News Wire with Ayza Omar | Saving Iran's Nuclear Deal | Irritants in Afghan Peace | Ep 109|

News Wire with Ayza Omar | Saving Iran's Nuclear Deal | Irritants in Afghan Peace | Ep 109|

the both sides as I said had complained complaints about each other we raised this today I think the atmosphere was constructive and the discussions were good I cannot say that we resolved everything but I saw I can say that there are lots of commitments to the jcpoa and its survival all remaining participants with JCP are still committed and you know determined to save this deal which is a big achievement of diplomacy in the recent years and we will continue our efforts in that direction hello and welcome to newswire I am I the OMA you just heard the Iranian official mr. Abbas out of she is speaking after that emergency meeting that was held in Vienna Austria with parties to Iran's 2015 nuclear deal now he said that as you heard it was a constructive meeting but there was still some unresolved issues he also said that there on will continue to reduce its nuclear commitments if Europeans failed to salvage the pact now Iran Iran has protested against the UK for seizing a super set of tanker Crace one in the past few weeks from the Strait of Hormuz and as a reaction even captured uk's oil tanker the sterner in Peru now tensions in the region have been on the rise since US President Donald Trump pulled out of the landmark deal last year that essentially lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for a halt to the nuclear weapons development program that they're on was pursuing now we have with us today mr. Mustafa Ishtam will be joining us from theron and of course mr. George Samuli from a Middle East expert joining us from Budapest but first let's go to our correspondent mr. olya Barrett who's been following this meeting joining us from London mr. Olli you've been following this meeting in Vienna what can you tell us about how it went in what was the sentiment like in the room I think it was clearly not easy in terms of the atmosphere between the representatives attending given the crisis between Britain and Iran but also other heightened tensions in the region as well all of that said Iran has described the meeting as constructive the deputy foreign minister Abbas Arad she saying that discussions were good he says that it wasn't a case of everything being resolved but he says there are lots of commitments to the Iran nuclear deal we also heard from some of the other officials attending China insisting that all parties have expressed their commitment to the jcpoa the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 and Beijing also saying that everyone in attendance expressed a strong opposition against the US unilateral imposition of sanctions so some sense there I think of how the meeting went in terms of the parties saying that they are committed to the Iran nuclear deal despite recent issues and they're also in opposition United in opposition against the recent United States position was there also an equation about Iran's Arak heavy water plant that Iran has recently announced that they're going to start working on that again certainly that would have been on the agenda and the UK in particular has warned previously that there would be consequences for Iran if there were to be any further movement in that direction and we have had these signatories to the Iran nuclear deal saying to Tehran that it would be best advised to keep to its commitments under the nuclear deal rather than head towards further potential breaches of it and clearly this meeting in Vienna was designed by the attendees to try and make sure Iran is aware that they still see a future for the deal they still want it to be kept – by the parties of the silh signed up to it including Tehran and there certainly would have been some pointed conversations I think some frank conversations around the table about that issue so is there any kind of indication that there will be a follow-up meeting soon after was there any mention of this conversation maybe reaching across the Atlantic next time taking also the u.s. on board well certainly all sides at the meeting in Vienna have agreed to keep diplomatic channels open to keep conversations going to as I say try and reiterate on an ongoing basis their commitment to the deal and part of that from countries like the UK and its European allies is about urging Iran not to step further away from the deal itself in terms of the Americans that is another matter entirely now it may well be that the strategy in Washington from the Trump administration is to take a very hard line pull out of the deal and try and restart some kind of negotiations about a different shaped deal there is some concern in Washington in some quarters that the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 was too narrow that it should have been much wider dealt with a much wider range of issues when it comes to Iran's behavior in the Middle East for example but in terms of future meetings that might include the United States know no mention of that no sense of that at this stage we're also looking very closely at the position of the United Kingdom now that we have a new prime minister Boris Johnson coming into Downing Street the UK at the moment insists it is still committed to the Iran nuclear deal but Boris Johnson will be watched very closely indeed to see whether he does start to align himself more closely with London on this issue thank you so much mr. or late mr. Mustapha if we can come to you this meeting and you heard the diplomat reigning diplomat there speaking about how it was in a way a constructive meeting but at the same time there were some commitments there were some issues that went unresolved but what he did say that we hear heard right now is that that all the members are committed to the jcpoa what is your take on how this meeting when you see any hope on the horizon hello thanks for having me well to be honest with you no because as far as I remember the European members of the jcpoa as well as China and Russia they have always been stressing their commitment to the deal of course they know that collapse of the nuclear deal would have three precautions for the European security and it will incur some costs on these nations but still they know that if they want to comply with their undertakings under the jcpoa especially the 11 areas that they promised tehran to cooperate in these areas they would have to stand out to the US and their ties with the US would deteriorate therefore they are trying to just give promises to Tehran since the u.s. abrogated the deal they have been stressing their political stance in support of the deal but when it comes to action real tangible action in providing Tehran with the economic merits of the deal that they promised to Tehran they do nothing ouch in all these jcpoa commission meetings they have always been stressing their undertakings and commitment to the jcpoa but as a result we have seen none zelgius so far even with regard to insects that's not even 1% of what they have promised to Tehran they have not done anything they just speak about its operation in the near future but still even if it comes into operation it's not going to satisfy Tehran so basically I believe that if they do not go for a major step to provide they're wrong with the promised economic merits of the deal Tehran would go for the third step of its scaling back it's on the takings under the deal okay all right so but mr. George what's your take on it do you possibly view this as a possible staging ground almost a sort of precursor to a negotiation or some kind of talks between the u.s. and Iran no I I think they don't see any much prospect of that and I I generally agree with my colleague the other members of the jcpoa have been saying all along that they intend to adhere to the agreement they're strongly critical of the United States we're withdrawing from the agreement but this hasn't been followed by any action and they've had plenty of time to get the insect's mechanism up and running because they've known for a long time ever since really Donald Trump came to power that the United States would withdraw from the agreement and will then impose sanctions so there should have been planning for this for a long time and yet nothing at all has happened with insects and even what we have at the moment only deals with goods that are not sanctioned anyway basically food medicine so I don't see any prospect of any negotiations with the United States more troubling is that I don't see anything even on this little thing and I think a little relative of the jcpoa of this the tankers there doesn't seem to be any movement on an exchange of tankers between the UK and Iran which would be at least the minimum for some kind of improvement of relations between the other members of the jcpoa and Iran you know the United States over that I think is a pretty much a hopeless case at least until after the u.s. presidential election so that you mentioned the tankers what also came on the conversation across the conversation with all of these Co signatories in Iran was that UK proposed the same naval policing of the Strait of Hormuz where this was something that was already rejected by Iran before does this indicate that this emergency meeting in Vienna wasn't really geared towards a solution in the first place well if they certainly didn't get very far if the UK in the u.s. go down this path of militarizing the Strait of Hormuz and sending in some battleships in order to accompany the oil tanker that is going to end in disaster Iran has all sorts of means at its disposal for asymmetric warfare and you the UK and the US would pay a very heavy price if they if they went down this road and particularly a heavy price will be paid by the other members so that would be a very foolish and reckless decision for the UK and the u.s. to go down which is you know sending in a naval flotilla to accompany the tankers and it's not just the labor force here let me just sorry I'm interrupting I just also want to add here that not only is it the naval force that is adding numbers the UK's any more ships there to a police but it's also the u.s. who has an ounce of the week and they'll be sending more troops or they will be sort of upping the security so this is not really helping the situation is it not at all it's aggravating the situation without the u.s. having the ability to do anything very much about it because United States doesn't have the means of the disposal to go to war with Iran I mean it just cannot happen IV run is just much too big and much too strong United States can't invade Iran the only means the u.s. has at its disposal is bombing Iran sending in masalas well if that happens Iran will retaliate it won't retaliate against the United States it will retaliate elsewhere and it would be an absolutely foolish reckless decision because all that will happen will be absolute chaos in the the Persian Gulf oil prices will start was will spike and the world economy will be in turmoil and it's not just the world economy mr. Moustafa omens minister in charge Affairs you Savannah Livy he's again come out and said short concern he said and I quote any error or miscalculated move could hamper navigation international waters in harm everyone so when they build up security the u.s. sends more troops and there on the other hand the UK sends more ships to police as they say escort their tankers and others who are using the Strait of Hormuz it's really a perfect situation as to speak of for things to go awry yes that's true as a matter of fact this is started with the u.s. application of the nuclear deal you know the United States has long been working on an engagement for the sake of containment the policy or our approach towards Iran that relies much and sanctions and military threat and they started both intensifying sanctions and imposing more and more military threat to Tehran in order to push the run back and force their on to the negotiating table in order to contain its other power components in missile industry its regional power and so on and so forth but they failed but as they increase the number of their military troops in the region the risk of an unwanted war is rising you know under this engagement strategy the u.s. just poses the military threat that doesn't mean necessarily that there will be an action and they know it they are not going to launch war on Iran because of the cost there will be high cost for the US and its allies in the region the only desirable result for them was just intimidating in Tehran into talks and now that they have failed and they know that they have failed are still they insist on the same wrong failed policy and this military buildup in the Persian Gulf would increase the chances for an incidental incidental warmer now it's I am surprised to see the same somehow same kind of policy by the UK because they could have escalated the situation very easily a couple of weeks ago when the Gibraltar court issued an order for extending the detention of the Iranian ship that was a very wrong move there was a unique opportunity for releasing the Iranian oil cargo and therefore Iran I'm sure would go for releasing the Stena our ship I mean the British ship that has been seized by Iran but they failed that and they have come for a new strategy although they have not joined the US Sentinel coalition in the Persian Gulf and that means some difference between the two sides are for the Atlantic still they started their own coalition and this would definitely escalate the situation and the UK would not earn anything but in so the UK you like has lost its opportunity there where it could have took a stand and been with an international or not violating anything but it didn't want to risk making the u.s. angry but then Iranian president Hassan rouhani rouhani he came out and he said that any kind of force proposed by the UK would be a huge risk it would make matters worse what how exactly where make matters worse then being there if they're not just opposing a sentinels well as the US goes for escalating the tensions in the region we could see that another incident like what happened to the u.s. Triton drone that that was a very sophisticated and advanced piece of technology but this could be repeated again maybe next week maybe tomorrow maybe tonight we don't know because they continue are provoking the Iranian military forces their spy drones are coming close to the Iranian borders and another accident could be in the offing and we don't know if it would go I mean a spiral out of control into a war full-fledged war or not because of the wrong policies you know the United States knows yeah as far as opposing a credible military strength is concerned they have no more than a few months before the winter arrives as far as the expiry dates of the sanctions arrive but they have just a few more months so in about three to four to four months maximum this strategy should either end in a desirable result for the United States by pushing to Iran to the negotiating table sorry just to understand a little you referred that just there's a almost a timeline of three four months before winters arrived what does that exactly mean if you mean to propose a credible and believable I mean military threat to Tehran or any other foe and it should be believed you know and when a major part of your military power comes through the sea when the winter arrived we know that staging a military operation in the winter is very unlikely everyone knows that this is no secret it's not just something that the u.s. knows Iranians and all other militaries it's a strategic problem and yours proposing that hopefully things will resolve itself because this seems almost and here I want to pull you back it's conversation mr. George that it's a game of poker really it's until somebody falls so what kind of international response you think UK's a European led maritime force proposal is receiving so far well no one's very enthusiastic about it and to answer the question that you posed I've seen how does this escalate the situation well once this flotilla is in the Persian Gulf they become a target an obvious military target Iran has many allies in the region because the the Houthis in in Yemen you've got the has Hezbollah in Lebanon you've got the in Iraq just many many allies all of whom are ready to fight for Iran any one of them would be able to launch an attack on UK or us shipping that and provide Iran with a plausible deniability say well we weren't responsible you don't have any evidence that we were responsible moreover and Iran has said this repeatedly if we can't explore to our oil no one can you know essentially Iran is presenting the u.s. with it with this situation which is you want to go down this path and you know yeah the worst possible crisis on your hands is that really where you want to go right coming back to you mr. Moustafa let's go back a little in history when there were signatories made part of this jcpoa the Iran nuclear deal and went in in reference to this kind of an emergency meeting called in which US isn't a part of considering of course that they were the ones who pulled out first what was the real point or having Co signatories in the first place if what they say and do doesn't seem to hold any weight on this current situation well that's exactly the question that Iranians are asking if Europeans claim to be independent global actors then they need to comply with their undertakings when they make promises and then they should have made up for the lost parts of the United States under this deal but as we see they are proving to be subordinate to the United States willingly or unwillingly their economies are dependent totally in the u.s. they make a lot of profit of ties economic ties with the US and they are not willing to sustain the losses they know that if they stand up to the US they would incur huge losses in the area of economy or geopolitics security you know everywhere but if the jcpoa collapses they would also sustained major losses but not as big as what you know they would lose in the first instance in the you know standing up to the US so all they want to keep Iran under the deal in any possible way and at at the same time stop provoking the United States into a major action against the European Union what is important Iran knows this strategy of the Europeans and Americans it's like playing a good cop bad cop somehow with Iran willingly or unwillingly they are doing the same and Iran is sending this pulse under this new strategy that is started a couple of months ago that it's not going to be a one-way road either are you stop pressuring Tehran or each pressure that's laid on Tehran will incur costs in on the EU and on the u.s. all together on the west so this is strategy has worked because it has you know incited the Europeans into action so far so they are showing a little concern at least concerned that they've been showing for a while but the real question is is this concern going on into a kind action that will save this steel mr. George do you think the jcpoa is effectively dead it's it's in a lot of trouble it's hard to see how there's a way of coming back unless the I mean the Americans have gone I mean then they're not going to come back there's a very simple way back if the Americans removed the sanctions they've got Iran on the table you negotiate the deal or is that something evil until Trump is in power that's right that's that's not gonna happen there you know even even so lifting going back to the situation from a few months ago and saying that the waivers restoring the waivers on the countries that were permitted to import Iranian oil I mean if the United just did that minimum which is to restore the waivers at least there would be some way of beginning negotiations but there's no way in the world the Iran is going to reopen negotiations with the United States and permit the u.s. to start introducing all sorts of other issues like Syria like Lebanon like ballistic missiles I mean Iran's not going to do it for a very simple reason why should they trust anything that the Americans agree to when the next man in is just going to walk back on that agreement so that's not going to happen Europeans are going to do right yeah all right and yeah and the Europeans have shown no willingness to do to the United States what the United States does to Europe the United States is happy to impose sanctions on Europe and European companies well let the Europeans do the same to American companies and say okay if that could even be possible I'm sorry okay we've run out of time for this part of the show I mean we're ending at a note whether the EU could turn back the favor to its ally the US on sanctions especially considering that the economy of the US alone with almost equals the entire EU economy and with that we've going to take a quick short break and we'll be back with the latest of what is happening in Afghanistan stay tuned welcome back you're watching news via with me eyes Omer in the first half you heard how the emergency meeting in Vienna between the jcpoa o signatories in iran how inconclusive it went though many termed it as constructive now we will be talking about afghanistan a lot has happened not only in just afghanistan but across the border in northwest Pakistan in Afghanistan let's start from that with the death toll from the deadly attack on president honey's running mate umbrella Sally's office has climbed to twenty fifty people were also injured in this bomb attack now this included the vice presidential candidate mr. Sally himself also important to note is that this happened just a day after Pakistan lost ten our military men in two seperate cross-border attacks by militants one of these was claimed by theory cattle upon Pakistan now it is understood that these attacks originated from Afghanistan now both these violent incidents have posed the question once again on whether the progress on the peace talks between the Afghan government the Taliban the US and all other regional actors who are interested in peace in the region is making any headway at all and on the sidelines of the headlines whether the blame game from all parties is turning this potentially healing process kind of toxic so let me introduce our guests who will be joined today from Peshawar we have mr. Rahim Allah used to say an analyst and also we are joined by mr. Ross Feingold a political risk analyst joining us from Taiwan and of course mr. Javed festal former government spokesperson joining us from Kabul thank you so much to all of you for taking out the time to speak to us on this I want to come straight to you mr. Javed fester talking about this horrible attack that has just taken place taking the lives of 20 people I believe there's also one woman who died many of these are civilians this was an ongoing garden battle went on for six hours but there was no immediate claim of responsibility who was behind this do we have any understanding as of now who was behind this attack as far as we know no parties have taken responsibility for this attack the usual these attacks came from Taliban and other services usually in the past when attacks like these that is civilian casualities Taliban usually deny state responsibility for things because of the public anger because of the targets they were hitting at this time we are still to reached find out more in case from the Intelligence Agency see what beeping anywhere to come okay all right mr. Rahim alas new subside if I could get your views on this and not just on who could be behind the attack but also the conversation that has been going on in the sidelines you know usually the attacks in Kabul are claimed by the Taliban or the is is the is I guess mostly clear responsibility for attacks on Shias and also some time on foreigners and the government the Taliban usually claim attacks hitting targeting the foreigners and the Afghan government so we have to say as to who will claim responsibility but we know for sure that there is a pathological hatred between Amrullah Saleh and tajabbar both hate each other and you know um rule asunder is the former head of the upon intelligence the NDS and he has been pretty critical of sign upon and very critical also of Pakistan mr. you say I'm sorry I'm gonna interrupt here if for our viewers you could flesh out for us the reasons behind this animosity this hatred between the Taliban in mr. Saleh I told you that I'm LaSalle you was the head of the upon intelligence which was trying to target trying to hit the Taliban they now Taliban you know over very angry all these kind of allegations and they have tried to attack the previous heads of the NDS also you know so the LA Hollen was attacked he barely survived La Scala you know and also others so I think I won't be surprised if Taliban are involved but I agree that whenever there are civilian casualties then Sullavan keep quiet they don't claim responsibility for those kinds of attack right it's interesting that they would not want to take responsibility I mean in surah CLE such attacks are usually attributed and they take responsibility for them it's either them or the ISIS mister find out coming to you on this conversation very quickly in terms of how this is affecting these peace talks and this conversation that is taking place obviously of pointing fingers at each other of who could be responsible because there were two attacks here two violent episodes across the border and it's also interesting to note that the timing the election campaign just started there are if you could spell out for us are there any kind of forces and who are they who might be against the very possibility of these peace talks working out well one thing that's become clear Andrew multiple rounds of the negotiations in Qatar between the United States and the Taliban negotiating teams is that attacks that take place simultaneous to negotiations – when the two sides are meeting face to face does not derail the talks so from what we know about the talks earlier on when attacks in Afghanistan coincided with rounds of negotiations the US negotiators would bring it up and there's even reports that say that the two sides would engage in the finger-pointing in the shouting and that kind of interrupted the pace of the talks but it's clear that both sides made a decision throughout these negotiating rounds that notwithstanding attacks that occur while they're talking they're not gonna walk away from peace negotiations so even with the most recent acts of violence over this past weekend against vice presidential candidates headquarters it doesn't appear that this will stop the next round of talks from taking place in Doha and that the the US and the Taliban are just going to continue until they reach what the agreement they've imposed a deadline on themselves to reach an agreement soon obviously the Afghan government has at times voiced its concerns one could say even complaints about the negotiating process but the US Special Representative who's been in Kabul recent days has made it clear that the the pathway is from a u.s. perspective for the u.s. to first reaching agreement with the Taliban and following that there could be all-party negotiations involving various stakeholders in Afghanistan together with the Taliban and again that's something that the Afghan government has criticized as well they say it should be a government to Taliban not in all hands all stakeholders talks but that's not what the United States has said will be the pathway and yes this is definitely caused some friction between the United States and the Afghan government but president Trump is issued very clear instructions in to be fair to President Trump in the United States government this is probably a bipartisan expectation in the US so Democrats and Republicans and broadly speaking the American public do you want to see a phased if not speedy withdrawal of the US military okay all right so mr. Feingold let's also talk about how India's feeling across the border here after this trip of the prime minister of Pakistan to the US Washington DC the US State Department just announced recently a decision that they would be approving one hundred and forty five million dollar aid package would would essentially provide technical support to Park science fleet of f-16 fighters and that at the same time we saw another statement from the Pentagon that said that 670 million dollars of follow-on support program for the c-17 airlift aircraft was also a proof issue for India what do you make of this sort of dynamics here from the US well during the during the Trump presidency we know that President Trump has had a good relationship with Prime Minister of India they've met many times and they've had very positive meetings president Trump has and his administration has encouraged India to take a strong role in regional security with China in mind and we now have the indo-pacific term which is often used to describe the US policy approach to the region and Pakistan obviously has not been something that President Trump has spent a lot of time on in his two-plus years as president so this meeting with Prime Minister Khan from many perspectives but maybe not the Indian perspective but from a Pakistan or maybe a u.s. perspective had many positives as far as the bilateral relationship especially if again president Trump hadn't spent much time on Pakistan issues so it's good that they meet face to face and they could establish a personal rapport and as part of that there were some announcements you described with regard to military support and there was some concern in India we'll have to watch how this plays out obviously India does have a lot of friends in the Trump administration but on the other hand these talks in in Doha are an important part of the u.s. foreign policy for the region so if it requires cooperation from Pakistan in to some extent India or even China the u.s. is going to be seeking to get as many countries on board with with this and it's interesting from this conversation because we talk a lot we were talking a lot about disagreements between the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan about where militants are based and who is being forthright with information about the source of attacks but the u.s. primary concern in its talks with the Taliban is going to be to ensure that the Taliban does not allow Afghanistan to be used as a home for international terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and other stakeholders such as Afghanistan and Pakistan will need to stop the finger-pointing and cooperate to bring there's going to be very difficult as I imagine it from the situation and we've got a perfect example just played out in front of us as two points of view from either side of the border when there are concerns and there's the trust deficient and it exists not just today but historically and the u.s. is the only one who's got a clock on their withdrawal here and could this possibly be a kind of a preview into a hasty withdrawal and what it would leave behind not necessarily a hasty withdrawal but yes you're correct it's it's an issue of what gets left behind and if the primary concern for the u.s. is to ensure that the read is not used as a home for international terrorist groups or groups that launch attacks into the United States or Western Europe keeping in mind a toe is had a significant role in Afghanistan as well and this is their motivation for being involved and what they're seeking out of these talks with the Taliban so if their motivation is not to have a brand agreement with regard to various organizations that commit cross-border attacks between Afghanistan and Pakistan if that's not part of what what the u.s. is seeking to achieve or the NATO stakeholders are seeking to achieve and that is can be left on the ground and it's going to be something that the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan and India are gonna need to work together rather than continue to point the finger at each other all right so mr. Yusuf say this is an important point here moving forward instead of pointing the fingers at each other work together the cost to Pakistan on working on this u.s. initiated war on terror not just in Afghanistan but the spillover effect that it's faced itself is that also something that is in question here from our brothers across the border I think these issues are now in the past we are trying to move ahead and that's why there are peace talks between Taliban and the u.s. there have been three inter of one meetings two in Moscow and one in Qatar more will be held you know maybe in future there'll be talks between Taliban and the Afghan government there also is the issue of a permanent ceasefire these issues are now being discussed I say no nobody is discussing the issue of safe havens or whatever even if there are safe haven that issue is not being raised by any side at this state because the priority process so these are the issues in the past but what about the time left to the presidential elections is supposed to take place in September 28th is there any risk that they will be delayed once again postponed once again considering the kind of situation here where even candidates are now under attack you know the elections were twice postponed from April to July and then July to September 28th if they have been postponed twice they can be postponed again we don't know yet officially the election campaign started two months before the polling day so the election campaign is now underway and you know on the first day there was this attack against former US ally so the security situation you know I think is not good for ensuring a good turnout and for ensuring also an election which is seen as free and fair and transparent you know I think that the militants the terrorists they are waiting they are waiting because there will be public gatherings there will be election campaign offices they could be attacked and eventually they can also attack the registration offices and the polling station so I think the priority again is to have a peace process elections can be held later as well if they want to hold them in time because that is also important for of Aniston's nascent democracy then I think the peace process will have to be you know delayed and whether the Americans want this because Trump is in a hurry you know he wants to reach an agreement his foreign secretary said before September 1 I mean before the election so if they're in a hurry then they would not like to have any rudder on the way and the elections could be a hurdle I believe right okay and mr. Feingold do you think that line is it realistic to be expecting it to be met I mean there are this the ninth round of peace talks about free to start in Doha Prime Minister Imran Khan in his meeting has been asked and it has said he'll give it as all to try and convince Taliban to be flexible because they have not budged the Taliban haven't budged on their side or what they've been proposing well that's the kid the u.s. negotiating positions are fairly clear what they're seeking is fairly clear but what has to budge who has to move is the Taliban and whether or not they're willing to agree yes we know that President Trump does want to end this as quickly as possible for a number of reasons Congress in the u.s. is on recess throughout August so there's less questions being asked on Capitol Hill about these talks it would be easier to present this as an agreement that's already been reached when Congress returns in September then I'll walk after that we're going into our 2020 u.s. election season so President Trump certainly wants this not hanging over his administration as an unresolved issue and frankly he wants to present it as a foreign policy success story that he has made a deal with the Taliban where his predecessors President Obama and President Bush were unable to achieve that so the sooner this happens for President Trump it gives him a positive thing to present to voters going in the election season whether or not they could reach the September 1st deadline sure it's very very aggressive and optimistic but whether it happens then or shortly thereafter there's certainly a lot of impetus or a lot of effort from the US I to persuade the Taliban to agree to the terms all right mr. Feingold they're joining us from Thun and mr. Yusuf say from Peshawar thank you so much for giving us your time here we've come to the end of the show we were discussing how the peace talks between the Afghan Taliban the US and Pakistan's role in it and how it is moving forward but we will be seeing you tomorrow with a new episode of News fire till then goodbye


6 thoughts on “News Wire with Ayza Omar | Saving Iran's Nuclear Deal | Irritants in Afghan Peace | Ep 109|”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *