and welcome, prime minister. good of the beginning of this session, -- at the beginning of this session, i would like to record the debt and pay tribute to the fact that it was he who carried through in the house of commons, which most people know is significant reform. trucks are would absolutely agree. -- >> i would absolutely agree. i think his reform was one that endured. after 2010 and some advice from him, he was an extraordinary politician and someone who loves are real legacy -- who left a real legacy. >> turning to a very serious matter, we thought we would begin today by discussing the situation in syria.

>> we are seeing bloodshed daily. 6000 people are reported to have been killed, and the calls for action grow. the main concern is the russians and chinese using their veto power. do you have a chance to talk about syria, and you have any optimism that his attitude may change amazon region may change? >> i did discuss -- the you have any optimism that his attitude may change?

>> you are right. it is appalling. the butchery carried out in my view is criminal, and it was extremely disappointing but russia and china vetoed a resolution that would have helped. i raised the issue. i think we do need to try and persuade the russians i do not think we are going to agree about the future for us to regard, but we have to persuade some regions future for syria, but we have to persuade them that -- now to agree that for the future of syria, we have to persuade down there is a cessation of violence.

they do have considerable influence in syria, but i think they can make a difference, and they need to understand what they have done is to revive for their reputation across the arab world, because the arab league is united in wanting to see a transition period of >> region a transition period of >> do you have -- wanting to see a transition. good >> the you have any advise democrats we would explore if there is more to be done to try to -- you have any advice? >> we would explore if there is more to be done. we want to see the regime called to account for its crimes. we want to see a transition. if there is a way of getting a resolution that other countries can agree on, it of these would provide a condemnation of violence -- at least would provide a combination of violence, that would be appropriate. >> there is a possibility of

further support for the rebels. and what exactly did he have in mind? >> what would be welcomed, if there was a clearer about bush of who the opposition is in a clearer sense of -- about who the opposition is in a clearer sense that would be democratic and open and tolerant of minorities and all their press. if we compare it to libya, they have done a good job of giving the world someone to talk through and someone to work with. we now have a body we can see as a legitimate body, and there is more work we need to do to

understand the various elements and encourage them to come together and provide a more united front so we can work with them. we have an arms embargo applied to see regard, but i think there is quite a lot weekend to -- applied to syria, but i think there is a lot we can do to build support for the opposition. good >> you mentioned the arms embargo. this is a general embargo on weapons to syria. is there any way are around is? could this be preventing us from giving support, yet we know the russians are putting in a substantial number of weapons in support, so we have stopped the rebels fighting behind their back because of an embargo

on region we have got the rebels fighting behind their back because of an embargo we are enforcing. >> we need to ask ourselves what is the best way to end violence in syria, and we discussed this at length. i think the answer is the does have is -- the best path is transition. i think the idea of transition of the top is a better outcome than a revolution from the bottom. those who think he shows stability are wrong. they may run out of time, but i think in terms of ending the bloodshed and getting a better outcome in. , a tradition of the top is a better answer to your good and -- getting a better outcome, transition from the top is a better answer. >> we may be able to do more in the future.

>> there are stages. of course, it has been important this during an opposition has become better organized -- it has been important the opposition has become better organized. there has been a supplier of equipment to help them. there has also been a supply of humanitarian aid. there are those steps but did not make an arms embargo during your >> you are enrolling out weapons of this toy, -- you are ruling out weapons of this point? >> our focus is to work with the opposition and make sure it is proper and worked out what we can to help them. >> moving on to what we might find, the british ambassador said yesterday he thought the regime might fall within a year, so have we made any assessment of what we are going find and what sort of regime and we will see?

we seem to be reluctant to recognize the syrian national council. would you like to comment on the fact that hawkeye done -- the al qaeda is currently active? >> there is growing evidence that extremas violence want to get involved, and there is some evidence they might have gotten involved already, so there are dangers on their front. good i think if we of ourselves what is the quickest way to end violence, it is for assad to go. what can clinton do? it is immensely frustrating when you see the blood showed -- what can britain do? it is immensely frustrating when you see the bloodshed in the amount of people that have been deliberately targeted.

there were not weapons in the buildings when these people were targeted and killed by this regime. we should not underestimate what we can do with political pressure, sanctions pressure, pressure with the un, all of these things. people ask why did you act and libya but you are not acting in the same way in a series of? -- the same way in syria? there was the arab league force and the international consensus, and it was are actually not only legal and right, but it was achievable. i think syria is different. we have to look at other ways to bring about a change the world and see regan need to see.

>> can i ask you to talk more -- about a change the world and syria need. but then i ask you about the arab league. they seem to be taking a supportive role and are apparently considering giving some arms. if the is the case, what would of british government doing in the league of -- in the event of the arab league intervening in that way? praxair think it is right to recognize the arab league -- >> i think it is right to recognize the arab league has an interest and a leadership role, and when the world allows the arab league to get in a leadership role, it is far more likely to end up with a better outcome because arab people can see their friends and neighbors are supporting them and wanting to get rid of this criminal regime. we want to work in lock step with them.

that is where we have said the syrian national council is a legitimate representative of the syrian opposition, so our view is we should work with the arab league. we very much took care plan with them to the united nations and wrote it into the resolution. but was a way to work with them to demonstrate this is the world working with the arab league rather than the rest of the world telling them what to do. >> if they took a more interventionist line we might

follow them through? >> we might well do, but like i said, if you are a question what is the best way to end violence, it is transition of the top rather than bloody civil war that would be a better outcome for the people in syria. if those who are supporting assad because they think he brings the ability to syria, if they go on with that, they will continue with the civil war that is going to cause more civil war and suffering. good >> i think we would agree, but so for the mechanisms have not delivered results. when we hear about public executions in the streets, yet

we seem to be unable to intervene. there are two things. what can we do when this is happening to stop it? at what point does the responsibility chicane region in --responsibilities kick in, and of what point do we need to support turkey? >> the first thing is to reassure the resources are there so the help is there, and we have made the money for humanitarian aid. we are the first to help. the problem is getting paid where it needs to go, and the problem is the authorities are not allowing that to happen, so we need to build the maximum amount of pressure. that is why he is going again to the region to make sure aid gets through. but is where we are trying to write the security council and get a russian -- that is why we

are trying to get the security council and get russian support. aid is still getting to places for kilometers away from homs, and that is not acceptable. in terms of the issue of the responsibility to protect, i want us to do more. of our want us to be are active to take every step weekend -- i want us to be more active to take every step we can to stop this slaughter. we have to be clear the circumstances are different, and in my position or the position of the french president or the american president, we've got to be clear about knowing what our means can achieve and knowing we have everything necessary to achieve them before we start taking steps like that. >> they would apply for a temporary humanitarian cause. you're the problem is we have not been able to get humanitarian relief.

>> i think it may be positive to get a humanitarian cause of the of this -- via this group, but we have to be clear you cannot open those things up unless you have the means to enforce them. going back to libya, we wanted a no-fly zone. we have to be prepared to take a step of taking out the libyan air defenses across the country. we have to be prepared to use fairly overwhelming force to make possible the and we walked on the ground, and we have to be clear of the moment is of those pressures -- at the moment is all of those pressures we should be facing. i do not think we should rule

out safe zones. we should examine these things, but we have sure we have the means to achieve them rather than just clear of them. >> what about the danger that when assad goes he could be replaced by an extremist sunni the argosy would sympathies -- sunni theocracy. >> it is actually hard to think of an alternative that would be much worse then assad himself. there are two questions. one is is there an outcome worsen the current one, and when you also think about the support he has given to

terrorist groups, but the next question is can you be sure someone else would stop the slaughter that is taking place, and that is why the pressure is so important for the world to say what is happening is an exempt above -- is an unacceptable. good parts where would he go, and how much would he take with him? -- >> where would he go, and how much would he take with him? >> i do not want to see this person not held accountable for their crimes. one reason we are sending people to the region is to document human rights abuses. but what about a situation where

assad and his family went into exile and return for a peaceful transition? >> an outcome that stops the slaughter of a peaceful future for stereo is better than what we have now -- for syria is better done what we have now. there are people who think that clinging to him is somehow part of a safer syria. it is unthinkable that he could run a stable. region in stable -- that he could run a stable syria. but turning to iran, a nuclear- arms to iran would have

devastating consequences. how do you measure the effectiveness of sanctions? >> our policy has three problems. the first is sanctions. the second is to say to the iranians, if you stop pursuing nuclear weapons, there is a negotiation on having nuclear power and being a civilized arts of the world.

the third thing is nothing is off the table. but it is difficult to say that, but i think it is very important to send a message to iran a nuclear-arms future is not something we want to see. to answer the question what affect can sanctions have, they are beginning to have an economic effect. you can see that with what is happening inside iran. you can see in terms of trying to salvo oilman -- to save oil. >> if the iranians continue with their program, you are going to have to make an uncomfortable, which is worse?

>> they are both extremely bad outcomes. it would be calamitous to have to take military action to prevent it. my point is before you get to that point, we should put the maximum amount of effort into the current approach of pressure. it is clear the more pressure we put on and around with sanctions, we do we put on iran -- the more pressure we put on iran with sanctions, the better. it is the better option we have. i think it is impressive the european union are going to stop doing that, so maximize the pressure.

clearly they have reacted by making a new offer of discussions, and they have applied to try to take this forward. we have to make it clear it is only exception will if they are going to have civil nuclear power, but that would be the best outcome, but the iranians have to make a big change in strategic thinking. good >> the iranians have been engaging in diplomatic talks that have not come to anything. good >> i think one reason is the world has not been sufficiently united to send a clear message this is what you need to do. we have had about whole region

we have have the whole serv reactor and all about. there is a greater sense the world wants to send a message about what is not acceptable, so maximize pressure, and we should give the time to work. >> of it does not work, can we live with a nuclear iran? >> i do not want to see that come about. i do not want to give up on this track your your -- on this track. we think military action would not be the right approach. we think this track of sanctions and pressure has further run, but we do not take anything off the table. the government is very clear about five in terms of the future, but maximize the pressure. good >> so president obama

confirmed his policy is to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and he confirms he would not hesitate to use force if necessary. i know we already have units deployed in the gulf, but when we provide logistical support to the americans democrats but does not a decision and we have made we did to the americans and? >> that is not a decision we have made. they believe is unacceptable for iran to have a nuclear weapon, and they hope they have made that clear. and we do have mine sweepers in the gulf as part of international forces. we have not made any decisions about military action, but clearly we want to consider doing our best to protect our

own interests and our own people. in terms of the positions, we do have mine sweepers in the gulf. they're part of forces that believe it is important that we keep it open. we have not made decisions about any military actions. clearly, we want to consider how best to protect our and interest in people. >> by increasing the number of unit? >> iran is a divided society. we have seen that within the regime, the strong position even if it is suppressed. not even iran would be of anwit. it is very strong opposition? you what do you think the effects in iran would be of an attack? do you have a situation already? would you like to see iran change? if they were subject to another attack, would you take a different view of how that country is being treated? >> i would rewind it. what are we doing today to communicate not just to the government but to the iranian people what the alternatives are.

it is an extremely popular option. we need to communicate to people that there is a peaceful, sybil, nuclear future, where iran can rejoin their community. in order to do that, it has to give up its regime. it has to give up the idea of military, nuclear power. we have to do the right thing for our own national security. that is what this comes back to. iranian believe an nuclear weapon is just a threat to israel. it clearly is. they said they want to be part of efforts to wipe this country off the map. there is a danger more broadly. there are signs the iranians want to have some sort of

intercontinental missile. we have to be clear, this is potentially a threat much more widely than just israel and the region. >> president obama and prime minister netanyahu havel said it come is there no option to prevent iran from developing a nuclear weapon -- the three parts are sanctions, the offer of negotiations, and not taking anything off the table, including military action. that has been the position for some time. >> i think it is the right position. i think we have to be clear that nothing is off the table. >> my question is, what considerations, not the least in palestine, but for our own national security council? >> of course, that is the point of it.

all of the elements, for incoming international, domestic, security, and the course of action. that is, obviously, what we would have to do. that is one of the reasons -- that is why we have had such focus on somalia. we start thinking about it in national security terms. those things make a difference to a safer world and the city for britain -- and a safer britain. sanctions are beginning to work. negotiations -- [inaudible] see whether sanctions will have an effect, and if there is a reason to negotiate as hard as we possibly can. we know iran is not interested in elections this year.

it is a current tyrannical regime. we would like to call for them to withdraw from nuclear proliferation. finally, there might be huge retaliation from iran in israel and probably western states as well. is there reason to continue to see if the sanctions will work? >> i think that is right. i think get the sanctions don't work, there will be a moment of a very difficult decision. right now, the sanctions have been having an effect. we should not revere iran as a successful superpower. the country has huge rates of using the death penalty, massive unemployment, huge economic dislocation. this is come in many ways