sled markets. cleveland out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's culture the no holds barred look normal financial headlines tune in to a report on r.t. . download the official policy application to join the phone and called touch from the cube sats to. the faulty lights on the lists her under mum's car keys my old car. an r.s.s. feeds now in the palm of your posts. look keep the steps to cut the say hello and welcome to

crossfire i'm here little paradoxes contradictions and your rant is a drumbeat towards war now inevitable as the chattering classes discuss the possible dangers of israeli attack on the around 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 dumb war of choice. look. to get the same. across the complex situation surrounding iran 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 cross to you about dakar oh he's an independent scholar and author of great post cold war american thinkers on. national relations all right gentlemen this is

crossfire going and 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 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 oh i don't have a direct answer to that question but yes there is a lot of cross talk within the states and within the foreign policy community so i'm not particularly surprised with. 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 their time till now all right ok patrick if i can go to you can you do resolve this 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 week actually making the bomb is the easy part or just getting syria with which to make the 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 titrate we said 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 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 however spent billions of dollars building huge facility 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 now do you want to jump in there go 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 north and then chance the facts as they have been stated wise. is that till now. has not the only it's openly gay sions pool is a nonproliferation treaty i.e. a court last night a report states last report set out a twenty pages of violations by iran that's the reason why the i board has repeatedly censored iran that's the reason the security council has repeatedly voted for sanctions on iraq 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 and i am relieved that he's out of the entrance. go ahead get out because i reported why it is that of course by law even and did not and has not said that it enters making this up oh i'm sorry it said so you say you have violations it has meant it has many violations the question of violations is not making the bar the question of violations is it safeguards agreement the whole point of no value you receive now do dangerous things. but only if you would if you were absolutely transparent and open and a iran has not been well iran's leader if you like 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 say with you in brussels i mean if this if there's a drumbeat to worry respective of what the i.e.e.e. i i eat a has to say about anything because most peoples of the last report was just

a recycled one of the one before go ahead you know oh i think this is 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. know 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 have a certain word a certain point the quantitative element becomes a qualitatively different relationship and becomes an exercise existential threat to iran we're approaching that point and the the he issue of its nuclear ambitions or how about has been proven has fallen into a subsidiary position and i can see that coming out in in a dispute between the the pentagon will be and the defense and the

state department because there is a significant. more significantly more. restrained pentagon under the present leadership and under panetta as opposed to the war the very hawkish. there's in the state department the foreign policy community supporting the state department ok patrick to find out to you it seems to me that israel and iran are already at war it we're just scratching. you know ok there's there's there's a problem 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 the brain care except for maybe obama doesn't know what to do but it is certainly a lot of other people seem to have 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 launched 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 the truce and the iranian leadership i think 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 it will and 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 here is that you know it's a really good idea 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 security council is going to i do want to go to you when he wants to

hear you say that i mean there is this drive to war i mean if evidence doesn't fit you know they just throw it out because war is the worst possible thing that happen here. and this last quarter if wars in iraq and afghanistan taught us anything it is that it is much easier to start wars and ending it and as you said it is true he said there is law live a war going on between iran and israel and united states president obama for is committed he lives international community to cause that office sanctions on iran and they need 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. everybody will be very bad not only to an end not only to the middle east all the word or 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 because the united states and its allies particularly israel want to be seen change there for some reason they think you'll know you'll be better advised to barrow we already know i mean that james isolation either 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 go but what do you think about this. well you summed up in the last sentence the word rational came up here and i must 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 kind of an attack on iran would jeopardize those interests so is america acting rationally it's a very aggressive position. be iran today on the other hand we often are persuaded that the iranian leadership is irrational. and i am not persuaded to. believe that

they are rational and player 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 it's an essential threat to israel . i 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 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 how do you define go do you i mean they have the element of rationality here i mean who's being rational 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 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. and the nonproliferation treaty by saying that i may be a international atomic energy agency safeguards have to be thought out that's what the international going to said rational position worry about a nuclear arms race throughout the middle east and indeed throughout the world if countries can ignore anything here we're going to it was a short break and after a short break we'll continue our discussion of the calls toward the state.

you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you've lived something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize that everything you thought you knew you don't know i'm sorry. i've.

slim. welcome back here to my job we're talking about whether it'll be a strike against you or slim.

slim. ok get out and i to go back to you in washington you know before i go i went into television and journalism i was an academic historian and over modern european history and i can remember reading because i wasn't alive at the time of the has steria but the united states had about the soviet union acquiring a nuclear weapon 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. but i am 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 through their it and has not started a new war for at least a hundred and fifty years and is

a iranians like anybody else they are not crazy they will. see a lot that is in their best interest and try to do it and if it n. makes a bomb and this is not proven in any way they are not likely to use it because one or two ones will not be this that it is that are you over tonight this states is the e.u. has more than two hundred nuclear weapons they iranians north of there are limits and they are only hands will not that there is no you all saw the foreign minister off 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 arab spring saudi arabia does not have the infrastructure so or is it is a lot of misunderstanding misleading statements get em and if your end makes up

ok over what do you think when we are overlooking the going to run in brussels go ahead but nobody has said a word about israel and that's required remarkable patrick was speaking of books very 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 and i do see in which as the 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. sums up the overwhelming position of the community and here the same time in the online edition of foreign affairs we do see heterodox country 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 a debate in the united states foreign policy community is a long one line only and that is can we do it it is based on efficacy it has north totally the question of should we do it or what would the consequences be of doing it a place to take out a nuclear capability of iran what do you think about that patrick i mean you know one of the playing see it we have seen we have a disaster in iraq we have a quagmire in afghanistan and libya is a mess i mean how when they signal the law of unintended consequences 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 israeli has been using covert assassinations and cyber war against iran and it's 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 i mean every so we have we want to. 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 iraq rights come with responsibilities and because the wrong 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 but again manufacturing lines be. 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 geopolitical interests i see only downside ok go ahead. yes this will not serve american interests and that is a great concern among american officials that israel will start war specially before the elections who are in this administration can do very little and then the united states will be ends up with ishant who ends a war always have nor as a doctrine but to ends a war the united states does not want to or 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 n. like any other can clear and just invests in it endlessly who is here and this probably will have better options then the war ok gilbert what do you think about that because it it really does get down to the israeli angle here the israelis want to maintain their regional supremacy here and any country that challenges that is going to be deemed a threat to demonize the new hitler eccentrics cetera. yes but the american involvement. and. agenda predates the nuclear issue by far we take this all the way back to the origins of the iranian revolution. states was actively conducting economic warfare against you run in the one nine hundred ninety s. well before there was any hint of the nuclear threat so we're talking about 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 i believe 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 a foreign policy community which is extremely self important ok patrick 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 the it goes back to the revolution doesn't it i mean we've had if we see this our reasons that it is france is still very pointed out to me i mean it was a united states was helping with the development in china in their power and. china has voted repeatedly in favor of sanctions china and russia i voted to keep italy in favor of sanctions against iran at the united nations but times are good they should you try and when they're not part of the but they're not part of this

discussion of attacking iran that's a very different part of very different from are sasha to do they know they are it's the conversation about iran's nuclear program you're the one you think there's not a problem the russian and chinese government's disagree with you they think there's a problem here. or is these two different we know it leave only ever at the united nations security council discussed are going just now if iran and the us once ever use a 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 with iran. nuclear program it has to do with the interest of the international community in stopping perish but at the same time if you're not promoting war agenda against iran that's a very different conversation for if i may are usually going to go ahead and. we will talk about the end as american citizen i would feel lists that and if iran has a bomb then pakistan was appalled pakistan is becoming very much close to or feel

this state is a good idea at least as i got a mentor is in charge and. again comparing it and pakistan new criteria and will be there then you kind of pakistan ok gilbert do you do you think it's a double standard seven 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 apocryphally here. yes there are double standards that's patently true ok patrick what do you think about that why don't we just have in our nuclear free middle east everybody signs up to it and all countries. what a nuclear free world i don't want to start somewhere let's start something to give

up its nuclear weapons why not let's start with russia run not start with russia if you want to start with the insulators it's our united states that that means drama subject because 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 look creation 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 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 proliferation that's why the focus on 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're i believe i agree is that there is an obvious standard and it is racist to assume is it is

a zoe is that americans the british the french are more rational than there are plans they iranians israel will not be secure unless it is that except by its near borders more a new crowd awakens more arms are not the right way to make peace the right way is for people to. do business together live together little from each other and stop fighting stop arms that he says you know unfortunate looks like beat the drum beat to war he still will continue many thanks to my guest today in washington montreal and in brussels and thanks our viewers for watching us here at the scene next time remember last time.

designed to keep you close in your. world as a prison. cell you leave somebody in there for a couple hours like that in stress positions. you have this fear of the unknown and the stress sort of building and. ten twelve hours they chose songs i remember from marilyn manson and metallica slayer the two songs would be angel of death and raining blood to kill the enemy going through war coming up here into iraq coming into baghdad. sorry political body center for little rock n roll bad fitting for the job we're doing.

for wealthy british. market. why no one should really happening to the global economy with. no holds barred look at the global financial headlines. technology innovation all the elements of. the future.

i can do a lot of shell of a real head.