>> there is a threat to our own security. because reports, one after another, all say that if we do not do anything that the -- at the end of this century the temperature of the planet will have by three or four degrees. with the consequences that we are aware of, floods in some places, droughts in others. direct threats for peace in the

world. therefore we must seek an agreement during this climate conference in 2015. the foundations of this compromise are well known. this agreement must be equitable. everyone must do their part. developed companies must obviously make the greatest effort -- make an effort. the greatest effort -- emerging countries must not threaten development but also understand they are directly threatened by climate change. the least developed countries, those most fragile on formal, -- and vulnerable, they must be helped in this transition. this is the point of the afford -- a court created in durban. this must also be binding. it cannot simply be a recalling of principles.

it cannot simply be stated in resolutions which have no concrete translation into action. therefore, there will be an increase in the temperature of the world. ladies and gentlemen, my message is simple in all areas, whether it is international security, nuclear proliferation, development, or climate. the worst risk is in action. -- inaction. the worst decision is to not take any, and the worst danger is to not see it. therefore, the responsibility of the united nations is to act. and each time that our organization finds itself to be

without power and without hope or force, it is piece that is the victim. --peace that is the victim. that is why i propose a code of conduct be made among permanent members of the security council. and in the case of massive crimes they can decide for a collective renunciation for their right to veto. we would like for the secretary- general's powers of inquiry to be strengthened its of the u.n. can do what it did in syria, establish the truth, carry out investigations and act on the results. our assembly can decide this. our credibility rests on our capacity to intervene rapidly and effectively. to make sure international law is respected. to sanction those who do not respect it. to promote development and

preserve future generations. we have legitimacy. we have received it from the united nations charter. we must be worthy of it. it is in this context that france will always take on its responsibilities in all domains. thank you. >> that response loaned, the french president, addressing the u.n. general assembly. its annual meeting got underway this tuesday. speaking their a few hours after u.s. president barack obama, who said that words must be managed by action. he was talking about iran. on syria, he said there must be a tough resolution. let me turn to our international affairs editor. you were following the speech by

french president francois hollande. it came just a few hours after his american counterpart's speech. it was quite similar in town. very close to obama on syria and iran. >> very close to obama on syria and iran, but at the very tail end of the speech he has pulled out what seems to be a major surprise here. he said the united nations must be able to act, and in order for it to do so he calls for some sort of an agreement that is quite vague so that there is a collective renunciation of the right to veto, such as in cases like syria. this came at the very end. i have never heard anything like this before, and actually we get more details and clarifications as the hours go by. that is what he said. i do not know, he did not go into how this would work out, but it is a major change,

certainly, from french policy, in the sense that france has always guarded its ego power very carefully -- veto power in the security council very carefully. we will have to see later on what exactly this means. otherwise, very close to obama on. -- on syria, saying the text must include the famous chapter seven that allows military action to be taken so that the security council must be able to deal with the issue of chemical weapons in syria at any moment, and those who use chemical weapons must be held accountable. on iran, again he has a glimmer of hope. he said there was a glimmer of hope from the comments from the iranian president, but for 10 years negotiation has been blocked and has led to tough sanctions. but maybe now something will happen. but again, echoing obama calling

for concrete action to follow those very encouraging words. he is meeting with the iranian president just a little bit later after the speech in new york, and he says he is doing so in order to have the diplomatic road open. >> thank you very much for that analysis. in other news, three days of mourning have been declared in kenya as the siege at a shopping center ended. 61 civilians were killed, as well as rick security officers. -- six security officers. we can now cross over to our reporter in nairobi. what more can you tell us to -- about that address by the president? he declared the siege ended and several militants killed. others have been arrested. >> yes, that is right. the president, uhuru kenyatta, made an announcement on state television and declare that the

siege of the westgate shopping mall in nairobi is over. several different announcements from various government ministers, by the president has now come out and said they have ended this very dramatic and deadly event. 61 civilians killed, six security officers, three soldiers and also there is a police station around here. they said they killed five of the attackers and arrested 11 of the others. apart from that and announcing three days of national mourning starting now, there were lots of eloquent words. he said kenya has stared down evil and triumphed, and also that kenya has been badly hurt and feels great pain. people commenting that this was a very statesmanlike speech, but we are waiting for other details about who exactly the militants were. he said he was investigating the fact that maybe they were from

many different nationalities areas but we did not have much on that. many questions are still being asked. an eloquent speech announcing the end of the siege. lots of issues remain to be cleared up. >> thank you for that update from nairobi, where the canyon -- kenyan president and answer the siege that started on saturday when militants entered a shopping center has ended. 61 civilians were killed, security officers died, and five militants killed also. others are in custody as catherine was just telling us in nairobi. there has been a strong earthquake in southwestern dan. officials say at least 39 people have in killed. many when their houses collapsed. according to the u.s. geological survey, it was a magnitude 7.8 quake with tremors felt as far as new delhi. striking a 4:30 p.m. in a remote

-- remote part of balochistan province. disgraced chinese politician boesch eli -- bo xilai has appealed his verdict. he former politburo made his appeal on sunday as the verdict was delivered. he was sentenced to life in prison for embezzlement, bribery, and abuse of power. a ruling on his appeal is expected within two months. turning our attention now to the latest twist in a case involving lillian betancourt and nicolas sarkozy. the former french president and several others are accused of duping her to get funding for his 2007 campaign. the defense tried to get a key medical report thrown out but failed. >> the green light for a far- reaching court case. judges in bordeaux say the

lillian betancourt investigation can continue. could prove a major headache for nicolas sarkozy and an obstacle to any return to the political spotlight. he was placed under formal investigation march of this year, accused of fixed loading the aging billionaire's mental frailty -- exploiting the aging billionaire's mental frailty. the former french president is one of 12 under or more investigation. alongside him, his armor foreign -- finance minister and campaign treasurer, a photographer, and the eris -- eris -- heriess'wealth manager. lawyers asked for the case to be dropped after it emerged that the test on her performed by a doctor -- the doctor was a close friend of the investigative judge. they still have to choose which of the 12 could face formal charges. that choice could still see nicolas sarkozy tried or the

case against him dismissed. >> timed across to françois for the debate. >> a lot of time before the next presidential election in france, in 2017. many thanks for that. it is time for the france 24 debate. a lot of u.n.-bashing goes on in the studio. but the world body has once again proven that if it did not exist that building would have to be invented. among those converging in the general assembly, iran's new president, who may or may not shake the hand of his u.s. counterpart. it would be a first since 1977. iran's foreign minister, who we can show you here, in the company of his u.k. counterpart, already has a firm date to sit in on a meeting with u.s. secretary of date over -- state over tehran's nuclear ambitions. brock obama making cautious overtures to iran in his speech before the -- barack obama

making cautious overtures to iran in his speech before the general assembly. could this be the start of the biggest tectonic shift in the region since 1979 overthrow of the shah of iran? or is -- as current sectarian violence in iraq shows, our ancient -- are ancient divides cast in stone? with us is france's ambassador to iran from 2000 to 2000 i. francois nicoullaud of the middle east institute. from washington, political scientist majid rafizadeh. welcome as well. we can welcome back as well robert zarate of the foreign- policy initiative, also in the u.s. capitol and she is a former u.s. state department official, laurie dundon. you can join the conversation on

facebook and on twitter. our hash tag #f24today. barack obama fired his strongest shot against russia. which has used its veto power at the security council to block action against bashar al-assad in syria. >> now there must be a strong security council resolution to verify assad regime is keeping its commitments. there must be consequences if they fail to do so. if we cannot agree even on this, it will show the united nations is incapable of enforcing the most basic of international laws. on the other hand, if we succeed it will send a powerful message that the use of chemical weapons has no place in the 21st

century. >> all right. much of our discussion is going to be about iran. a reminder, a lot of the focus since the 21st of august and the attack in the suburbs of damascus of chemical weapons has been on syria. obama's message there, plainly directed at the russians. >> a flat a challenge to anyone thinks they could get around the security council blockage on syria. the contentious issue of the last weeks has resulted in this the court on the handover and possible disruption of chemical weapons from the syrian government. but it does not mean everything is firmly agreed until we get it wrong set of blank -- a strong set of language on verification and consequences. the ball is back in the u.n. court. everybody is playing hardball.

russians, americans, all players in the council. there is a reason for him to be fierce today. >> robert zarate is it the fourth or fifth speech by barack obama before the u.n. general assembly? this time he seems to say that the u.n. is not the only game in town should the vetoes continue. >> yes, it is true that the united they can -- united states can act outside the security council if the president decides so. however, the president, after making an initially very strong effort to get congress' approval for military force in syria, has decided, perhaps unsurprisingly, to go the route of international diplomacy. >> is it a smart move? >> it is hotly debated. if the president had really wanted to do punitive strikes in syria after a side's -- assad's repeated use of chemical

weapons, it was perhaps best not to announce it. it was within his rights as commander-in-chief and he could've asked for a consequent authorization of military force. so again, a lot of problems with optics here. the united states went into the -- went in to libya to prevent adoptee from doing the very sort of massacres we have seen in assad do in syria. >> majid rafizadeh, when you roll back to august 21 and here the speech barack obama did, would you say he has talked himself out of a corner? is he stronger than he was back then? >> i think the united states did not want to put itself in this position. i think they were pushed, kicking and screaming, into announcing they will have some limited military strike. that was because president obama already -- he specified the red line and the red line was

crossed several times. u.s. credibility was under question. we have to understand the core issue was from the beginning the united states was not willing to get involved in the conflict. but the language of the conflict has changed, and now they are trying to push for a u.n. security resolution that can solidify and verify the deal they already made with russia regarding syrian chemical weapons. >> francois nicoullaud, france and the united states, are they in a stronger or weaker position vis-à-vis syria than they were a few weeks ago? >> it is difficult to say. frankly, i think the whole story was a success for everybody,

including the united states, including france. now it all depends on the ground, how things will develop on the ground. i am optimistic. i do not think the wording of the resolution is so important. what is important is the will of assad to implement the agreement. i believe he will do it. i believe he has no other choice. >> how much of a player in this is iran? >> in the chemical story, not so big. iran was not aware of what was going on. i do not believe iran has any concern. the attack, i believe, has been done by the assad side.

for iran, the use of chemical weapons is something very sensitive, considering that happens during the iraq-iran war . everybody in the iranian regime is convinced assad did it, but they cannot admit it for the moment. >> at one point the former president made a statement at a rabbi. there is an audio transcript. they said he was misinterpreted. >> he is now an old man. he is a bit above the political fight, so he can speak. i believe he spoke the truth. all in all, the message was very well understood by everybody in iran. >> majid rafizadeh, did they use of chemical weapons -- is that

going to alter in any way tehran's position in its support for bashar al-assad? >> i do not think so. before just answering your question, if i can add one thing to the previous comment you're just made -- your guest made. the focus of the syrian crisis has shifted. we have to understand chemical weapons have killed less than one percent of the syrian people. 99% of the syrian people were killed by conventional weapons. i do not think any deal, even if it is reached within the u.n. general assembly, which is very unlikely because president obama is trying to have more bilateral sideline talks with russia, even if they reach a deal it is not going to change the conflict inside syria. going back to your question about iran, i we have to

understand the region from the perspective of the iranian leader, the ayatollahs. they see they are surrounded by u.s. military bases in the region. they are surrounded by arab countries that they have covertly or sometimes publicly shown they are not in favor of the political system of iran and have pushed the united states to cut the head of the snake. the only political ally they have is syria. so they are going to fight to the end to keep the only arab ally they have. they have nonstate actors like has blocked -- hezbollagh, but the only consistent ally is assad. if bashar al-assad delivers his chemical weapons, that is really going to change iran's position. iran's alliance with syria is

really more deep than just having some kind of advanced military technologies or not having those technologies. i have to say, president bashar al-assad has the technology to reproduce these chemical weapons. iran has also the technology to transfer into serious -- even if he gives up all his chemical weapons, they are capable of creating that chemical weapons in a few months. the discourse has shifted a little bit, and it seems to be diverging from the main issues in syria. >> we are going to pick up on that. first let's go to new york. douglas herbert is there, covering the u.n. general assembly. when you enter the building, does it feel like a confusing tower of babel? orders a day make you feel -- or

does but they make you feel the world is smaller and friendlier? >> right now they are in a temporary building. they are renovating the main general assembly, so it is not the familiar green chamber. feels like you are watching into a cap it's -- walking into a cafeteria right now. half the speakers is sitting behind columns and cannot even see you speaking. all of that aside, the atmosphere at the general assembly is a little different this year. as a lead of the debates have talked about, all eyes are on rouhani and even the handshake. i have never heard so much shot -- talk on the prospect of a handshake. not a full meeting, not even sitting down around the table. interesting to hear some stories circulating. old-timers of the u.n. who remind people that the incident with had tommy -- hatami, before

ahmadinejad the last real reformist president of iran. he and clinton were supposed to have a big historic and kanner, and it almost came to pass except hatami ducked into the toilet. he chickened out because he was a little afraid of what the hardliners at home, the conservative clerical establishment, would think if you were seen to be shaking the hand -- she was not called the great satan back then, the american president. there is still dispute -- was he really trying to dodge clinton, or did he just really have to go? >> i can see well you're speaking, i can see laurie dundon. they are still smarting at the state department. >> there was a lot of back and forth -- where and when should we engage? i had not thought about it in this context. >> about that handshake. if you were a betting man, what would you say?

>> if it is going to happen, it has to happen at this lunch. there is a very closing window of opportunity. one of the only places they're going to be together in a closed room. otherwise, like you said, this is a very byzantine kafkaesque place, the general assembly. it is conceivable they could cross paths on the up and down escalator. if they could reach out and shake hands there. but no, there has been a lot of speculation thinking if it is going to happen it is going to happen during the lunch. who is going to orchestrate the handshake? in events like this it is not just happen casually. everything is august rated. there are probably aides on both sides, press handlers and presidential aides orchestrating this handshake because it has not happened in 30 years. you want me to get off the fence? they might have a brushed by, i do not know if that means they're going to touch flesh, press the flesh, but it will be

a brushed by of some kind and we will get some media hype, probably far beyond what any real significance is. >> if you want to hedge your bets even further -- i will put this to robert zarate -- some say what could happen is eye contact, and egg knowledge meant of each other by eye contact so they do not have to actually touch/. your thoughts -- touch flesh. your thoughts? >> a degree or wringing our hands over photo up or and policy. regardless of what happens between president obama and president rouhani, the reality is over the last decade world powers have put on the table some numerous proposals to normalize relationships with iran, to provide iran with energy cooperation, including to include nuclear cooperation. a whole host of things, including also a prison -- provision of airports. as many know, iran suffers under

sanctions and it is very difficult to fly on iranian domestic airlines. there is a decade of efforts to normalize relations it iranian -- if iran would halt uranium a richmond. >> are you saying -- enrichment. >> you saying the the same way the threat of force has made assad acknowledged chemical weapons, are sanctions helping in tehran? >> there is strong evidence sanctions that hurt the iranian economy. that has changed to some degree the calculus of iran's leaders. that said, what we need to look at are the facts on the ground. how much uranium has iran produced? how much 20% uranium? how many centrifuges, more advanced second-generation centrifuges, has iran manufactured? these are the real brass tacks

of the situation in iran. it is easy to get seduced by the foreign policy photo up -- photo op we see going on. but until we actually see actions me the words, these are just empty words and empty symbols. >> we are watching live images, as you speak, of the lunch that that was herbert was mentioning a moment ago. before we go to the break -- we have not seen the handshake yet. you are saying it could be a brushed by -- brush by. >> diplomats use all this arcane language. i was going to say on the sanctions issue, the general consensus is iran -- it is no great secret iran admitted himself that sanctions have bit its economy. the value of the currency plunging, unemployment way up. very hard to get a lot of basic goods in the country.

that is not the question. the question is whether or not they will actually -- how much that will concessions that the u.s. and european powers are waiting to get. obama has made clear that they are not going to let the talk and talk on. >> we will be picking up on that point. douglas herbert, thanks for joining us. much more to come in the france 24 date. >> welcome back. before the france 24 debate, a sample of stories we will follow. kenya's president says the siege in nairobi at the westgate mall is over. 61 killed, including six security officers, five radical

islamists. 11 suspects are in custody. after warning the world about mali, the french president is now warning the world about the chaos unfolding in the central african republic, calling for african peacekeepers to be sent to the country in his speech before the un's general assembly. the former french president nicolas sarkozy is not off the hook. he had tried to get charges of a listed campaign financing through the l'oreal heiress dropped. a court today saying proceedings may continue. those stories and much more at the top of the hour on france 24. welcome back to my or welcome if you are just joining us. this is the france 24 debate. the un's general assembly in new york is where it is all happening. a lunch taking place.

barack obama speaking with nato secretary-general. wondering if at that lunch we might be -- he might be shaking hands with iran's new president. with us to talk about it, francois nicoullaud of the middle east institute, former french ambassador to iran in 2001 to 2005. majid rafizadeh, joining us in washington. as is robert zarate of the foreign-policy initiative. and laurie dundon, former state department official. before the break, we heard our correspondent mentioning how there were lots of conditions in the speech barack obama made when it came to iran. there is going to be a meeting on thursday at the u.n. where you will have a beast name room the iranian foreign minister and u.s. secretary of state. swiss diplomats say more meetings will take place in geneva.

obama calling for actions that are transparent and verifiable on the part of tehran. is that possible? >> they have a long way to go, but at least they will start to get to the table and speak constructively. they have been coming to the table over the years. this will not be the first meeting or even the first recently, but the question is whether they will be constructive negotiations, constructive discussions with the parties. one thing i wanted to comment on, picking up on all the back and forth and handshake diplomacy and whether or not the discussion of greeting warmly the iranian leader indicates we suddenly would be giving away the store, giving away too much in the negotiations. obama made certain in his speech earlier today to emphasize that it is not because we now trust you that therefore we will have a deal, but rather his words were discussing, if we want to demonstrate we can build trust together, let's get a deal on

nuclear weapons, nuclear nonproliferation, as the first step of building confidence. so it is not that suddenly the twitter diplomacy in the last eight weeks of the new leader, lots of good pr, lots of smiles, and the deal is done. he put the challenge on the table and said we are willing to be able to engage with you. now let's see what we can do to build trust. >> the weight of history certainly felt. last time to leaders of the two nations shook hands -- jimmy carter and the shah. there was an egg knowledge meant of the 1953 -- acknowledgment of the 1953 cia-backed overthrow of iran's democratically elected premier. >> mistrust has deep roots. iranians have long complained of a history of u.s. interference in their affairs and of america's role in overthrowing

the iranian government during the cold war. on the other hand, americans see an iranian government that has declared the united states an enemy and directly or through proxies taking american hostages, killed u.s. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally israel with destruction. >> majid rafizadeh -- with being shed on what happened in 1953 and how u.s. and british intelligence helped to overthrow the democratically elected leader of iran's government, should obama have gone a step further and actually apologize? >> that is a question you could pose to the state department. but i think the main point here is that there is an example, that iran and the united states are like two ships that always miss each other at night.

i think what is happening is for the first time you are seeing some sort of convergence of interests. not only within the iranian political system, but also in the united dates -- states, to have some kind of iranian-u.s. rapprochement. i think that, just if i can add something to -- that earlier one of your guests mentioned, i think that we have to understand that why iranian leaders are really showing, even the supreme leader coming out and embracing rouhani, i think the reasons are mainly economic reasons. i believe the economic reasons are justifying the political action taken by rouhani. there are some facts here -- i ran a few years ago was selling

2.5 million barrels a day of oil. now it is less than one million barrels. i ran's inflation has spiked. the iranian currency has devalued. it was around 10,000 to a dollar, now it is around 30,000. there is a lot of discontent inside the country. all of these reasons are really threatening the hold on power of the clerics. this is a strategic move and a tactical move by the iranian government to reach out to the west and try to amend their relationship. >> so iran, in other words, feels the squeeze. last week ali khamenei called for flexibility on his government when it came to relations with the u.s. there are also disclaimers and caveats coming from iran.

>> the assumption that a meeting between iranian and american officials could be decisive or help solve problems is absolutely wrong. we think we should wait until the proper time for such a meeting. our assessment is the proper time has not come yet. >> over the weekend, the ev to revolutionary guard corps putting out the statement -- historical experiences make it necessary for the diplomatic apparatus of our country to carefully and skeptically monitor the aim of white house officials of the righteous to man's of our nation -- demands of our nation are followed. so the question, will the real iran please stand up? >> what i would like to underline, rouhani is in a difficult position, that is true.

>> but we have just been saying the whole time that he has a green light from -- >> not a green light. you heard the caveat, the position. the people who are not too happy with the reaction, the radical conservatives are expecting the first misstep. the first error on rouhani's side. on the west's side, you have obama, you have them saying iran has to make the first step. you have to make a concrete gesture. which is probably true, but iran at the same time has to understand that no political leader can make a concession without being able to present his opinion of the results of the concession. so we come back to diplomacy. there should be a concession,

but the should be a concession on both sides. concrete steps should be simultaneous. >> that can be orchestrated. robert zarate, do you think there is a window of opportunity right now? >> there is a window of opportunity, but the first ring is that we need to stop talking about concessions from iran and start talking about the compliance by iran. iran's compliance with a handful of u.n. security council resolutions demanding that it stop enrichment and reprocessing activities, activities that can bring a country very close to the ability to make a nuclear bomb on very short notice. and that iran also be transparent with its nuclear program. far more transparent than it has been willing to be so far. if iran were to take concrete steps toward that direction and actually meet u.n. security

council demands, then you would see the beginning of the relaxation of the sanctions regime that is damaging around's economy and body politic so deeply. >> at the same time, there is always the question -- and i will put it to you, majid rafizadeh, the question of how much of an internal battle is the going on in tehran? are they more or less singing from the same hymn sheet? >> that is a great question. many people try to compare rouhani's government with hatami. they say rouhani cannot amend the relationship because hatami was a reformist and was not able. but it is different.

we have a different political landscape here. for the first time, again because of the economic reasonings, rouhani has the support of the political establishment in iran. hatami never had the support of the clinical establishment. the supreme leader came at embracing rouhani, talking about heroic leniency. there were voices inside the political structure, like any other country, opposing rouhani's rapprochement and flexibility. saying that you are -- that rouhani is basically undermining iran's position in the region and internationally and geopolitically. they're criticizing him. but again, he is the first president since 1979, that he has the support of the political establishment to go ahead and cast -- test his foreign policies.

this is not an endless opening for rouhani. he is going to have around six months to one year opening, and if he was not able to deliver anything, if the economy in iran did not improve -- >> in those six months to one year, what are the chances of diplomatic ties between washington and tehran being renewed? >> this is a very compensated question. it depends on very --, located question. it depends on various factors. it depends on the political will of the obama administration as well. yesterday there was a stronger position -- this might be called the mot significant geopolitical handshake. senator mccain, the republican from arizona, and other democrats wrote a letter to president obama about why he should not show flexibility to the reigning government. they argued the reason the

iranian government is coming to the table is because of the cumulative sanctions of a decade, and if we release that, if we ease the tensions and the sanctions, then iran will have higher expectations for diplomacy and will not really come to negotiations. from my perspective, for the first time you have a convergence of interests in both administrations. this is the best scenario you can get. they reached some sort of -- they amend the relationship. if they do not mend the relationship within six months to one year, you will have backlash in both countries and the credibility of rouhani and obama will be questioned. i do not think we will ever get a scenario which is more appealing like this one. >> a narrow window of opportunity, convergence of

interest, beware of the backlash. laurie dundon, what is your prediction? >> i want to pick up on the last two comments. i think the next couple of events are going to be extremely busy. i think what we have heard, i think we have to go all in and look under every rock and dig up every possible formula on the menu of options of what can be given in a graded manner. you ask whether we will see a renewal of relations -- that is too far to reach. especially in a short timeframe when you have things like congressional approval to formalize such big decisions and you open up such big debates. they will be similar contentious issues on the iranians that it will be too far to go. the ambassador will now about that list. our teams have to create a

nuance list for each of these back and forth with the iranians and the dialogues. add to that the complexity of coming up with ideas, then negotiate that in the p-five plus one, then go back to iran and back around the circle a lot of times in the next month. >> francois nicoullaud, let's look at the longer view, if you will. we heard majid mention a convergence of interests. if they do converge, look at a map of the region, you think of the u.s.'s traditional allies. in a speech before the u.n. today, barack obama stated bluntly that they are -- there are extremists on the rebel side in syria. we know where they get their funding, in the gulf states. my question, could there really be a shift where the u.s. and the west wind up being close to iran than to saudi arabia?

>> if iran begins -- it will be a great challenge. >> is it possible? >> no, it is possible. this is natural. iran should have in this region a more important role. it has been neutralized by the long-lasting animosity with the u.s. and the west. as soon as this disappears or becomes less intense, iran will naturally regain its natural way. political, economical, influence in the region. of course, this one i make everybody happy in the region. we know that very well. >> robert zarate, do you agree

that iran is perhaps a more natural partner with the west than saudi arabia, for instance? whack -- >> i do not agree with that, certainly with the current government. i also find the suggestion that at some point in the near future the united states could align itself more closely with iran than it does currently with saudi arabia or other partners in the golf -- gulf a very curious and far-fetched scenario. to come back to the real world, we see iran not only developing its rapid nuclear weapons making capability, the infrastructure foundation to sprint to a bomb. it is very deep in syria. we have forces advising the syrian military, in addition to russian art is a patient in the assad regime. iran sees a regional confrontation, a regional

competition with gulf states. the idea that the united states would jump ship and go along with the islamic revolutionary government just strikes me as very far-fetched. >> majid rafizadeh, do you agree that come what may iran is intent on getting that bomb and there is no way they will be the rapprochement? do you agree it is far-fetched? >> it all depends on the cost and benefit analysis. if they believe that reaching the nuclear weapons is going to cost their hold on power, probably they're going to use other strategies. we have to understand, as many journalists in the united states say, iran is a rational actor and the first purpose is to retain their power. that depends on the cost of analysis and the sanctions and all these calculations will be

taken into consideration. beyond the exchanges of letters between president obama and rouhani and exchanges of plays and trays -- pleasantries and nice words, if we go beyond the surface, the political cap between the iranian government and the obama administration and the western analogue is too deep to breach. iran stance on its nuclear program. iran's stance towards syria. it is incomplete contrast with the united states and western allies on these two issues. president roddy -- rouhani has been using ambiguous language. he says we do not want to develop a nuclear weapon, but he never clearly said we will stop nuclear enrichment. >> there is still a long way to

go. remember earlier this month, the g-20 summit in st. petersburg where vladimir putin was the host. he certainly upstaged -- barack obama unable to muster momentum for intervention in syria. putin will not be in new york. his foreign minister will speak on friday. max fischer predicts the russian speech may be the most awkward of the assembly. it will be interesting to see whether russia retreats into defensive doubletalk, further pushing a pro-assad line, or if it ticks to shore up international leadership now by taking a more measured approach. do you agree, laurie dundon? not as good a week for russia? >> i think the complexity of the relationship between the u.s. and russia is almost as unpredictable as anything else we have discussed. the iranian opening is a great first step, lots of unknowns, but the relationship between the u.s. and russia has taken some

deep dives in the last month. the canceling of the summit, all of the uproar. in just a few short days of diplomacy around the serious deal. has are still spinning. >> we will not open that now, but we will in the future. laurie dundon, i want to thank you. i want to thank ambassador francois nicoullaud. also robert zarate and majid rafizadeh for joining us from washington. before we say goodbye, let's get a little more of a flavor of what is going bomb -- going on in the united nations. olivia salas are is here. -- salazar is here. it is not just about iran. >> there has been criticism from other quarters. if we start with the people who opened the general assembly, brazil. dilma rousseff, normally a very friendly country to the u.s., she started off with the pleasantries but quickly moved to slam the nsa, the national

security agency, for what she calls a spying. this is covered in awful lot in the brazilian media, pretty much everywhere. she did not mince words. she said that the fact the nsa had access to her own communications, to state negations, e-mails, telephone calls pertaining to the national oil corporation, as well as brazilian people's personal e- mails, is a violation of human rights, curtailing civil liberties and eradicated the possibility of having real freedom of speech. hitting on a very american principal, freedom of speech. this is a head of state who has lived through a dictatorship herself. state censorship in recent history. >> and just canceled a state visit to washington. >> this is very close to her heart. she is not joking about this at all. she canceled a state visit. started off her speech with that. this was a big blow to barack

obama, who entered the podium straight after her to this very frosty reception. if you go back to iran, the other guest everyone is talking about, everyone was i chelating. you mentioned max fischer -- speculating. you mentioned max fischer. eight reasons we should be looking at the general assembly this year. four of the reasons are pertaining to iran. the appearance of hassan rouhani. take a look at how his name has cropped up in the international media. over the last few days leading up, it has been very positive. this picture of him and barack obama exchanging messages. a translation of an article in the iranian media -- on a reform minded pater -- paper. that the west has never been so enthusiastic about a warming up of relations between the two countries. another editorial saying that they are probably going to make real progress on the nuclear

dossier, all thanks to rouhani's direction. >> makes the front page of the newspaper. >> we were covering that he was going to the u.n. and in his delegation he has the only jewish mp in the iranian government, a very clear break with ahmadinejad's position on that kind of thing. making openly anti-semitic comments. had an op-ed each -- piece in the washington post. trying to bury the hatchet, trying to talk about mutual respect, national dialogue, the kind of dialogue that we hear, from lots of heads of state. if we look back, we were not hearing anything from augmented and out -- i could image out when he was in power. he did not try to seduce the western media before he appeared before the u.n. >> which do you think is top of the list of things we will watch

out for the rest of the week? >> it will be syria, won't it? everything around syria. and russia's absence. >> the russian president's absence. >> i want to thank our panel. thank you for joining us here on the france 24 debate. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

 >> it is a done deal, the bid to buy the world's biggest pork producer gets the ok from shareholders. >> a standoff over the budget that will continues.