this is gps, global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. starting with robert gates, former secretary of defense

under president bush and president obama. i read his new book and found that he actually agreed with obama on iraq, afghanistan, iran, all the issues of substance. so, i'll ask him to explain. also, the u.s. economy. how much will it grow in 2014, 2%, 3%, 4%? wall street is wondering, but it doesn't really matter. what does gdp describe anyway? negotiations in iran are beginning again soon. what's the best strategy going forward? neuroscience can help eliminate the issue. and lots of people call bs on their politicians. somebody in france actually went a step further. but first, here's my take. president obama gave a much-anticipated speech on friday, outlining reforms in the american government's surveillance activities. before i give you my reaction to the speech, i want to give you some context.

the american government and many american companies are routinely the targets of cyber attacks from all over the world. for example, the national nuclear security administration, which is an arm of the energy department and monitors america's nuclear power plants, was the target of 10 million cyber attacks every day in 2012. by contrast, in 2011 there were 44 million. look at phone records, e-mails. others are efforts to disrupture normal life or kill civilians. last year, the head of the fbi testified that cyber attacks from foreign sources often include terrorist groups had surpassed traditional terrorism as the single most threat to the

united states. i'm trying to remind you that this debate about american policy cannot take place in a vacuum. there are the countries out there and groups of militants and terrorists and they are actively using whatever cyber tools they have to tap into phone systems, e-mails, bank records, power plant operation systems, nuclear facilities and more. in that context and it deals with these threats and challenges. his speech suggests, no, it's not a rogue out fit but acknowledges two facts need to be kept in mind. united states has unique capabilities of this area and that, second, after 9/11, the american government went too far in its efforts to search for and counter terrorist threats. he has proposed a series of reforms that strike me as a good balance between security and liberty. he has preserved the basic

structure of american intelligence gathering while putting in more checks and safeguards. one case where he may have gone too far is in limiting america's ability to spy on foreign leaders. this is probably inevitable and a political to foreign heads of fwost. it's a good idea for the united states to institute checks and balances and have periodic reviews of the whole system, but let's also keep in mind that i haven't heard much about the chinese president, xi jinping's reformals and i don't expect to hear from him, or president putin or many other leaders. it's called the second oldest profession for a reason. everyone does it. let's get started.

>> robert gates worked for eight presidents. his last job, of course, was secretary of defense. starting under president george w. bush in 2006 and ending under president obama in 2011. he has just published his memoirs simply called duty, unusual and controversial move when one of the presidents he served is still in office. and he criticizes that president, or so many say. we'll get to that. i wanted to start off on the substance of the key decisions made on his watch. iraq, afghanistan, libya, syria, iran. you know that secretary gates is in a neck race. if you're wondering if it's whiplash from his critics, it is not. he tripped and broke a vertebra. thank you so much for joining us. >> my pleasure. >> so, fred kaplan calls this memoir a primal scream. do you think it was a primal scream? >> no, but i do think one of the

reasons that i wrote the book, everyone sort of knows about paralysis and polarization in washington and i wanted to bring -- make it real in terms of how you deal with that on a day-to-day basis when you're running the defense department and trying to fight two wars, and to show that no matter how frustrated and how angry i got, by suppressing all of that, i was able to get a lot of things done in a town where very few are. >> you got a lot of attention about the comments you made, basically that the president seemed like in the middle of the war his heart wasn't in it. i want to start you from -- with the substance. what i was most struck by was the fact that you said that the president makes several decisions on afghanistan, from 2009 onward. he had to make big decisions

about whether or not to have a timetable, things like that. you say you agreed with every one of the president's decisions? >> that's exactly right. and i supported those decisions and i continue to support the decisions, such as the strategic agreement with the afghan government that would provide a residual source for the united states and our allies there. i never had a quarrel with the president's decisions. in fact, i was very impressed how he would set aside the opposition, largely for political reasons, of the vice president and virtually all of his civilian advisers in the white house to make a decision that he knew would be politically unpopular in the democratic party base. >> and it seemed like your fundamental kind of inclination and approach is one that would regard this as a place not to overdue the military footprint or to overdue the commitment

side. on syria, on iran, all of those places, you seem to be much more comfortable with what i take as the president's caution about getting too involved militarily in these things? >> that's right. as i think is well known, i opposed and i would say in the situation room, can i finish the two wars we already have before we go looking for another one? first of all, there are assumptions are usually wrong and the first and most important of those assumptions is a war will be short and the second is we don't have enough humility about our inability to predict unforeseen consequences. so, my argument against going into syria militarily was, it is an act of war to take down their air defenses, establish a no -fy

zone or humanitarian zone. and yet russia is a close ally of syria's, lebanon hangs in the balance and my worry was we were throwing, as i put it, gasoline on a very complex fire and we had no idea what the second, third and fourth consequences of our actions would be. and unless you have a clear idea of what your military is supposed to accomplish and how long it will take, i think you need to be very, very cautious about introducing military force. >> again on iran, it seems like you're pretty cautious about the idea of military intervention. >> well, particularly in the bush administration. because i felt we still had time to make the economic pressures work. and, again, we were already in two wars. our military was stretched very

thin. our military was exhausted. so the idea of acting precipitously, to go after the iranians or to enable the israelis to go after them, where we didn't know the consequences but could lead to a major regional war, i felt, was too risky. >> let me ask you something about the book as i read it, and your views. i look at all those and on the substance, you were very sympatico with president obama. on the substance, from what i can tell when reading what you say about the bush administration, you were much more unhappy. it seems to be pretty clear you were skeptical about the iraq war, and you write that about the freedom agenda, the idea of spreading democracy around the world. you seemed skeptical about the way afghanistan was handled in the years before you got there. these are major, major issues. and yet it feels to me like --

almost culturally you were more comfortable in the bush white house than the obama. is this a case of just a canc-- may have agreed with obama's decisions more but just that democratic white house bothered you? >> i don't think it was that. i think, in part, it was the time i served each of those presidents. i served president bush in the last two years of his presidency. he had had a hard run since 9/11. he learned a lot of lessons. he was a wiser, more mature, more seasoned president than i encountered. all the big decisions on national security had essentially been made and neither he nor his vice president would ever run for office again. so, it was a much less political

environment. on the other hand, i served in the first 2 1/2 years of obama administration where a president was going to run for re-election, that was clear, and both his secretary of state and his vice president had potential ambitions themselves. so, there was a focus on domestic politics in the debates in the obama administration that i didn't encounter in the bush administration. but i will say had i been in the bush administration during the same first 2 1/2 years, my suspicion is it would have been very similar. we'll be back in just a moment with much more with secretary gates, who is writing the book "dishonorable." >> i didn't start out to vilify anybody in this book, and i don't think i did. >> and what would he say to vice president biden if he called him? >> i would say, well, joe, this is the world both you and i know. it can help provide the power for all this?

natural gas. ♪ more than ever before, america's electricity is generated by it. exxonmobil uses advanced visualization and drilling technologies to produce natural gas... powering our lives... while reducing emissions by up to 60%. energy lives here. ♪ suddenly you're a mouth breather. a mouth breather! how do you sleep like that? you dry up, your cold feels even worse. well, put on a breathe right strip and shut your mouth. cold medicines open your nose over time, but add a breathe right strip, and pow! it instantly opens your nose up to 38% more so you can breathe and do the one thing you want to do. sleep. add breathe right to your cold medicine. shut your mouth and sleep right. breathe right. there's nothing like being your own boss! and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping.

fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order. good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex. the day building a play set begins with a surprise twinge of back pain... and a choice. take up to 4 advil in a day or 2 aleve for all day relief. [ male announcer ] that's handy. ♪ mayo? corn dogs? you are so outta here! aah! [ female announcer ] the complete balanced nutrition of great-tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, and 9 grams of protein. [ bottle ] ensure®. nutrition in charge™.

i'm back with with robert gates. should he have even written this book at all? listen in. >> i've got to ask you about some of the criticism. john mccain says you shouldn't have written this book now. you should have waited. one of the president's aides said this was a dishonorable act. even "the wall street journal's" foreign affairs columnist said bob gates has a reputation for keeping his mouth shut. maybe he should have paid attention to it this time. what do you say to people who say this was incredible discrete and dishonorable to do it in the middle of a president's term while the foreign policies that you were involved in are still playing themselves out? >> first of all, all the conversations i report are on issues like afghanistan and iraq where the policies are already set and the decisions have been

made, and our course has been established. second, i think a close look at the book would validate that nearly all of those conversations, in fact, present the presidents -- both presidents in a positive light of being tough minded, much pushing back, of asking hard questions, of doing exactly what american people would hope a president would do whenever the use of military force is involved. i didn't set out to vilify anybody in this book. and i don't think i did. but i think you have to read the whole book and not just quotes that are taken out of context. and i would just say -- i mean, the other piece of this is there's a whole genre of books out there that are written about insider conversations in the white house, quoting the president from private conversations, quoting private meetings and meetings in the situation room and so on, all done from the shelter of on background and leaked by people

in the white house. what i want ed to try to convey to -- the book is dedicated to the men and women of the armed forces and what i wanted to -- what i wanted to say to the people in uniform and their families, the america that sent them to war is that these are tough issues. and i want ed to show the leades of the country wrestling with these issues and the passion that they were discussed. i also think that, you know, this is a town -- washington is a town where everybody says it's paralyzed. i also wanted to show how you can actually make things work in washington and finally a lot of the issues we've been talking about, how to deal with china, how to deal with russia, how to deal with allies like sawedudi arabia. i have the experience of working for eight presidents and i think

i have something to offer that debate. that debate is not going to wait until 2017. >> not just for the secretary of defense but for going forward, what are the things worry you in the way that eisenhower wrote about? >> first of all, i would say that the one piece of advice that i would give either to a secretary of defense or to a president, a new secretary or president, is that absent an immediate threat to the united states, the use of military force should be a last resort not a first option. we need to be much more careful. i wrote in my first book that the dirty little secret in

washington was that the biggest dubs wore uniforms. and that's because they have seen the face of war and they have been thrown into conflicts only to have political support evaporate behind them. and so being very cautious about the use of force, i think, is incredibly important. right now the biggest threat to our national security, as far as i'm concerned, is the paralysis in washington and the uncertainty with respect to the defense programs, uncertainty about what kinds of military capabilities we're going to need for the future, where our record in predicting where we will use military force next is perfect over the last 40 years. we've never once gotten it right. >> reporter: do you think we have to plan for china as a strategic military adversary? >> well, i think our military plans for everything. i think that china is not a military adversary at this

point. i think that the way the chinese and american leaders deal with each other in the years to come will determine whether or not that becomes the case. but i do think that our presence in asia is very important. just as our presence in the middle east is important as a deterrent. >> can you envision a scenario where u.s. or military action against iran ends well? has the desired effect? >> ends well jumps from the action to some period of time beyond that. i think that if there is a military action against iran, iran will not just absorb it or retaliate in a cursory sort of way, with a few rockets launched into israel and maybe a few hezbollah rockets launched into the northern part of israel.

i think iran will retaliate and moreover, i would say, that that would make it inevitable, that iran will become a nuclear state. they will not become head on to us, but will find ways, i think, to inflict real damage, whether it's against oil facilities in the gulf, potentially sinking some of our warships, whether it's terrorism in the region, p potentially here at home. but i think they'll react. >> if vice president biden were to call you about this memoir, given what you said about him -- you said he has been wrong with every major national security issue for the last four decades, what would you say? >> the interesting thing is that biden and i actually agreed on virtually every part of obama's national security and foreign policy except for afghanistan. and in the book, i acknowledge i should have worked harder to bridge the differences between

us on afghanistan, and i fault myself for that. >> what would you say to -- >> i would say, well, joe, this is the world both you and i know. >> bob gates, pleasure to have you on. >> thank you. lots more ahead on the show. if you're wondering why iranians act the way they do on the world stage, i have a guest who says the answer is in the human brain. and he would know. he is a neuroscientist. up next, what in the world? why swrap an's declining population may actually be a good thing. you'll be surprised by some data.

♪ ♪ turn around ♪ every now and then i get a little bit hungry ♪ ♪ and there's nothing good for me around ♪ ♪ turn around ♪ every now and then i get a little bit tired ♪ ♪ of craving something that i can't have ♪ ♪ turn around, barbara ♪ forever i've been praying for a snack in my life ♪ ♪ and now i have a brownie ending all of my strife ♪ ♪ i finally found the right snack ♪ ♪

when i'm training, i always listen to music. for the gym, it's hip-hop. ♪ i finally found for cross-country, classical. and for jumps, i need something...special. so i use my citi thankyou visa card for music downloads and earn two times the points... plus a little extra inspiration. [ ♪ music plays ] the citi thankyou preferred visa card. earn two times the points on entertainment and dining out with no annual fee. citi, with you every step of the way.

now for our what in the world segment. 2013, japan population soared to the largest natural decline in that country's history. it's a trend that's getting worse. by 2060, japan predicts its population will have fallen by a third. 30% will be retirees. it sounds like a recipe for disaster. imagine a uh-uh states where half the population were over 65. health care costs would explode. new scientists claiming japan's aging population could actually

be good news. how on earth is that possible? after all, china relaxed its one-child policy last month precisely so it could avoid the fate of japan. and that fate, if you go by conventional wisdom, seems to be slowing growth and leading to unsustainable debt. why? our entire system is based on having enough young workers to pay for pensions and government services. well, according to the new scientists, perhaps we've been looking at the wrong data. consider growth. the number we tend to focus on the most. look at the performance of a selection of rich countries in the last decade. japan's economy expanded by just 0.8% a year on average. france was faster. the united states and britain grew at twice japan's space. growth per capita, growth per person. this number gets less attention. the table is inverted. the u.s. and france is near the

bottom but japan is at the top. this is because individual incomes are actually rising while the population is declining. it would follow that people are actually better off, not bad for a country everyone seems to have written off. let's look at some other indicators. according to the demographer japan is the healthiest country in the world. given that the average life span is 83 years, the highest in the world, you would expect health care costs to dominate. remember, japan has universal health care. again, you would be wrong. japan spends only 8% of its gdp on health care, half the percent the united states spends. education, in the very near future for every japanese newborn, japan will also have a centenarian, a man or woman who is 100 years old. the low percentage of children also means fewer school students, less money spent on education. and, remember, japan has a

strong school system and is a world leader in research and development. how does tokyo manage this? is it a welfare state? again, the answer is no. according to a group of 34 rich nations the average japanese worker face aid tax burden of 31%, 4% lower than the group's average. a few other hidden benefits for japan. declining population means there is more space and land for every japanese citizen. remember, japan is a tiny country that packs in 127 million people. fewer people could well translate into a higher quality of life as well. these are fascinating points to consider. many other countries may soon encounter some of japan's problems. china could grow old before it becomes rich. europe's rich nations have fertility rates that are too low to replenish the population. if it weren't for immigration,

america's population would start leveling off as well. but remember the united states gains more than a million immigrants legally every year. japan and europe on the other hand have stricter immigration laws and are less welcoming to immigrants. i don't think dwindling population is actually all good at all as the article suggests. young people need energy, risk taking, hard work, and, of course, tax revenues. tokyo needs to raise its retirement age and encourage immigration. but the essay does show that japan has many hidden benefits in its demographic predicament. 20 years of stagnation and maybe there are lessons for other countries in that as well. up next, will america grow as fast in 2014 as everyone hopes? does it even matter? i have two very smart guests up next on the crucial question of gdp growth. she loves a lot of the same things you do.

it's what you love about her. but your erectile dysfunction - that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than 4 hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives,

swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial. (voseeker of the sublime.ro. you can separate runway ridiculousness... from fashion that flies off the shelves. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle... and go. and only national is ranked highest in car rental customer satisfaction by j.d. power. (natalie) ooooh, i like your style. (vo) so do we, business pro. so do we. go national. go like a pro. i have a great fit with my dentures. i love kiwis. i've always had that issue with the seeds getting under my denture. super poligrip free -- it creates a seal of the dentures in my mouth. even well-fitting dentures let in food particles. super poligrip is zinc free. with just a few dabs, it's clinically proven to seal out more food particles

so you're more comfortable and confident while you eat. super poligrip free made the kiwi an enjoyable experience. [ charlie ] try zinc free super poligrip. is that true? says here that cheerios has whole grain oats that can help remove some cholesterol, and that's heart healthy. ♪ [ dad ] jan?

two u.s. lawmakers are expressing serious concerns about security at the upcoming winter olympics in sochi, russia. house intelligence chairman mike rogers said russia is not as cooperative as it should be with the united states about security at the games. his reservations are so high about security that he would not go to the olympics, even if he had the chance. mayor of hoboken, new jersey, is standing by her claim that governor chris christie's administration threatened to withhold superstorm sandy relief for political reasons. mayor dawn zimmer said christie's lieutenant governor indicated her town would not receive aid if she failed to support a development project favored by the governor. she said the lieutenant governor suggested the message came directly from governor christie. the mayor says she did not come

forward with her story earlier, because she didn't think anyone would believe her. governor christi he's camp is pushing back hard against mayor zimmer, saying that it is democratic mayors going after christie hard for political reasons. now back to fareed zakaria gps. janet yellen said she is hopeful gross domestic product or gdp could grow 3% or more in 2014. the chicago fed chair envisions 2.75% growth. the world bank expects 2.8% growth this year. we talk about gdp growth a lot on this show. does it really matter? is gdp growth actually necessary? what does it mean? let's ask my next two guests. the harvard business review and author of "betterness: economics

for humans." and the author of "the leading indicators" which will be out in book stores february 11th so you can preorder it now. he is the head of global strategy at investment. let's first start with the growth numbers. lots of people worry that the west is in for what some call secular stagnation, that there just isn't going to be much growth. you look back over the last 20, 25 years, look at japan, the u.s. and europe, there hasn't been much growth except for the brief exception of the '90s. >> i thenk there's been an uncoupling between what those numbers tell you and what the effects are systemically. a factory that employs 5,000 people, puts out a certain number of cars or stuff and adds to gdp growth. today there may be a slight manufacturing revival in the united states. but that same factory is going to have 500 people and may add more to output but will add less to jobs. we've create this had number

that is a proxy for everything and increasingly it's a proxy for only one thing, which is output as defined for stuff we have produced. >> does that mean we all still look at gdp growth as a mark of how an economy is doing? isn't that fair if you look at -- just to put it in very simple terms, china dpru at 10% the last three decades. they're doing pretty darn well. india did not grow quite as fast. you can go through that list and over time, particularly compound, it seems like it makes a difference. >> yeah. i think that gdp does have some value to it. but i also think that it may have -- it may be at the point where it's outliving its usefulness. as zachary points out, it just measures the volume of stuff. it doesn't look at the quality of our lives, which is presumably what we want. to benefit us in real terms, not just to deliver us more stuff. and the real question for us is

what do we want from our economy and how do we begin measuring it? when we talk about growth, many people think that growth is a god-given thing and refers to some kind of natural phenomenon in the world. growth say man made creation. and gdp is a newer creation than, for example, the automobile. the automobile was created 100 years ago. gdp was only created 75, 80 years ago. >> reporter: it captures a reality. >> sure. >> that countries have produced more goods in output than consume more do tend to get richer. >> yep. >> than historically, they were healthier than -- >> that's exactly right. for an industrial economy, gdp may capture a valuable truth. for an economy that is kind of moving past an industrial set of conditions, gdp may be in need

of a serious -- >> what would be -- you've written this book about leading indicators like gdp. if it's not capturing, to your mind, the essence of what advanced industrial economies should be looking to, what is the -- what number should we be -- >> in fact, it's actually quite good, i think, at measuring 1950s level industrial nation states, which is why it's probably more meaningful for china at its moment in economic evolution. the temptation is always, particularly an american temptation. if the number doesn't work, let's just invent another number that will work better. ways of measuring national good. came up with a gross national happiness index. sarkozy was commissioned to come up what do we replace it with? any one number in multi-tiered

systems of which the u.s. economy is absolutely is going to be wrong. >> but you say -- what you remind me of, the point you were making, robert kennedy once made a very famous speech where he talked about the limitations of gdp and what it could measure and what it couldn't measure. >> it measures neither our or our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning. neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country. it measures everything in short except that which makes life worthwhile. >> in a really stirring kind of way. >> that was 40 years ago. the fascinating thing is that the world has moved on since rfk gave that speech. in countries like canada and australia, they've developed very sophisticated sets of indicators to look at the prosperity of those economies, about the well-being of people within those countries, which is a little bit a inform alagous to what zachary is talking about.

we don't have to look at a single number that, when it's averaged, leaves out a human reality. you know the old joke about the economist. he had his feet in the fridge and his head in the oven and on average he was feeling fine. the irony of the joke for me is that it doesn't tell you anything about the economist's life. was he happy, was he married, was he successful? was he satisfied? that's the kind of stuff we really need to delve into. we're going to need to develop a range of indicators, not just the volume of stuff, but the real quality of people's lives. the idea of growth isn't just about the growth of economists but our growth as human beings. >> much better than the united states in crafting the existence when things like the long-term future of the societies, which may or may not be gdp -- too many governments in the world have such a tethered referendum as to whether they can say to a

populous, we've increased this number. >> it's fascinating. up next, how to negotiate with iran. we're not going to talk about foreign policy. we're going to talk about psychology and neuroscience. how it might explain the most what? [ male announcer ] alka-seltzer plus severe cold and flu speeds relief to these eight symptoms. [ breath of relief ] thanks. [ male announcer ] you're welcome. ready? go. suddenly you're a mouthbreather. well, put on a breathe right strip and instantly open your nose up to 38% more than cold medicines alone. so you can breathe and sleep. shut your mouth and sleep right. breathe right. there's nothing like being your own boss! and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order.

good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex. of the dusty basement at 1406 35th street the old dining table at 25th and hoffman. ...and the little room above the strip mall off roble avenue. ♪ this magic moment it is the story of where every great idea begins. and of those who believed they had the power to do more. dell is honored to be part of some of the world's great stories. that began much the same way ours did. in a little dorm room -- 2713. ♪ this magic moment ♪

washington's nuclear negotiations with iran will

succeed, don't look at policy or history. look at psychology and the human brain. that's what my next two guests argue. they have some surprising and simple insights that explain how and why the iranians act the way they do. nicholas wright is a neu neuroscientist. and sfwlnchts wait a minute. the iranians are not rational. you have pedigree to talk about this. you have always been very tough on this regime. yet you think that, you know -- you say in the article there's no in the brain, meaning iranians, because they are oriental or iranian are not so different that we can't study them by looking at neuroscience. >> sure. i've always been skeptical of the nature of this iranian system. certainly what we're trying to

do is not to replace ideology or -- but to try to understand what iran's motivations are. if you listen to the rhetoric of the past two decades, rejecting unfairness, this idea of rejecting global double standards has been an incredibly powerful motivation for them unto itself. >> what i find when i was in tehran, this was found not just by the regime but by ordinary people. neuroscience tells us why this issue of rejecting unfairness is important. >> high cost to reject unfairness based in our biology. i can illustrate this with a brief example. imagine, fareed, i am given $10 and i can decide how to split that with you. classic example. i may then decide to make a 9-1 split.

i'll keep $9 myself and you'll have $1. if you accept that offer, we both get that split as proposed. if we reject it, we both get nothing. so if you cared only about yourself, then you would say i'll take the $1. but what people actually do is if you're offered less than about 25%, people reject that about half the time. >> the famous experiment with the capuchin monkeys is dramatic illustration of what you say. there are these two monkeys, each asked to give a stone to the person outside the cage and they get a cucumber in return. >> yeah. >> then you switch it and you start giving one of the monkeys a grape which is, i think, in the world of monkeys more valuable. and the minute you start giving one of the monkeys a grape, the other one now refuses to accept the cucumber and actually throws the cucumber back, because it is

so upset and wants the grape. the argument here, of course, is that the iranians look at the nuclear issue and say other countries are allowed to have nuclear -- civilian nuclear programs, why should we accept some lower standard? >> that's absolutely right. iran is negotiating with the p5 plus 1, countries that have nuclear weapons. ind india, pakistan. never signed and have nuclear weapons. they point to that double standard and, of course, they point to israel and say israel has well over 100 nuclear weapons and we're pursuing this nuclear program. why the double standard? so this is something which has really been fundamental to the iranian regime, the idea of

perceived unfairness. >> so you say that this issue of unfairness leads to the next point where each side think that they are justify ied and virtue use in the position they're taking. >> yeah. so, you can have two people who both feel that what they're doing is entirely fair and these two people can be -- and this can lead to the type of tragedy the german philosopher described where you have two people who both of them feel is entirely right and just that's mutually incompatible and leads to a tragic outcome. >> and hen the third piece of this is the, when do you make a conciliatory jegesture? when do you make a condition session? one of the things i remember from graduate school in international relations -- and you probably remember this as well. there is a lot of good data that shows when you have negotiations between nations, they tend to be of this quality, which is when

the other side makes a concession, you assume he was forced into it. that circumstances compelled it. when you make a concession, it's because of the goodness of your heart. >> yeah. it's very useful to make notation about the evolution. if there was a unifying in the masses, they were anti-imperialism. and today i would say it's globalization. we don't want to resist the outside world but be part of the outside world. and hassan rouhani is part of that will, not for resistance but for reintegration. i think this is what's really driving iran's desire to try to re-emerge from isolation. >> as much the pressure of the sanctions but also the promise of globalization? >> i think certainly sanctions played a role in bringing iran

to the negotiating table. but for the iranian people, who are really, i would say, driving the regime in this direction, it's much more wanting to be part of the outside world rather than to resist it. >> what conclusion do you draw as the united states and iran head into negotiations again? >> it's very interesting. henry kissinger said a week before he went to meet with chairman mao for the first time, all the experts said china will never change, mao will never change. for the long time acres lot of people, including myself, say the supreme leader is very rigid. now i think we've seen over the last six, seven months some unexpected progress in the u.s./iran negotiations and i think we have to continue to try to test this to see, is it possible to reach some type of new relationship with iran or is it not possible? but we won't know until we test that. >> thank you both. this is fascinating. >> thank you. >> up next, are you fed up with the bull from your government?

so was somebody in france, and he made a big stink. i'll explain. and my customers are really liking your flat rate shipping. fedex one rate. really makes my life easier. maybe a promotion is in order. good news. i got a new title. and a raise? management couldn't make that happen. [ male announcer ] introducing fedex one rate. simple, flat rate shipping with the reliability of fedex.

♪ [ male announcer ] bob's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack, be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. mayo? corn dogs? you are so outta here! aah! [ female announcer ] the complete balanced nutrition of great-tasting ensure. 24 vitamins and minerals, antioxidants, and 9 grams of protein. [ bottle ] ensure®.

nutrition in charge™.

2014 economic index of freedom was released this week. it brings me to the question of the week. what is the only country to have recorded a loss of freedom every year for the last seven years? a, france, b, china, c, greece or the united states? stay tuned and we will tell you the correct answer. go to cnn.com/fareed for more of the gps challenge and lots of insight and analysis. you can follow us on twitter and facebook.

remember, you can go to itunes.com/fareed if you ever miss a show or episode. this week's book of the week is "india grows at night," the former ceo of procter & gamble in india has become one of india's leading intellectuals and has written a spirited and intelligent book about how to get his country moving again. this is the most interesting book on india that i have read in a while. now for the last look. here in the united states, congress' approval ratings are near their lowest levels in history. nearly half of those polled in the uk say they were angry at their nation's politicians. there were riots this week near a spanish political party headquarters. and protesters in ukraine continued to call for the government to go. it would seem that the whole world is tired of government. perhaps the most expressive protest came from france, where snooty citizens protest have

always been big and crow ative. furniture barricades during 19th century famously depicted in les miserables comes to mind. following grain prices with tractors blocking the streets and by burning hay. this week's protest may be hard to forget as well. a man dumped a large pile of steaming manure outside the assembly, protesting the policies of the president and his government. while these protests are creative, they can actually be too creative and too effective. the government in france often surrenders. after all, who would want to be confronted every day with a pile of -- well, you know what. the correct answer is d, the united states. while 114 countries took steps, the u.s. has dropped out of the top ten most economically free countries.

it is now at number 12. according to the report, this is largely due to the regulation of health care, finance and energy. it's worth noting that this is a report from the conservative heritage foundation. thanks to all of you for being part mief program this week. i will see you next week. stay tuned for "reliable sources." this is park city, utah, home of the famous sundance festival. the biggest names in the media business are here, and so are unknown filmmakers, hoping to be tomorrow's blockbuster stars. this week, we'll go behind the scenes with the big documentaries and the big business of sundance and we'll tell you about the rest of the week's biggest stories, including the battle between the weather channel and directv. and the premiere of a new comedian that had a lot of people laughin