tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 1, 2015 9:00pm-10:01pm EDT
>> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. charlie: we look this evening at the continuing negotiations with iran. the united states and its negotiating parters announced on tuesday that they are extending the deadline for talks until july 7. american officials hope to reach a final accord in order to submit it to congress for a 30-day review period. the u.s. warned early this week that the framework deal reached in switzerland in april must remain the basis for a final agreement. the remarks came after iran's supreme leader rejected key demands of the p5+1 in a speech last week.
joining me now from vienna margaret brennan is the cbs foreign affairs correspondent and lyse doucet is the chief international correspondent for the bbc. from princeton university, seyed hossein mousavian. he is iran's former chief nuclear spokesperson. with me here in new york, bret stephens, the global view columnist for the "wall street journal." i want to go to vienna first. i want to start with margaret. tell me where things stand now in terms of the negotiations and what do you say about this extension for a week? do we read into that that these two parties, the p5+1, as well as the iranians, believe that within a week, they desperately want a deal and they can make it happen? margaret: charlie, a top u.s. diplomat told me tonight that they put the odds of that greater than 60-40 in terms of leaning towards an actual deal. this is far from guaranteed.
the negotiators have given themselves almost exactly an extra week to try to put the fine print -- they are literally working on the text, all of these additional technical annexes to figure out how to implement what they had already broadly agreed to back in april in switzerland. as you say, there has been this back and forth. is iran backsliding? u.s. officials would say we are sticking to the broad outlines. they are really trying to find creative ways around some of the roadblocks, specifically about how much access the u.s. is asking for and that will be implemented by u.n. watchdogs, inspectors will search any suspected nuclear site. that is really what is holding it up. the sanctions will come in phases. it is the legalistic terms they are trying to iron out right now.
lyse: charlie, to pick up on your turn of phrase saying they desperately want an agreement, all sides are trying to show that they are not desperate for an agreement. that would look like they will do everything possible to have a deal. the mantra on all sides is a good deal and what a good deal is, it is still clear they still have not reached the point of agreement that all sides can leave vienna and say, we have made history with a good deal that both curbs iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb, but eases the crippling sanctions that iranians have lived under for so many years. to use that well-worn phrase that the devil is in the detail. the framework agreement which they reached a few months ago had parts they knew they would have to come back to. they did not work out all the details. it was a broad framework. there were others which they now realize were open to interpretation or misinterpretation. what they are finding now is they don't quite agree on some of the key issues, whether it
comes to the inspections of nonmilitary sites, which are allowed under an additional protocol of the iea ee. or the kind of phasing of sanctions with responsibilities on both sides. yes, they would like a deal. the seven days are not a deadline. they could possibly go over that deadline. if they have their dream scenario, they would like to -- it is mainly an iranian and american negotiation. the real deadline is before they have to go to congress for the oversight. charlie: the reason i said they desperately want a deal, if you were working this hard to try to hammer out something, it is because you very much want this to happen. john kerry has been back and back and back. so he went back to tehran to make the case. if they are trying this hard, it would seem to me that there is a great intensity to try to find a
solution to these very difficult points. margaret: that is exactly the case, charlie. john kerry brought a physical therapist and two doctors with him. he literally got off his recovery bed to make it here and because he is trying to close what could be a legacy making deal for president obama. it could also have reverberations throughout the middle east. there is great intensity. it is a game of chicken in some ways. in terms of ironing out these details and no one wants to pull that first. lyse: i said, what was the mood? this person said, the mood was this has to be done. never have they been so close to a deal. this would end a 12-year standoff over iran's nuclear program. this would be an historic negotiation achieved without
firing a single bullet, without being a zero sum game, which is unprecedented in the very turbulent world in which we live. yes, margaret mentions how john kerry has come on crutches. the chief scientist from iran has come from having two surgeries. it is both an historic negotiation, but it is a herculean human effort and they would like to have the deal, but a good deal. charlie: agreed. look at it from your experience in terms of what is happening in vienna and what has preceded it. where do you think we are? seyed: i think already both parties have agreed with all measures with the nonproliferation treaty. there is no dispute left. we have seen npt. we have the safeguard agreement.
we have additional protocol. we have a subsidiary arrangement called 3.1. iran has already agreed to implement all. by this i mean that iran would be committed at the maximum level of international rules and regulations on transparency measures. there is nothing beyond additional protocol. this is number one. number two, iran has agreed to confidence building measures blocking pathways toward possible diversion toward nuclear weapons. on heavywater, iran has agreed to have no reprocessing. if you have no reprocessing, it is impossible to make a nuclear bomb from heavywater. i run has agreed to export spent
fuel iran has agreed to export spent fuel. if you are exporting fuel, it is impossible to make a nuclear bomb. iran has agreed to reduce plutonium to one kilogram, which would be non-weapon grade plutonium. all major measures assuring that iran would not make nuclear bombs from heavywater is already agreed. then we go to enrichment. on enrichment also iran has , agreed to confidence building measures on non-diversion of uranium enrichment to facilities. iran has agreed to in ridge below 5%. as long as enrichment below 5%. iran has agreed to reduce.
iran has agreed not to have enrichment activities. therefore, i would say all measures assuring that uranium iranian heavywater and enrichment facilities would not direct toward weaponization. although all of these measures are beyond npt, and iran has agreed to measures beyond npt as a goodwill. the problem is with excessive demands, far beyond protocols. charlie: you are opposed to this deal as you know it? bret: yes, i am. the reason why iran is being put to these additional tests is because iran has a lengthy record of deceiving the international community.
you remember that announcement in new york several years ago, there was a secret facility until it was revealed. secret facilities before they were brought to light by the international community. the international atomic energy agency still cannot get the iranians to come clean on possible military dimensions of their programs. we are not conducting a nuclear negotiation with luxenberg or korea or a country that we know is going to abide by the terms that it signs. it is conducting a negotiation with a regime that unfortunately has this extraordinary lengthy record of deceiving the international community. charlie: what is the big hangup at this point? where is the conflict? margaret: two main things and
they are kind of interlinked. one of them is access. how much ability to search suspected nuclear sites or sites that could be related in any way to nuclear development and that will be carried out by united nations inspectors under the iaea. so the united states has have this hard line of wanting to search military sites. they say look, we know, the united states does not allow inspectors into most of our nuclear weapons sites. we have restrictions on that. that has to do with the sensitivity of material. we respect that. we have a way around that and some of that is going to be that international inspectors would work under the additional protocol and steps beyond that.
it has to do with who searches what when and how. so that is a big hangup. what is decided there is going to influence how much relief comes when in terms of sanctions. when people use the term immediate sanctions relief, they are kidding themselves. nothing is going to be really immediate here. this is going to be a very drawnout, very sequenced, almost slow process when it comes to rewarding iran for following through with compliance and what they say they are going to do. which is to verify they are not enriching beyond what they have agreed to and they are not trying to build a nuclear weapon. what your other guest was talking to in terms of weapon development, the united states and secretary kerry took a lot of flak for saying, the u.s. knows iran was trying to build a weapon and they stopped. that was the national intelligence estimate back in the early 2000. since that time, the u.s. has said, we do not need them to come clean, but we need them to
speak to the united nations about perhaps where they are now. and answering some outstanding questions. the reason that matters is that is going to equal sanctions relief. lyse: i want to pick up on what bret said. this is trust. that is because there is no trust. the iranians do not trust the americans and the americans do not trust the iranians. notwithstanding the historic nature of these negotiations with the possibility to end a 30-year diplomatic deadlock, but there is no trust. which is why president obama was saying that tonight this is not an agreement based on trust. it is based on an agreement. they have talked about unprecedented verification. this is what everybody talks about. this is what the iaea will be mandated to do. as margaret was saying, there are still a lot of details.
the sanctions are interesting. so much controversy about this. the supreme leader said we need all of the sanctions lifted immediately. that is not going to happen. there are so many different kinds of sanctions. whether european sanctions, sanctions that only can be lifted by congress, and security council sanctions. what i've heard from some iranians, they started thinking about, a lot of debate on iranian television. if the idea is talk to the negotiators, they understand there will be an implementation process which could take many months. what if we disable the reactor at the nuclear plant? and the americans decide, we do not want to lift those sanctions. then iran will be faced with developing a new reactor. they are saying it should be sequential. we don't trust you either. we've heard that they're coming up with some creative mechanism, because this is what it is all about a creative formula whereby , a situation where there is no
trust, that the two of them can watch each other warily. we are both hearing that they are making progress, but they are not there yet. margaret: if you had to boil it down, it is how much do they give, how much do they get, and how can both sides walk away saying they dominated without losing face? charlie: can they do that within a week? margaret: it's possible but what is negotiated here is not going to be a binding legal accord. charlie: yes. margaret: this is a political agreement. it has to go to the united nations. they have to work on the language of that. that is why secretary kerry was meeting with foreign minister lau brought todaylavrov today. russia has a veto right. they are key to the process and key to the implementation.
this has to go to international verification and then implementation. congress cannot really kill this deal. they can impair it and hurt it they can hurt the president's legacy but they cannot stop a , deal from being struck. lyse: it has to be watertight and bulletproof. once it is a deal once it is in black and white, they can't say that we forgot this. the deal is a deal and that is why it will take so long. it has to go through the lawyers. it is going to take a while. charlie: do you have the same kind of visions within iran between the ayatollah and others? seyed: there is not much difference between the supreme leader and president, but we have different factions opposing the deal, like republicans in the congress. charlie, i should say there is a big misinterpretation of the ayatollah's statement.
i red the text in persian very carefully. what he said, implementation of iranian commitments should be synchronized with lifting sanctions. it means the process should be step-by-step with proportionate reciprocation from its parties. each party. that is number one. number two, the issue of mistrust is completely correct. the mistrust is far beyond nuclear issues. however when we are talking , about weapons of mass destruction, we need to respect the fact, after the second world war, iran is the biggest victim of use of weapons of mass destruction. saddam hussein used chemical weapons. about 100,000 iranians were either killed or in jail. unfortunately the u.s. supported
saddam hussein and provided material and technology for saddam hussein to use weapons of mass destruction, killing and injuring 100,000 iranians. what bret said, it is completely incorrect, i am sorry to say. because all what bret said is about the implementation of additional protocol. if you are a member of additional protocol, yes, you have to declare the site and the building and the project. baran when was building projects was not a member of additional protocol. when iran was building, it was not member of additional protocol. if you are not a member of additional protocol and only a member of safeguard agreement, which iran is member and was member of safeguard agreement
charlie: since this began, the idea of where they are within reach of an agreement is a remarkable they have come that far and the two things that stand out, on the one hand, was the degree, and whether synchronization is the right word or not, how the sanctions would be lifted. secondly, the level of inspection. those two things seem to be more than anything else. there are some concerned about concern about how iran will be able to continue doing research. how fast they could move when restrictions were over. it seems to me that they have come a long way and there is some optimism they can get this done. lyse: it is extraordinary how just far they have come. if you compare negotiations to where they were more than a year
ago before the administration came to power. i remember going to the caza city of almighty cokazak city of aalmaty wendy sherman took pains to say , we did not have bilateral talks with the americans. everything was through translation. everything was at a snail's pace. since the new administration came to power, there has been a whole new energy into these talks. look at these photographs. they are laughing around the table. there are personal relationships that have been built. there is a whole new chemistry. you are talking for 14 hours a day for weeks on end. john kerry has set records for the hours he has spent negotiating. you do have to find a way to get
through it on a personal level. and, yes you mentioned all of , those things. we will not go through them in this half-hour. they have really come far in terms of trying to wrestle, one of the big security challenges of our time. therefore trying to curb iran's , ability to develop the materials to produce a bomb. they call it the breakout time not less than a year that iran was veering from its commitment, that it was pursuing a bomb, they have a year that they can actually use what they call a snapback. this is all built into the agreement. if things start going wrong, they have a way to put it right. that is a critical disagreement. look at the images coming out of iran.
a new younger generation which , not only does not want the sanctions, but it wants to be part of the wider world. it wants to engage. there is a bigger question, is this going to embolden iran or is this going to lead us to and an iran that will engage with the region? even some of the supporters and critics would say, this kind of a deal, it removes the barrier that iran can sit around the table and will no longer be an enemy. it will be a rival, and you can talk to iran. but all of these huge security problems that are shattering the middle east. charlie: you have followed john kerry. he has been a bulldog, persistent, showing a remarkable sense of endurance in pursuit of the middle east peace and the first same thing here. take us inside the mind of john
kerry who is the point person for the united states. margaret: wow. you asked earlier -- you are going to get me in trouble charlie. i will say that you know, you asked if john kerry and the administration were too eager for a deal. the administration is really sensitive to that question. they would tell you that if we were eager we would have brokered this thing a long time ago and have gone home. these negotiators have been in this palace behind me for a good month and have not talked to their families or have seen them except over skype and the like. the thing that is harder for them to defend against is the accusation that they are perhaps part of wishful thinking. that is something john kerry has been accused of quite often. which is the ideal that something can be done about this. that if you just try hard enough, spent enough push hours, diplomacy hard enough you can come to an agreement. it is hard to think -- you
compared it to middle east peace with the israelis and palestinians. it is hard to think of a more difficult question. but on this diplomacy, just so many pieces that have to be aligned. these are world powers. these are security council partners, and then you get germany and then you get iran and you have so many layers. when you ask about john kerry, his top advisers will tell you it is about 60-40. far from guaranteed, but they are determined to see this through. he just had some pretty significant surgery and a pretty significant injury, having a bone broken in three places. as i said, he has brought physicians with him. he is here because it is such a key mission. he is determined to see this through because they cannot only be legacy making for the president, but this is potentially nobel prize winning
material for a secretary of state. not only for him but for iran's chief diplomat. that is what people speculate, right? but i do not think that is meaning this is a foregone conclusion. this is a really hard bargain. charlie: as a critic of this administrations negotiating tactics and strategy do you , believe they want it too much? bret: yes, i do. i think the president sees this as his nixon to china moment. secretary kerry sees this as his kissinger to china moment. it is in many ways a very tempting analogy. charlie: if they were successful, it would be. bret: this is why it will not be, and let me just explain for a second. charlie: if they could get iran to give up nuclear ambitions that would be a huge --
bret: if iran gave up its nuclear ambitions, iran can also be brought out from the cold. that was part of the china game in the early 1970's. to raise or lift the bamboo curtain and bring china into the modern world and it was very successful. may more successful than some might wish. there are basic differences between china in the early 1970's and iran today. the chinese desperately wanted an agreement with the west because they felt profoundly threatened by the soviet union. china had been ravaged by the cultural revolution and they took confidence building measures. you remember the famous ping-pong games between the american and the chinese players. look at what the iranians are doing today. they are seizing cargo strips in the strait of hormuz. our fellow reporter is on trumped up espionage charges.
he should be freed immediately as a precondition to the deal. i think the iranians think they are playing against a weak administration desperate for a deal they are winning on most of their regional fronts, and winning this nuclear negotiation is part of that. i do not see this deal moderating iran's behavior. i see it emboldening them. that is the centerpiece of my opposition. charlie: how would this deal changed behavior can and have a larger impact on iran, the world, and the united states. seyed: i believe we cannot resolve all differences, animosities between iran and the u.s. about many different issues, from the israeli peace process, human rights, regional
issues. only through nuclear deal. it is really only unrealistic to imagine we can resolve everything through nuclear. on the nuclear we need to be , realistic. iran and the world powers have already agreed the criteria for a deal and confidence building would be nonproliferation treaty, which there is no more dispute left. about every measures, we have seen nonproliferation treaty. charlie, we should have in mind all differences remain today. it is about measures beyond international rules and regulations. i would say a nonproliferation we need to be sincere and transparent. look at the reality. israel is the only country in the middle east with about 400 nuclear bombs. no other country has nuclear bombs in the middle east. the u.s. has established
strategic relations with pakistan, india, and israel. which they have not accepted nonproliferation treaty, and they have hundreds of nuclear bombs and the u.s. is putting all pressures, sanctions coercions against iran, which does not even have one singular nuclear bomb. therefore, here is -- there is a very clear double standard. however, at the end, i believe the direct talks between iran and the u.s. will bring a huge change too many issues in the region. after 35 years, we have foreign ministers negotiating one of the major differences, they are almost 90% done. they are very close to a final deal. if they can resolve the nuclear dispute within the framework of international rules and regulations, i believe iran and the u.s. would be able to open a dialogue on regional issues.
iran and the u.s. have many commonalities. stability in afghanistan is a commonality between iran and the u.s. that is why iran and the u.s. for 10 years have supported the same government in afghanistan. the stability in iraq is commonality between iran and the u.s. that is why after after 2003 the fall of saddam, they have supported the same government. fighting isis, fighting extremism is the commonality between iran and the u.s. practically in the air, the u.s. is leading airstrikes and on the ground, iran is leading strike against isis. therefore i believe we have too , much commonality, common interests. the only way is diplomacy. the nuclear should be resolved within the nuclear proliferation treaty.
nuclear weapon. we do not want a nuclear weapon. it is almost a mantra. why are we going through this? why wouldn't you say we don't want a nuclear weapon so let's do whatever we can to prove to you that we don't want a nuclear weapon. seyed: exactly this is what iran has already done. iran has accepted already everything we have seen at the maximum level. there is nothing internationally more than what iran has accepted. second, iran has accepted many measures beyond npt, like capping the enrichment at 5% like having no reprocessing like exporting spent fuel. no other country has accepted such limits. iran has excepted. therefore, iranians have shown goodwill and in practice, they have shown they are really serious.
but let me bring you to one very important historical issue to believe why iran is not after a nuclear bomb. when iranians were bombed by saddam by chemical weapons, when 100,000 iranians were killed or injured during war 1980-1988 the military went to the supreme leader and asked him to reciprocate with chemical weapons. that time, the supreme leader said, reciprocation with weapons of mass distraction is wrong because it is forbidden religiously, because based on islam we believe all weapons of mass destruction are for bid in. forbidden.
i would say if a nation during more is attacked by chemical weapons, iran did not reciprocate with chemical weapons. this is the best proof and the best objective guarantee to believe this nation is not after weapons of mass destruction. charlie: i am sure that bret stephens is listening and saying if that is true, why so much , absence of transparency and hidden sites that were only discovered later and confirmed after they had been discovered? seyed: you are right charlie. i said that time iran was a member of the safeguard agreement. based on this agreement, you have to inform iaea only when you want to introduce gas to centrifuges. you don't need to inform them before. if you are member of additional protocol, you need to inform everything from day one. this is something the public opinion should know that iran did not hide. iran was not legally obliged to
inform everything from day one. however, iran today has accepted everything at the maximum level of transparency at the maximum level of npt and iaea regulations, and there is no suspicious from the p5+1 about today's iranian nuclear program. the issues that bret mentioned are related to the 1980's, not about the current nuclear program. charlie: let me give bret a chance to -- bret: -- bret: look, secretary kerry and i disagree about all kinds of things, but one area where we agree completely is that iran
has thought to develop nuclear weapons and the quantity of information available on that score is remarkable, and all of this does not come from shady sources. this comes from the international atomic energy agency. a very public report on 2011. i am told that what is in the confidential domain is vastly more extensive. it would help if the iranians come clean. charlie: one of the articles -- lyse and margaret can help me understand this -- i am told one of the arguments being made is the iranians' release of a full explanation of their prior behavior and prior nuclear activities. is that correct? margaret: that is one of the more difficult questions. the iaea has a lot of outstanding questions that it wants answered about what iran has done in the past. what is being negotiated now is
how to stop development in the future, how to freeze things for 10 years, and what to do after time period. one way around this is those international inspectors could perhaps question scientists under so-called managed access. it is a very technical term with a specific meaning. it is basically limiting the access of inspectors, but still allowing them some to verify whether iran has any development going on after this point. but the united states of america and their intelligence agencies concluded that iran stopped trying to build a weapons program as of 2003. they continue to enrich, but they believe the weapons development specifically stopped years ago. this is what american diplomats would tell you. they had a covert program, they
had enrichment which really raise concerns, really raised issues and that is why you have those difficult statements from secretary kerry that u.s. officials tried to walk back a few weeks ago. when he said we know what they did in the past. we are worried about their future. it is not so much coming clean, they are not asking for that. it would be too difficult for iran to do in these negotiations, but they do want some questions to be answered. lyse: the number is 18 -- they have a list of 18 scientists that they want to question about the past programs. but what iran is saying, listen in the past, we give you names of scientists and they were killed. charlie: exactly. lyse: so they are saying, we cannot give you the names of the scientists because it will enter the public documents and their lives will be at risk. that is their argument.
the iranians are saying, listen when it comes to the 10-year ban on severe limits on the research and development program, what happens in year 11? the phrased used by a is that our scientists have to keep thinking and they have to keep developing and we do not want to be pushed , so far backward, as what they describe as a civilian nuclear program. these are the kind of details they are discussing. they are highly scientific and deeply political. charlie: i have one question, but brett wanted to object to -- bret: the 2007 national intelligence estimates claiming that iran had abandoned its nuclear programs has largely been repudiated by the iaea and the american intelligence community. the problem is in getting bogged down with a lot of these technical details, we are getting away from the question of the nature of the iranian regime. frankly, i would say that if
iran really wants to build confidence on the nature of its program, free people who are imprisoned, open up their -- who are under house arrest six years after the fact, make it clear that iran is a country that is interested in a new direction. the reason these negotiations are so difficult is that we are not negotiating with belgium. ok? we are negotiating with a country with an extensive track record of not being a peaceloving nation. if this regime wants to build confidence, he can start with some domestic measures at home. which by the way would empower the very iranian people that they sympathize with. seyed: look, brett, let's
imagine iranians would come to negotiation table and when you say iran should address other issues not related to nuclear, then let's imagine iranians would come to the negotiation table and would tell john kerry, you made a coup against iran and removed a democratically elected prime minister and installed a dictator for 25 years. you americans, you supported a shaw, corrupted dictators for 25 years. you americans have always supported corrupt regimes in the middle east. all of your principal values you are talking about, human rights. which one of your allies, like saudi arabia, they are committed to these values?
if iranians and tell americans, look you have assassinated our nuclear scientists, then what is going to happen? we cannot resolve all issues of differences, 35 years of mistrust, only through one nuclear negotiation. when we are talking about nuclear, the criteria for confidence building measures is international rules and regulations. which is npt, which are run has accepted everything in npt. we are not going to get anywhere if you are going to bring all other issues. charlie: is his presence there significant? margaret: yes.
also at these talks, the chief nuclear scientist, the head of the department of energy. he and the top nuclear scientist in iran say they have a great rapport. charlie: i think they went to m.i.t. together. lyse: they both were m.i.t. trained. they did not know each other but they had the same mentor which is really interesting. they bonded on that. perhaps on some of the very technical elements, which is where they are now in the negotiations having him here , could make a difference. all eyes were on him when he came back. he made that clear to john kerry. he came back and he did bring the chief scientist, who had been through two operations. it wasn't clear whether he would be well enough to come. he was absolutely -- it was critical that he be here because he is the chief scientific brain
for the iranian side of the negotiation. he brought the brother of the president, who is very close to the foreign minister. of course, he is also the brother of the president. so you have political cover. finally, he brought his wife. everyone said, he must really be here to make a deal because he has brought along his wife. three people -- science, politics, and his family. key ingredients for a deal. if indeed there is a deal to be done. charlie: so there is this question. often the president will say think about the alternative. if these talks fail, really fail not just kicking the can , down the road, they agree they will never agree, what is the consequences of that failure to come to an agreement? seyed: i believe the consequences would be extremely negative.
look, charlie, the middle east is that the verge of collapse. iran is the most stable powerful country in the middle east. the u.s. is the most influential foreign country in the middle east. therefore, if a deal collapsed imagine these two regional international powers are going to go to a greater confrontation. politically, economically militarily covertly intelligence -- you can imagine with such a shaky region what will happen. therefore, i believe we have only one choice -- diplomacy. to resolve the nuclear through international rules and regulations. tunic andto continue negotiations between iran and the u.s. for peace and stability in the region. charlie: lyse, i see you
everywhere. give us a sense of how closely the rest of the world is watching this and what are the ramifications of a failure. lyse: the failure will resonate on a number of levels. first of all on the level of diplomacy. never has the middle east seen seen so many protracted conflicts conflicts with which we can see no solution in sight. therefore, you have one where there is a fighting chance that diplomacy can work. if this does not work, they will go home and say, we exhausted the diplomacy. we did everything we could. we have to say, sorry, there was not a negotiated solution to this. then of course, then we are back to all options on the table, including military options. we know there are countries who would like to, preferred to believe the best way forward is a military option to deal with iran. secondly, we ask this question
repeatedly, what will be the consequence of iran being brought into the international fold? at least when it comes to a deal on its nuclear program. the jury is still out. i think people are really clear. i have not heard a single person saying the opposite, if they don't get a deal, then i think the instability in the middle east will have yet another layer because iran's hard-liners, who have always begin against the deal, and the supreme leader have always been suspicious of the united states, that will be further deepen, and that will be in what is already a combustible mix in which iran is a key and a growing player. therefore i think the idea is it gets them around the table so you can discuss some of these issues rather than fighting it out. charlie: bret? bret: iran is the greatest agent
of instability in the middle east. you just have to ask the people of syria who have been attacked by chemical munitions. the shiite organizations in iraq support we learned in the new york times that iran is a major agent of instability and fear and if the deal were to , fail, ok, and if it were to fail for good reasons, at least american allies in the middle east, whether they are arab or the israelis, could take comfort in knowing that this president does have some red lines. it would help us. it is true we would have to walk away from this phase of diplomacy, but it is wrong to say, charlie that we would then have only the option of war. we would most likely return to a coercive phase of diplomacy.
that is also part of the playbook. maybe the iranians would recognize they have to take this administration more seriously than they have in the past. right now one gets the feeling that the iranians can walk over both mr. kerry and mr. obama because those two gentlemen are so desperate for a legacy-making foreign policy achievement. charlie: we end with you margaret brennan. what are the big stakes here and what are the consequences -- we talked about success and now failure? lyse: when it comes to the repercussions, the resistance and the skepticism and hostility towards the deal among the gulf states has not been mitigated at all by the camp david meeting. there is a danger of proliferation. there is a risk that this will increase the tensions. that is one of the main fault
lines in the region sadly right now. margaret: it is an important point. the gulf states have been quieter about their opposition. it does not mean they are for it. it means they are still waiting to see the final text. which is what the air of diplomats would say to you. it is a different position than what the israelis have taken. maybe you come back. maybe you have a stronger hand. maybe you renegotiate this with another president in the office. what does this mean? i think it means that you have both sides here continuing to push because both sides really want it. the iranians need it and the americans will like it and the world community would really like to try to negotiate this through. but this, the obama administration officials will tell you, this is a transaction and they do not think it will be transformational. everyone is hoping this will change the balance of power in the middle east, and perhaps there is a new face.
perhaps iran would look different in 10 years when its nuclear program becomes unfrozen at the end of this. that perhaps the leadership, that perhaps the young generation in the streets more , pro-american would have more power and be more empowered. the critics would tell you you are unlocking a lot of cash, and maybe you are giving a lifeline to a regime that should not remain in power. the conservative there. it is totally unclear and that is why it is so fascinating to watch this diplomacy play out. we will not know the answer for years to come. even if they can make that july 7 deadline. i don't know. i don't know if they will get there, but i think there is a good chance of it. charlie: i may have to come back to you. margaret thank you so much. lyse, we want to and welcome you here anytime you have time to join us. seyed hossein mousavian, thank you so much for the perspective and the experience you brought
rishaad: it is thursday july two, i am rishaad salamat and mrs. trending business. rishaad: we are going to be life in sydney, tokyo, and mumbai. a wild ride as shanghai stocks continue to swing despite the announcement of regulations. the index fell to a three month low. australia's trade deficit meeting in may was worse than expected. it has been revised above $4
billion. the crisis in greece new polls suggest a yes vote. angela merkel says these are turbulent times and the world is watching. follow me on twitter for more of our top stories. let's look at china's markets. fluctuating back to positive territory, it is so volatile. the securities regulating has stepped in. it doesn't quite work. stephen: the market is down again. it has been a choppy start to trade and shanghai. it opened higher but now down. the chinese regulator set in to boost the market after the rate cut.