they said they can do without changing the doctrine. that does nothing to change u.s. capability, and i think that is being conveyed to the allies. the allies tend to be japan and some of the nato states. in japan, the japanese government actually came not and said, please do take away the cruise missile the u.s. had been detaining, even though we did not feel we needed it, but we retain it as a reassurance.

the japanese of the be removed in support of disarmament, and in nato, the foreign ministers of germany, the netherlands, norway, belgium, and luxembourg, they ask that nato take on this issue of taking on deterrence with the agenda of seeking disarmament, so the environment is changing from the cold war, where in europe after one was worried about a massive soviet invasion, or the allies would not feel secure if we did not have nuclear weapons to deal with massive superiorities, so now the situation where it is reversed, the russians are going to be slowing the disarmament process because they're worried about nato security against russia.

none of that the with the middle east, except -- none of that dealt with the middle east, except turkey. basically, those weapons can stay in turkey as long as the turks want, and the u.s. is going to do nothing to remove even nuclear bombs in europe, which are obsolete. we would never use those weapons in a military operation, but we are saying to make people feel reassured, we will leave them there so there will not be a unilateral reduction. the more difficult issue is the question of the middle east, where the u.s. is not cutting tactical nuclear weapons in the region, so in the nuclear deterrence would be from the submarines, lan-based systems in the u.s., and whether that would be necessary, or would it be helpful at a time when you're still trying to persuade iran

not to build nuclear weapons of the first office and you're trying to persuade the rest of the world to work with you to press iran. if you then announce, we will use our nuclear weapons against iran if iran does not stop trying to get nuclear weapons area i do not know how that would help the politics, but i do not know if u.s. nuclear workers would say we needed to defeat iran. they would said we do not, in which case, why would you talk about introducing the now, because i do not know they would be reassuring in the middle eastern conference. i do not know how that would play politically and be reassuring, fan may be others have a better idea. -- but may be others have a better idea.

>> do you agree it is too late to prevent iran from getting nuclear weapons gunman -- nuclear weapons? what will happen to the status of america in the middle east if they have repeatedly said they will not allow iran to get nuclear weapons capability if they actually do get it? what happens then? >> i personally do not think economic and financial sanctions are going to be effective in deterring iran from

pursuing a nuclear weapon route, and i also do not think diplomatic pressure will succeed. these measures might feel a thing is, but they will not necessarily change the -- might delay things, but they will not necessarily change things. my assessment is that iran wants a nuclear weapon for this regime wants a nuclear weapon, because they see it will guarantee the islamic republic and the kudos of having provided iran with the nuclear weapon. i also think iran sees a nuclear weapons in the way north korea sees it, which is a way of deterring the bullying of the

world community and in particular the united states, so the more pressure iran finds itself under from the united states there is a grave danger it will only reinforce its determination to have nuclear weapons. left open in this assessment is the impact of a military assault of one form or the other on iran. i am no expert. you might delay in iran getting a nuclear weapon, but there are consequences. there are likely to get caught the " loose, and most people i speak to think the consequences -- there are likely to be consequences, and most people think it would be enormous rather than the zero consequence of the impact of the attack on

syria. >> what would happen? >> i will leave it to my colleagues to pass judgment. as only an aspiring american, i did not feel qualified to really make that judgment. >> we conferred, end we concur it would look good. that was pretty easy it -- we concur it will not look good. that was pretty easy. after multiple administrations, this would be unacceptable. after dealing first with the balkans, i learned never say something is unacceptable, but rather focus on what you're going to do to prevent it from happening, or if it is happening, to prevent the consequences. rather than wringing our hands

and saying our diplomacy was not successful, i think we have to say we are facing a determined opponent, and we need to think about, how do we make sure the iranian leadership is not left better off what is left worse off, that it does not gain what it wants, whether it is prestige or influence our security, and how overtime the you roll back the program? how do you make it clear they are not benefiting from their nuclear program, that there is another path they have not chosen, and so they will find a different iranian leadership the finds out if they are better off without them. rather than saying we were not successful, we need to think about how we can succeed in the longer term, in terms of minimizing their influence, minimizing the benefits, and the

condition and under different leadership to give them often -- and maybe convince them under different leadership to give them up. >> we have time for two questions. can we take them both aswan -- as one? >> either israeli or pakistani nuclear capability raise the possibility of having a direct impact on the shift of power in the region, but the regional countries seem to be reluctant to take a bold position against iran, so my question is, are they willingly accepting to have a shift in the balance of power, or do they see themselves as irrelevant to this dilemma?

>> please. >> the national defense university representative 3 if no one has talked about the bombing option very much. we know some of the likely repercussions in terms of terrorism, but i would like a few words about your thoughts. >> sure. on the military option, i let the general's speech for me, and for the last several years, including the bush administration, it is very clear, where he said he thought iran with nuclear weapons was the terrible, and you see that

in statements, and clearly the military has a sense the bombing is not going to put the u.s. in a better position over the ensuing years, and i have not read anything that makes me think that is not right, and the question earlier about the status of the u.s. if iran gets nuclear weapons, i think that is a really good question. you have to evaluate that against of the u.s. took other actions. how does that leave u.s. status forever i do not go -- how does that leave u.s. status of i did not know the answer. i think u.s. the great question. this confounds diplomats and others, the sense we have talked to countries and their leaders privately. they say how concerned they are and how much they do not want

iran to have nuclear weapon capability, and you ask, how come you're government does not go out and make expressions of the end work more closely, and you get different answers, but they do not, and sometimes they say, we do not want to make the raid -- the iranians, after us, or the things they could do quietly corner interfere in our region quietly or interfere in our internal affairs we do not want them to do. there are lots of different answers, but i know in several countries going back several years, i would have officials say, you should on them, and i would say, what would your country do after we bomb them? we will hang your president in effigy, and our people will fill the streets, so i think that is part of the tension. turkey has been very interested

in offering, as thessaly with the proposed deal -- and especially with the proposed deal, but turkey stepped in and with it was very well turn to build confidence -- very well come to build confidence. turkey was probably very frustrated dealing with it as well, but one response neighbors had in trying to deal with iran -- everyone who deals with iran is frustrated. maybe not hezbollah, but everyone else, and the question is, today chief of frustration to themselves or express it in different ways -- do they keep the frustration to themselves or expressive in different ways? everyone is frustrated with them, including turkey and other states. >> when we talk about bombing, there is a big wild card, and that is israel, and i am not in a position to evaluate how the recent developments between the u.s. and israel might affect

decision making, but i can say, i was surprised israel did not undertake military action a couple years ago. israel says some clear red lines. usually when israel says redlines, if it says something is not acceptable, it will do something about it. it was pretty clear to me, remember when the israeli government was talking about the point of no return? i understood it as enriched with capability if -- enrichment capability. i suspect the government knew how complicated that was in the middle east. what about other countries in the region? if i may take on turkey, and she knows i am a friend of turkey. i work closely with turkey, but

i have to say, i have been disappointed recently. after i left, the board of governors faster resolution on iran. -- passed a resolution on iran. it was after the in richmond had been exposed to the world, and there was a resolution that basically condemned iran for violating, for not having told about this facility in advance. this was the first resolution passed by the board of governors since we reported iran to the security council. it was significant, and we got a pretty good majority of the board to go along with it. it was not just the u.s. and our european colleagues. it was japan, australia, russia, china, countries in africa, countries from south america,

but turkey abstained. how could turkey of staying on the fact that the country next to them -- abstain on the fact of the country next to the misfiling security council resolutions and failed to tell the iea above this facility that did not look like a civil facility. the turkish ambassador said, we are trying to mediate, and we thought the timing was bad, but what i told my turkish friends is, beware of offers to mediate. i did a lot of traveling to talk to governments in dispute. every government i talked to, particularly on the board of governance, they would tell me, the iranians just came to us and said, you could mediate. i heard the from the swiss, the spanish, italian, and i think that was a talking point might iranian counterparts 3 using. they said, you can mediate.

that is tempting. isn't its nice to be the mediator? you do not have to put pressure on. if you're not successful, it is because the u.s. mess up. it is a good strategy by the iranian government to let everyone mediate. the swiss charge for a while, and the swiss got frustrated and said, forget it. we're going to join with the rest of europe and the webcast -- the west. in the end, turkey fell for this mediation, and i think -- to me it is worrisome because turkey has a lot of influence. it is a nato ally, and with turkey abstaining, it is basically sending a signal to iran that you are being

successful in dividing the international community. turkey and spain and brazil, that is a problem, and they -- turkey and brazil happen to be on the security council. it is very tempting for the countries in the region to try to be neutral, but how can you be neutral on sunday like this that has such major implications for region -- on something like this with such major implications for national security, and the rest of the world, it is joining everyone else and urging them to comply, to taking advantage of negotiations and so forth. >> thank you. it turns to me to bring this session to end end. thank you for being such a good

audience and coming up with such interesting questions. i would like to thank my colleagues. thank you. [applause] >> on thursday, president obama will be in prague to sign a nuclear arms reduction treaty with the russian president'- medvedev. today a preview of the nuclear summit of the liggett key challenges to preventing nuclear terrorism. -- end a look at key challenges to preventing nuclear terrorism. wednesday, live from the white house, michelle obama, who has made fighting childhood obesity one of her priorities, will sit

down with a c-span studentcam winner. his documentary was one of many submitted on the topic of childhood obesity. joining in the conversation will be other winners from around the country. that is at 11:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> i know what the challenges, and we're in a unique position to go to work. what we need is to develop our road map so we can get it done. >> something about energy policy would like to talk about on your blog? at the new seize the library, you can search it and share it -- at the news c-span library, you can search for it and share it. cable cause latest gift to america.

this year's student competition as some middle and high school students to create a five minutes to a minute video dealing with one of our country's greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. here is one of the third-place winners. na♪ >> one of our nation's greatest strengths are the artists >> ths documentary is untitled, art for the sake of work. we have interviewed several professional artists to find out

what sets of american art apart. in austin, texas, the arts are the highest importance to the community. this lovely town is the central location. before we begin, a few explanations are in order. what are the hearts of what art is defined as the conscious use of skill and -- what are the arts? art is defined as the conscious use of skill and imagination. average citizens depend on art to carry them through difficult times, but not only did they provide entertainment, but they also provide for the cultural needs of the society at large. in a study done in hartford, business, law, and health care, are among the fields that demand creative talent. the message is under the right

conditions, culture is contained. crossness 5 trillion dollars -- >> 5 trillion dollars of american household wealth disappeared in three months. >> it is hard to imagine the arts would be prosperous at a time of economic recovery, but that is not what these artists have to say. our first stop is at the home of one of austin's most famous piano players. mrs. copeland grew up in south africa, and she moved to the u.s. with her husband peter. >> i think it is extremely valuable for people of all ages to be able to use in music to find duties -- beauty and enjoyment. after 9-11, i noticed my students increased and found

refuge in playing piano as a security at the time the country was in turmoil. in a funny kind of way, the arts are dependent on individuals giving. this has been beneficial and not beneficial. i love playing and creating. it does not exist unless someone plays it. i love of saunders said -- seeing understanding coming into someone's eyes when i am teaching, and it is great. >> there you have it. american citizens use the arts does a retreat, and an economic struggle is both a good thing and of the thing. it may provide inspiration, but it does not provide incentives

for corporate sponsors to give to the arts. >> we have to have winners and losers in the economy to be prosperous. if we are all medium, no one is going to try to do better, because no one did go to get paid for their success region no one is going to get paid for their success. >> our next artist is a glass floor. -- blower. these three hours away. we talked about how the economy has done in the past year. >> we stimulated the economy to grow. in the first quarter this year we were down -6.4% in an estimate, we are 2.8% plus, a swing of 9.2% in our gdp, so

we're very proud of this. >> here we are, and there is nick. nickel holds degrees from the university of texas in austin and the rhode island school of design. >> visual arts gives this nation of visual vocabulary. american artists, we constantly try to reinvent ourselves. sure, that means the owners of offices do not have to hire me to be an artist in this time. this is a difficult time. there are going to be some who will make it through the turmoil, but artists to try to utilize the opportunities fa, ty are the ones that are going to succeed in the end. they are going to come through

ethnic -- come through it. >> and a recent article, the writer says of a global scale the arts market has not been doing very well, but in america, our market is thriving, and recently contemporary collectors have rejoined competition for top examples of the artist's work. our third and final artist is a professor and -- prof. of theatre at st. edward's university. >> certainly the arts are usually first on the chopping block, especially at times of economic difficulties. in some ways to look to the arts and want to be entertained. they provide the kind of support people mean in ouhard economic times, but i do not think hard economic times are good for the

arts. they are about the soul and heart, rather than things that are lucrative. it is not that kind of feel. people with dreams and energy is very inspiring. i count myself blessed to be a teacher and a teacher in the arts. >> the hearts of america are so strong that in spite of the economic recession, the arts are still able to thrive. ♪

>> to see all the winning entries, visit studentcam.org. >> this morning, we will take your questions and comments, and to night, a discussion of the federal oversight of car safety standards, including yesterday's $16 million fine on a toyota. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this morning, a discussion on how massachusetts was used as a model for federal health care legislation, and with