examines the life of a cia spy master, his father, william. >> if you watch in study him. , he is a soldier. he took on the toughest and dirtiest assignments given to him by the president. when it came time when it came time for the president to ask him to lie, he could not do it. >> this week on prime and sisters questions, david cameron discusses the public sector strikes across the u.k. and the attack on the british embassy in iran. prime minister's questions tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. next, defense secretary leon panetta on u.s. relations with israel and iran's nuclear threat.

he criticized israel for the stalled peace negotiations and urged them to restore relations with their neighbors including turkish cut -- turkey, egypt, and jordan. he talked about the consequences of iran developing a nuclear weapon. this brookings institution of event is 55 minutes. >> this is appropriately labeled "a strategic challenges in the middle east." we have convened members to discuss the most urgent challenge is facing the united states and israel in the middle east. revolution is sweeping arab autocrats once thought on movable. gaddafi is out.

passat is -- assad is growing. can it be kings and shakes of all -- avoid a similar fate? for how long can israel sustain the occupation? so many questions that don't have any answers yet. therefore, we look forward to two days of intense and candid conversations about the state of affairs intimate -- in the middle east. and what israel and the united states can and should do about it. i want to express my gratitude to the brookings institute and

all of the hard-working staff at the sorbonne center for continuing to make this possible. "please give them a round of applause. \ [applause] tonight, we will hear from two people with a wealth of personal of an experience and fluent in the history of the intricacies of the middle east. we have the privilege of hearing from our keynote speaker, secretary of defense, leon panetta. after that, we will have a discussion with president simpson. mr. secretary, it is a pleasure to welcome you. he has devoted his whole life to public service. from prison in my state of california in congress to running the white house for president clinton.

he was sworn in as secretary of defense as -- this last july after serving as a director of the cia. indeed, as director of the cia, the operation that led to the death of osama bin laden. secretary panetta, thank you very much for your service to our country. ladies and gentlemen, secretary panetta. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you very much for that kind introduction. haim is someone who has really served his country in the cause of bringing the united states and israel together. he has served that cause with tremendous distinction. he has provided vision and support for this very important congress -- conference. more importantly, i would like to thank you for your commitment to strengthening the bond between the united states and israel. a cause that is a key priority for me as the secretary of defense. for that reason, it is truly an honor to be here tonight and to join all of you, so many

distinguished guests, in helping to open this year's soroban form -- sorbonne forum. my personal connection to israel dates back to my days as a member of congress. for more than 10 years, i shared the house with a group of that fellow congressmen. if you have seen the movie "animal house" you have some idea of what this was like. one of the members of that exclusive fraternity was chuck schumer. someone that many of you know and that many of you understand as having a tremendous passion for israel that is deep and infectious. we slept on the bottom of this

house, the living room area. every night, before we went to sleep, he made me say a prayer. i made him say that hail mary. he learned from my passion as an italian and i learned from his passion. i think it was a little bit over 20 years ago, he and i and some of our dearest friends had a chance to travel to israel together. that visit, i believe it was in august of '91, left a very deep and lasting impression on me. at a time when hundreds of thousands of jews from the soviet union were making -- and fulfilling a dream to live in a

free and more prosperous life in their historic homeland. that trip gave me an even stronger appreciation for israel's promise as a jewish and democratic state. coming just months after saddam hussein's missiles had attacked tel aviv and haifa, this also underscored a complex array of security threats facing israel by virtue of geography, by virtue of politics, by virtue of history. as chairman of the house budget committee, i had the opportunity to work on budget issues regarding military assistance to israel. as a member of president

clinton's cabinet, as the chief of staff, i had the opportunity to be present at that historic moment on the south lawn as yasser arafat and prime minister rabin shook hands. then, i had the opportunity to fight as president clinton crossed chief of staff city could pay tribute to the memory and to the dedication to peace of rabin. in the years since, as director of the cia, now the secretary of defense, i work closely with a number of israeli leaders, the prime minister and many intelligence and mandatary leaders -- military leaders.

one of whom mr. this evening, i often work with him. i understand he is participating in this forum. ehud barak is also someone i have known for many years. we have worked a number of times in our capacity and we discussed our shared efforts to strengthen israel's security. i was pleased to make my first trip to israel as secretary of defense just a few weeks ago to meet with israeli leaders and including my friend of prime minister, netanyahu. over the course of my career, i have witnessed times of great progress in these efforts and also great challenge and uncertainty. for israel and our shared security interests in the region.

not yet, nothing i have seen compares to the dramatic events of the past year. one of change, one of promise, one of uncertainty, one of turmoil. a year we hope of the arab awakening. a year of setback for al qaeda. a year we believe of frustration for iran. entrenched leaders were overthrown by peaceful protests in tunisia, egypt, and by force in libya. in yemen, the president has agreed to step down. we believe this is a very positive development. yet, the terrorist threat from

yemen still persists and extremists are seeking to gain a foothold across the region. in egypt, the country has held its first elections on the road to democratic transition, another positive step. as we all know, egypt will require brave leadership in the weeks and months ahead if they are to successfully transition to a fully civilian controlled government that respects democratic principles and maintains all of this international commitments including the treaty of peace with israel. on terrorism, repeated operations have decimated al qaeda's leadership. bin laden and many others have

been successfully targeted by military and intelligence operations. al qaeda remains dangerous, make no mistake about it. the world is safer as a result of these successes. these are largely positive trends are also accompanied by some dark ones a discredited regime is still a of violently clinging to power in syria though the pressure against it is increasing dramatically each day. i want to condemn in the strongest possible terms the assad regime's murder and torture of children that the u.n. reported this week in

geneva. , buts conduct --assad's has brought scorn, pressure, and punishing sanctions not just by the united states and europe but now by the arab league and turkey as well. in addition, the continued to drive has developed nuclear capabilities. this includes troubling enrichment activities and past work on what position that has now been documented by the iaea and it's continued support for groups like hezbollah, hamas, and other terrorist organizations, makes clear that tehran is a grave threat to all of us.

all of this upheaval is posing new challenges for israel regarding its security and position in the region. in this time of understandable anxiety, i would like to underscore one thing that has stayed constant the past three years of this administration -- the determination of the united states to safeguard israel's security. that commitment will not change. i want to be clear, israel can count on three injuring pillars in u.s. policy in the region, all of which contribute directly to the safety, the prosperity of the israeli people.

first, our commitment to israel paul security second, -- israel's security, second, our broader commitment to stability. third, our determination to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. [applause] these are not merely rhetorical assurances. these are firm principles. principles that are backed up by tangible action. the commitment of resources and demonstrable results. let me explain what i mean. first, this administration has pursued an achieved unprecedented levels of defense

cooperation with israel to back up our unshakeable commitment to israel's security. next year, the u.s. arms forces and the idf will conduct the largest exercise in the history of this partnership. enhancing the ability of our military's to operate together and also testing our new ballistic missile and rocket defense capabilities. those new capabilities are themselves a product of this unprecedented defense cooperation. we are especially proud that above and beyond the annual foreign military financing that we provide to israel, the obama administration has provided more

than $200 billion -- at $200 million for the iron dome defense system. support that enabled the fielding of a third battery. this system, this system has already saved the lives of israeli civilians facing rocket barrages from gaza. our work together on these capabilities represents only one part of our core commitment to maintaining israel's qualitative military edge. advantage that we are determined to expand even further as we continue to enhance our defense cooperation. as just one example, the united states will ensure that israel continues to enjoy and questioned air superiority by delivering to israel the

advanced fifth generation fighter aircraft, the f-35 joint strike fighter. yet, we recognize that israel's security cannot be achieved by its military arsenal alone. it also depends on the security and stability of the region which is the second pillar of u.s. policy. the success of our efforts in iraq permits us to redouble long-term commitment of the united states too the security and stability of the middle east. the middle east is a vital interest to the united states. we will not let our commitment to its security and stability waiver. that is why we maintain a

significant military presence to throughout the region, defend our partners, to counter aggression, and to maintain the free flow of resources and commerce that are so vital to the fragile global economy. the that states will continue to have some 40,000 troops in the region to support these goals. we are also implementing our long-term strategic partnership with iraq. including security ties between our two militaries facilitated by a robust office of security cooperation that will start on january 1st, 2012. we are building a wider regional security architecture in the gulf, forging bilateral and multilateral cooperation to

confront the common challenges of terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, maritime security and threats too critical infrastructure. no greater threat exists to the security and prosperity of the middle east than a nuclear-armed iran. that is why had the third pillar of our approach to this region, this critical region is our determination to prevent iran from developing nuclear weapons, and more broadly, to deter its destabilizing activities, particularly those that could threaten the free flow of commerce throughout this vital region. that is a red line for the united states. our approach to countering the

threat posed by iran is focused on diplomacy including organizing unprecedented sanctions and strengthening our security partnerships with key partners and the gulf and in the broader middle east. last september, i met in new york with members of the gulf cooperation council to underscored the importance of those partnerships. iran must ultimately realize that its quest for nuclear weapons will make it less, not more secure. these efforts are increasing to iran's isolation and i continue to believe that pressure, economic pressure, diplomatic pressure and strengthen collective defenses are the

right approach. still, it is my department's responsibility to plan for all contingencies and to provide and the president's with a wide range of military options, should they become necessary. that is a responsibility i take very seriously. when it comes to the threat posed by iran, but the president has made it very clear that we have not taken any options off the table. our delivered and focused approach to iran, our efforts to enhance regional security and stability and our unshakeable commitment to israel's security make clear that even at this time of great change, our determination to safeguard

israel's security is steady and sure. indeed, this is stronger than ever. in every strong relationship built on trust, built on friendship, built on mutual security, it demands that both sides work towards the same common goals. israel, too has a responsibility to pursue our shared goals, to build regional support for israel and the united states security objectives. i believe security is dependent on a strong military but it is also dependent on strong diplomacy. unfortunately, over the past year, we have seen israel's isolation from its traditional

security partners in the region grow and the pursuit of a comprehensive middle east peace has effectively been put on hold. i want to be clear, this isolation is due to a number of factors. indeed, there is an international campaign under way to isolate israel. president obama has stood steadfastly in the way of that effort, especially in the detonations. i've never known an israeli governor, or an israeli, for that matter to be passive about anything. let alone this troubling trend. so, i have been working with leaders there to find ways to help israel take steps which are

profoundly in its interests. for example, israel can reach out and mend fences with those who share an interest in regional stability. countries like turkey, and egypt as well as jordan. this is an important time to be able to develop and restore those relationships in this crucial area. this is not impossible. if gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are and that is exactly why israel should pursue them. like all of you, i have been deeply troubled by the direction of the turkish israeli

relationships. turkey is a nato ally and has proven to be a real partner in our effort to support democratic change and stand against authoritarian regimes that use of violence against their own people. ,t is in israel's interest turkey's interest and u.s. interest for israel to reconcile with turkey and both turkey and israel need to do more to put their relationship back on the right track. that is a message i have taken to jerusalem and this is a message i will be taking to turkey later this month. meanwhile, even as turmoil continues to rock the region, each of's current leaders, along with jordan have made very clear

to me, privately and publicly that they are committed to their peace treaties with israel. we have been clear to all parties in egypt that sustaining the peace treaty with israel is in the critical interest of the united states. while we share israel's legitimate concerns, about instability in the sinai peninsula and the attack on the israeli embassy in cairo, the best way to address these concerns is through increasing communications and cooperation. increasing communication and cooperation with the egyptian authorities, not by stepping away from them.

the real essence of diplomacy is not that you have to love one another. the essence of diplomacy is that you respect each other so that you can talk to each other when that you must. i also remained firm in the belief that it is profoundly in israel's long-term security interest to lean forward on efforts to achieve peace with the palestinians. i was pleased to see the israeli government announced that it will release the tax revenues for the palestinian authority, averting a situation that would have undermined israel's security and damage to the important institution and building work of the prime minister and strengthen the hands of extremist palestinian factions. rather than undermining the palestinian authority, it is and

israel's interest to strengthen it by contributing and continuing to transfer palestinian tax and pursuing other avenues of cooperation. for example, the security cooperation between israel, palestinians, the u.s. security forces, led by united states security coordinator mike mullen , has paid dividends. israel should look for ways to bolster this cooperation. president obama must take the difficult steps to do the same thing. ultimately, the agreement of a secure, prosperous, jewish and democratic israel can only be achieved through two states

living side by side in peace and insecurity. with full confidence that the united states is willing and capable of ensuring that israel can safeguard its security as it takes the risks needed to pursue peace. now is the time for israel to take bold action and to move towards a negotiated two-state solution. i recognize that there is a view that this is not the time to pursue peace and that the arab awakening further imperils the dream of a safe and secure jewish and democratic israel. i disagree with that view. i believe that israel will ultimately be safe when other middle eastern states adopt government that responds to

their people, promote equal rights, free and fair elections, uphold their international commitments, and it joined the community of free and democratic nations. i believe it is the only real to security andth prosperity. to realize the vision for a sustainable peace in the middle east. peace requires difficult steps. yes, it will involve risks. my italian father used to say, if you cannot achieve anything worthwhile without taking risks. all israelis should note that the united states will always

stand behind their country. safety net a secure as it takes those unnecessary risks. i would close by noting that last year speaking at this forum, my friend recalled a famous statement by winston churchill who said, "a pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity. an optimist sees opportunity in every difficulty." there are risks. there are risks in the changes taking place across this critical region. we will work with israel to reduce and to mitigate those risks in the effort to achieve

something worthwhile. even as we have seen the challenges across the region grow in the past year, i would urge my israeli and american friends to remember these words, to see these changes as an opportunity, and to take the steps needed to secure our shared interests for peace in the long term. to secure that peace, israel will always have the unshakable backing of the united states, and the united states will always have the unshakable trust of israel. that bond, that bond is the fundamental key to stability and

hope in the middle east. it is a bond that must never be broken. thank you. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. we have collected a number of questions. please feel free to continue to add -- provide some. you will not be surprised to hear that many of the questions related to the same topic. that said, you will be surprised to hear that most of those are about the personal life of chuck schumer. [laughter] i will see if i can find something else in here. iran is growing more and more restless, encouraging attacks in afghanistan, but in israel,

thumbing their noses at chichen -- sanctions and the u.n., and not trying to kill the saudi ambassador. what level -- and now trying to kill the saudi ambassador. what little aggressiveness will make us pick up the option of the table? >> we have to approach this with all options on the table. at this point, we believe that the combination of economic and diplomatic sanctions that have been placed on iran have had a serious impact. iran is isolating itself from the rest of the world. it is becoming, as a result of the attack on the british embassy, a pariah in that region.

their own government is off balance in terms of trying to establish any kind of stability, even within iran. the combination of that and efforts to make sure that they do not develop a nuclear capability, all of those efforts are having an impact. we have a common goal here. let's understand, we have a common goal. the common goal is and the run that does not develop a nuclear weapon -- is an iran that does not develop a nuclear weapon. working together, working with israel, working with our allies in the region, working with the international community to continue to isolate them. to continue to put pressure on them. it is an effort that we must continue. that is the best way to put

pressure on them. it is the best way to ultimately weaken this nation so that ultimately, they have to make a decision about whether they continue to be a pariah or whether they decide to join the international community. we always, as prime minister netanyahu said, force should be only a last resort. if that is the case, i believe it is incumbent on us to implement all of our diplomatic and economic pressures possible to try to continue this effort to make clear to the world that we are dealing with an international pariah in iran. >> egypt is undergoing an historic change, there is no guarantee it will be a positive one. how can america use its strong

relationship with the military to encourage a good outcome there? >> it is important to continue to work closely with the israeli leadership in order to ensure that they do move forward with the democratic reforms that they have promised their people. they have implemented elections. those elections have taken place. we have rolling elections. they will go on to the next few months. at some point, they will establish a constitutional change, and at some point, it will have a presidential election. what we should be about is to insure that they stay on course and that they continue the efforts to move forward to implement these democratic reforms. the egyptians have to decide

their future. they have to try to implement this in a way that fulfills the promise of the revolution that took place. i were best course is to continue to put pressure on them -- our best course is to continue to put pressure on them to make sure they stand by the promises they made to the egyptian people. that is something we will do. when they do form a government, we have an obligation to stay with them to make sure they abide by the commitments, respect the treaty that was signed with israel, and they abide by the other red lines they have established. >> the u.s.-backed intervention in libya -- lineup in syria? -- why not in syria?

what i get asked this question a number of times. -- >> i get asked this question a number of times. it cannot take a cookie cutter approach to that region and decide have been applied force in one area, it makes sent in another area. -- decide having applied force in one area, it makes sense in another area. the fact turkey has imposed sanctions, all of this is isolating the government in syria. i cannot tell you when, it is a ister of time before a asad taken off of his position of leadership in syria. it is tragic, obviously, that there are people that are dying. the key right now is to continue

to put pressure on them, to continue the international unity that is continuing to make the effort to replace him. that is working. it is working effectively. let's give that some time to read it will always join with the international community -- let's give that some time. we will always toyed with the international community. >> because of the disastrous economic situation, a lot of people are talking about cutting off all u.s. foreign aid. how will this affect american and israeli security? >> you are coming into a town in which my greatest concern is with regards to leadership on capitol hill and the stability to deal with the issues -- and the ability to deal with the

issues that confront this country. i have served in the cup of congress -- in the congress. i always felt that while there were political differences, when it came to national issues, both parties would work better to compromise and find solutions, particularly to the crises that face this country. we are at a time when there seems to be an inability to find those essential compromises in order to govern this country. if i have men and women who are putting their lives on a line, who are fighting and dying for this country in battles and they have the courage to do that, surely, our elected leaders ought to be able to find courage to find the solutions that would help solve the problems in this

country. [applause] now, when it comes to, i have indicated my concerns about sequestration, because of the failure of the committee of 12 to find the necessary deficit- reduction they were required to do, they have implemented this automatic trigger that will take affect in january of 2013. i have indicated that if it is put into effect it would decimate our national defense. it would tear it seems in our ability to effectively defend this country. at the same time, i am concerned about what it does on the domestic side of the budget. national security is not dependent on military power, it is dependent on diplomatic power, it is dependent on state

departments. being able to work with countries, provide development money, education money. it is dependent on the quality of life in this country, to add to kick our kids, provide health care. all of that -- to educate our kids come provide health care. health care., provide it is for that reason that it is essential that the leaders find a solution to the deficit. >> for how long the believe a military attack on iran would postpone it from getting a bomb? >> part of the problem is the concern that at best, talking to

my israeli friends, the indication is at best, it might postpone it one or two years. it depends on the ability to truly get at the targets they are after. some of those targets are difficult to get at. that kind of shot would only, not destroy their ability to produce an atomic weapon, but delay it. the greater concern is the unintended consequence, it would have a backlash. a regime that is weak and isolated would be able to reestablish itself. it would be able to get support in the region and, instead of being isolated, would get greater support in a region that use it as a pariah.

thirdly, the united states would be blamed. we could possibly be the target of retaliation from iran, striking our ships, or military bases. there are economic consequences to that attack. severe economic consequences that could impact a fragile economy in europe and here in the united states. lastly, i think the consequences could be that we could have an escalation that could take place that not only involve many lives, but i think could consume the middle east in a confrontation that we would regret. we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of that kind of attack. >> the perfect follow-up, given

american policy towards and the runyan nuclear weapon, the u.s. believes there would be cut -- towards an iranian nuclear weapon, the u.s. believed there would be consequences to them acquiring one. what would be those consequences? what do you believe the consequences of iran of barring a nuclear weapon would be? -- iran firing a nuclear wapon would be ? ? >> this is a common goal. this is something, we do not want iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. why? using the irgc, supplying terorists, undermining governments, supporting

terrorists, a nuclear weapon would be devastating if they had that capability. once iran gets a nuclear weapon, you are going to have an arms race in the middle east. what is going to stop saudi arabia from getting a nuclear weapon? what is going to stop other countries from getting a nuclear weapon? you have an escalation of these horrible weapons that i think could create greater devastation in the middle east. the key for all of us, for all of us, is to work together, together, to make sure that does not happen. we have made good progress in these efforts. we continue to make good progress in these efforts. that is where we ought to continue to put our pressures, our effort, diplomatic, economic, working together to

make sure that does not happen. you always have, as a last resort, the last resort of military action. it must be the last resort. >> is the chief priority of u.s. policy towards iran to moderate nuclear ambitions or change the iranian regime? will this regime really change its behavior? >> i think the effort we are concerned about is to make sure that iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. secondly, we would like to have an iran that becomes part of the international community and that it decides it is going to engage with the rest of the world, as opposed to isolating itself,

supporting terrorist, trying to influence and support those who would attack our country and others in that region. that is our fundamental goal, to try to insure we have an iran that becomes part of the international community and that understands its obligations as part of the international community. most importantly, we have to do everything we can to make sure they never obtained a nuclear weapon. -- never obtain a nuvlear weapon. >> egypt is concluded its first round of elections. the islamists did very well in that election. do you believe this unexpected rise of the extreme religious

right is a threat to regional security? what would u.s. policy towards and egypt that is controlled by strong islamic properties look like? >> which could all jump to conclusions. we need to let this play out. this is the first part of a bowling election. we need to see what the results are. we will get a formal announcement tomorrow. we have additional elections that will take place that will occur throughout the rest of egypt. we will then have an election for the upper body that will take place. we will then have -- the constitution will come together. all that needs to take place. this is a democracy. in democracies, we have to allow

the people to express themselves. ultimately, the pressure is within a democracy. for our purposes, when they come to the conclusion, the united states has to engage with whatever government is established in egypt and in short that they abide by their obligations. they abide by the treaty with israel, with international standards, that they continue to be a partner with us in that part of the world. that is what democracy is all about. let's give it a chance. they are at the beginning of this process, not the end. >> this will be the last question. it made a strong statement about israel's responsibility to make peace. what steps should it take now?

a suggestion in the form of a question. >> just get to the dam it table. just get to the table -- to the damn table. just get to the table. [applause] the problem is we cannot get them to the table to sit down and begin to discuss the differences. they have been talked about, they have been worked through, we understand the concerns. we understand the concerns of israel, of the palestinian. if they sit at a table and work through those concerns, then i think you have the beginnings of what could be a process that could lead to a peace agreement. if they are not at the table, this will never happened. first and foremost, get to the damn table. [applause]

>> thank you so much. thank you for your words tonight. thank you for joining us. [applause] >> next, a discussion on u.s. sanctions against iran pose a central bank. from today's "washington journal," this is just over half an hour. >> thank you for joining us. >> i am worried about the project three we are on with iran, it is easy to impose sanctions and more sanctions and more pressure on the country, but to what end? if there is not a diplomatic

engagement strategy coupled with it, then you may be put in a position where iran behaves like a pariah because it does not seem all -- see options with itself. if you treat, i do not want to compare iran to a child, if all you do is punished, and after a then after ach, while they say why not continue this bad behavior? i am not going to see any benefit. host: can you explain these sanctions and the debate over whether that was the right move to make? guest: even when it is not an election year, it is hard to find anyone in a congress that will oppose any type of sanctions.

we are in an election year which means it is impossible to find rational thought on capitol hill when it comes to many issues. what the senate did was voted 100 to 0 4 an amendment that would make it possible for the united states to sanction banks and u.s. allies if they continue to do business with iran. it is a secondary sanction. it is a threatening action. the amendment as it was constructed had wicker provisions in it, which are extremely important. the senator make an issue of that in a hearing -- made an issue of that in a hearing. there was a lot of waiver ability. -- authority.

nevertheless, it is a very strong measure. the administration, which has done a good job of fielding an international consensus against iran and building up the sanctions, did not want to be put into a position where it was threatening our allies in order to get them to increase the pressure on iran. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of our screen. our guest has been with us many times in the past, this time as a senior fellow with the atlantic. explain the impact of sanctions that are out there. guest: they have had an impact. they have hurt the running people. they have made it difficult for the run-in's -- for the iranians

to do any business that requires dollars. people are resorting to barter transactions. that includes the iranian government. we have a piece on the impact of sanctions, it talks about how the eye ring in government and of bringing business people -- how the iranian government and business people are relying on arbartering. the money is used to purchase goods and services from the chinese for iran. it is a way of evading these sanctions. even if the amendment passes, even if the world starts to sanction a ron's central bank, these types of transactions would still go forward. host: you mentioned the need for some diplomatic dialogue.

what is happening between the u.s. government and the iranian government? guest: the last round of talks was in january of this year. what the united states has done, this is a construct that the obama administration inherited from the bush administration -- it is the five permanent members of the u.s. security council plus germany. this framework has outlived its usefulness. the iranians want to talk to the u.s. that is the kind of framework that they would want. i think that we should break free from that and organize a separate negotiation.

host: they said any sanctions would make will go up to $250 a barrel. caller: this is enforcement of the global apartheid. they began to export food instead of importing. they manufactured more calls than in italy. they went into space a few years ago. the west is worried it.

it gives a bad example of what they can do it if they can get a hold of their resources. >> a well, there are certainly elements in what you say that resonate strongly with people in iran and other countries that. the iranians sign something called the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. under this treaty, they are not allowed to develop nuclear weapons. this is forbidden to them. unfortunately, we have seen that they have done research into making nuclear weapons. they have increased over time a stockpile of uranium that could be converted into fuel. they are not blameless in this. another factor is the rhetoric that has been used by their leaders. their leader has questioned the holocaust and threatened israel.

if you want to be accepted as a responsible member of the international committee, these are things that you cannot do. it is not just to iran is a third world country. the other factor is that they have been estranged for 32 years. the u.s. does not want to see them develop nuclear weapons. caller: good morning. there is some confusion going on about what sanctions are. sanctions are an act of war. why don't you just call it what it is? it is disturbing to me that there are people who polarized

the discussion on topics like this, they polarize it even with russia or china. we had a strong ally in the middle east. to hear these people really put on sanctions, an act of war against a country where we have meddled in their politics for years and years and years before we cut off relations is disturbing to me.

think these people pushing this propaganda out with their information revolution we are in now will succeed. i really don't. host: but those are some interesting comments, sanctions as an act of war. guest: i have no problem with export controls. these have been approved by the u.n. security council and they have shown to have some impact in terms of slowing the program down. i have no problems against egregious abusers of human rights, which they have a number of, especially since the disputed presidential elections in 2009. the government is better equipped to evade the sanctions than ordinary iranians are.

if you are a middle-class businessman who needs hard currency, you cannot get it. there are a limited number of banks around the world that will give you a letter of credit or handle of some kind of transaction. this is having a bad effect on the overall iranian economy and this reminds me of what happened to a iraq in the 1990's. i am worried that we are on a slippery slope to a more overt war. at some sort -- at some point, something will happen. we have no hot line with tehran, we have no agreements, we have nothing that prevents the two countries from getting into a horrible conflict that frankly nobody needs. there is this comment, is

the u.s. behind setbacks? some are speculating that they might have happened on purpose and a goal too slow iran. >> i do think if they might have happened on purpose, i don't know if it is the u.s. or the israelis or a combination of the two or people within iran participating in this but we are in a kind of clause i war because of sanctions and because of these incidents. there was massive explosions outside of iran that destroy the missile base and killed a prominent member of the missile program. there was another explosion that might or might have not had something to do with the uranium facility. we had the virus which disabled

100 centrifuges. we had the assassination of scientists. this is frightening. understand the motivation behind it and the iranians are getting the message that if they continue this program, they will face more of these actions. host: what should we know about iranian politics? >> they have been very divisive. this is not it would help turn state, it is authoritarian but it also has factions and a fight each other. right now, there is a battle going on between the supreme will live as leader of the country and the president of the country and his people. ahmadinejad has had a severe falling now supreme leader. he made the mistake of thinking he was really in charge of the country. he started firing ministers who

were close to the supreme leader and putting his own cronies in place and it reached a head last april when he fired intelligence minister off who was promptly reinstated by the supreme leader. my view is that he will probably survive until the end of his term but he has been very much weakened. a lot of the incidences that we see in iran including the takeover of the british embassy might have had something to do with its internal political fight. caller: good morning. i agree with preventing nuclear expansion. we have a country like pakistan, you have a country like india, then a country like israel or close to iran and you let them to have nuclear weapons. how come you can't tell iran

that they cannot? i think it is a double standard. there is a power struggle between iran, israel, and certain countries. why not try and reduce the threat level by having the nuclear weapons removed from other countries or at least doing that at the same time as preventing iran. a lot of the dictators that we supported have been overthrown. now, the organizational abilities are getting involved in those other countries. host: thank you for calling.

guest: excellent questions. certainly the nuclear proliferation treaty, the bargain was that the five countries that had nuclear- weapons would get rid of their arsenals and in return, the rest of the world would not go nuclear. that was the deal. in fact, we have seen other countries develop nuclear weapons. israel, pakistan, have developed outside of the con fines. iran is aware of the fact -- i think it would be great if there could be more discussions about a nuclear-free middle east. 65% of israelis would be willing to get rid of their own nuclear weapons if they could be sure that iran would not have nuclear-weapons.

you have to come at this from a number of different angles. the weapons cannot be used against anyone in this day and age. they have reached a certain level of scientific prowess. we should be able to find a way to get everyone to reduce, not to expand. in terms of the second question, you hit on a very important point. it is not another country developing nuclear weapons, it is iran developing nuclear weapons. we have some differences with their government. iran has been an implacable foe of israel since this regime came into power in 1979. they support groups like hamas

and hezbollah that oppose israel. there is a lot of concern that the pro-western governments are being overthrown in the region and that they will emerge as more and the american and they will find allies in the next version of egypt. this is an effort to contain the influence as much as we sought to contain the influence of the soviet union. host: our guest is barbra sla vin. she is a regular commentator on e p r -- and pr and has written extensively about the middle

east. she has a new book as well. caller: i would like to think washington journal" for educating the american public about these issues. i go to this web site of former bush administration official and a former cia analyst, race for iran. i encourage others to go there as well. there was an article that in the most recent iaea report about iran that the new head of the iaea led a lot of information in that report that was unsubstantiated some of the

information was about them looking for the nuclear weapons programs. they have already signed the n pt. robert kelly, a former weapons inspector. if you could talk about that. we heard ahmadinejad threaten israel but he never did say white israel off the map. he said something about this, he said that the zionism will

disappear from the faces of history. israel persistently as well as of bobby said that there was -- say inflammatory things about iran. can you talk about this fiery language that goes back and forth? guest: let me start with the report from the iaea. there was solid information suggesting that iran did carry out research into how to build a nuclear weapon, how to make it into a warhead. they have not billed or tested a weapon as far as we know. they did do research. a structured program appears to have been dismantled because the iranian program had been discovered. since then, there has been

reports that continued some of this research. those are less well sourced than the earlier reports of weapons research that the iranians had conducted. there are reasons to be concerned. i'm not one of these who dismisses everything, this is propaganda. we do need to worry about this. in terms of the rhetoric, this is a pattern that we seem to get into with every country we decide is our enemy. we demonize them and we make them as black and evil as possible in order to justify animosity towards that country. i think you're right when some of the things and set about iran in this country are simply exaggerations'. what a minute and a judge -- what ahmadinejad said was that iran would be wiped from the pages of history. he was actually quoting

ayatollah khamenei. this is different than saying that iran will destroy israel. in this country, sometimes you have people saying that iran is led by a bunch of crazy religious fanatics who don't care about sacrifice the lives of their countrymen and order to reach a particular goal. i have found iranian leaders not to be suicidal at all. they give money to people were willing to sacrifice their lives because the iranians sacrificing their lives unless the country is invaded as it was during the 1980's. there is a lot of talk that goes on and it feeds a certain

stereotype, a preconceived notion about the country that does not fit with reality. host: "new york times" today, iran's the first great say was actually england. -- satan was actually england. guest: there are many iranians to think that england is pulling the strings. the british has controlled iran's oil for decades. they discovered it and they had a lot power over the iranian government. iran is split between british and russian spheres of influence back the beginning of the last century. iranians deeply resent this. you might remember in 1953, there was a coup that deposed the prime minister.

. it was carried out by the cia and it was reported to have an egg on by the british. the iranians wanted a decent amount of compensation. there is this deep-seated resentment of the british. now, there is no israeli embassy in iran, there is no american embassy in iran, despite what michele bachmann said. even before this incident when the iranian talks storm then, there was periodic demonstrations. i remember visiting british friends. they did not get out very much, shall we say. they were treated like substitutes for the americans.

host: back to the issue of sanctions -- >> the way this would operate, it was say to our banks that if they continue to process will transactions with the central bank in iran, their access to the united states can be terminated. this is a very very powerful threat. this is a threat to essentially for the commercial banks that ends their ability to transact in the dollar and to function as major international financial institutions.

that threat is being focused on our closest allies risks a dynamic with those governments, with these banks that is as likely to push them away and to impede the ability to bring together a coordinated effort against iraq as to generate that. >> more about the powers but also the dangers. >> i think that he expressed this very well. there was a u.n. security council resolution last year which was the toughest that has ever been put in place against iran that gave all sorts of powers to interdict six shipments -- interdict

shipments. there are financial powers. the europeans and other countries have scaled back their trade with the run to some extent. they have scaled back their financial dealings. many did not go all the way and complete the end dealings with the run. dust with iran. this is an extreme threat. this could have an impact on oil prices, which is not helpful. host: where are the chinese right now? >> they are all over the map. they abide by the u.n. resolutions, which they agreed to. but they trade with iran. they are iran's largest trading partner. they take a lot of their oil. they have scaled back a lot of their investment in the energy sector but they have some that help the iranians increase production of oil and natural gas.

some experts suggest that while they don't want to see rocket nuclear-weapons, they like the fact that the u.s. is pinned down in the persian gulf. if iran actually does test and develop nuclear weapons, i don't think that the chinese will not be as upset as most other countries in the world. guest: explain -- host: explained withdrawal from iraq and the situation with iran. guest: many of us suggested this before the invasion but no one listened. iran has a friendly government in baghdad. they don't always do what iran wants them to do but they are mindful of what he running our interests are. -- what iranian interests are.

there is a lot of concern that iranian influence will increase when the u.s. with drawls -- withdraws. the saudis have been finding the sunni groups in iraq. the suicide bombings have continued. the question is whether the state will be strong enough to withstand these kinds of attacks and whether the iranians with the americans got, perhaps, will exercise a somewhat lighter hand. syria is very important to this. if a stock goes down, they will need this connection even more. we have given them a substitute for syria in a way by getting rid of saddam hussein. >> the next call from florida,

thank you. caller: good morning. i spoke to you later go -- a year ago. at that time, there was a calculation that they did develop a nuclear weapon. they also threatened the u.s.. if israel did retaliate, they would bring about just a dent in the great muslim demographic. if the iranians were blown to smithereens, well, we have plenty more where they came from. if you recall wikileaks, we had the saudi arabian and of course the emirate's in secret

diplomatic communications saying that they would just love to see iran taken out either by the u.s. or by a dismal -- or by israel. there is an old expression that if they were to disarm, it would be done as hard the. there was the ultimatum issued to the soviet union, any attack by cuba on the u.s. or its allies would require a nuclear retaliatory attack on the soviet. why can't we say to tehran, if you send a dirty bomb into the u.s. or any of our allies, we will attack you? guest: i imagine that we would

if we determine that it had iranian footprints. you refer to the comments from -- it was a theoretical. he said that if we drop the bomb we would. given all the loose talk that goes on in this country about taking over iran and throwing over the regime, it is reasonable to expect that people in that country engage in inflammatory rhetoric. newt gingrich said it was not sufficient to destroy the nuclear program, you had to destroy the regime. if you are in iran and listing to that and you hear that newt gingrich is leading the polls, it seems, for the republican nomination, what are supposed to think? what we need is a ratcheting down of this kind of rhetoric on both sides. i think that would really help in terms of providing an atmosphere where some piece of

diplomacy could be done. leon panetta made it very very strong statement saying that the u.s. will always be protective of israel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow, "we look at where congressional efforts will go from here. -- tomorrow, on "washington journal", we look at where congressional efforts will go from here. . .