other headlines anger on the streets of spain where and while sturdy sentiment is coupled with protest against brutal police tactics aimed at the demonstrators desperation is growing in the euro zone's fourth largest economy with the highest unemployment rate in the e.u. . the u.s. declines to rule out arming the syrian opposition that was also backed by spreading fears that washington has pushed for regime change in syria but the country deeper into chaos. and the failure of the u.n. nuclear watchdog commission in iran fuels talks that even more sanctions a lot of tension around the islamic state begins to take its toll on the very countries putting those penalties and place. well rising pressure on iran finally explode into a military attack that's the question peter lavelle puts to as guests in today's crosstalk up next on our team.

wealthy british style. markets weiner scandal. find out what's really happening to the global economy in the cause that we watch on our team. play love you cross talk i'm here all the paradoxes contradictions and your rant is the drumbeat towards war now inevitable as the chattering classes discuss the possible date of israeli attack on iran the us military and intelligence community says iran is not developing nuclear weapons has not demonstrated any intention to do so is this rapidly turning into another dumb war of choice.

to. live. crossed off 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 baghdad he is professor of political science at the national defense university and in brussels we cross to you over dakar oh he's an independent scholar and author of great post cold war american thinkers on international relations all right gentlemen this is cross i mean 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 go on developing a nuclear weapon has no intention of doing it and then you changed or in the same page on 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 crosstalk within the guide 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 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 going to united states we actually making the bomb is the easy part hard part is getting syria with which to make a bomb and the run is 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 we say i don't think there's anything here but if we have the director of national intelligence james james clapper says in front of congress if there is no evidence that iran is building a nuclear weapon that's the head of national intelligence a few weeks to build a new kind of it takes a few weeks to build a nuclear weapon they don't have to make that decision until the last minute they add however spend billions of dollars building huge lucilla days 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.a.e.a. ok good that you want to jump in there go right ahead if i if i may. i believe there is no it was logic any country my intention there is no way to know anybody's intentions are we have to judge is the on facts not the intentions and the facts as

they have been stated by. their till now. has not the only kid it's openly gay shuns poor. in the nonproliferation treaty i.e. a court last report states last report said out twenty pages of violations by iran that's the reason why the i.a.e.a. 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 the signals that it's all is that it was there always i am relieved that he's out of the entrance. i had to that it was a report of why it is that important why the ear did not and has not said that it n. is making it up on the ear 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. peace now to gain tourist things. only if you would if you were absolutely transparent and open and a iran has not been well iran's and if you want to go back to gilberto 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 worry respective of what the i.e.e.e. i and i eighty eight 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 strict starting point of its nuclear ambitions. no what were side issues have become the central issue that is the economic warfare being being and entered into against the. the ratcheting up of

sanctions which in a certain word a certain point the quantitative element becomes a qualitatively different relationship and becomes an exercise of existential threat to iran that we're approaching that point and the the the issue of its nuclear ambitions or how the plot has been proven has fallen to a subsidiary position i can see that coming out in in a dispute between the the pentagon will be and the department of defense and the state department because there is a significant. more significantly more. restrained pentagon under under present leadership under panetta as opposed to the war the who are you hawkish. position of the state department and the foreign

policy community supporting the state department ok patrick a final to you it seems to me that israel and iran are already at war it would just crashed. and you get out ok there's there's there's crying of 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 their 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. were 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 course i mean you're kind of jumping ahead here again i keep stressing here that there is but there's no one has proven they can iran is it has intentions even to build a nuclear weapon i mean i'm open to you know evidence that you're sure is that you know it's going to be on you because i mean i think 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 scary council is going down if i can go to you when he wants to hear you say you think i mean there is this drive to a war i mean if evidence doesn't fit you know they just rolled out because war is the worst possible thing we have happen here. and this last quarter if as our wars in iraq and afghanistan taught us anything it is that it is much easier to start wars and ending and as you said it is true said there is

a law live in war going on between iran and israel and united states president obama for his created here is international community to to impose that office sanctions on iran and it needs some time to see how it will work ok and that is it is nor it is very irrational toward war talk about war war we state every above you will be very bad not only at the end not only to the middle east all the world of oil prices are pretty 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 is that the united states and its allies particularly israel want to regime change there for some reason they think you'll get a little bit better accuracy a better outcome you know i mean that changes the regime then you get the regime or the nuclear weapon you have a choice well it's really strange i use a weapon you can overload you guess we don't have or some people have sovereignty

some don't you know but what do you think about this. well you 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 was behaving more rationally in the sense of looking after their own interests yes america has interests in the middle east and i think in a attack on iran would jeopardize those interests so is america acting rationally by its very aggressive position. around today or 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 and israel today they were to take any action that was and is a an essential threat to israel. i believe the moderator has been a bit coy with respect to a reign in 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 live 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 that as the elements 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 history national 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 i a e 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 it did you even hear we're getting i wish you a break and if you should break we'll continue our discussion of the calls to war state or.

just see. this. truck.

he says. he. says. welcome back across the company to remind you we're talking about when there will be a strike against iran slim. slim ok good i'd like to go back to you in washington you know before i go into television and journalism i was an academic historian and of a 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 was all agree with bill but what if you know iran were to acquire a nuclear weapon it's certainly being threatened by the west right now when we use it. i am very glad you it is this point because i believe it is very clear sis to say that the only western powers can decide who is the rational and who is irrational it is through their it and has not started a new war for at least one hundred fifty years and they say it only ends like anybody else they are not crazy they will. seal what is in their best interest and try to do it and if we had n. meigs our bomb and this is not proven in any way they are not playing clear to you is it because one or two ones will not these straight talk is are you who are to

united states is that you has more than two hundred nuclear weapons as a iranians nor is there are limits and they only ns will not that there is no you all saw as 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 assume this is also wrong because egypt is in no position to make the bomb now after an arab spring saudi arabia does not have the infrastructure so or is it is a lot of misunderstanding misleading statements get n. and if you don't make god ok gilbert what do you think when we are overlooking the going to run in brussels go ahead but nobody has certain worth about israel and that's required remarkable perjuring we're speaking of bricks very reasonably about the dangers of proliferation without mentioning the fact of the already use of

nuclear power in the region but i haven't the front of me to be the last issue of foreign affairs magazine which has a total which speaks for itself this is time to attack iran. coming from the single most of florida state of the journal of the us foreign policy community. sums up the overwhelming position of that community and you have the same time in the online edition of foreign affairs we do see heterodox country views which dispute that and which suggest. that even a nuclear iran could be acceptable and could be worked with the issue that i want to bring out is a debate in the united states foreign policy community is a long run line only and that is can we do it and it is based on efficacy it had totally the question of should we do it or what would the consequences be of doing a play to take out

a nuclear capability of iran but 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 strike iran what are the implications are going to be cleaning easy do you think. well what we're seeing is the israelis been using covert assassinations and cyber war against iran and it slowed down iran's nuclear program so we've got a reminder 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 every so we have to remember this is always a memory go ahead has its right rights come without legations who has rights and responsibilities it only can exercise those rights within the framework of its responsibilities under the international treaties it's signed and it's precisely

that's the problem is iran 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 is 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 that again i patronize 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 iran how does that serve american foreign policy interests its geopolitical interests i see only downside ok go ahead. this will not serve american interests 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 in the position to end the war we have nor as of trent lott who ends a war you like this does not want to start another war always 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 the doing business with iran considering it and like any other can clear and just invest in your endless parade was here and this probably will have better options

then war ok goober 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 in any country the challenges that is going to be deemed a threat to demonize the new hitler eccentric cetera. yes but the american involvement. in a 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 the run in the one nine hundred ninety s. will 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 business of rational policy is it i believe it's a bullet 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 the foreign policy community which is extremely so important ok tragic what do you think about that i mean again i mean why why is the united states so obsessed with this week with iran because he it goes back to the revolution doesn't it i mean we've had this we've seen this is no reason for not only since israel's very pointed out to me i mean to say you know this is just helping the development and trying to do their power and go ahead and china has voted repeatedly in favor of sanctions china and russia have voted to keep it in favor of sanctions against iran at the united nations but times are good they should you trying to they're not part of what the what they're not part of this discussion of attacking iran that's a very different part of very different arguments i'm sure to do and they know they are it's the conversation about iran's nuclear program you're the one saying there's not a problem the russian and chinese government's disagree with you they think there's a problem. here is these two friends we know at least only ever at the united

nations security council discussed are going you know games are just need to rant in the not so once ever u.k. talking about there's no problem with the uranium 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 arena. nuclear program it has to do with the interest of the international community in stopping it but it is same time they're not promoting a war agenda against iran that's a very different conversation for if i may racial going to men going gender. we were talking about the ad and as an american citizen i would feel lists threatened if iran has a bomb then pakistan was appalled by pakistan is becoming very much close to all feel this state is a good idea at least is our government is in charge and. again putting it in and pakistan new credit and we'll be there then you can stand

ok gilbert do you think there's a double standards of an implied here when it comes to pull the for 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 need to having a program for hypocrisy is the small change in the plan mostly so i don't think it's particularly shocking to see apocryphally here. yes there are double standards that's perfectly true hey patrick what do you think about why don't we just have a nuclear free middle east everybody signs up to it now all countries. why not a nuclear free world that doesn't really start somewhere let's start something to 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's that i'm pro bomb is the case that's why he's proposing unilateral cuts in u.s. nuclear arsenals mr obama has been opposed to pollute 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 liberation 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 new canoe 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 the liberation that's why the focus on the run 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're i believe that actually is and there is an obvious sunbird and it is racist to assume there is a that i.e. is that americans that british the french are more rational than their plans they iranians israel will not be as secure or less it is accepted by its new it was more a new crowd weapons more arms or not there's a right way to make peace the right way is for people thought good business to

leave to get a little from each other and stop fighting stop arms that he says you know unfortunately looks like peace the drumbeat to war still will continue many thanks and i guess today in washington montreal and it's brussels and thanks our viewers for watching us here to see the next time remember just awful.

on. the.

big. to leave. for paris to pull the strings on the syrian conflict possibly. iraq admits weapons and al qaeda linked militants are already pouring the opposite.