tv Charlie Rose PBS August 26, 2017 12:00am-1:01am PDT
>> rose: welcome to the program. it is the end of summer and as we prepared for the next season we bring you some of our favorite conversations here on charlie rose. tonight a conversation with mohammad javad zarif of foreign affairs. >> i believe everybody should come together and actually fighting these extremists idealogies and fighting them does not mean only military, this is much deeper. it should be a comprehensive strategy to deal with extremism and terrorism. extremism and terrorism emanate from lack of heart. in addition to an ideology based on hatred and exclusion. there is the necessary fertile ground from which these
idealogues or in fact demagogues recruit new soldiers, new terrorists. we need to draw that. >> rose: the foreign minister of iran for the hour next. >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by the following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: mohammad javad zarif is here. he has served as iran's minister
o f foreign affairs since 20 13. he was iran's chief negotiator in the nucleic deal reached in 2015. on monday president trump certified that iran was in compliance with the joint comprehensive plan of action but on tuesday the administration now new sanctions saying the united states will continue to aggressively target iran's malign activity including their ongoing state support of terrorism, ballistic missile program and human rights abuses. this is minister zarif's 12th time at this table. i'm pleased to have him back on the program. welcome. >> good to be back. >> rose: lots have happened since the last time i saw you. characterize for me today how you think the relationship is between iran and the united states. >> the united states has a hostile policy towards iran for sometime and this administration is pursuing a more hostile policy. it's a misguided policy i think the allegations against iran are tired and don't stand any test
in reality. and i think it would be best for the united states, the u.s. should just look for its achievements, quote/unquote in our region and see what it has achieved. maybe all the wrong choices. its allies are accusing each other supporting terrorism. 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's dealing with important issues of stability and insecurity in our region and decide for itself where it wants to stand. >> rose: as you know in the conference or the summit, saudi arabia and some of the arab state allies asked the united states to join them in isolating iran. they believe you're engaged in these activities that the united states suggests you are as well.
>> i just want to ask you who are behind the 9/11 terrorists attacks. >> rose: who do you think was behind it. was it individuals or was it an act by the state of saudi arabia. >> we certainly know individuals came from saudi arabia, 15 of them. we also know the ideology came from saudi arabia. if you change the -- the ideology. if you just check from 2001 to now or even from 1 998 to now a lmost 94% if not more of terrorists incidents throughout the world has been instraw gated and perpetrated by people with that school of thought which is the official ideology of saudi arabia and promoted upon billions of billions of petro dollars across
the globe spreading extremism everywhere. it's unfortunate because we believe that we need to have good relations with our neighbors and we want to have good relations with our neighbors. but they need to decide about their policy. unfortunately for the united whether they're buying thosek beautiful military equipment from the united states or not. >> rose: do you think that's a test for the united states. >> i believe it was stated by the president that he did not go to saudi arabia before he made sure that all those years were on the table. >> rose: because he thinks it will create jobs is the reason he gives for the effort to sell weapons to saudi arabia. may i just go back. >> it's good that they create jobs. but that should not be the yard stick that supports terrorism. >> rose: one thing i hoped to have with you and i think it's interesting for the american people is, what is exactly a terrorist and who is a terrorist? for example, al-qaeda is a terrorist organization, you would agree? >> yes. >> rose: isis is a terrorist organization, you would agree. >> yes. >> rose: hezbollah is a terrorists organization you would agree. >> no i wouldn't. >> rose: they are on the terrorists list.
>> they are on the united states t errorists list. >> rose: and others. >> no. again, let's supply a yard stick. let's take the united nations as an acceptable mechanism, an acceptable machinery to define for you who is a terrorist and who is not. accept something, we cannot accept the united states being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury, the executioner everything rolled into one. i believe it is important. we cannot have various yardsticks but one would be to see who is under the list of terrorists states or terrorists in the security council and the united states is permanent member of the security council. we have no laws in the security council. the security council considers taliban, al-qaeda, isis as terrorists organizations. >> rose: so does iran. each one of those four, so does iran.
>> yes. but unfortunately u.s. allies. saudi arabia and the united arab e mirates were two or three states recognize taliban before the united states overthrew them after 911. saudi arabia were those. i don't want to engage in saudi bashing. i'm talking about the united states accusing iran of supporting terrorism while its own allies have been on the record. now they are exposing each other about who was first in supporting isis and other terrorist organizations. >> rose: let's make sure i have time to raise questions of america. do you believe that saudi arabia supports al-qaeda. do you believe saudi arabia s upports, take one,
supports which has new names now. do you believe saudi arabia supports isis? >> i believe that a lot of saudi money -- >> rose: not by the government. >> in fact some of them are in c harge oaf saudi intelligent services we know al-qaeda when they engaged the soviets was a child of saudi intelligence services. taliban will recognize, the taliban government which was sponsored al-qaeda was only recognized by three states. two of them were united states and even ruts. >> rose: the other was pakistan you said. >> that's a neighbor. i don't want to deal with them because they have their own because as a neighbor they have a problem. but for saudi arabia and the united arab emirates because s taying far away because pakistan isn't able and some other countries in the former soviet
union are neighbors. but saudi arabia and united emirates are not even close but they support it. they recognize it. the money, and it's clear, just ask any intelligence person money that went to isis, most of it came from these countries. well more importantly -- >> rose: not from the government per se. >> well, that is to be investigated. i'm not here to accuse anybody. we've been accused by a lot of people about a lot of things and i don't know whether it's good to accuse people. what i'm saying is the ideology came from saudi arabia. all of these people belong to the ideology that is promoted officially by unfortunately the government of saudi arabia and it's being spread across the world. and everybody who engages in acts of terror in one way or another has been affected by that. >> rose: but you had the summit in which there was a call
for in a sense for a recognition of where radical extremists terrorism was coming from. and that within islam, there had to be an understanding of what elements of who are using the religion or hijacking the religion to engage in terrorists activities and all muslim should be opposed, whether shi'a or sunni. >> i would agree with that and i would applaud such an effort n >> rose: that's what they said. >> i believe everybody should come together and actually fighting these extremists idealogies and 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
from which these idealogues or demagogues recruit new soldiers or terrorists. the way to do it is to provide identity, to provide hope, to provide dignity, and to provide economic future. these are what's lacking in the r egion and beyond. >> rose: when you look today what does iran want? what roll does it want to play in the world? >> iran is a country that has been able to survive despite pressure, despite the war, despite sanctions. we've 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 university. but we made advances for one reason. we're content with our size, with our geography, with our national resources. >> rose: and you have global ambitions. >> we did not have global ambitions and most importantly we rely on our own people. we do not rely on foreigners for our independence, for our security, for our economic process. we would like to work with the outside but we did not rely on them. we derive our security from our people. we derive our legitimacy from our people. remember that secretary mattis the other day said that iran presidential election are a sham because somebody chose who
should run in the presidential election. people in iran waited in line for 10 hours to work for a sham. or even worse. people in los angeles waited in line for four hours. >> rose: he brought up another fact, people who want to run. you're talking about the ability of those allowed to run. >> 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 through which some who may not be qualified for the job could be eliminated. >> rose: they were too moderate in their views to be allowed. >> the fact is in all democracy
you have a process through which candidates are excluded. now, here you have the primaries and the caucuses. >> rose: they're all allowed to run in the primary. they were excluded because they lost. >> you still need a number of signatures to be on the ballot. so every place you have a mechanism. i do not want to engage in interference with other countries but as an observer not as foreign minister, i can tell you if you do not have money, if you do not necessary financial contributions from big corporations or from others, you may not be able to stand for an election in many -- >> rose: or like bernie sanders who had a very successful campaign. he primarily raised money from -- >> -- at the end of the day and i have a lot of respect for senator sanders. at the end of the day, what is
important you have people who believe united states only members of this establishment can run. people can make a lot of allegations. at the end of the day it's for the american people to decide if they have the necessary choice and they show that by coming to the polls. iranians could have stayed home. if they want to stay home in iran or if they want to stay home in los angeles, just answer this question. why would iranians having lived in the united states for generations stand in line for four hours in los angeles in order to run for a sham election. >> rose: let me tell you why. there is always a love for the soil where you were born. >> no no. but you do not engage in a few
-- futile exercise. the love of my compatriates who live in the united states, unfortunately they've been insulted by president trump in the must limb ban. >> rose: by the revolution in a sense and maybe they lost property or some other things. >> just a small segment and that's a historical fact and there are procedures to redress that. but at the same time these people who live in the united states not simply out of love for their country but out of the recognition that they had a real choice. >> several things about that influence. i mean the german intelligence says that you still have great desire to have a nuclear capability. >> we do have nuclear capability
but we have foregone a nuclear weaponnage. >> rose: did you do that because of the sanctions. >> no. we did that long before the sanctions started. i believe the sanctions were misguided and misplaced and did not -- >> rose: conventional wisdom by almost everybody you were hurting so badly by the sanctions that you were willing to come to the negotiating table and you will take the sanctions away, we will agree. >> charlie. i presented a proposal to the french, the britts and the germans on march 23rd, 2005, before all these sanctions were presented, at that time i was ambassador here at the un and i was the nuclear negotiator. the chief negotiator is our current president and i was negotiating on his behalf. i presented the proposal which is very similar to the final
deal that we reached ten years later. >> rose: why did it take that time to do it. >> i tell because at that time the ambassador was sitting in the state department preventing that deal from taking shape and today -- >> rose: representing the bush administration. >> representing the bush administration and today he's trying to do that all over again. >> rose: he's not part of the government. >> i know. there are quite a few of them. >> rose: there's great division about the nuclear deal as you know. >> i understand. the sanctions did not bring iran to the negotiating table. the united states decided that it's zero enrichment options which it had pursued from 2003 to 2013 was not going to get it anything. what did sanctions produce. it produced a lot of economic hardship. i grant you that. but was that the objective of the sanctions or was it to
change iran's policy. >> rose: what do you think? >> i think it was to change irn's policy. >> rose: on nuclear weapons. >> no. on centrifuges because everybody knew, 2007 you have a national intelligence estimate. nie, 2007 states that iran is no longer from their perspective no longer, i'm trying to be accurate but in 2001, this is during bush administration before obama, nie established that iran is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. >> rose: everybody in the obama administration thought you were pursuing nuclear weapons. john kerry thought that and the negotiator thought that and he has said that. >> nobody is -- nobody -- they
make a wrong assertion. the iaei, the narc atomic energy agency established in established in november of 2015 that the so-called possible military dimensions of iran's nuclear program -- >> rose: let me ask you about a shi'a crescent. it is said who is your es steanld leader who i understand reports to the supreme leader, you can help me understand where his level of reportage goes to 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, 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 that has continued, that has only brought misery and despair to our region. there's no attempt to create a crescent or corridor, iran has simply come to the aid of countries that have been fighting extreme subpoena and terrorism. >> rose: you didn't come to the aid of lebanon you keep to the aid of hezbollah. >> no. it wasn't hezbollah territory that was occupied. it was lebanonese territory that was found. >> rose: by the syrians. >> no by the israelis. >> rose: also by the syrians. >> the syrians were in lebanon at the consequence of in which
we had no roll. it was their decision, it wasn't our decision. it was a decision they took, they invited them to go and then they asked them to leave so they did. but here i represent iran and no other country. i believe we are there in order to help people fight storm. you see these arguments have been negated time and time agan and no one observes that -- is a part of shi'a crescent. how would you explain, in 2014, isis was within hours of occupying -- >> rose: and very close to baghdad. now we went to the aid of both.
>> rose: by doing what. >> by sending our advisors. >> rose: they were more than advisors were they not? >> no, no. >> rose: general suleiman was there. >> yes, he was there with weapons and advisors. it's the people of iraq who are fighting the terrorism. it was the kurdish people who fought terrorism. they needed support, they needed help they needed people to help organize them and we were there within two hours. they should tell me where in that crestent the iraq -- these are just fear mongering scenarios, narratives that are created to, that are prevent, elaborated, articulated in order
to discriminate fear. this is not what we asked for. we have asked, we have called for a political solution in syria where everybody, shi'a, sunni, christians, jews, everybody would participate in the running of the government. this is what we want. >> rose: what do you think of president bashar assad and what's happened to syria. >> it's none of my business to think about president bashar, it's the people of syria. we should provide them with the opportunity to decide for themselves. >> rose: it's none of your business, that's, for you to say that is in a sense -- >> i'm making no no no. >> rose: it's not his business no matter what he does. >> i think what happens in syria has been the consequences of people outside syria imposing
red lines from this gentleman or another gentleman or lady should or should not be in the government. >> rose: the issue was the use of chemical weapons. >> we reject the use of chemical weapons. >> rose: iran more than any other contemporary because what happened to you in the iraq-iran war should be at the top of the list people saying if syria uses chemical weapons it's a crime against humanity. >> we said that. >> rose: you shouldn't be supporting a regime that uses chemical weapons. >> you got to stop there because who has established that. i cannot accept the united states which is a party to the conflict along with its allies -- >> rose: you're a party -- >> no, that is why you don't have to listen to me. you have to establish a
independent international monetary mechanism to go and check. this is what we called for. the day after the obligation of the use of chemical weapons which was followed unfortunately by a huge military operation by the united states, we scrd the international community to send the delegation to investigation on side both the place of the alleged attack as well as the air base where the alleged the chemical weapons were loaded on to the airplanes to go and check. chemical weapons, we were subject to the use of chemical weapons. we invited the united nations to start the investigation. and should i remind you that six times or seven times the un established that iraq had used chemical weapons against iran and not a single time the united states not a single time did the
united states allow the security council to condemn so i don't buy this -- >> rose: because they did not vote against it when it was used against you. >> they did not, prevent it. it's more than that, they prevented it, they actively -- >> rose: used their veto. >> they didn't get it to a vote to use their veto. this is the sad irony of history. for us in iran we've been very clear. we condemn the use of chemical weapons no matter who uses them or against whom it's used. pure and simple. >> rose: but you deny -- >> don't expect me to accent an allegation by the united states. we have asked for an investigation for an international impartial investigation of who used them. i'm not saying what happened because i wasn't there. >> they have video, they have
everything else. >> they have video of the victims. >> rose: they have video -- >> and my hard -- >> rose: they have victims of sarin gas. do you know what sarin gas does. >> nobody knows better than we do what sarin gas does because here in new york i testified patients who had been victims of sarin gas. >> rose: from iran. >> from iran and -- i received them from kennedy airport i took them to hospitals i showed them to diplomats and nobody gave a damn. >> nobody issued a deck claireation in condemnation of the use. the i know what sarin gas is, i believe me i do. >> rose: therefore you should be the most dominant ma tech list argument against it and holding countries who use it to account. >> to account, exactly. and we are prepared to do that.
>> rose: how many years has it been -- >> providing there is an internal investigation establishing the fact. >> rose: in our case the facts -- you doubt the facts. >> yes. >> rose: you doubt the fact -- that's one example -- >> this is the latest exam public. >> rose: the united states responded. >> the united states responded. >> rose: we're talking about a war that's gone on for six years. >> yes, it's a war that should have stopped long time ago. i presented a plan in 2013 to end the war. it incorporated -- and not for people outside who should be in
it and who should be it. i said you're putting the cart before the horse because if you're talking about constitutional reform it may come up with a parliament tree system. >> rose: the city and people should decide. >> after they decide about the government they should decide who is in it. so for people to have prolonged this 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 council resolution 2243 on syria which unfortunately was adopted two years later or more
than two years later. so we're talking about real situations. we need to bring these conflicts in it. we need to bring the war in syria to an end. we need to bring the senseless bomb -- >> rose: how do we bring the war in syria to an end. >> exactly as i said cease-fire. >> rose: cease-fire now and that small region will hold? >> well, there is a deescalation in three larger regions that russia and turkey sponsor ed six months ago and it's holding more or less. you see the amount of suffering and killing of the syrian people has been drastically reduced since december of last year when this initiative by iran and turk ehab in place and we think it l of syria except for fighting ainst isis recognized by the security council organization and who cannot be a part of
cease-fire. >> rose: do you believe that iran and russia and america can work together to change syria. >> i think everybody should work together in order to end this tragedy in syria. >> rose: are you presented and would like to work with the united states and russia. >> we were a member of the international syria support group which included united states and russia. we did not hesitate -- and also this included countries in the region because you will not be able to do this without the support and assistance of other countries in the region. i do not believe you will be able to end the conflict without saudi arabia, without turkey, you will not be able to end the conflict in syria without egypt and you will not be able to end the conflict in syria. but most importantly you will not be able to end the conflict in syria without the syrians.
at the end of the day, the syrians should decide. the hess of -- rest of us should facilitate. >> rose: did you approve russia coming in and they always make the point they were invited in by the assad government. but were you okay with russia coming in to prop up the assad government when it was almost tottering? >> it wasn't. when they came to sierra it was a much better position than 2012, 2013. you're talking about about comparisons about relative situations. but that is not a debate you want to engage or for me to debate. what we have said very clearly is that we do not interfere in
the decision by a sovereign government. i give you an even clearer example. we disagree with the united states but we do not intervene against united states cooperating with the iraq government. we have not intervened against that because we believe that's a decision the iraq government should make. we may oppose it but it is their decision. >> rose: would you encourage the government of iraq to make sure that sunni, members of the sunni islam do not be shut out from government so that they do not see what we have seen time after time. first al-qaeda and then isis come out of people who felt like
... >> exactly. we believe the iraqi government should be inclusive. >> rose: you encourage the iraqi government to do that. the maliki government did not do that and that was a very strong friend of iran. >> prime minister abadi is a strong friend of iraq. >> rose: true. >> every government in iraq thankfully has been a strong friend of iran and this is our advice to all of them. that iraq needs to be an inclusive government with all segments of the iraq population represented in the government. iran maintains extremely good relations with all segments of the iraqi population. we have very good relations with w ith the sunni in iraq , the speaker of the iraq parliament who is a sunni and basically needs the sunni in iraq because that's the highest -- >> rose: you do not deny do you or i'm asking that isis got support from sunni because they felt they had no voice in baghdad. >> well isis got support from
people who believe as i said these are the result of disenfranchisement. i wouldn't disagree with you the perception of not having a voice in society leads people to join these extremist groups. that's why i said in the beginning we need a comprehensive strategy to deal with these extremist groups and that comprehensive strategy includes certainly giving a voice to everybody. i think this is what the government of iraq is committed to. we heard it, you heard it from prime minister abadi. you heard it from the leaders of every community, in iraq. and this is something that iran will wholeheartedly support. and we want every other country in the region to engage with us and the iraqis and the united nations in order to support national unity in iraq. particularly now that we have these prospects of a referendum and centrifuge activities in various parts of iraq.
we need to call for unity and inclusion. >> rose: do we need to call for self determination for the kurds. >> i believe the kurds and the constitution of iraq have certain autonomy and i believe it is important. >> rose: within the constitution of iraq. >> within the constitution of iraq. >> rose: you're not in favor of them having self determination. >> i believe self determination is for all peoples. but the constitution of iraq the territorial integrity and national unity of iraq are of paramount important, very important for the kurdish population, very important for the rest of the iraq and very important for everybody. i believe there is consensus globally. >> rose: haven't you just said no to independence for the kurds? >> i believe that is a common view of not only myself but every other political leader in the region and outside the region. >> rose: kurds could not have independence.
>> that we should not have with the territorial integrity of the countries in the region including iraq. it is a dangerous domino would lead to greater instability. i think people will get much much more than they bargained for if they go this route. i believe this would be the beginning and not the end. and the beginning of a catastrophe if there is an attempt for separation. >> rose: what is the relationship you have with the russia government. >> we have very good relations with russia because russia is a >> we have very good relations with turkey government. we have some difference of view with turkish government on some regional issues but our relations with turkey are excellent. and we engage with turkey on
issues that we disagree with. including syria. we have engaged more closely probably with turkey on syria than any other country because we believe these issues should be dealt with through dialogue and multilateral discussions. iran, turkey and russia i said are parts of the process and we've been able to do some good. >> rose: this was before the election of 2016. occasionally i would hear someone say five to ten years now the united states will be closer to iran than it is to saudi arabia. >> we're not competing. >> rose: i believe the political world is changing. >> i think the united states need to reevaluate the achievements of the united states and the failures of the united states in our region. >> rose: but does iran -- >> and based on that
reassessment, it will see. the role and the place of various countries in the region. we're not competing with saudi arabia. we believe that iran and saudi arabia should be a part of a regional dialogue forum. i wrote an op ed in the "new york times" several years ago. >> rose: i remember. >> calling for a regional dialogue forum and i believe that is what's 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 because unfortunately this has become a habit of the united states to impose pressure or to impose direct pressure. >> rose: does this include israel. >> i'm modest, i'm talking about our immediate neighbor and that
is the persian gulf. in recent years from the iraqi invasion of iran to the iraqi invasion of kuwait to u.s. operations to liberate kuwait from iraq, to liberate operations from iraq. to al-qaeda, to daesh, to isis they all emanate from this region to yemen. let's concentrate. let's not be too ambitious. let's concentrate on this region. >> rose: no israel now. >> no. which has been the hot bed of war and violence and conflict. we are ready to deal witness, we are ready to resolve the problems, we are ready to engage in dialogue and confidence building measures. ould not look for an enemy. there is no need for an enemy. we don't need an enemy. we already have enough enemies. >> rose: so you don't see the united states as an enemy. >> i'm talking about our
immediate neighbor. the united states can be fine its relations with iran. at this time and for some time the united states has defined its relations to iran in terms of hostility. this is nothing new, not particular to this administration. unfortunately the united states has followed the hostile policy towards iran and it has received a reciprocal reaction. >> rose: would that include president obama. >> president obama pursued a very hostile policy towards iran for many years and then he came to the conclusion, he came to the conclusion towards the end of his administration that he needed to find a negotiated way only with regard to the nuclear issue while they continue their policies vis-a-vis -- >> rose: it was iran that insisted we don't want to talk about our behavior. you want the nuclear deal but you did not want to be on the
table, iranian behavior as the united states would define it as supporting extremism. >> well you see, we want to limit the immediate discussion to the nuclear issues to not to complicate it but it wasn't the issue of behavior because iran has even more grievances about 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. >> rose: right. >> where i predicted that u.s. invasion of iraq will lead to more extremism in our 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 issue needed to be resolved. it should not be further complicated by adding extraneous
elements. but if we can make progress on this issue to reduce the mutual lack of trust, then we can build on this issue to move to other issues that is why we said very clearly -- >> rose: is it possible -- >> unfortunately the behavior by the united states even during the obama administration but particularly since the new administration, with stuff taking place, statements coming from the whitehouse, yesterday even in order to certify that iran has complied, they made sure that they put some new designations against iran at the same time so they will prevent iran from benefiting from the economic dividends of the nuclear. this has been the persistent and consistent policy of this administration even of previous administrations. this administration is even more open in stating it.
i'm happy they are continuing o do business with iran. that's what's keeping the nuclear deal alive. i believe the nuclear deal is awe live because the rest of the world and iran want to keep it alive because it's a multilateral agreement and it's being kept alive by people who are engaging with iran and i believe it will continue to be so. i believe the united states in all honesty, somebody who has studied the united states for a very 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, to reassess where it went wrong, where it went this 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 concerns and we have concerns 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. >> rose: any time anyone knows you're going to be here and i talked to margaret brennan with cbs they bring up one case after another and it's like look that's up to the judiciary not to the branch of government. that's a human rights question. >> no. just ask -- i'll deal with that. but let us just make a comparison iraq under saddam hussein was not criticized for human rights violation. other governments in the region never heard of ballot boxes, never heard of a vote.
have no representatives. even have hardly any rights and nobody complains about their human rights. they are u.s. allies. are there human rights sanctions against any of your allies? why are they imposed on iran. >> rose: i'm just saying with respect to saudi arabia -- >> not a single saudi individual is dez ig nated by the united states and i don't like them to be designated because i don't believe it's the right policy. i don't want it's a wrong policy. just to compare not a single individual in saudi arabia where innocent human beings are beheaded should be on the human rights designation list in the united states. that tells you a lot about
these -- >> rose: it's only question of geo politics and -- >> it's only question of geo politics because we lived under the shah. i had to escape and come to the united states because of his violations of human rights. but did the united states -- >> rose: let's assume that the united states should speak out against and you're correct should speak out against human rights violations not only in its allies but also within its own country. >> human rights -- >> rose: human rights ought to be the guide regardless whether they're friend or foe. >> i agree. but human rights must be first and foremost a concern of each individual country for their own citizens because that is for iran, for instance, that is what we derive legitimacy where we derive our security, that's where we derive our economic well being and prosperity because we don't get that from
outside, with all the pressures, with all the wars and containments, we're making progress, we're number five in scientific in the field of nanotechnology. we're among the top ten in many areas of science and technology. we rely that, we achieve that by relying on our people. that is why -- >> rose: i would say to that good for you. >> yes, it is good for us but we get it inspite of the fact that we are under restrictions. that tells you about, that tells you something about our relations with our own people. now every country can improve its human rights record. >> rose: including iran. >> obviously including iran that is why the president of iran has put out a charter of the rights of the citizens. we believe that excesses exist,
we need to address them and this is an issue of national security policy because that's how we derive our legitimacy from our people so we have to respect them, pure and simple. this was one of the major topics during our election chain and we're very clear on that. >> rose: we have to do much better on human rights. >> much better but there are some in our region who are far far behind. but the united states never complains about them. they're not designated by the united states. they support terrorism not a single one of them is designated. they are sending terrorists to your territory in 9/11. >> rose: there were saudis but no one has proven they were sent by the saudi government. >> has anyone proven anything by the iranians -- did you not --
>> rose: wait a minute -- >> did you know that a court in new york condemned iran for participating in 9/11. find us $11 billion for participating in 9/11. come on. a court in new york. go read the court documents. a court in new york awardrd $11 billion to the victims of 9/11 against iraq. are you telling me nobody has proven saudi arabia was behind it. let me tell you something at that time you're familiar with. president trump band citizens of six countries from coming to the united states and included iraq. now iranians in the united states are outstanding citizens. >> rose: they are. >> they are outstanding members of their own community.
>> they were. >> good scientists. silicon valley may be not prosperous if it were not for iranian science. >> rose: if you want me to say and i just said iranians have come to the united states and made huge contributions. let me finish. to who we are. they made a huge contribution to the united states. >> how do you keep -- >> rose: so have immigrants from all over the world have come here. that's one of the values that united states stands for. do you agree with that. >> yes, i do and that is why it's mind-boggling for me to see that iranians have been singled out as one of the six countries in the ban, in the travel ban by president trouble. that's an affront to the entire iranian -- >> rose: does it therefore
cause you to have great respect for the american system that courts have said it cannot happen. >> actually at the end of the -- >> rose: the courts in the united states ruled against that. >> we applauded that but at the end of the day that decision -- >> rose: most americans believe that a ban is an affront to -- >> or nationality. >> rose: yes. >> i would agree with you. but president trump -- >> rose: i didn't speak for president trump. i can say though it's always a pleasure to have you here. i think when you're here and we have a conversation you and i and you and others and i may disagree or admire many things, 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 and both would be better off if they try to find common ground. and those things that are not in the best interest. >> we did come to common ground on the nuclear deal and i think the world is better for it and i hope people will stick to it because that's a good deal. and it can't be a better world because a deal at the end of the day is a give and take. and we gave some and the united states game some because that's the name of the game. and i think we need to recognize it's important recognition in this day and age that no one can win at the expense of others. maybe temporarily but that's not sustainable. sustainable gammons should be all inclusive.
should include everybody. that should apply to the iran nuclear deal and the situation in syria, it should apply to the situation in yemen and the security and cooperation in the persian gulf region. and i believe iran has shown its ready those to engage in all these places. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> good to be here. >> rose: come back soon. for more about this program and previous episodes visit us at pbs.org and charlierose.com.
♪ hello and welcome to kqed news room. i'm thuy vu. coming up on our show, one woman's mission to achieve social and economic justice. we talk to the new executive director of dream corps in oakland. first, local news. hours after a plan to rally in san francisco saturday, patriot prayer founder joey gibson is calling it off. he says he plans to hold a press conference instead, not far from the civic center. >> we have decided that tomorrow really seems like a set up. it doesn't seem face. a lot of people's lives are going to be in danger tomorrow. >> before making that is surprise announcement, gibson spoke to us about his philosophy and why he wants to come to the bay area.