are part of the 21st century economy. that requires that we work together. it is not business versus government. the way it is set up by our opponents in this election. it is business and government working together. that is why it was president obama who restore the cuts that is why it was president obama who restore the cuts in the small business administration program to make loans to small businesses and to put america on the side of small business again. that is why it was president obama who gave dozens of tax cuts to america's small businesses and because he believes we have to do this together. let me talk about the economy. the other night, i said the republican case against the

president was will let him a mass, he did not fix it all, fire him, put us all back in. [laughter] his case is i stopped the slide into depression, i laid the foundation for the long road to recovery, we have begun it, and we have the building blocks of the modern, new, different economy. [applause] i believe it is important every american decide whether i was right when i said i believe that the economy sustained so much damage -- keep identified in the quarter that is the three months period before the president took office, the economy strong -- shrunk 9%. we were losing 750,000 jobs a month.

the average middle-class family lost 40% of its wealth when housing prices collapsed. no one, not me, not anybody, could have completely healed that and built a whole new economy and brought us back to full employment in just four years. it has never been done in the history of the world. it could not be done. [applause] so the test is not whether you think everything is hunky dory. if that were the tests, the president would vote against himself. he knows how that some people are hurting. he knows what the problems are. the test is whether he is taking us in the right direction and the answer to that is yes. exhibit a -- the recovery bill. but often derided tim as packet. -- the oft derided recovery act. 95% of the american people. there were people who were afraid they would not be able to buy groceries. they were afraid every small business on every corner was going to close down. when those tax cuts went out,

people could go out and buy and support their local merchants to keep things going. about one-third went to keep people like that fine man who introduced me on the job. [applause] because they cannot support themselves. local governments were out of money. when the president back and said we need to do this one more year, we got a real solid economic growth. the current congress said no and they stopped and we lost 700,000 jobs. so you know i am not making it up. it got a little better in states were able to keep 300,000 of those people on the job but there were thousands without jobs. i do not feel america is better off -- i think we would have been better are try to come out of this thing together. working together. helping each other together. [applause] then a third of it went to bring bat manufacturing and

building new energy economy. we have doubled renewable energy production. you need to know this -- florida is leading the way in solar power. but we just passed a certain spirit and went to the largest solar profit in the country the other day on the nevada- california border. hundreds of solar panels. 2,000 construction workers. two dozen people from all over people-- men, women, white, african-american, hispanic, asian. about the only thing they had in common -- a whole lot of the press of tattoos. but these were people could explain to you the economics of solar energy, the environment but benefits and the feature to america strength. they know that we -- the boom in natural gas production is making a big difference. it is the cleanest of all the fossil fuels. the president has opened up new areas for that to be produced in a safe way to meet with

strong standards. all of the above. this is a good thing. the kind of investments that have been made are good things to build an economy. the old economy will not come back. we will not have as many jobs related directly to home building but will have more jobs related to home energy efficiency. repairing homes, repairing office building, fixing university buildings, putting people to work. the health care bill was the good thing for the the american economy. [applause] when the affordable health care bill passed, people defending the old system -- let me tell you something. most people have no idea about health care economics because if your employer carries you on an employee policy, you do not pay the whole cost to your health care.

because of the tax deductions, the employers do not pay the holocaust. here is the bottom line -- your country spends almost 80% of national income on health care. no other rich country in the world spends more than 11.8%. it is $1 trillion a year. to ensure a smaller percentage of our people in a way that does not make us healthier. if you want to compete, you should want us to spend more less the same perspective -- percentage of the rich countries that have the best health care systems. we have good health care if you can afford it. do not misunderstand me. i am exhibit a. [applause] i have more scars on our body then dies in a fight. i know about this. but if you look at the overall health of the american population, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that we're not spending our money in the

most affect away at the institute of medicine issued a report last week that said we are spending up to 75% of our health care dollars in less than the best way. what did it do what the mark this city are going to repeal this. -- what did it do? they say they are going to repeal this. since the health care bill passed, more than 1 million people in florida have got to be a bit of more than $123 million because the law requires the insurance company to spend 85% of your insurance premium on health care, not on profits or promotion. to you already have $100 million in rebates. -- so you already have $100 million in rebates. [applause]

because the health care bill closed at the doughnut hole in the medicare drug program, 30,000 florida residents have saved an average of more than

$600 a year of their prescription drugs. more than 220,000 young floridians for the first time have health insurance because they're covered on their parents' policy. [applause] insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage to 960,000 florida children because they have pre-existing conditions. the answer is -- on the other side is this is terrible and we will repeal it. the president's upon it has said that he bought medicare of $760 billion.

they said that against us last time in the elections and a lot of republicans got elected to congress in florida. it is not true. nobody lost anything. they took the report and read deuced future reimbursements by $716 billion. for the republican ticket, the nominee for vice president who was chairman of the house

budget committee, produced a budget that had exactly the same dollars in savings that the obama budget did and that was to 2010 when they were advertising at them -- that was true in 2010 when they were advertising. you have to give it to them. six real brass to attack the people -- it takes real brass to attack people doing the same thing you're trying to do. governor romney says they are going to repeal the health care bill and put the savings back in.

the so-called savings. what we're going to do -- here's what we're going to do. they are going to take the $716 billion dollars and give it back to providers and repeal the whole health care bill. the's what will happen -- seniors on medicare, part d, they will pay $600 more a year. because of the doughnut hole. the medicare trust fund instead

of running out of money in 2020 for one not go broke in 2016 because they're spending more money which means they will have to change medicare as we know it or take more money away from education. not the fifth person is on medicare but to pay for providers. worst of all, they propose to cut medicaid by 25% over the next 10 years. and what every person over some it is certain age here knows is that this will really be devastating to poor children but that is only about a third of medicaid expenses.

about two-thirds go for seniors on medicare and nursing homes because they have limited disposable income and they help families with disabilities. including a lot of middle-class families to have a child with down syndrome, autistic conditions, terrible policy -- cerbral palsy. i have no idea what these families are going to do. if we decide to repeal the health care law and put this money back where it was. they say this is necessary because we have to give it to the providers for medicare a dentist. florida at the number one stated that the country as seniors enrolled in the medicare and that this program. the rest of you may not know what it is but basically the idea was you will get everything medicare gives you plus some preventive and primary care. in will -- and it will be better for you. and it was. when they started, they were giving $600 worth of benefits and taxpayers were paying 11 the dollars for them. in fairness, beginning in the bush presidency the margins started to whistle. there were no cuts in medicare and that is. the people on medicare and pakistan to be healthier and get this preventive care.

now you have -- on medicare tend to be healthier and get this preventive care. you tell me if it needs saving. under the current law, the profit margin is now down to 14%. here's what happened last year -- after obamacare went in. more providers than ever before asked to participate. they were not run off three days that led us in. we want to get this health care. [applause] 70% more seniors got into the medicare and that this program. the price of being a that it dropped 16%. if president obama's goal was to destroy it medicare advantage, he did a poor doctor he strengthen medicare.

he did not weaken medicare advantage 3 he strengthened it. but if you repeal the health care law and repeal the savings, you are going to weaken medicare advantage and medicare. it is going to run out of money quicker. you're going to really weakened a senior drug program. those are the facts. that is the arithmetic. [applause] they got away with this in 2010. countless thousands of seniors voted because they were given misinformation against people who supported a plan that strengthen the medicare and medicare advantage. so i am talking about it everywhere because the first time they did that, it was their fault. if we let it happen again, it is our fault. [applause]

let me just say one other thing. they also want to repeal the student loan bill. audience: boo! >> the federal student loan program used to basically involve, you qualify for stood among, you go down to the local bank and get your lawn, and the government gives a 90% guaranteed to the bank. so if you do not pay it back, they will cover 90% of the loss. the government sets aside its own loan reserve and makes the loans directly, which means they can make them for lower interest rates. so it will be cheaper for you to repay.

far more important, starting in 2013, every student who borrows money on the federal student loan law, however much you borrow, you will be able to pay that one back for up to 20 years at a small, fixed percentage of your income. [cheers and applause] furthermore, because there will be fewer defaults, and because the program is cheaper, it will actually save $60 billion over 10 years. [applause] all the money was put back into raising the grants and protecting the tax credit to pay for people to go to college.

[cheers and applause] i personally believe making it possible for every person to pay that loan back as a limited percentage of your income means two things. it means you never have to drop out of college because you think you cannot pay your laws because you know your loan obligation, however much you owe, will be fixed by your salary. also, you will never have to take a job even if it pays more than a teacher or a police officer because of your lawn. it will change the future for young americans. [cheers and applause]

thank you. so here is what you have to decide. you have to decide whether you believe in this or not. you have to decide whether it is a better path for the future to send more kids to college, more kids to community college, have the government and the business community and the education sector work together to create the jobs of tomorrow, or not. you have to decide whether it would be a good thing if we had the world's best health system and it was competitive with all of these other countries in terms of how much it costs. you have to decide whether you think it is a good thing that

the government imposes responsibilities and restructure's the auto industry and now there are 250,000 more people working in the car business than before. you have to decide whether you believe that this 500,000 new manufacturing jobs we have gotten since the bottom of the recession is some sort of accident that will go away or you like it that we are making things and america again and you want to see more of it.

[applause] you have to decide whether you think it is just a blind accident that we have had 4.5 million private-sector jobs since the economy bottomed out in 2009 and we stopped losing jobs. that is more jobs by far than we had in the previous administration in the seven

years between the end of the sort recession in 2001 and the crash in 2008. and 2.5 years, president obama's plan provided more jobs than the previous seven years. [applause] you have to decide if you think that is an accident. and you are willing to bet your future on it. but i am telling you i do not believe anybody could have healed this economy, as damaged as it was, in four years. i believe the health care bill lays the foundation for a stronger health-care system for

people of all ages and a stronger economy because it will be more competitive. i believe that bringing back manufacturing and staying in the league for at clean energy future and try to make sure we do not have from florida up to a new york flood because we did nothing about global warming. it is the right thing for america's future. [applause] i believe america's slide down to 16th in the world, and building up places like universities is the right thing for america's future. people ask me from time to time, what are you most proud of? i say, i am glad we have more jobs. the most stunning statistic is we moved 100 times the amount of people from poverty to the middle class than the previous -- that means the american dream is

alive and well. i am telling you i believe with all my heart that a society that basically says, you are on your own, will never be as successful as a society that says, we are all in this together. [applause] if you just took a cold blooded view of "what is in it for me," every young person, you remember this, every kid that dropped out of school, every kid that cannot cope with all the economic problems at home and is 50 pounds overweight and is more likely to die and early death, every kid that drops out of college, that is a constraint on america's growth. it will compromise your future. if you do not care about them, it will compromise your future. [applause] we are all in this together works better than "you are on your own."

the last thing i want to say is the republicans have this debt top. at the convention. that is a big problem. but not today, not this da for a very simple reason. on this day, there is not enough private economic activity to grow the economy fast enough to allow us to effectively bring down the debt. if you cut public spending and there is not private investment to make up for it, you fall further behind. that is why when the republican congress got rid of the local government, unemployment went up. that is why when the british tried it, they went in recession. president obama and, as did the right thing on that recovery act. they put a floor under the unemployment rate. for all of you young people,

the debt will be important for this reason. when the economy starts to grow again, interest rates will rise. if interest rates today were what they were when i was president, the amount of money we would have to spend, your tax money, paying interest on the debt would be almost three times what it is today. that would cut money for education and science and technology for our future. we need a 10-year plan to deal with it. what is their plan? they say the first thing you

have to do since we have this horrible debt problem is spent $2 trillion over a decade more on defense than the pentagon has asked for. you say, wait, i am big on a strong military. it is important. but i trust the pentagon to design a 21st century military to be -- to meet 24 century security threats. what are you going to spend it on? they say, see me later. they say, we have a bit debt. we will cut taxes $5 million more over the next decade. and we are going to pay for that by repealing exemptions. well, which ones and how much will you save? see me about it after the election. if you had an arithmetic problem to solve and you wanted to get from negative to zero, would you first add minus seven? i am not making it up. this is their strategy. [laughter] [applause] i am saying it because, on this day of all days, we should know that there are good and noble people who work for the government. i remember when the oklahoma

city bombing occurred, which was the biggest terrorist incident before 9/11 that the united states history had. a man who had been on my secret service detail had transferred there because he thought it would be a great place to raise his children. he was killed that day. along with other people. i had, like every politician, on occasion, gotten upset. and referred to government bureaucrats. i promised myself i would never use those two words together for the rest of my life. i would treat those people who serve our country with respect

whether they are in uniform, law enforcement, fire fighters, and the other thing. [applause] that is it. if you are working for the future, i think the president's plan is better. i know the economic plan is better. and i know it will not amount to a hill of beans if you do not register and vote and get your friends to. so do it. god bless you all. [cheers and applause] ♪ >> have you visited the c-span campaign 2012 website? it can watch events from the campaign trail.

you can also read what the candidates are saying on major issues like the economy, the deficit, national security, and immigration. watched and engage that c-span -- watch and engage at c- span.org/campaign2012. watch and engage. next, we will hear from the former commander of the israel defence force on israel -- iran pose a nuclear program. nuclear program. and we hear from juan zarate on al qaeda. the teachers' strike in chicago is in its third day and on our

facebook page, we're asking if you think teachers should be allowed to strike. we heard from cherry on facebook kust said yes. and karen wrote -- visit facebook.com/cspan to let us know what you think. our guest on "washington journal" will talk about the future of the farm bill. and later, jim snyder on president obama's pledge to promote a green revolution.

7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. the former commander of the israeli defense forces says the best approach to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is diplomatic talks and tougher sanctions. from the brookings institution in washington, d.c., this is an hour, 25 minutes. >> good morning and welcome. i am a senior fellow of the center. welcome on this solemn anniversary. we're here to deal with another topic of immense importance to america's national security. when different from the anniversary that we're celebrating the one that obviously pretends to have a similar -- pretends to have a

similar impact of it goes the wrong way. one of the great issues we're wrestling with is what does that mean for it to go the wrong way? what constitutes the wrong way? here in the u.s., and in the middle east, there is enormous debate over how to handle iran policy pursued of a nuclear enrichment capability. the capability which would give iran the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons in the chest to do so. obviously, this is an issue that has been with us for a long time. fiber membrane first encountered it in the immediate aftermath of the gulf war in 1991 when israel purchased 25 long-range f-15 strike fighters and those fighters were designated not f- the s but i's and manufacturer said the i was for israel.

whta commanders would say -- what commanders would say is it is for iran. this is a problem and a threat that the israelis have been thinking about for a long time. they have spent a great deal of effort trying to figure out how to develop a military option to disarm iraq, to destroy its nuclear program if they ever chose to do so and i have been working various -- very assiduously at that. by the same token, you will have noticed that while this has been a topic of active conversation, in some senses going all the way back to 1991 at the very least since 2002, israel has not yet exercised that option. it has not done so for good reason. there are all kinds of good reasons not to strike and all kinds of bad reasons involved in a strike. this has created a conundrum for israel and a conundrum for

israel's allies in the region and out. and it is why to this day as iran continues to move forward in defiance of u.n. security council resolutions, israelis and their friends, first among them the united states, continues to debate what the right course of action is. we are delighted to have with us lieutenant-general halutz. -- haloutz. he rose to be the chief raufaste of the iaf and the idf. the israeli air force and the israeli defense forces. he served as two of the senior most officers making decisions

and his experience makes him uniquely qualified to offer insights into this issue and we're delighted to have general haloutz today. he will make some remarks then he and i will have a bit of a conversation and we will open things up to all of you. before i do that, let me ask everyone to please send your phasers to stun. so your cellphone to silence so we can have a good conversation and hear what general haloutz has to say. thank you. [applause] >> i have to shut my phone as well. well, first of all, 11 years ago, we woke up to a new era after the very tragic terror attack on the twins in new york.

i think that the world was completely changed since then. and the major goal of everyone of us is to try to do the maximum in order to prevent such events from happening again, so all the sympathy to the families and to the victims of this great nation. if your remarks about -- a few remarks about the hot potato. the "i" is for independence. independence in all aspects, even to take decisions. i would say that the most boring thing in my view, that the iranian case became a political issue instead of state as a pure

security defense issue that should be addressed regardless of your political views. there is such a thing -- the most interesting issue at the top of the news, at the top of the concerns of many nations becomes the question of the code or the labour party -- likud or the labor party. someone is going to be elected, he is not going to do anything or he will do nothing about it. and if other ones are elected, he will do everything. it is not about everything and not about nothing. it is about doing the right thing. what is the right thing to do, that is the question. i think too much was said publicly. and the discussion over the iranian case exposed to much of

the operational abilities and plans, not to the details. they give a very general description of what can be done, what should be done -- what should be done, etc. and in the way it is a kind of responsibility of those who spoke so much about it and i will address that of those issues. not about airplanes, not about bombs, not about penetration, not about anything. i think in this forum and many other forms -- forums, we have to keep our mouths shut a little bit and to deal with the strategic points of this problem. the lines -- [inaudible]

the most strategic asset to israel and that we have to keep in mind and i think while saying it that any decision, if and when it will be taken, should take into consideration this top priority thing of keeping the alliance with the u.s. strong and reliable. reliable 62 the most interesting problem that i see -- takes me to the most interesting that i see, reliability is not the strongest point between the sides right now. each one is suspected of the other side. each side is that -- suspecting the other side of not putting all the cards on the table and doing things behind the back, etc., and i think that we have to repeal the understanding

between the sides, to repeal in order to enable us all to get to the right decision and the right timing and it is all about timing, because we have two scales. the israeli and american scale and those two scales are not meeting for the time being unless one watch will stop, then the other one will reach the same time. so far, as long as both of them are rolling in a different speed, there is a big argument about the timetable for the time left to take the right things for their right measures vis-a- vis the iranian case. the policy is based on three phases. diplomacy, sanctions, and use of force is the right policy. the question if we're doing it in a row or doing some of it in

parallel. in order to save time, we should do some things in parallel and not to do it in a row. we have to elaborate, what is diplomacy, what is sanctions? we can see the canadian example about diplomacy. we can see some other examples about diplomacy. what is the right diplomacy? i think the right diplomacy is first of all to isolate the when you want to use those means against him, it follows by sanctions and sanctions should impact first of all the regime. we have nothing against the iranian people. i say that i think i am covering everyone. not against the iranian people. i remember myself on 1972

spending two weeks together with the iranian pilots in tehran, using a simulator because the iranian was the only one that that have the money to buy the most expensive simulator that the americans produced, so we were sent there to have some training, and i found that they are human beings like us. very well educated, very polite, smart people, and want to live. and the rest come from my father who is from iranian origin and he told me the stories about his background in this country. unfortunately nowadays, we cannot visit their but i hope in the future we will be able to. anyhow, sanctions. diplomacy sanctions --

diplomacy, sanctions, and use of force. use of force is not just saying that the state should be on the table. that is a very nice slogan, but we have to give it more explanation. what do we really mean when we are saying stick on the table? absolutely is should be the last -- it should be the last, last option. never use force before you must use force. when it comes to the use of force, you should be prepared, and i think they use of sticker put the stick on the table has some real activity that can be done before using the force. for example, force protection, exercises, training, together

with others, just to show that each one is backing the other. i think that reducing the volume or the size of the exercise between the israeli forces and the american forces is an indication of the wrong direction. instead of increasing the volume, to decrease it. and nothing but training. force projection i do not have to explain here what is the meeting. someone on the other side should see visually to the media and by other means that we mean business. i do not see how you can convince the iranians only through diplomacy to come to the

table, negotiate and agree on something. the coffee in vienna is a great coffee. but to me every month to drink coffee does not bring solution to the problem. we have to find other ways and other ways that are a combination of diplomacy, strong diplomacy, and diplomacy is not related only to the iranians. when we're speaking of diplomacy, we have to build the front. and the relevant front includes china, includes russia, includes india, includes many other forces which have meaningful way to -- weight on the decision making process. it is not a problem of the u.s. and israel. it is a problem of the entire world. the iranian case is not the israeli case. it is not the american case. it is not saudi arabia case.

it is the middle east and europe. the free society. in those we're interested free society should be interested in preventing the iranian from having nuclear weapons because once they're going to have it, it will open a nuclear weapon race in the middle east in my view. the turks will follow and the egyptians will follow and the saudis will follow, no one will leave them alone in this region to be the regional superpower with the power. no one. we have to ask ourselves if that is what we want to achieve. my answer is negative. no. we do not want it. the red line policy. i think red lines are red at the

moment that you are drawing them but when you come to take the decision according to the red line's you might find out that the color is not read any more. it can be black, it can be green, it can be blue. the situation is changing. we're living in a very dynamic world. very dynamic. every morning, noon news -- new news and cannot stick to a decision that was taken in a specific time and act accordingly later on. because you have to re-judge all the factors, all the facts, all the ingredients, all the elements, and come to a decision, real-time decision that shows that you are addressing the real time problem and not the problem that you face a few months ago, a few

years ago. more than that, i think that giving lines, enabling the other side to bypass the lines in a way so do not draw the lines in order to enable them, to know exactly where the borders. no. keep some uncertainty. uncertainty is confusing the aside. it is not confusing yourself. if you're taking the decision to keep some uncertainty, leave the confusion to the other side. we must create the decision making process that will integrate the interests of all participants. in this case, in the the vatican. how they are electing the new probe. -- new pope.

they sit in a room, nothing supplied to them until the white smoke is coming out of the window. i am looking for the windows and the white smoke of those organization nations, people who should sit together, agree upon the facts first of all. agree upon the facts and once agreed upon the facts, then agree upon the decision. as long as we do not agree about the facts. no doubt we find ourself with a big gap on the decision that should be taken. i wrote down the issues that we agree upon. we agree that nuclear iran is not acceptable. we agree upon the iranians are moving on with their program. the nuclear iran will enhance

other middle east countries to enter into this race. we agree that the policy and sanctions first. within the agreement and i will come to a, what is the meaning of sanctions? and we agree that use of force should be prepared, displayed, but not used, but as the last resort. last, last, las resort khomeni blasts should be added before -- many lasts should be added before using the force. we should not be promising anyone that we will end for ever the nuclear program. i want to say one thing which is

very important to a decision makers. never underestimate the israeli capabilities. without -- israel is a strong country with a lot of options and capabilities. on what we are not agreeing so far on timetable first, we should do it and how to handle the decision making process. those are the three elements which are the most important. to agree about timetable that is a challenge, who should do it, i think we should put it aside for the time being and how to handle the decision making process which is very important. who are the participants and i believe that the participants are on this virtual table should be more than israelis and

americans because as much partners as can be recruited to this job, to this mission, the better the results will be. will be from all aspects, from the results but from the international results and the p r results or how it looks to the world if such things happen. i will stop now with the 15 minutes to give me and to join you. thank you. >> thank you. i think you have set the stage nicely. there are a number of points i wanted to pick up on before we open it up for questions and the

first one was this. you said force should be the last, last, last resort. i think i got all the lasts. you also said that the talks so far are not producing anything useful, just a lot of people drinking good viennese coffee so there is a gap to have pointed out. what needs to go into that gap, what more would like to see the u.s. and the international committee -- community doing to perhaps produce better negotiations that you have in mind? what always be -- what ought we be doing to fill the gap? >> the international sanctions are connected in a way. to of more effective sanctions, you have to recruit more partners. so far when the iranians are trying to export their oil, we

have to look for those buyers and maybe to convince them to buy the oil from the resources or other resources and to buy them, into the treaty that you impose sanctions. the second sanctions, what are sanctions? two days ago, it was mentioned the iranian currency was dropped by 8% compared to the dollar. how many iranians are keeping tons of dollars from -- in their save said they are bothered by collapse? the average regular iranian is looking for his family, how to feed them, and we have to bring

the iranian to this dilemma of bread or nuclear. to this point, without starting anyone, of course, we have to do it in the most deterring way. unless we bring them to this dilemma, the leadership, once you bring them to this dilemma, you see the people are saying something. so far, the people are saying nothing. we have to motivate the people to look around them and to see what is going on with them, because their regime decided to go on with the project which is not acceptable to the world. sanctions are not only oil and materials for weapons -- for nuclear weapons. sanctions, there is a long list, thousands of items that can be

added to the sanction list. i do not want to mention -- i do not want to go through this list but i will mention one thing. for example, the iranian airlines. they're beginning to fly, the western countries that are part of the negotiation in vienna, ok? do something about iranian ships that are shipping across the oceans on the flags of exisiting -- existing but unknown countries. the list is longer.

the list is impacting a lot of the iranian population and that is the problem, that is the dilemma. because if i would have known of a specific thing which are pinpointing the regime itself, it would be the best but such a list does not exist. we have to be more sharp with the sanctions and as i said, together with diplomacy, diplomacy istwo -- is two different phases. the countries that already agree like canada, like khomeni will join. the second is to collect other forces which -- like canada will join in. the second is to collect other forces and i am addressing mainly the free leading countries in south america as

well. i would like to see brazil there, of russia, china, india, etc. thye leader of the world economy, be part of sanctions because of the leaders are not going to be part of it, the sanctions will take time to be affected. >> there is another idea out there, it is more than an idea, it is a reality. someone seems to be killing a lot of iranian scientists and a lot of iranian computers seem to be malfunctioning. a lot of people seem to believe that there are some countries out there that are deliberately doing this. >> it was mentioned? >> people have all these wild conspiracy theories as you know. let's take this as an idea. there is a debate related to these covert operations, whether

they are less likely by creating an alternative source of pressure on the regime. another argument is is the kind of thing that could provoke the iranian regime and start an unintended clash. what is your feeling about whether or not this is a useful way to close that gap that you were describing? >> first goal, i think -- first of all, i think that -- this is part of the campaign and is not a secret that the iranians are 10 years, two years ahead of a nuclear bomb. the delay was achieved according to some activity that were done by i do not know who, and it was so far successful. the reason for the success, the

iranian students are attending the western universities in high quantities will be well educated how to develop methods and systems to prevent. that is another area of sanctions. and i will never offer to anyone to pinpoint any later that was elected by -- leader that was elected by his people and to seem as a target, you know, i will not offer it because we're offering of a new game. in this game, there are many players and i do not think that to in our world, we should look at it as a trivial solution to

pinpoint the leaders. unless they are doing something which is strongly against the international load. we have the option, we can do it but we have to prove it. otherwise, we are leaving it to the interpretation of individuals or countries, etc. and you may find opponents to any leader in the world in the right. so let's stay within the limits, within the cultural limits that we have been raised upon. >> let me if i may move back to this narrow question of the use of force. you did not rule it out, you put it at the end of the spectrum we

did not rule it out. he made clear your views on red lines -- you made clear your views on red lines. anyone who has been in this position knows what looks clear at one moment in time can look very blurry at another point but i would like to help an american audience understand a bit better how an israeli leadership might think about when you have reached that last resort. without going into any specifics, at some level, this is a matter of cost benefit analysis. when does the benefits outweigh the costs and risks of the operation. give us if you could some sense of events out there, things that could happen that would shift that calculus to the extent that you think that a conversation about the use of force would be warranted. if you are back in your job,

what would you go to the prime minister and say, now is a moment when we ought to have a conversation about whether our current course continues to make sense or whether we need to shift to a different course because of something that happened. >> when i say last, it has nothing to do with timetables. last represents mainly the effort -- a level of effort that was done in each area. if we came within a week, finished all the diplomacy efforts successfully, and the sections are very effective and nothing achieved, maybe in two weeks we come to the last, last, last. you are maximizing the efforts and your building the force,

your building the buildings. not just saying. i am sure that all those involved have the plants. otherwise they're not paying their salaries. regarding the second part of the question, i think that any answer i will give will be too much. when will be the point that i will go to if i was in? i would say the basic problem right now is the past experience of the different organizations which are taking care of the information to be provided to the leaders who take those decisions. in the u.s., you have the

memory of saddam with the unconventional weapons. i assume they will come and say, there is a green light, and we will be sure 100%. in the israeli case, maybe it is different. in israel, it is our case. and i am sure that no 100% is needed. 100%. 99 is enough, ok? and i speak without knowing what is going on now within those establishments but i assume as human beings once an organization gave information that led into operation, the

information was found to be not the most accurate one, it creates, it put a kind of hesitation on next time. generally speaking, when the feeling is that [unintelligible] at the time, but there is no one formula to define the sword on the throat and that is a problem. >> this point about the formula. let me see if i can push you a little bit on that. whenever we think about a threat, we think about capabilities and intentions. when you think about iran and to think about that last resort, which side do you weight one

side more heavily. is the capability more troubling and this gets back to my previous question which might cause israel to shift and decide we need to move in. is it more something related to iran posing capabilities or more something related to an iranian intentions? >> it is the combination. the problem is the current combination. the combination will change in the future. it is a new ball game. right now the combination of that we have in this regime, it is very extreme decorations -- declarations vis-a-vis israel and others the only eliminated once for the iranians are israel. they want to see as out of the -- us out of the net.

the weapon with much destruction is a combination that very few are ready to lead such a combination. i am not saying that the first thing in the morning that will -- there will have a nuclear theon and wake-u up and push red button nearby the bed. no. i think it is too dramatic. but i would say in different combination, the very stable regime, the logical one, a moderate one, such a weapon and

it exists in some other places in the world, but we rely on the decision makers, we rely on the system. the problem is that we do not rely on the decision makers in the system there to take the right decision at the right time. that is the problem. so we can change the regime or delay the project. >> i want to ask you two more projects. in some ways it is an unfair question by do want to push you on this. the iranians are going to presidential elections. imagine two will be different scenarios, none of which i expect to happen but to perhaps push your thinking to give us a better sense of how your thinking about this. imagine on june 14, somehow,

miraculously, the president of iran is reelected and he announces his first act will be a rapprochement with the west and the alternative, suleimani will do everything in their power to see iran protected? how did this affect israel's calculus? >> we still have time. it is may. option one, ok. i think that even myself i would vote for him if he is going to do it. the only passport i could get is

the iranian passport. option two, will speed up the need to take the aggressive measures. of course, it should be carefully checked, carefully assessed, etc., etc. words that they say before election in most of the cases are not used afterwards. ester remember the american -- i still remember the american assembly -- embassy in jerusalem. we have to leave the word with all respect but limited respect

when they are used for politics creates -- used for politics. >> if you can up the level on his microphone so people can hear him. please continue. >> i would say that we have to be careful with the publicity done before election in order to be election -- elected candidates someone will do, it is not always 100% correlated. >> very good. last question. this is a big one. it is an issue that i think we all recognize as being related but we very rarely talk about it in terms of the actual

relationship. that is serious and and how it plays into this entire calculus. syria is an enormous issue for israel all by itself but there is also a very important connection to the iranian issue. i was hoping, given your background, take us through a little bit how israel is thinking, how the leadership is thinking about syria, the threats, the opportunities there and how it is related to this iranian issue we have been talking about. >> the chain of, the known chain of syria, lebanon, hezbollah, i believe it was the syrian block will be taken from this wall, from this chain, it will influence dramatically over the iranian strength in the middle east, while their ability to use

their proxy, the hezbollah real- time or by remote, whenever they want, it will change hezbollah situation in lebanon without having the big ride of the syrian and supporting them on a daily basis. although, based on the assumption that the replacement is completely different replacement, who knows? wanting -- it should be said that the only shia country in the world and hezbollah is a shias organization -- shia organization but a multi religion country like lebanon. as it looks now, most of those who are protesting and fighting the syrian regime, sunnis, so in

this respect, i believe that if, not if, when the syrian regime will be replaced, we will see something new. it is going to the better, the same, or worse. in any case it gives you 3% of chance for better. i am looking for this 3% as an option and it is high chance, by the way. there is no lottery with 3%. anyhow, no doubt -- it is connected to the entire iranian problem because if you're going to lose the footstep in syria,

partially in lebanon, i think that there will reconsider their position. i do not know if it will reflect to the nuclear program, but it will do something to the iranian leadership and they will have to reshape their policy and their diplomacy. to what extent, god knows. allah knows. >> let's open things up to the audience. if you will raise your hands, i will call on people in pairs. we will go with trios, there are a lot of hands and i want to get a lot of people in. if you could identify your name and affiliation. please ask a simple question and please make sure it is a

question as opposed to a statement reassembly in fekter voice at the end as though it were a question. i will start right down here. >> thank you. i am from al kutz daily newspaper. it is alleged the iranian nuclear program is spread over thousands of sites across the country, three times the size of iraq. that would require a sustained bombing that will go on not for weeks but perhaps months. does israel have the capability to go that alone? thank you, sir. >> we will take you down here in front. >> i was born in tehran. i am happy that the persian empire gave a free pass to your ancestors to come to iran and her grandfather or father was from iran. >> shiraz.

>> that is the land of love. we have 7 billion people in the world right now, the population since generate 2012. the middle east or the portion of -- maybe 300 million for a small portion of what the world population is, how could the population kind of form the big events of the world, could we not all this said face to face and see what is hurting us or what is aching us and come up with some kind of solution which every human being is looking for, which is pursuit of

happiness and freedom and providing for their children? thank you. >> the gentleman here in the turquoise shirt. >> you were talking about the importance of mobilizing iranian citizens against the regime. we saw recently that was not quite so effective in protest and i was wondering how you think citizens my people to revolt against the government and it could be successful. >> why don't we take some responses from you? >> the iranians learned the lessons of the iraqis. iran is a huge country, very nice country, with a very interesting terrain. the iranians are doing all their efforts in order to spread their

program and located in very difficult places [inaudible] i did not speak about israel. i spoke about use of force and i said one of the things that use of force just in case, remember i am not pushing anyone to attack iran today, and even not tomorrow. use of force by all those who are interested in preventing iran from having nuclear capability. i think that all those has the capability to do it. all those. regarding face-to-face, yeah,

our face is ready. the question is other faces are ready to sit around a table and to discuss everything? when you are coming into a discussion, it is a give-and- take. the question is, what someone has to offer in order to give and what does he want to take? that is the problem, if they take is go away from the middle east for us, there is no reason to enter into the same room and sat around a table. if we want to discuss seriously, yeah, and it is not a secret that we were sitting and we are sitting with many of our

neighbors around the table, and we have few achievements, we have disagreement with egypt, we signed a peace river with jordan. i hope that in the future, the palestinians will sit together with the israelis and we will be able to reach an agreement. things are going on but in this case, the gap is the iranians -- with the iranians is so big now because we had any direct conflict, just to remind ourselves that 34 years ago, under the shah, the relations between israel and iran were the best in the middle east, ok? and we were partnering many activities and many things. and if the wheel of history

still works and is still rotating, maybe the future will bring us better news. so far, it looks like the gap is huge. and we need the inter-mediators. regarding the iranian people, that is something beyond my knowledge and beyond my expertise. we saw last year, a year ago, a little over a year that iranian opposition in iran tried to do something. it was too little, and they did not have enough energy to keep the momentum. i do not know what was -- [inaudible]

the external assistance or help the the received. i do not know. the forces in iran or rejecting the attitude of the current regime. iran as i remember it was on the way to be a more western- oriented country, more open, liberal country, and everything was stopped very short in 1978. i believe that -- i am optimistic, i believe the future will change. i do not know how much will take. total control of iran is not a new phenomenon. it was in the past. we see it now from 1978 but if we go to hundred years -- 200

years, back to the history of iran, and happened already in the past. -- it happened already in the past. clerics or religion people controlled the country. .o let's hope for the iranians >> we will go with margaret. >> mark warner -- margaret warner. prime minister netanyahu said those who refuse to drop the redlined to iran do not have the moral right to put a red light to israel. why do you think he is demanding publicly that president obama said a red line to iran and are you saying you think is a mistake? >> we will take trudy behind her. >> following on to margaret's

question, what is the predominant feeling inside the israeli security community about what is the real nature of the threat that iran presents to israel? the prime minister has put it in apocalyptic terms and of course, iranian rhetoric makes it easy to adopt that position, but many israeli security experts as you know believe the real iranian intent is to have breakout capacity and they could not there to hit israel because they would destroy jerusalem and two million palestinians and make sure their country was alleviated -- obliviated. what is the -- how does the feeling among security experts tend one way or another? >> in previous cases, on the

iranian issue and with other threats reportedly dealt with by israel, we have never seen this kind of discord we see in the past year. what is it you think that has changed and so many voices coming out of israel discussing not all the politics of the decisions but also the security aspects of potential israeli operation? what has changed from three years ago when the iranian question was also paramount in your experience. >> three great questions. three years. >> time was used and this time, they made progress. what the iranians are looking for in their policy of walking on the edge was a successful policy for the last 10 years. they gained 10 years of doing and doing and doing and doing.

in the end, they will complete what they have in mind. that is the reason why the voices or the volume is higher. if the right words are said, that is another story. i am not here to criticize my prime minister. i am saying it very loud and clear. he is my prime minister and his decision will impact me as others and regardless if i vote for him or not, he is the israeli prime mr. as long as he is sitting on his chair, has the right to take the decisions. -- he has the right to take the decisions and implement them. no doubt the iranian case is very unique one. i say what i think about red lines and

if the institute will make a survey about the redline policy, you will find out that in the world, there is maybe one example of redlines that was a success. in this case, i am not sure. from the israeli side, twice we put a red line and twice we failed with the red line. we put a red line to 11 on -- to lebanon when we first withdrew in 2000 and did not act accordingly. and we had a kind of redline when we disengage from gaza. we did not act accordingly the day after. the day after, the color changed. red becomes pink and pink

becomes white and white becomes red. i think that -- as i said, i am not criticizing my prime minister because he is my prime minister. but i am criticizing redline policy. to come to the u.s., the elephant, and ask him to put -- ask them to put a red line on iran, it is something not logical. as the famous actor and republican -- at the republican conference said, "when you have to shoot, shoot." do not put redlines.

if you have at any intention to do it, do it. redlines can be shared in close rooms. look, you know the balance of forces. you know what can happen. when things are done publicly, we are human beings. the fact that someone is a leader does not change his human characters. on the contrary. in some cases, it increases his human characters. his human person. if you are drawing redlines in the washington post or nbc or

cnn, the other side will be, first of all, in salted. then he will react emotionally and not rationally. we are looking at the brain of those people, not the hearts of those people. >> there is a -- there is an arm raised but i am not certain who it belongs to. in the back. >> thank you for doing this. you mentioned that you were disappointed -- the issue of u.s.-israeli relations has gotten caught up in politics. we have seen that in this election to a degree i cannot remember seeing. i am curious as to whether you think the israeli leadership -- we can blame our own

politicians. i am curious if you think the israeli leadership has some blame in that. if it is allowed to go unchecked, do you think it will reflect the nature and character of our relationship? >> in the back, is that michael? >> thank you for coming. to follow up on that question, you spoke about the importance of the u.s.-israeli alliance. given this iranian crisis, at what point would is a real step away from that? how much discord could there be if israel felt it had to act and the united states was saying, please do not act? >> the gentleman in the pink. >> thank you. i was wondering if you could comment on the slew of issues coming out that an iranian

strike could be possible, an october surprise. >> during the presidential elections. a little surprise for barack. >> regarding the relation, i will say it again. the importance of the relation, the good relations between the american people and the administration -- the israeli administration, is of the end up -- the highest importance to israel. period. i do not think that the blame should be put on one side only. both sides took part in climbing

too high. as high as you climb, the hurt from the falling of the tree you climbed on. two mature people should sit in the room, discuss it openly, and agree on what we agreed and disagree on what we disagreed. even in good relations, there are some disagreements. disagreements are not canceling on the background, the history, and the good relations that do exist in other areas. we have to be fair between different establishments. in some areas, the relations are excellent. in some areas, maybe the

political level, high political levels, it suffers from the declarations that are made here and there. some of them are serving the internal bodies of each country. some of them are serving the case itself. even though i think that mutual interests are stronger than the dispute between the sides, the small gaps or cracks that we have in a wall of good relations, once again i do not think that the words to be used to blame this side, and the other side in the other% of the whole 100 -- the other percent

of the whole 100. one side is carrying all the responsibility and the other side is carrying all of the irresponsibility. things should be said in closed rooms. october, i do not know what kind of surprise someone would expect. i would be surprised if my wife asked me to go on vacation. that is the only surprise i am going to face. no other surprise, to my knowledge. but you know, surprises are surprises even if you know that they are going to happen. my personal assessment is based

on no real time information. my feeling is that no one is going to surprise no one in the near future. but it is a feeling, not a knowledge. feeling based on knowing the systems and how these things are taken, etc.. but god knows. >> why don't we bring it down here to the gentleman in the blue? >> i am just an individual citizen. there are always some little disputes as to what the actual facts are with respect to the iranian nuclear program. as far as i understand, the u.s. government is saying that

everything that has been done so far by the iranians is consistent with peaceful uses and they have not made any decision or taking -- or taken any steps towards a nuclear weapon. the supreme leader has said it would be a fatma for iran to have a nuclear bomb and it would be a curse on all of their sins. how do you evaluate that and how do you think it might affect negotiations? >> right in front there. >> i am sam lewis. we met a long time ago. i admire your deft handling of the domestic political questions. they are very tricky right now and i agree with you totally.

if we had only stopped talking about this issue, it would be easier to deal with it. that is not going to work in either country. let me ask you this question. can you imagine, 10 years from now, after perhaps a war with iran, perhaps not, a lot of other things we cannot imagine right now, can you imagine israel and the united states' relationship having deteriorated to the point where we are still friends, we have links, but we no longer can be called allies? >> thank you very much. i want to raise the subject that

may be slightly off topic in that you may -- or you might have covered it before i got here 30 minutes late thanks to having spent 1.5 hours with tens of thousands of my best friends commuting this morning. the question is this -- it appears as though the near-term and probably medium-term result of the era of awakening, as it is called here, is that the islamists will become the primary players in politics in those countries surrounding you. my question is, first from the israeli perspective and second from the american perspective, do you view that as a positive, a negative, or somewhere in between?

>> general? >> ambassador lewis, i cannot imagine, in 10 years, i cannot imagine any chance that we have a lot to do about. of course, the american side as well. by saying that, in my view, it is a strategic asset, it is not only from the material side of it. so i do not want to think about such development.

if i will be aware that we are taking this direction, i will do everything possible to shifted back to the right place. it is very important, beyond any material aspect. the fact that the islamic world contains 1.25 billion people, it is a fact. it is a known fact. we have to get used to it and we have to find the golden path to live with this. most of them want to live like us.

most of them. and we may find extremists among all of us. we do not have to go to iran. we could go to oklahoma from time to time or jerusalem or to the west bank to find extremist. -- to find extremists. the problem is not with religion but the ambitions of the leaders of those countries. some of them want to impose their belief on the rest of the world. some of them. and we have to fight those. i think -- i do not think that there is no way to live together in a peaceful way.

you know, we are speaking about muslims taking over. we have many examples out of the 53 muslim countries worldwide. they are not one unity. they are sharing the same unity, but not -- but -- they are sharing the same religion, but they're not the same unity. the indians, who are muslim, the chinese are muslims. the uzbeks, ok. there are many christians worldwide, but they are not one unit. they even have different languages, etc. it is not frightening me. it is encouraging me to find the

right way how to deal with those different nations and find a way, from the israeli perspective, we are facing a different game. when religion and political ambitions are combined, that creates a problem for us. i will say now and i will say whenever i am asked, israel is not yet accepted in the middle east. it is not yet accepted in the middle east. that is the reason why we have to be strong. that is the reason why we have to fight any sign of changing the balances.

that is the reason. once we will be accepted and embraced by our neighborhood, it will be a completely different story. about the american standpoint, it is news to me. i know that even the american establishment knows that the iranians have a nuclear military. regarding fought what -- fatwah, i --ect the quar'an and and i read it in order to know it. it depends on who wrote it. you can find fatwah and the contrary.

one is living in egypt and the other is living in iran. they are not fully correlated with other fatwahs. the same with rabbis or archbishops. i am not sure they are internetting when they write it and addressing the rest of the believers that will be able to react. i do not rely on those fatwahs. i rely on actions. when you see, you can believe it. when you read it, it is not enough. quick questions. i will ask for them to be brief so we can get some brief answers and wrap things up at 11:00. >> you have been asked the iran

question many times. i am not still -- i am still not quite sure i understand the rhythm of your answers. do you trust the united states to do the right thing? >> yes. [cell phone ringing] >> a gentleman in a beige shirt right there. he has been -- suffering. >> thank you for your speech. i'm from the syrian expatriates association. my question is about syria. there is only a 33% chance that it will work in our favor. what would you say about increasing support to the opposition? especially armed support for the syrian opposition? >> we will take the gentleman right here in the lavender shirt.

>> i am working for the russian service of north america. my question refers to the role of russia. how would you characterize the motivation for the russian government to block the resolutions? the complex effects regarding iran and syria. thank you. >> and the lady in black, who has been waiting patiently. >> thank you. i would like to ask -- how do you see the role of china in sanctions? >> why don't we take some brief answers on that? >> ok. i answered very short and i said yes. i am still with the yes. one thing that i want to add to it, because it was too short and

i have to be polite, i said yes, but it should not be done secretly. it should be discussed with the other side. to build their confidence that this is a real one. -- that this trust is a real one. it cannot be done behind closed doors. it is a matter of confidence. that is all. personally, i believe that what they are saying, there are going to do. syria. there is a big question -- who is leading the syrian revolution?

many forces over there. personally, i am not recognizing a leader over there. there are groups. some of them are very extremist. regarding the 33% chance, that belongs to the best 33%. they were imported, some of them from afghanistan, some of them from iraq. i do not know if they are for everyone or for us. the traditional opposition that mainly stayed in europe, in france, in england, i do not know what their power. those to be equipped and supported by the west, the americans, the french, are not

the original opposition. they are the fighters. the original opposition, i do not know if they are fighting. the foreign ministry of the revolution. so i have no recommendation in this respect. i do not think direct involvement of the west will help to solve the situation. on the other hand, the emirates, saudi arabia, qatar, turkey, are involved in this campaign. they know better who are the leading forces and they can do better once they are aligned with the western community, with

europe and the u.s. russia and china. from my point of view, there is no doubt that russia and china have a major role vis a vis many things and also the iranian case. the russian foreign minister saying it is harming the russian economy, the sanctions. in this case, i lost my words. i do not know how it is harming the russian economy but i take it as it was said. i think that russia and china, they are superpowers economy- wise and they have strong power on diplomacy and military.

they are the right combination to join the other forces if they believe, and i do think that they believe that for the creation of weapons of mass destruction should be stopped. if that is the case, i cannot understand why they are sitting on the fence or from time to time, they are sitting over the fence with europe on the other side. i would like to see the russians and the chinese more proactive in this respect. i think that there are, in my view, they are the key element to convince the iranians. the relation between china and iran and russia and iran are better than the relations between israel and iran and the u.s.

so i hope to see this conveyed. thank you very much. i enjoyed it. [applause] >> allow me to say a word of thanks to our friends who made it possible for general dan haloutz to be here today. i want to thank general dan haloutz himself. this is an incredible moment and wonderful opportunity for americans to have the benefits of your views and insights. thank you very much, general. and i thank all of you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> the senate homeland security and governmental affairs committee looks at the general services administration. they will hear from the active gsa administrator and the gsa inspector general. that is live at 10:00 a.m.

eastern on c-span 3. >> i think people really like to see where politicians views have shifted over the years. people like to see whether mitt romney in 1994 was campaigning for welfare can -- for welfare reform, against welfare reform, for abortion. they want to see where he was doing it during his -- during his 2002 campaign, 2007. people like to see how these politicians devolve. there is a gotcha element, but it is incredibly interesting. >> i am trying to think why is that he has changed so often, why he finds it difficult to come down on one side of an issue. he floats between both issues. >> as someone who is running for state office, does it helped that you have a governor named

rod blagojevich and your name is barack obama? >> the best read it to describe it is the viral, beating heart of the internet. >> more sunday night at 8:00.

. .

is going on now. but i assume as a human being that wants an organization gave information that led into operations and the information was not the most accurate one -- it put kind of a hesitation. seoul -- generally speaking it, when the feeling is that the sword is on the ground -- but there is no one formula. that is a problem. >> let me see if i can push you

a bet on that. whenever we think about threat, we talk about capabilities and intentions. when you think about the rock in the think about the last resort, -- when you think about iraq -- which might cause israel to shift and -- is it something related more to iran's capabilities or intentions? >> intention. the problem is the current combination. the combination will change in the future. it is a new ballgame. right now become a nation that we have -- it was very extreme. and these others, by the way,

for the others, not elimination. the only eliminated ones for the time being for the iranians is israel. they want to see us out of the mix. so extreme regime with a weapon of mass destruction is a combination -- very few are ready to leave on such a combination. i am not saying by that -- first thing in the morning after they will have a nuclear weapon, they will wake up -- and they will push the red button by the bed. i think it is too dramatic.

but i would say that a different combination -- a very stable regime, a logical, moderate one, such a weapon that exists in other places in the world. but we rely on the decision makers. we rely on the system. the problem is that we do not rely on the decision makers and the system there to take the right decision and the right time. that is the problem. so we can change the regime. and the lay the project. i want to ask you a two more questions. it is always a bit of an unfair question. the iranians have announced

presidential elections on june 14. imagine two the different scenarios. neither of which i expect to happen. but this will push for thinking to get a better sense of how you are thinking. imagine on june 14 somehow mara callously he is reelected -- somehow miraculously he is reelected. and his first art will be a -- with the international community to see the sanctions lifted. the alternative, imagine on june 14, the other is elected. and he announces that he will do everything in iran's power to see iran protected. >> first of all the positive thing in this scenario is that -- [laughter]

[unintelligible] >> i think that i would vote for him if he is going to do it. option two, will speed up the need to take aggressive measures. that is all. of course, it should be carefully checked, carefully assessed etc. words that i say before election, in most of the cases, are not used afterwards.

and still remember the american jerusalem. drewone when they are used for politics, not mine. >> folks come if and up the level on his microphone so people can hear him. we would appreciate it. >> anyhow, i would say that we have yet to be careful with the publicity done before elections in order to be elected.

it is not always 100%. >> last question, this is a big one. it is an issue that i think we all here in washington recognized as being related. but we rarely talk about it in terms of the actual relationship. and that is syria and how plays into this calculus. obviously, syria is an enormous by itself. but there is an important connection. i was hoping at giving a sense of background, take us through how israel is thanking -- how the israeli leadership is thinking about syria, the threats, the opportunities there and how it is relating to this iran issue. >> the chain, the known chain of iran, syria, lebanon -- i believe that once the syrian

block is going to be taken from this wall, from this change, it will influence dramatically over the iranian strengths again to the middle east. while their ability to use of their proxy -- real time were by remote whenever they want, it will change is the law, at the situation in lebanon. -- all of those based on the assumption that the replacement is completely different replacement. who knows. one thing should be said. there are the only country in the world.

it is a sheer organization. but in a multi-religion country like lebanon on the -- as it looks now, most of those who are protesting and fighting the syrian regime, sunnis. so in this respect, i think it is if, not when, the syrian regime will be replaced, will be something new. will it be better, the same, or worse. in any case, 3% of chance for better. [laughter] i am looking for this 3% as an option. it is high chance. [laughter]

any how, no doubt it will, it is connected to the entire iranian problem. because if you are going to lose the footstep in syria, and partially in lebanon, i think that they will reconsider their position. i did not know if it will reflect nuclear, but it would do something to the iranian leadership and they will have to reshape their policy and of their diplomacy. to understand. god knows, allah knows. >> let us open things up to the audience. if you will raise your hands, i will call on people.

maybe in pairs, trios. we will take three at a time. if you could identify your name and affiliation. so he knows where you are from. and please ask a simple question. please make sure it is a question as opposed to a statement were you certainly inflect your voice. as if it were a question. thank you. i am with a newspaper. my question to you, the iranian nuclear program is spread likely over thousands of sites across the country. three times the size of a iraq. that would require a sustained bombing that would go on not for weeks but perhaps months. does israel have the ability to go alone a? >> we will take right down here front.

>> i was born in i run. i was happy that persian empire gave a free pass to your ancestors to come to iran and your grandfather was from iran. the land of love o. [laughter] >> we have a 7 billion people in the world. the population since january 2012. and the middle east, or the portion of a -- maybe 200 million pillio. a small portion of. they formed the big events of the world -- if a war happens in that area, 7 billion people,

could we not, all of us be able to sit face to face and see what is hurting us or what is taking us and then come up to some kind of a solution which every human being is looking for, which is pursuit of happiness, freedom and providing for their children. thank you. >> and we will go to the gentleman in the turqouise shirt. >> think you. my question, you are talking about the importance of mobilizing iranian citizens. we saw but was not so effective. i am thinking how you are thinking people might be able to revolt against the government and if it could be successful this time. >> the iranians learned the

lesson of the iraqis. iran is a huge country. a very nice country. a very interesting terrain. the iranians are doing all of their efforts to spread -- located in difficult places. i did not speak about israel. i spoke about user force. one of the things that user force -- just in case, i am not pushing anyone to attack iran today. and not tomorrow. user force, by all of those who

are interested in preventing iran from having nuclear capability. i think all of those have the capability. all of those. regarding face to face, our face is ready. the question, are the other faces ready? to sit around the table and discussed everything. you know, when you are coming into discussion, it is a give and take. the question is, what someone has to offer in order to give, and what you want in order to take. that is the problem. for us, there is no reason to

enter into the same room and sit around the table. if we want to discuss seriously, yeah. it is no secret that we were sitting and we are sitting with many of our neighbors around the table. and we had achievements. we had disagreements. we signed a peace agreement with the georgia. i hope that in the future, hopefully in the new future, the palestinians will sit together with israelis and we will be able to reach agreement. things are going on. but in this case -- with the iranians, so big. not because we had any -- just to remind ourselves that 34

years ago, the relations between israel and iran were the best in the middle east. we had many activities and many things. if the wheel of history still works and is still rotating, maybe the future will bring us better news. so far -- this is a huge. we need the interim mediators. -- intermediators. it is something beyond my knowledge and expertise. in little over a year ago, the iranian position in iran tried

to do something. it was too little, and they did not have enough energy to keep the momentum. i do not know what was -- the ex journal assistance -- the x terminal assistance that they would get. i do not know. the forces in iran are objecting the attitudes of the regina. i think that iran as i remember was on their way to being more western oriented. more liberal. everything was stopped very short in 78. i believe, i am optimistic, i believe the future will change

it. but i do not know how much it can take. it was in the past. we see it know from 78. but if we go back the history of iran, we see that it happened already in the past. that religion people controlled the country. let us hope for the iranians -- >> let us go with marg. >> margaret warner. today the prime minister said those who refuse to draw a red line to iran do not have the ability to put a red light to

israel. why they think he is demanding publicly that president obama set a red line to iran. and you think that is a mistake? >> we will take the person behind her. >> the philadelphia inquirer. following her question. i would like to ask you what your analysis is and what you think the predominant feeling is inside the israeli security community about what is the real nature of the threat that iran presents to israel? the prime minister has put it in apocalyptic terms and iranian rhetoric makes it easy to adopt that position. but many security experts believe that the real iranian intent is to have a break up capacity and that they couldn't dare to hit israel because they destroyed so much. so, um, how do you see that?

and the thing be predominant feeling among experts tends one way or another? >> in previous cases of both on iranian and other reports by israel, we have never seen this kind of discourse we have seen in the past year. what did you think has changed? we care so many voices coming up of israel discussing not only the politics and decisions mentioned. but also the security aspects. what has changed from three years ago? >> 3 great questions. >> what changed? 3 years.

they made progress. you know, what iranians are looking for in their policy of walking on the ash -- it was a successful policy. they gained 10 years of doing and doing and doing. in the end, they will complete what they had in mind. but as the reason why the voices or the volume is higher. if they are saved, it is another story. i am not here to criticize my prime minister. i am saying it very loud and clear. he is my prime minister. in his decision will impact me as others. and regardless, if i vote for him or not, he is the israeli prime minister. he was elected in a democratic way, and as long as he is sitting on his chair, he has the

right to make the decisions. and to implement. no doubt that the iranian -- is very unique. i say what i think about redlined. and this institute will make -- if the institute will make a survey about the redline policy, you will find out that in the world, there is maybe one example of redlines that was a success. in this case, i am not sure. from the israeli side, twice we put a red line and twice we failed with the red line. we put a red line to 11 on -- to lebanon when we first withdrew in 2000 and did not act accordingly. and we had a kind of redline when we disengage from gaza. we did not act accordingly the day after.

the day after, the color changed. red becomes pink and pink becomes white and white becomes red. i think that -- as i said, i am not criticizing my prime minister because he is my prime minister. but i am criticizing redline policy. to come to the u.s., the elephant, and ask him to put -- ask them to put a red line on iran, it is something not logical. as the famous actor and republican -- at the republican

conference said, "when you have to shoot, shoot." do not put redlines. if you have at any intention to do it, do it. redlines can be shared in close rooms. look, you know the balance of forces. you know what can happen. when things are done publicly, we are human beings. the fact that someone is a leader does not change his human characters. on the contrary. in some cases, it increases his human characters. his human person. if you are drawing redlines in

the washington post or nbc or cnn, the other side will be, first of all, in salted. then he will react emotionally and not rationally. we are looking at the brain of those people, not the hearts of those people. >> there is a -- there is an arm raised but i am not certain who it belongs to. in the back. >> thank you for doing this. you mentioned that you were

disappointed -- the issue of u.s.-israeli relations has gotten caught up in politics. we have seen that in this election to a degree i cannot remember seeing. i am curious as to whether you think the israeli leadership -- we can blame our own politicians. i am curious if you think the israeli leadership has some blame in that. if it is allowed to go unchecked, do you think it will reflect the nature and character of our relationship? >> in the back, is that michael? >> thank you for coming. to follow up on that question, you spoke about the importance of the u.s.-israeli alliance. given this iranian crisis, at what point would is a real step away from that? how much discord could there be if israel felt it had to act and the united states was

saying, please do not act? >> the gentleman in the pink. >> thank you. i was wondering if you could comment on the slew of issues coming out that an iranian strike could be possible, an october surprise. >> during the presidential elections. a little surprise for barack. >> regarding the relation, i will say it again. the importance of the relation, the good relations between the american people and the administration -- the israeli administration, is of the end up -- the highest importance to israel.

period. i do not think that the blame should be put on one side only. both sides took part in climbing too high. as high as you climb, the hurt from the falling of the tree you climbed on. two mature people should sit in the room, discuss it openly, and agree on what we agreed and disagree on what we disagreed. even in good relations, there are some disagreements. disagreements are not canceling on the background, the history, and the good relations that do exist in other areas. we have to be fair between

different establishments. in some areas, the relations are excellent. in some areas, maybe the political level, high political levels, it suffers from the declarations that are made here and there. some of them are serving the internal bodies of each country. some of them are serving the case itself. even though i think that mutual interests are stronger than the dispute between the sides, the small gaps or cracks that we have in a wall of good relations, once again i do not

think that the words to be used to blame this side, and the other side in the other% of the whole 100 -- the other percent of the whole 100. one side is carrying all the responsibility and the other side is carrying all of the irresponsibility. things should be said in closed rooms. october, i do not know what kind of surprise someone would expect. i would be surprised if my wife asked me to go on vacation. that is the only surprise i am going to face. no other surprise, to my knowledge.

but you know, surprises are surprises even if you know that they are going to happen. my personal assessment is based on no real time information. my feeling is that no one is going to surprise no one in the near future. but it is a feeling, not a knowledge. feeling based on knowing the systems and how these things are taken, etc.. but god knows. >> why don't we bring it down here to the gentleman in the blue?

>> i am just an individual citizen. there are always some little disputes as to what the actual facts are with respect to the iranian nuclear program. as far as i understand, the u.s. government is saying that everything that has been done so far by the iranians is consistent with peaceful uses and they have not made any decision or taking -- or taken any steps towards a nuclear weapon. the supreme leader has said it would be a fatma for iran to have a nuclear bomb and it would be a curse on all of their sins. how do you evaluate that and how do you think it might affect negotiations? >> right in front there. >> i am sam lewis.

we met a long time ago. i admire your deft handling of the domestic political questions. they are very tricky right now and i agree with you totally. if we had only stopped talking about this issue, it would be easier to deal with it. that is not going to work in either country. let me ask you this question. can you imagine, 10 years from now, after perhaps a war with iran, perhaps not, a lot of other things we cannot imagine right now, can you imagine israel and the united states' relationship having deteriorated to the point where we are still friends, we have links, but we no longer can be called allies?

>> thank you very much. i want to raise the subject that may be slightly off topic in that you may -- or you might have covered it before i got here 30 minutes late thanks to having spent 1.5 hours with tens of thousands of my best friends commuting this morning. the question is this -- it appears as though the near-term and probably medium-term result of the era of awakening, as it is called here, is that the islamists will become the primary players in politics in those countries surrounding you. my question is, first from the

israeli perspective and second from the american perspective, do you view that as a positive, a negative, or somewhere in between? >> general? >> ambassador lewis, i cannot imagine, in 10 years, i cannot imagine any chance that we have a lot to do about. of course, the american side as well. by saying that, in my view, it is a strategic asset, it is not only from the material side of it.

so i do not want to think about such development. if i will be aware that we are taking this direction, i will do everything possible to shifted back to the right place. it is very important, beyond any material aspect. the fact that the islamic world contains 1.25 billion people, it is a fact. it is a known fact. we have to get used to it and we have to find the golden path to

live with this. most of them want to live like us. most of them. and we may find extremists among all of us. we do not have to go to iran. we could go to oklahoma from time to time or jerusalem or to the west bank to find extremist. -- to find extremists. the problem is not with religion but the ambitions of the leaders of those countries. some of them want to impose their belief on the rest of the world.

some of them. and we have to fight those. i think -- i do not think that there is no way to live together in a peaceful way. you know, we are speaking about muslims taking over. we have many examples out of the 53 muslim countries worldwide. they are not one unity.

they are sharing the same unity, but not -- but -- they are sharing the same religion, but they're not the same unity. the indians, who are muslim, the chinese are muslims. the uzbeks, ok. there are many christians worldwide, but they are not one unit. they even have different languages, etc. it is not frightening me. it is encouraging me to find the right way how to deal with those different nations and find a way, from the israeli perspective, we are facing a different game. when religion and political ambitions are combined, that creates a problem for us. i will say now and i will say whenever i am asked, israel is not yet accepted in the middle east.

it is not yet accepted in the middle east. that is the reason why we have to be strong. that is the reason why we have to fight any sign of changing the balances. that is the reason. once we will be accepted and embraced by our neighborhood, it will be a completely different story. about the american standpoint, it is news to me. i know that even the american establishment knows that the iranians have a nuclear military. regarding fought what -- fatwah, i respect the quar'an and i -- and i read it in order to know it.

it depends on who wrote it. you can find fatwah and the contrary. one is living in egypt and the other is living in iran. they are not fully correlated with other fatwahs. the same with rabbis or archbishops. i am not sure they are internetting when they write it and addressing the rest of the believers that will be able to react. i do not rely on those fatwahs. i rely on actions. when you see, you can believe it. when you read it, it is not enough. >> let's take 4 quick questions. i will ask for them to be brief

so we can get some brief answers and wrap things up at 11:00. >> you have been asked the iran question many times. i am not still -- i am still not quite sure i understand the rhythm of your answers. do you trust the united states to do the right thing? >> yes. [cell phone ringing] >> a gentleman in a beige shirt right there. he has been -- suffering. >> thank you for your speech. i'm from the syrian expatriates association. my question is about syria. there is only a 33% chance that it will work in our favor. what would you say about increasing support to the opposition?

especially armed support for the syrian opposition? >> we will take the gentleman right here in the lavender shirt. >> i am working for the russian service of north america. my question refers to the role of russia. how would you characterize the motivation for the russian government to block the resolutions? the complex effects regarding iran and syria. thank you. >> and the lady in black, who has been waiting patiently. >> thank you. i would like to ask -- how do you see the role of china in sanctions? >> why don't we take some brief

answers on that? >> ok. i answered very short and i said yes. i am still with the yes. one thing that i want to add to it, because it was too short and i have to be polite, i said yes, but it should not be done secretly. it should be discussed with the other side. to build their confidence that this is a real one. -- that this trust is a real one. it cannot be done behind closed doors. it is a matter of confidence. that is all. personally, i believe that what they are saying, there are going to do. syria. there is a big question -- who is leading the syrian

revolution? many forces over there. personally, i am not recognizing a leader over there. there are groups. some of them are very extremist. regarding the 33% chance, that belongs to the best 33%. they were imported, some of them from afghanistan, some of them from iraq. i do not know if they are for everyone or for us.

the traditional opposition that mainly stayed in europe, in france, in england, i do not know what their power. those to be equipped and supported by the west, the americans, the french, are not the original opposition. they are the fighters. the original opposition, i do not know if they are fighting. the foreign ministry of the revolution. so i have no recommendation in this respect. i do not think direct involvement of the west will help to solve the situation. on the other hand, the emirates, saudi arabia, qatar, turkey, are involved in this campaign.

they know better who are the leading forces and they can do better once they are aligned with the western community, with europe and the u.s. russia and china. from my point of view, there is no doubt that russia and china have a major role vis a vis many things and also the iranian case. the russian foreign minister saying it is harming the russian economy, the sanctions. in this case, i lost my words. i do not know how it is harming the russian economy but i take it as it was said. i think that russia and china, they are superpowers economy-

wise and they have strong power on diplomacy and military. they are the right combination to join the other forces if they believe, and i do think that they believe that for the creation of weapons of mass destruction should be stopped. if that is the case, i cannot understand why they are sitting on the fence or from time to time, they are sitting over the fence with europe on the other side. i would like to see the russians and the chinese more proactive in this respect.

i think that there are, in my view, they are the key element to convince the iranians. the relation between china and iran and russia and iran are better than the relations between israel and iran and the u.s. so i hope to see this conveyed. thank you very much. i enjoyed it. [applause] >> allow me to say a word of thanks to our friends who made it possible for general dan haloutz to be here today. i want to thank general dan haloutz himself. this is an incredible moment and wonderful opportunity for americans to have the benefits of your views and insights. thank you very much, general. and i thank all of you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> and four weeks, the first of

the presidential debates live on c-span, c-span radio and see span.org. today mitt romney the at the national guard association in reno, nevada. followed by bill clinton campaigning in miami. and live at 7:00 a.m. -- washington journal. the teachers' strike in chicago is in its third day. on our facebook page we are asking if you think teachers should be allowed to strike. we hear from sherri facebook that says yes. that unions, they could be fired for anything. and karen wrote, computer is one to be considered professionals, they should not be allowed to

strike. visit facebook.com/cspan. our guest on washington journal -- the center of iowa. he will talk about the farm bill and other issues including the economy and upcoming elections. and then we will hear from tim ryan on the presidential election and the economy. and later, jim snyder of the bloomberg news on president for a greendge revolution. >> i think people really like to see where politicians the views have shifted over the years. i think people like to see whether mitt romney may was campaigning for welfare reform against welfare reform, against abortion. they want to see what you is doing in this past campaign.

i think people like to see how these politicians have evolved. and there's an element to it that is almost pay gotcha element. and it is incredibly interesting. >> i tried to think why is that he is changed so often. what he finds it so difficult to come down on one side of an issue purity floats between both issues. -- someone who is running for the first time -- your name is barack obama. >> i think the best way to describe it is sort of the viral beating heart of the internet. >> more with andrew sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span mitt romney marked the 9/11 anniversary in speeches to the

national guard in reno, nevada. he spoke about ending the u.s. mission in afghanistan he talks of his experience 11 years ago. and those who lost their lives responded to evil and heinous attack. from the national guard association convention, this is 20 minutes. >> thank you so much. major general, thank you for your generous introduction. thank you for your years of service as chairman of the board and for your decades of service to our nation. ladies and gentlemen of the national guard association, it is an honor to be with you on this day of memorial and the appreciation. we remember with heavy hearts the tragic loss of life and express think less for the men and women who responded to that tragedy. we honor them and we honor those to secure our safety even

to this day. we honor the men and women of the national guard. for 375 years whenever your countrymen have accounted threat and danger, you have willingly gone whatever the cause of freedom has called, you have answered. and threats of liberty have served far from home and far from family. the nation has asked much of view, much more than expected but you never faltered. from that motto -- always ready, always there. several weeks ago, i saw the guard in action in louisiana after it was hit by hurricane isaac. for many in the gulf who were just getting back to normal after katrina, the damage from isaac felt like to much to bear. as i toured the flooded streets, i was not surprised to find the guard keeping order. distributing water and supplies.

and caring for many of those who had been evacuated and rescue. time and again, it is in the guardsmen and that is lifted a child from rising waters and has fed and clothed americans whose homes have been lost. thank you for that service. [applause] our world is a dangerous place. the attack and -- on our homeland in citizens on the 9/11 and reminds us that the mission of the guard is ever more critical and ever more deserving of our support and honor. more than a decade has now

passed since that day of tragedy but the visions and the events are seared in the memory of every american. remember those who died. we marvel of the courage of those who stormed the cockpit when they became aware of the malevolent purpose of the hijackers. we hold up in prayer the families and friends of live in a shadow cast by grief. we draw strength from the selflessness of the first responders and we renew our resolve to protect america from the designs of evil men. like you, i remember where i was on 9/11. i was originally planning to be in battery park in new york city, not far from the world trade center. as it turned out, i was in washington, d.c. to meet with members of congress about preparations for the security of the upcoming olympic winter games. a colleague and i were working in the office we had in the

ronald reagan building, a few blocks to the white house. someone rushed into our office and said that a plane had hit the world trade as the world trade center. i turned on a small tv on our desk and watched in shock as the flames and smoke erupted from the north tower. i called my wife. she too watched the tragedy from her tv and wondered how a plane could fly into a building at that the clear daylight. thne we saw the second plane crashed into the second tower. these were purposeful at tax. these were terrorists attacks. these were evil and cowardly and heinous attacks. leaving the city, i drove toward alexandria. the highway i was on came within a few hundred yards of the pentagon would have been hit by then. cars were stopped were the work and people got out, watching in horror. i could smell burning fuel, concrete and steel. it was the smell of war,

something i never imagined i would smell in america. the each were overwhelmed by the enormity of the loss of life. we struggle to comprehend the magnitude of what this meant for the families of those with been killed and for our own families. for our nation. for the world. for some, there was also anger and grief and anger soon turned to action and among those taking the lead were members of the national guard. members of the guard secured our airports and borders and members of the guard began to mobilize, to deploy half a world away for you would become all too dim earlier but the amount of the hindu kush and the streets of fallujah. guardsmen and women have helped keep us safe and the nation owes you. you.