nuclear fuel and it was shutdown by the americans, by other world powers to supply that fuel. Let me stop you right there. Because i want to get [speaking at the same time] agreement or disagreement with what you have had to say. Do you think its as clear as he laid out that iran does not wants a Nuclear Weapon . Absolutely not. I mean, iran has a whole history of concealing facilities which were revealed by the iranian well, i wouldnt call them opposition, but the m k. O. Who want to basically have regime change. Iran has not there is a whole history of lack of transparency for their nuclear facilities. I think there is every reason not to trust irans intentions and this is why we have been negotiating for 10 years. So the question for the west is what mechanisms can be put in place that will allow any sort of monitoring that is actually thats transparent. I mean, iran has hidden its facilities, its miss med the iaea. So earlier you talked about aam by goo tie, do you think at the end. Process this government wants the ability or an actual bomb . The ability to build a bomb or an actual bomb . I dont think that question can be answered. Not by us sitting in the west. I mean, i think that only the inner circles of the regime can answer that question. I think also if you consider i would like to sort of raise a question. If we are going to trust the iranians on the Nuclear Issue th,they have already if you e in to consider their ass in iraq, syria, yemen, why would retrust the iranians . They have boots on the ground in syria. They have september kept assad in power. In order to answer the question on whether we should trust them on the Nuclear Issue. We have to look at the entire picture. You must have known thats where we are going next, well have more on inside story as Nuclear Talks consider on one tract american involvement in syria and iraq deepens, place where his it must be mentioned the iran has considerable alliances and committed consider enrich would it be better in the fight against isil oral a lighter iranian hands in that part of the world . Stay with us. Excuse me. You are watching inside story on al jazerra america. We are looking at the complicated, wary, sometimes heated talks over Nuclear Technology iran, the u. S. And irans friends who share americas desire to keep the country from Going Nuclear and americas friends who have maintained closer links to the Islamic Republic over the last 35 years. And while i get a muchneeded sip of water. I am going to ask you to finish the point you were making just before the break. You were questioning whether we should trust both irans statements, its public statements and its intentions, why . Because the iranians have cleverly tried to maintain the focus on the Nuclear Negotiations. They have said emphatically this isnt, you know, we are not talking about syria, we are not talk about iraq, lets say narrowly focus on the the nuclear i can i. I think thats a mistake. In order to analyze the intentions of the entire government of iran, you have to look at the parallel states. The sraouft Rouhani Administration and foreign ministry, that is almost a parallel government for the Islamic Revolutionary guards that have woods pwao ts on the ground in syria, iraq, that support hizbollah. You have to look at the various arms of the state. In order to assess irans true intentions to remain narrowly focus odd the Nuclear Issue will distort any sort of calculation. I think thats a trap the obamaed administration has fall anyone to. They have said, you know, lets focus on the Nuclear Issue. We are going to ask for negotiations on other issues once ideal is signed. But we are not demanding it. Quick response . I mean really quick. On the contemporary this is an opportunity for the Nuclear Issue if its resolved, hands down will open up the gates for u. S. Iranian involvement and cooperation on a multiple theaters throughout the middle east, iraq has hone as they said they came first to the aid against isis. If the u. S. Wants to defeat isis it needs iran more than anybody else in the region. Matthew, where does this leave us . How should we best proceed . Its a very high stakes game in the Nuclear Arena but also one on the ground in this new socalled Islamic State. No, and response to what they have said in this regard. We are looking at two separate issue the Nuclear Issue and the issues with isis and syria in a in iraq. Irans Decision Making here, we have seen no change in their designing too actually continues pursuing a Nuclear Program in the manner that they have already done. They really want to get out of the sanctions, they want to be able to change the tactics and relieve pressure. The same thing when it comes to how they are dealing with us on isis. That ultimately they are isis represents a serious threat to iran, that they have to respond to. We actually happen to have in a certain sense a common enemy but not the same in state in syria and iraq. Where iran wants to be is not necessarily where we want to be. This is where i am not seeing evidence of change within the regime right now that they want to change the fundamental aspects, whats been mentioned here about what they are trying to pursuing and changing the regimes around them and trying to influence and project a network of resistence that involves hess bowl, a activities in yemen, hamas, those are all activities that reflex the regime itself and what its trying to do. And i think those are two separate things we need to approach them separately and look for signs that the regime is thanking its a core calculus. Matthew, gentleman neave, hemad. Thank you saul. That brings to us this edition of inside story, thanks for being with us in wash quash and once again able to speak i am ray suarez. Welcome to the news hour from or headquarters in doha. Two palestinians armed with axes and knives attack a synagog in jerusalem. At least four worshipers are killed. Police fire tear gas in clashes with palestinian protestors. Japans Prime Minister orders a snap election hours after the economy plunges back into
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.