and terrorism. extremism and terrorism in .nnate from lack of hope in addition to an ideology based on hate and exclusion, it is the necessary fertile ground on which these ideologues, in fact demagogues, recruit new soldiers, new terrorists. we need to dry that fertile ground. charlie: iran's foreign minister for the hour, next. minister of iran's foreign affairs since 2013. he was iran's chief negotiator on the nuclear deal. on monday, president trump certified iran was in compliance with the plan of action. but on tuesday, the of administration announced new sanctions saying the united states will continue to aggressively target iran's activity including ongoing state support of terrorism, ballistic missile programs, and human rights abuses. this is his 12 time at this table. i'm pleased to have him back at this table. a lot has happened since the last time i saw you. characterize for me today how you think the relationship is between iran and the united states. >> i think the united states has had unfortunately a hostile policy towards iran for some time. this administration is certainly pursuing an even more hostile policy. i think it is a misguided policy. i think the allegations against iran are tired and don't stand any test in reality. i think it would be best for the united states for the u.s. to look at its "achievements" in our region and see what it has achieved. it has made all the wrong choices. i believe the united states needs to take a fresh look at the situation in our region and see where its interests are, how it is dealing with important issues of stability and security in our region, and decide for itself where it wants to stand. charlie: as you know, at the summit in riyadh, saudi arabia and some of the arab state allies asked the united states to join them in isolating iran. so they believe you are engaged in these activities that the united states suggests you are. >> i want to ask you who were behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. charlie: who do you think was behind it? individuals or the state of saudi arabia? >> we know the individuals came from saudi arabia, 15 of them. we also know the ideology came from saudi arabia, the wahhabi ideology. from 2001 2 now or even 1998 until now, almost 94% if not more of terrorist incident throughout the world have been instigated and perpetrated by people belonging to that school of thought which is the official ideology of saudi arabia and promoted with billions of petrol dollars across the globe spreading extremism everywhere. it is unfortunate because we believe we need to have good relationships -- good relations with our neighbors. we want to have good relations with our neighbors, but they need to decide about the policy. unfortunately for the united states, the yardstick is not whether a country supports terrorism or not. the yardstick is whether they will use military equipment from the united states or not. i believe it was stated by the president that he did not go to saudi arabia before he made sure all of those deals were on the table. charlie: he thinks they will create jobs is the reason he gives for the effort to sell weapons to saudi arabia. >> it is good they create jobs, but that should not be the yardstick of who supports terrorism. charlie: one thing i hope to have with you and interesting for the american people is, what exactly is a terrorist and who is a terrorist? for example, al qaeda is a terrorist organization, you would agree? isis is a terrorist organization, you would agree? hezbollah is a terrorist organization, you would agree? >> no. charlie: they are on the terrorist list. >> they are on the united states list. charlie: and others. >> let's apply the yardstick. let's take the united nations as an acceptable mechanism and acceptable machinery to define for you who is a terrorist and who is not. at least accept something multilateral. we cannot accept the united states being the prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner, everything rolled into one. we can apply various yardsticks. but one would be to see who is on the list of terrorist states in the security council. the united states is a permanent member. we have no role in the security council. the security council considers al qaeda and the taliban as terrorist organizations. charlie: and so does iran. >> yes. but fortunately -- unfortunately, u.s. allies were two of three states which recognized taliban. only three states recognized taliban before the united states overthrew them after 9/11. saudi arabia and the uae were two of those three. these are u.s. allies. i don't want to engage in saudi bashing. i'm talking about the united states accusing iran of supporting terrorism when its own allies have been on the record exposing each other about who was first in supporting isis and other terrorist organizations. let's not kid ourselves. charlie: let me make clear one thing. i want to make sure you have time. i want to raise a question on the might of americans. do you believe saudi arabia supports al qaeda? al-nusra? do you believe saudi arabia supports isis? >> i believe a lot of saudi money went to support these organizations. them are saudiof intelligence services. we know al qaeda when it engaged the soviets was a child of the saudi intelligence services. the taliban government was sponsoring al qaeda. it was only recognized by three states. two of them were saudi arabia and the united arab emirates. charlie: the other uzbekistan. >> that is --the other uzbekistan --pakistan. >> for saudi arabia and the united arab emirates staying far away from the actual scene because iran has enabled pakistan as a neighbor, some other countries in the former soviet union are our neighbors, but saudi arabia and united arab emirates are not even close but they support it. the money, it is clear. just ask any intelligence person. the money that went to isis, toronto struck -- to al-nusra, most of it came from these countries. charlie: not from the government per se. >> that is to be investigated. i'm not here to accuse anybody. we have been accused by a lot of people about a lot of things. i don't know whether it is good to accuse people. i'm saying the ideology came from saudi arabia. all of these people belonged to that ideology promoted officially unfortunately by the government of saudi arabia. it is being spread across the world and everybody who engages in act of terror in one way or another has been affected by that ideology. charlie: you have the summit in which there was a call for a radicalion of where extremism and terrorism was coming from. and within islam there had to be an understanding of what elements of who were using or hijacking the religion to engage in terrorist activities, and that all muslims should be opposed whether shia or sunni. >> i would agree with that at applaud such an effort. charlie: that was what they said. >> i believe everybody should come together in actually fighting these extremist ideologies. i fighting them does not mean only through military means. this is much deeper. it should be a comprehensive strategy to deal with extremism and terrorism. extremism and terrorism emanate from lack of hope, in addition to an ideology based on hatred and exclusion. there is the necessary fertile ground on which these ideologues recruitct demagogues new soldiers, new terrorists. we need to dry that fertile ground. the way to do it is to provide identity, to provide hope, to provide dignity, education, and economic future. these are what is lacking in the region and beyond. charlie: when you look today, what does iran want? what role does it want to play in the world? >> iran is a country that has , despite to survive pressure, despite the war, despite sanctions. we have been able to make progress, to make scientific achievements, in spite of the fact that every restriction was imposed on our country and our people. even our students were prevented from studying physics and mechanics at western universities. but we made advances for one region -- reason. we are content with our size, with our geography, with our natural resources. charlie: and you have no global ambitions? >> we do not have global ambitions. most important, we rely on our own people. we do not rely on foreigners for our independence, for our security, for our economic progress. we would like to work with the outside world. but we do not rely on them. we derive our security from our people. we derive our legitimacy from our people. just remember that secretary mattis the other day said that iran presidential elections were a sham because somebody chose who should run in the presidential election. people in iran waited in line for 10 hours to vote for a sham? even worse, people in los angeles waited in line for four hours -- charlie: he was remembering another fact, that there were people who wanted to run who were not allowed to run. >> you are talking about the ability to vote for those who were allowed to run. charlie: 1200 people registered to run for president. can anybody anywhere in the world run an election with 1200 candidates? there has to be a process some who may not be qualified for the job could be eliminated. charlie: not qualified or too moderate in their views to be allowed to run? >> in all democracies, you have a process through which candidates are excluded. here you have the primaries and caucuses. others have other means. charlie: they are all allowed to run in the primary. they were excluded in a run. >> you still need a number of signatures to be on the ballot. every place, you have a mechanism. interfere in to the affairs of other countries. as an observer and foreign minister, i can tell you if you do not have money, if you do not have the necessary financial contributions from corporations or others, you may not be able in many for election western societies. charlie: bernie sanders ran a very successful campaign. >> he was not nominated at the end of the day. i have a lot of respect for senator sanders. but at the end of the day, you have a vetting process. but what is important? in have people who believe the united states, only members of the establishment can run. people can make a lot of allegations. at the end of the day, it is for the american people to decide whether they have the necessary choices. and they shall that the coming -- show that by coming to the polls. iranians could have stayed home. if they wanted to stay home in iran or if they wanted to stay home even in los angeles, just answer this question. why would iranians, having lived in the united states for forrations, stand in line four hours in los angeles in order to vote? for a sham election? charlie: let me tell you why. because there is always a love for the soil where you were born. >> but you do not engage in a futile exercise. of course there is a love. i know the love of my compatriots who live in the united states. and unfortunately, they have been insulted by president trump in the travel ban for their love for their country of origin. in the revolution, some of them lost their property. >> that is a historical fact. there are procedures to redress that. at the same time, these people who live in the united states not simply out of love for the country but out of the recognition that they had a real choice. charlie: several things about that. says hean intelligence still have great desire to have a nuclear capability. >> we do have a nuclear capability. that we have foregone the nuclear option. charlie: did you do that because of the pain of sanctions? >> no, we did that long before the sanctions started. i believe the sanctions were misguided and did not achieve any outcome. charlie: the wisdom by almost everybody is you were hurting so badly that you were willing to come to the negotiating table. take the sanctions away, we will agree. >> charlie, i presented a proposal to the french, the on marchd the germans 23, 2005. before all of these sanctions were presented. at that time, i was ambassador at the u.n. and the nuclear negotiator. the chief nuclear negotiator with our current president and i was negotiating on his behalf. i presented the proposal which is very similar to the final deal we reached 10 years later. charlie: why did it take that time to do it? >> i will tell you. because at that time the ambassador was sitting in the state department preventing that deal from taking shape. charlie: representing the bush administration. >> representing the bush administration. and today, he is trying to do that all over again. charlie: he is not part of the government. >> there are quite a few of them. charlie: it was great division about the nuclear deal. >> i understand. sanctions did not bring iran to the negotiating table. the united states decided the zero enrichment option which it throughued from 2003 2013 was not going to get it anything. what did sanctions produce? a lot of economic hardship for iran, i grant you that. but was that the objective of the sanctions? or was the objective of the sanctions to change iran's policy? on centrifuges. because everybody knew. 2007, you had a national intelligence estimate state that iran is no longer, from their neverctive, no longer pursued nuclear weapons. during the bush administration, niere obama, in i.e. -- established iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. charlie: everybody in the obama administration thought you were pursuing nuclear weapons. >> they were wrong. charlie: john kerry thought that. president obama thought that. they said that. don't suggest there was not a body of opinion in america. >> nobody is infallible. they made a wrong assertion. the iaea, the international atomic energy agency, established in 2015, in november of 2015, that the so-called possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program were not significant. and that is why they closed the file. charlie: let me ask you about the idea of a shia presence. it is said general civil money mani who i understand only reports to the supreme is very much interested in having a clear route from iran to lebanon to support hezbollah. is that true? >> in 2004 when king abdullah made that statement, and it is interesting where he made that statement, he made it in washington. with all due respect, and he knows i have a lot of respect for him, this was an attempt in fear mongering. an attempt in good mongering that has continued and only thought misery and despair to our region. to create aattempt corridor. iran has something come to the aid of countries that have been fighting extremism and terrorism. i believe everybody -- charlie: you did not come to the aid of lebanon. you came to the aid of hezbollah . >> we came to the aid of lebanon. it was lebanese territory. charlie: by the syrians. >> by the israelis. charlie: also by the syrians later, as you know. >> but the syrians were in lebanon as a consequence of the agreement in which we had no role. it was an arab decision. it was not our decision. it was a decision they took. they invited them to go, and so they did. here, i represent iran and no other country. we ought to help people fight terrorism. ♪ charlie: what you think of president bashar assad and what happened to syria? >> it is not my business to think of that. it is the business of the people of syria. we should provide them with the opportunity to decide for themselves. charlie: it is none of your business? is aou to say that -- copout. it is not my business, it is his business. no matter what he does >> i think what has happened in syria have been the consequences of people outside syria imposing that this gentleman should not be in the government. we reject the use of chemical weapons. charlie: iran more than any other country because of what happened to you in the iraq/iran war should be at the top of people saying if siri uses chemical weapons, it is a crime against humanity. >> we set it. charlie: you should not be supporting a regime that uses chemical weapons. >> you have got to stop there. the facts?ablished i cannot accept the united states, which is a party to the conflict, along with its allies who are parties -- charlie: you were a party to the conflict. you are funding hezbollah. >> that is why you do not have to listen to me. you have to establish an independent, international monetary mechanism -- monitoring mechanism to go and check. the day after the allegation of the use of chemical weapons, which was followed unfortunately by a huge military operation by theunited states, we asked international community to send a delegation to investigate in the place of the alleged attack as well is the airbase where allegedly the chemical weapons were loaded onto the airplane's, to go and check. chemical weapons. we were subject to the use of chemical weapons. we invited the united nations to send investigators. should i remind you that six or seven times, the u.n. established iraq had used chemical weapons against iran? and not a single time did the united states condemn it. dida single time to b -- the united states allow the security council to condemn it. i do not buy it. charlie: they did not vote against it when it was used against you. >> they did not vote for it. they prevented it. charlie: that is what i said. they did not vote for it. >> is more than that. they did notd, even let it get to a vote to use their vehicle -- biko. this is the sad irony of history. we condemn the use of chemical weapons the matter who uses them and no matter against whom it is used. pure and simple. accept anct me to allegation by the united states. we have asked for an investigation, for an international, impartial investigation of who used them. i am not saying what happened because i was not there. charlie: they had video, they have everything else. >> they have video of the victims. my heart goes out to the victims. charlie: victims of sarin gas. do you know what that does? >> of course i do. nobody knows better than we do what sarin gas does. in new york, i received patients who have been victims of sarin gas from iran and iraq. i received them at kennedy airport. i took them to hospitals. i showed them to diplomats. and nobody gave a dam. nobody. nobody issued a declaration in condemnation of the use. i know what sarin gas is, believe me i know. charlie: therefore, you should be the most prominent and articulate argument against it and holding countries who use it to account. >> exactly. and we are prepared to do that. charlie: how many years has it been? >> provided there is an international investigation establishing the fact. charlie: tell me the truth. you doubt the facts that the syrian government used chemical weapons? that is one example. >> of this is the latest example. charlie: o the united states responded. the entirety of a war that has gone on for six years. >> it is a war that should have stopped a long time ago. in 2013 to a plan end the war. it incorporated four elements. , a national unity government including everybody guest: constitutional reform in an election based on that constitution. people said it what would happen to president assad. are putting the cart before the horse because if we are talking about constitutional reform, the court issues should -- the constitutional reform should come up in the parliamentary system. charlie: the syrian people should decide what happens. guest: after they decide the form of their government, they should decide who is in it, so for people to have prolonged this conflict for at least four years, because this idea was on the table since 2013, and as secretary kerry has said time and again, this idea, my plan, formed the basis for security 2254 onresolution syria, which unfortunately was adopted two years later. or even more than two years later. we are talking about real situations. we need to bring these conflicts to an end. we need to bring the war in syria to an end. we need to bring the senseless bombing -- charlie: how do we bring the war in syria to an end? guest: a cease-fire. charlie: he think that will hold? -- you think that will hold? turkeyiran, russia, and -- the cease-fire is holding more or less. the amount of suffering of the syrian people has been drastically reduced since thisber of last year, when initiative by yvonne, russia, and turkey has been in place, and we believe it should he all ofd to include syria, except for fighting ra.inst isis and nost charlie: do you believe the ron russia and america can work together to change syria? guest: i think everyone should work together to end this tragedy in syria. charlie: are you prepared to work with the united states and russia? were in the syria support group. we did not hesitate. this included countries in the region, because he would not be a will to do this without the support and assistance of other countries in the region. i believe you would not be able to end the conflict in syria without saudi arabia. you would not deal to end the conflict in syria without turkey, without qatar, without egypt. of course, you would not be up to end the conflict in syria without you rock. -- without iraq, and most importantly, without the syrians. the syrians should decide. the rest of us should facilitate. charlie: can you approve russia coming in? they make the point they were invited in by the assad government. were you ok with russia coming into prop up the assad government? guest: it was not. russia -- charlie: it wasn't? guest: russia was invited -- when the russians came to syria, ssad was in a much firmer positions and in 2012-2013. you're talking about comparisons. you're talking about relative situations. a debate we want to engage. that is not for me to debate that the advocare said, very -- what we have said very clearly is that we do not interfere in the decision by a sovereign government. even clearer example. we disagree. we disagree with the united states. against thetervene united states cooperating with the iraqi government. we believe that is a decision the iraqi government should make. we may oppose it, but it is their decision. charlie: would you encourage the government of iraq to make sure sunniunni members of the out fromnot get shut government so they do not see what we have seen time after time? first al qaeda and that isis. >> exactly. we believe the iraqi government should be inclusive. charlie: encourage the iraqi government to do that. guest: we have done that. we have done it. charlie: the government did not do it, a strong friend of iran. guest: the prime minister is a strong friend of iraq. ,very government in iraq thankfully, has been a strong friend of iraq, and this is our advice on them. iraq needs to be an inclusive government with all segments of the iraqi population represented in the government. hereon maintains extremely -- relationsains good with the sunni community. parliamentr of the -- charlie: you do not deny, do you, that isis got support from sunni tribes because they felt like they had no voice in baghdad. guest: isis got support from people who believed, as i said, that this is the result of disenfranchisement. i would not disagree with you that the perception of not having a voice in society leads people to join these extremist groups, and that is why i said in the beginning that we need a comprehensive strategy to deal with these extremist groups, and a comprehensive strategy include certainty. giving your voice to everybody. this is what the government of iraq is committed to. we heard it. you heard it from her mr. a body -- prime minister abbadi. we want every other country in the region to engage with us and and united nations to support national unity in iraq, particularly now that we have this prospect of a fuelendum and center activity -- centrifugal activities. charlie: do we need self-determination for the kurds? guest: i believe the kurds have certain autonomy, and i believe -- charlie: within the constitution of iraq? you are not in favor of them having complete self -determination. the constitution of iraq, national unity of iraq, are of for thet importance kurdish population in the rest of iraq. it is important for everybody. i believe there is consensus globally. ♪ charlie: this was before the buttion of 2016, occasionally, i would hear someone say "five to 10 years from now, the united states will be closer to iran than it is to saudi arabia." competing.re not charlie: the geopolitical world is changing. guest: i think the united states thes to reevaluate achievements of the united states and the failures of the united states in our region, and based on that, reassessment. the mall and the place of various countries in the region, we are not competing with saudi arabia. we believe iran and saudi arabia should be a part of a regional dialogue. in the new york times several years ago calling for a regional dialogue, and i believe that is what is lacking in our region. we are ready for it. i believe as soon as our saudi neighbors are ready to engage in dialogue, in resolving issues through dialogue, not through pressure -- unfortunately, this has become a habit of either using the united states in order to put pressure on different countries or with countries where they can impose direct pressure -- charlie: this is real. mohammed: i am modest. immediateng about our neighborhood, the persian gulf. all of the wars in recent years, from the iraqi invasion of your onto your iraqi invasion of toait, to u.s. operation liberate kuwait from iraq, to later u.s. operation against daesh, tol qaeda, to isis, to yemen, let us concentrate. let us not be too ambitious. let us concentrate on this region. charlie: no israel -- guest: which has been the odd bit of extremism, violence, and war and conflict, and let us deal with this. we are ready to deal with it. we are ready to resolve the problem. we are ready to engage in dialogue. we are ready to engage in confidence-building measures. others should not look for an enemy. there is no need for an enemy. we already have enough enemies. enemies -- charlie: united states as an enemy? guest: united states can define its relations with iran at this time and for some time to tear the united states has defined its relations with iran in terms of hostility. this is nothing new, not particular to this administration. the united states has followed the hostile policy toward the ron and it has received a reciprocal reality. president obama pursued a very hostile policy toward iran and many years. he came to the conclusion towards the end of his administration that we need to find a negotiated rate. the united states continued their hostile policies vis-a-vis other issues. charlie: but that we don't want to talk about our behavior, we do not want to talk about -- the nuclear deal. we did not want it to be on the table. the united states would describe it as supporting extremism. guest: we wanted to limit the immediate discussion so not to complicate it. it was not the issue of behavior. hereon has even more grievances about the u.s. behavior. how about the fact that the united states -- you and i have been at this table discussing the fact, in 2003, if you remember, where i predicted that the u.s. invasion of iraq would lead to more extremism in that region. now, we are -- we have grievances. we have problems with u.s. behavior. but with the nuclear issue, we thought that this was a burning resolved.ded to be it should not be further complicated by adding extraneous elements. even then, we said, if we can make progress on this issue to ,educe the mutual lack of trust then we can build on this issue to move to other issues. that is why we said very clearly -- charlie: that is still possible? guest: unfortunately, the unitedr by the states, since the new administration, with the statements coming from the white house, i mean, yesterday even, theyder to certify complied, they made sure to put iran atgnations against the same time so they would prevent iran from benefiting from the economic dividends of the nuclear is less, which had -- nuclear business. this administration is more open instating it. i am happy the rest of the international community is continuing to do business with iran in spite of the intransigent rhetoric coming from washington. that is keeping this alive. i believe the nuclear deal is alive because the rest of the world in the iran want to keep it alive. because it is a multilateral agreement, and it is being kept alive by people who are engaging with iran. i believe it will continue to be so. i believe the united states, in on honesty, as someone who has studied the united states for a very long time, i can tell you, it is in the national interest of the united states to revisit its policy with regard to our region and to assess where it went wrong, where the policy of applying double standards to our region -- i mean, the range of issues that you said would be of concern in our behavior to the united states. we have similar concerns, but we also, in addition to that, we have a concern about the application of double standards. on human rights, which of your allies, which of the united states' allies in the region have a record that is even close to iraq? charlie: every time anyone knows you are going to be here, and i saw this with my colleagues at cvs, you know, they bring up one case after another, and the answer always is "look, that is up to the judiciary, not to the --" >> no, no. let us just make a comparison. hussein wasaddam not being criticized for its human rights violations until it invaded kuwait. other governments in the region never had a ballot box, never representative, hardly any rights, and nobody complains about their human rights. charlie: i mean -- guest: they are u.s. allies. they do not have any human rights -- are there any human rights sanctions against any? why are they imposed on iran? charlie: i see what you're saying with respect to saudi arabia. they do raise the question. guest: very nicely. but not a single saudi individual is designated by the united states -- and i do not like them to be designated, because i believe it is the wrong policy. i do not believe it is the right policy. but just to compare, not a single individual in south where human beings are beheaded has not been under investigation. that tells you a lot about these u.s. concerns about iranian behavior, because those concerns -- charlie: it is more a question of geopolitics that it is of values. guest: it is only a question of geopolitics. we lived under the shah. i had to escape to live in the united states because of the violation of human rights. charlie: let us assume the united states should speak out against human rights violations not only in -- with its allies, but within its own country. human rights ought to be the guide regardless of whether they are friendly -- friend or foe. is, for iran, for instance, that is where we derive legitimacy and our security and our economic well-being and prosperity, because we do not get that from outside. look at the reality. with all the sanctions, with all the pressure, with all the wars, with all the containments. surviving, making progress. we are making scientific field event of technology. we are among the top 10 in many areas of signs and technology. we achieve that by relying on our people. so that is why -- charlie: i would say to that "good for you." guest: it is good for us. we get it in spite of the fact that we are under restrictions. that tells you something about our relations with our own people. now, every country can improve its human rights record. charlie: including iran. guest: obviously including iran. that is why the president of iran has put out a charter of the rights of citizens. exist.eve that excesses we need to address those excesses. and we need to resolve them. as ans our own priority issue of national security for us, because that is how we derive our legitimacy. from our people. we have to respect them come up your and simple -- we had to respect them, pure and simple. president rouhani's platform is very clear on that. charlie: that we have to do better on human rights? guest: much better. much better. there are others in our region who are far behind, but the united states never complains about them. they are not designated by the united states. they support terrorism. not a single one of them is designated. they are sending terrorists to your territory. charlie: you have to be careful about that. they were saudi's, but no one has proven they were sent by the saudi government. guest: has anybody proven that anything about -- charlie: weight, weight! guest: did you know that a court in new york condemned iran for participating in 9/11? fined us $11 billion for participating in 9/11. do you want me to buy this? come on. a court in new york. go read the court document. a court in new york awarded $11 billion to the victims of 9/11 against iran. are you telling me nobody has proven that saudi arabia was behind it? let me tell you something you're familiar with. president trump banned citizens of six countries from coming to the united states. it included iran. iranians in the united states are outstanding citizens. they are outstanding members of their own community. good positions, good scientists, silicon valley may not be as prosperous as not for iranian scientists. charlie: i have just said that iranians have come to the united states and made huge contributions. let me finish. to who we are, they have. they made a huge contribution. so have immigrants from all over the world who have come here. that is one of the values that the united states stands for. do you agree with that? guest: i do, and that is why is mind-boggling for me to see the iranians have been singled out as one of the six countries in by ban, the travel ban donald trump. that is an affront to the entire iranian society. you have great respect for the american system that courts have said it cannot happen. the courts have ruled again -- you know. multiple courts in the united states ruled against that. mohammad: and we applauded that. at the end of the day, you know that that decision -- charlie: most americans believe that a ban on the basis of religion is an affront to what america stands too. mohammad: i would agree with that. does president trump agree? charlie: i cannot speak for president trump. [laughter] charlie: i can't say that it is always a pleasure to have you here. i think that when you hear -- and we had a conversation -- you and i and you and others may disagree or admire many things, that what you said and what i believe in is that iran is a great country. the united states is a great country with a proud tradition. both would be better off if they tried to find common ground and figured out a way that those things that are not in the best interest -- mohammad: we did find common ground on the nuclear deal. i think the world is better for it. and i hope people will stick to it because that is a good deal. and there cannot be a better one because a deal, at the end of the day, is a give and take, and would give some, and the united because thatome, is the name of the game. we need to recognize that it is an important recognition in this day and age that no one can win at the expense of others. maybe temporarily, but that is not sustainable. sustainable gains should be all-inclusive, should include everybody. i think that should apply to the iranian nuclear deal and to the situation in syria. it should apply to the situation in yemen. it should apply to the security and cooperation in the persian gulf region. i believe iran has shown its readiness to engage in a positive sum game in all these places. charlie: thank you for coming. mohammad: good to be with you again. thank you for the conversation. charlie: come back soon. thanks. ♪ 7:00 a.m. in hong kong. i am yvonne man. welcome to "daybreak asia." the latest rocket passed over northern japan. posed nogon says it threat to north america and no attempt was made to shoot it down. bloomberg's global headquarters, i am betty liu in new york, where it is past 7:00 p.m. on this monday evening. texas bracing for more chaos as harvey gathers more strength. trump promising billions in federal aid.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Qatar , Japan , Texas , Iran , Uzbekistan , Lebanon , Washington , Yemen , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Riyadh , Ar Riya , Saudi Arabia , United Arab Emirates , Syria , Russia , Toronto , Ontario , Canada , Pakistan , Germany , Iraq , Abbadi , Hormozgan , Israel , Kuwait , France , Turkey , Americans , America , Saudi , Soviets , Syrians , Iranians , Israelis , French , Iraqi , Lebanese , Arab Emirates , Syrian , Russians , American , John Kerry , Los Angeles , Stateslist Charlie , Bashar Assad , Betty Liu , Al Qaeda , Bernie Sanders ,