on the streets of spain where anto sturdy sentiment is coupled with protest against brutal police tactics and the demonstrators desperation is growing in the euro zone's fourth largest economy with the highest unemployment rate in the e.u. . us declines to rule out arming the syrian opposition that was also backed by al qaida spreading fears that washington's push for regime change in syria could plunge the country deeper into chaos. and the failure of the u.n. nuclear watchdog mission in iran fuels talk of even more sanctions while tension around these long stay begins to take its toll on the very country supporting those penalties in place. will rising pressure on iran finally explode into a military attack that's a question of outputs to his guests in today's crosstalk next on r.t. . wealthy british style.

markets weiner scandal. find out what's really happening to the global economy comes a report on r.t. . and. blowing welcome to crossfire i'm peter lavelle paradoxes contradictions and the iran is the drumbeat towards war now inevitable as the chattering classes discuss the possible date of an israeli attack on the round the us military and intelligence community says iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has not demonstrated any intention to do so is this rapidly turning into another done more of choice. and.

crosstalk the complex situation surrounding around i'm joined by patrick clawson in montreal he is the director for research at the washington institute for near east policy and senior editor of middle east quarterly and in washington we have got out by god he is a professor of political science at the national defense university and in brussels we crossed to gilbert doctorow he's an independent scholar and author of great post cold war american thinkers on international relations all right gentlemen this is crosstalk that means you can jump in anytime you want gilbert if i go to you first in brussels can you explain something to me the american military establishment and intelligence community says iran is not developing a nuclear weapon has no intention of doing it and then changed or in the same page in the washington post new york times everyone's discussing when the attack is going to happen what is going on this seems to be an amazingly paradoxical situation. well i don't have a direct answer to that question but yes there is

a lot of cross talk within the united states and within the foreign policy community so i'm not particularly surprised that. the personalities or interests within the pentagon would be inconsistent in their public position now with. the positions of the foreign policy analysts who have taken all the airtime till now all right ok patrick if i can go to you can you do resolve this i can you square the circle for me. certainly ok the united states several years to get the material to make a nuclear weapon to actually make a nuclear weapon the united states only a few weeks some indications are it only took the united states a week actually making the bomb is the easy part hard part is getting the material with which to make the bomb and iran has spent billions of dollars and twenty years now getting the material to actually make a bomb so we don't want to wake until that last week well i don't think there's

anything here but if we have the director of national intelligence james clapper who says in front of congress that there is no evidence that iran is building a nuclear weapon that's the head of national intelligence a few weeks to build a nuclear it takes a few weeks to build a nuclear weapon they don't have to make that decision until the last minute they have already spent billions of dollars building huge facilities with which to make the materials that will let them make that decision when they want to make it they haven't done it yet but what they have done is violated their safeguard agreements with the i. doubt you want to jump in there go right ahead if i if i may. i believe there is no way to judge any country by intention there is no way to know what anybody's intentions are we have to george bizos on facts not the intentions and the facts as they have been stated. is that till now.

has not the only. tool. nonproliferation so he gave me a court last reports last report set out twenty pages of violations by iran that's the reason why the board has repeatedly censored iran that's the reason the security council has repeatedly voted for sanctions on iran is to say that iran has to demonstrate its purely peaceful intentions that's the wording in this together that it's all roses and it was that always and only that he thought of the entrance . go ahead get out of the report the boy. did not and has not said that it in his makings of bomb. said are you saying he wouldn't have violations it has meant it has many violations the question of violations is not making the bomb the question of violations is it safeguards agreement the whole point of the. speech now do dangerous things. only if you if you are absolutely

transparent and open and a iran has not been well iran's and if you want to go back to gilbert if i go back to gilbert in brussels iran's nuclear program is the most inspected program in the history of the i.a.e.a. what do you think about all of this here if i can stay with you in brussels i mean is this it there's a drumbeat to war irrespective of what the i.e.e.e. i i a e a has to say about anything because most people said the last report was just a recycled one of the one before go ahead. but i think this is of off the mark the issue has moved on the issue of relations with iran has moved on considerably from the strict starting point of its nuclear ambitions and no what were side issues have become the central issue that is the economic warfare being being and entered into against iran the ratcheting up of sanctions which with a certain word a certain point the quantitative element becomes

a qualitatively different relationship and becomes an exercise existential threat to iran and we're protein that point and the the the issue of its nuclear ambitions or how or what has been proven has fallen into a subsidiary position i can see that coming out in in a dispute between the the pentagon or the and the papa defense and the state department because there is a significant. more significantly more. restrained pentagon under under present leadership and under panetta as opposed to the war of the book where you hawkish. position the state department and the foreign policy community supporting the state department ok patrick if i go to you it seems to me that israel and iran are already at war it would just scratched. it up ok

there's there's there's probably and other. civilians are being killed scientists are being killed diplomats are being attacked i mean this is we're going down this path right here and it seems like there is neither side really wants to step back from the brain care except for maybe obama doesn't know what to do but it is certainly a lot of other people seem to of already decided that they want to continue down this path where we have a major blow out of one form or another hopefully not all out war because the regional implications would be immense and there are a lot of american interests in the region. well indeed as your guest in brussels was explaining the united states and the european union and its allies have launching what is in effect an economic war against iran saying to the iranian leadership look you can either have your nuclear weapon or you can stay in power you get to choose and the iranian leadership has to decide they can either keep their nuclear weapon or they can stay in power that's the choice that's before them

and they have to make that choice and we will see this year which of those two i mean are you kind of jumping ahead here again i keep stressing here that there is there's no one has proven that iran is it has intentions even to build a nuclear weapon i mean i'm open to you know evidence later is that you know it's a really good idea because i mean it seems to me you're kind of railroading us down a certain path here let's keep in mind you know i'm going to be in the security council now security council is going to i didn't even go to you when i wanted to hear you say that i mean there is this drive to war i mean if the evidence doesn't fit you know they destroy it out because war is the worst possible thing that happen here. and this last order if wars in iraq and afghanistan taught us anything it is that it is much easier to start wars and then get as you said it is true he said there is law live in war going on between iran and israel and united states president obama for his created heel is international community to

impose that office sanctions on iran and need some time to see how it will work ok and there is no it is very irrational toward talk about war war. everybody will be very bad not only to it and not only to the middle east. oil prices are very high now because of this ok gilbert if i can go to you i think patrick kind of put it really out there very openly it's all about regime change that's what this is about it's not about the nuclear program the united states and its allies particularly israel want to regime change there for some reason they think you know it will be better and better to know i mean that change the regime you get the regime or the nuclear weapon you have a choice well it's really strange i use a weapon you go over to your future i guess we don't have all some people have sovereignty some don't you know but what do you think about this. well you've summed it up in the last sentence the word rational came up here and i'd less like

to put it into a context as to who is behaving more rationally in the sense of looking after their own interests yes america has interests in the middle east and i think of an attack on iran would jeopardize those interests so is america acting rationally by its very aggressive position. today on the other hand we often are persuaded that the iranian leadership is irrational. and i am not persuaded of that. believe that they are rational and they are looking after their interests and only they could be only suicidal if in the context of the american positioning of troops in israel today they were to take any action that was and is a an essential threat to israel. believe the moderator has been a bit coy with respect to the iranian intentions of building a nuclear device let's assume that they do ok they would be rather strange people

in the context of what we've seen in iraq i would like i would absolutely agree with you ok because if you're being threatened that's what you're going to do is to try to protect yourself patrick if i go to you i mean they at the element of rationality here i mean who's being rational and who's being irrational. well the russian government like the american government the french government and the governments of other countries in the security council are being very rational they are saying that the threat of political ration of nuclear weapons and of a nuclear arms race is such that we have to reinforce the nonproliferation treaty and its provisions which say that countries have to be fully transparent to the international atomic energy agency and when countries aren't fully transparent in the international atomic energy agency the security council says to that country suspend your activities until you can reassure your purely peaceful intentions we're not going to wait to the last minute we're going to reinforce the n.p.t. the nonproliferation treaty by saying that. a international atomic energy agency

safeguards have to be followed that's what the international media said rational position worry about a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east and indeed throughout the world if countries can ignore as you know did you even hear we're going to wish you a break and have to show break we'll continue our discussion on calls to war stay with parking. lots.

liz it's. lists.

ok. welcome back to crossfire computable remind you we're talking about whether they'll be a strike against iraq. ok get out i'd like to go back to you in washington you know before i go i went into television and journalism i was an academic historian and of modern european history and i can remember reading because i wasn't alive at the time of the hysteria but the united states had about the soviet union acquiring

a nuclear weapon and i remember the hysteria of the united states when when china was acquiring a nuclear weapon and you know what they have never gone to war with each other deterrence works ok so again i agree with bill but what if you know iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon it certainly being threatened by the west right now would it really use it. i'm very glad you is this point because i believe it is very racist to say that only western powers can decide who is the national and who is. it is to draw it and has not started a new war for at least a hundred and fifty years and as a iranians like anybody else they are not crazy they will. seal what is in their best interest and try to do it and make the bomb and this is not proven in any way they are not likely to use it because one or two bombs will not

be taught is that all you ought to united states is that evil has more than two hundred nuclear weapons as a iranians nor limits and onions will not that their israel also or the foreign minister of britain talked about if you don't make the bomb egypt turkey saudi arabia and other countries might try to do is a c.m. this is also aung because egypt is in no position to make the bomb now after arab spring so the idea be others not have the infrastructure saw as it is a lot of misunderstanding misleading statements about it and and if you end makes up ok gilbert what do you think when we are overlooking the hill and go right ahead in brussels go ahead but nobody has said a word about israel and those requests remarkable that patrick were speaking very extremely reasonably about the dangers of proliferation without mentioning the fact

of the road use of nuclear power in the region but i have in front of me the the last issue of foreign affairs magazine which has a title which speaks for itself this is time to attack iran. coming from the single most of orotate of. journal of the us foreign policy community that. comes up the overwhelming position of the community and you have the same time in the online edition of foreign affairs we do see heterodox views which dispute that which suggests. that even a nuclear iran could be acceptable and could be worked with the issue that i want to bring out is the debate in the united states foreign policy community is a long one line only and that is can we do it that is based on efficacy nor is totally the question of should we do it or what would the consequences be of doing it to take out a nuclear capability of iran what do you think about that patrick i mean you know

one of the things that you know we have seen we have a disaster in iraq we have a quagmire in afghanistan and libya is a mess i mean how when the law of unintended consequence is going to be taken into consideration ok stryker rand what are the implications are going to be clean easy what do you think. well what we have seen is the israeli has been using covert assassinations and cyber war against iran and it slowed down iran's nuclear program so we can remind you and i'd like to remind my viewers on saturday i'd like to remind my viewers that iran has the right to develop nuclear power for civilian use it has a right to a nuclear program i mean every so we have to remember on this it was a member go ahead has its right rights come with obligations good has rights and responsibilities it only can exercise those rights within the framework of its responsibilities under the international treaties it signed and it's precisely that

the problem is iran who wants to have the rights without the responsibilities of being open and transparent to the international atomic energy agency inspectors that's why the international community including the russian government every people who voted for sanctions on iran rights come with responsibilities and because iran has been irrational about not living up to its responsibilities there is concern that iran will be irrational again if it gets to have nuclear weapons and that's why there's a lot of concern about what would happen if you're wrong got these nuclear weapons the unintended consequences of a nuclear armed iran are in many people's minds much worse than the unintended consequences that could come from attacking iran if it refuses to have a diplomatic compromise but again that a patch reminds me. ok dad i was the guy was going to go to you because you know the iran certainly not a threat to the united states ok it's israel that wants the attack here so if if if

the united states and israel are involved in attacking around how does that serve american foreign policy interests its geopolitical interests i see only downside ok go ahead. yeah this will not serve american interest and it is a great concern among american officials that israel will start war especially before the elections when this administration can do very little and then the united states will be ends up with two ends a war we have nor as an option but to ends a war united states does not want to or start another war with another muslim country in the middle east and then instead of talking about war there are other options engaging gear and accepting its limit revolution and. doing business with it and considering it and like any other country and just invest in it and do it that it was here and this probably will have better options

then warner ok gilbert what do you think about that because it it really does get down to the israeli angle here the israelis want to can take my maintain their regional supremacy here and any country the challenge is that is going to be deemed a threat to demonize the new hitler eccentric cetera. but the american involvement . and rainy and agenda predates the nuclear issue by far we take this all the way back to the origins of the iranian revolution and the united states was actively conducting economic warfare against iran in the one nine hundred ninety s. well before there was any hint of a nuclear threat so we were told looking at today is an acute stage. of an issue that has a long chronic history behind it is this a rational policy is it i believe it's emblematic of us foreign policy in so far as it does not correspond to the interests of america as

a country is it corresponds to the interests of foreign policy community which is extremely self important. do you think about that i mean again i mean why why is the united states so obsessed with this with iran because the it goes back to the revolution doesn't it i mean we've seen this our reasons for not only just pointed out to me i mean it was a united states was helping around the development of their power and. china has voted repeatedly in favor of sanctions china and russia have voted repeated lee in favor of sanctions against iran at the united nations but times are good they should you trying but they're not part of it with the but they're not part of this discussion of attacking iran that's a very different part a very different conversation to do they know they are it's the conversation about iran's nuclear program you're the one who think there's not a problem the russian and chinese government's disagree with you they think there's a problem here. or is different we know you believe only ever at the united nations

security council discussed going you know games are just now if iran in the nuts and once ever you talking about there's no problem with the iranian nuclear program the russian and chinese government see a problem there's a reason why the international community as a whole sees a problem with the ever. nuclear program it has to do with the interest of the international community in stopping it but at the same time they're not promoting war agenda against iran that's a very different conversation for if i mean i want to go just a minute go ahead. we are talking about the american citizen and i would feel. if we were in has a bomb then pakistan was a bomb pakistan is becoming very much close to or feel this state is a good idea at least as our government is in charge and. again comparing it and pakistan new credit and will be that it is then your credit pakistan

ok gilbert do you think that double standards have an implied here when it comes to political ration because again we have a there is a country in the middle east that has up to two hundred nuclear warheads and that's israel and it's never been investigated inspected by the i.a.e.a. it doesn't even admit to having a program of hypocrisy is the small change of diplomacy so i don't think it's particularly shocking to see hypocrisy here. yes there are double standards that's patently true ok patrick what do you think about that why don't we just have a nuclear free middle east everybody signs up to it all countries. why not a nuclear free world why doesn't well let's start somewhere let's start something or give up its nuclear weapons why not let's start with russia why not start with russia if you want to start with the united states of the things our united states . that i mr obama said ok that's why he's proposing unilateral cuts in u.s. nuclear arsenals mr obama has been opposed to pollute for ration everywhere and he

wants to move towards nuclear zero as it's called getting rid of nuclear weapons that's one of the reasons he's so opposed to proliferation is he would like to see the world move away from nuclear weapons and i agree there's a double standard eight countries have nuclear weapons and those countries have should move towards a new canoes zero it's going to be a long slow process but let's move in that direction together as a group meanwhile let's reinforce our efforts against proliferation that's why the focus on the iran because the concern about proliferation ok good i'm going to give you the last word in this program what's next i think you'll i believe i agree is as it is not a standard and it is racist to as humans it is that i.e. is that americans are british the french are more rational than their plans are iranians is that you will not be secure unless it is accepted by its neighbors more a nuclear weapons more arms or not is that i a two way to make peace the right way is for people to. do business together live

together little from each other and stop fighting stop autumn's that he says you know unfortunate looks like the drumbeat to war is still will continue many thanks to my guests today in washington montreal and in brussels and thanks to our viewers for watching us here at the see you next time and remember last time.

anger on the streets of spain where and toast already protests face a brutal police response as desperation grows in the euro zone's fourth largest economy with the highest unemployment rate in the e.u. .