i'll talk is cheap but it could spare the u.s. and israel from the cost of another war but is it too little too late for diplomacy with iran are the drums for war louder than the calls for peace. what's happening in syria is heartbreaking and outrageous and what you've seen is the international community mobilize against the assad regime and u.s. lawmakers are ready for action in syria but considering our history of one failed intervention after another should we really be diving face first into another conflict. here strikes against some of the forces are worn.

we get these air defenses noticing a pattern here one hundred eighty three armed conflicts in two hundred thirty six years and counting it's an ominous reputation that has many wondering if america is addicted to war. it's thursday march eighth seven pm here in washington d.c. i'm liz wall and you're watching artsy well a shot out of home a see iran has agreed to take part in nuclear talks the country willing to engage in face to face negotiations after facing intense pressure from israel and the west to abandon their nuclear program now this comes as the war drums of war beating louder as israel there and see his military force and target iran's nuclear site president obama has said that military intervention is on the table but wants to give sanctions time to work diplomacy a shot so as

a diplomatic solution really possible at this point market failure to negotiate leads to more justification to go to war rarely respect dr paul craig roberts former reagan administration official and asked them if they go she shows are likely to work out take a listen what do they negotiate. it's not clear what iran is is not. the combined intelligence estimate of united states government that is now them suspended all sixteen intelligence agencies is that iran abandon its nuclear weapons program i think they said in two thousand and three that would be man years ago. and they've had the international atomic energy agency inspectors in the country and they can still they report that there's no diversion of a uranium from the energy program to weapons so what the united states is

demanding is that iran give up its rights as a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty if you sign a nonproliferation treaty and agree to inspectors you are you have the right to have nuclear energy and the united states is insisting and iran alone among all of the other countries that have signed this treaty has to be excluded from having nuclear energy what carl's united states says at some time iran might decide to make a bomb so the whole thing. it is just made up this contract we've got three or four nuclear armed country that didn't sign the treaty they didn't all of the right and they're all angry expanding with united states they receive all kinds of a even a we have israel pakistan and india. in these negotiations. do

you expect any breakthrough that you think iran relic really abandon the nuclear program altogether what some of what israel wants. i don't know but the ram do i think they would not be inclined to do that because they face if they read russia and china. as likely to. agree to another u.n. resolution against him that imposes sanctions or no fly zones or something of that sort that. you don't take there have to read russia and china but oppression china sticks to the point. that they've already made it will be very hard for the west to attack iraq because they won't have any coverage they won't have a un resolution that they can use. so i suppose around it have to

pay close attention to what the russians and the chinese say if the russians and chinese stick up for the rights under an international treaty it's an iran will continue with this nuclear energy it seems to me until inspectors. diversion there's no case against iran so this whole thing is hype it's all china trying to create propaganda against getting the public to think iran is doing something for which there is no evidence and so that doesn't let the west does war a military attack on iran and is looking for some kind of excuse. there is as you said a lot of hype surrounding the. fronts of their arrest that f.t.l. year it separates agreement. well justify going to war with a country. well that depends on russia and china. i think the united

states would hesitate to launch a war that was strongly opposed by those two countries. the cause they're both low key in a diploma city but russia has tremendous power over your potential energy suppliers and other than for the federal reserve china is the largest croton united states and so they are not without our very decided to use it. and i do want to bring attention to what iran's top leaders said today he is hailing president obama for advocating the parma see on his calling it a window of opportunity he said quote this expression is a good word this is a wiser market taking distance from the allusion so does this provide maybe some hope especially since he does have final say on matters in

a country. so i think the hold has to be on the united states said because i don't think iran is doing anything i think it's united states that's trying to forment war and it may well be a bomber has been influenced by the large number of united states generals we want against war. and maybe he's trying to be realistic and to not be all of the neoconservatives and not be bullied by israel and so i think to look for movement you have to look at the position of the united states not to read because there's no real case against iran. it's the well you don't seem too optimistic about these negotiations in your opinion do you think that war with iraq is inevitable in evidence. no i don't think that's the case because it really depends on russia and china and and once if the neoconservatives

genaro destroy them russia would be next and i just think they're catching ard for a long time and russians and chinese are in a terrible way would see with the libyan revolution and i think cohen and there are less easy to see and so they're more likely to put some kind of resistance but i do think it's possible they really hope is that obama has learned that he's being stampeded into potentially disastrous action and so it could be that it's obama who's looking for a way out if that's the case then i would be optimistic about these negotiations all right well certainly the whole world is watching and hoping that there is a diplomatic solution thank you so much for coming on the star that was dr pollack roberts former reagan administration official. how the u.s.

is in the process of weighing its options of intervention in syria katz about the dangers of iran getting louder and louder among politicians and the mainstream media america's extensive history with a lot at where the country has been and where it could be headed our teams on the south korea chart in our reports. water for a fish are a popular pet among us war veterans like map a sure row something the nerves of some of the roughly one hundred seventy thousand american soldiers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder the u.s. army frag has one hundred eighty three campaign ribbons on those one hundred eighty three ribbons each represent wars when you compare that to the way the two hundred thirty six years that we've actually been around as a country you're talking about you know a war on average of once every year and three months serving americans are on permanent standby to deploy to carry out warfare on command as the u.s.

has a bone to pick but one enemy after the other from the soviet union in the choppiness threat was the most useful enemy where we are legitimate and we are fantastical it was always available as a global conspiracy against which to justify anything to smaller and sadness after the cold war the list keeps expanding allied air forces again an attack on military targets in iraq and kuwait air strikes against saudi forces are more on target. begins america striking selected targets on military importance to undermine saddam hussein's ability to wage war we should get off his air defenses with a defense budget that surpasses the military expenditure of all other countries combined. no other nation drums up war as consistently as america and while people are still responding in recovering from the violence that's committed in one place

or even in the same place we're launching new operations in and out more atrocities in different parts of the world the military industrial complex where billions of dollars is largely america's driving force. deeply rooted in the system it would serve no purpose if there was no one to fight if there were no more enemies left there would be raw sort of a sense of mission a frightening thought to many as this would reveal the economic social and cultural emptiness of a whole iraq iraq was a country when there are no enemies trying to put together the evil empire again do in syria what we're doing now in libya we've got to overthrow this guy the threat that iran poses a year in and year out americans are convinced that the u.s. has to remain on the defense petrified of death by terrorism so should i don't think i think a lot of americans wish we spent more money on war finding the next target is never difficult we're inventing the nation of iran as an enemy as

a threat to the united states says it is sister of nuclear weapons that does not exist and nation that has not attacked another in literally century center has no capability or desire to attack ours g.d.p. with my record iran iran is the one iran it should be iran the us has been picking and choosing which countries to intervene in for centuries as the list of nations that america loves to hate expands the concept that no war or is also an option seems to go bad for about as they. well to talk more about why america seems to be so gung ho about going to war i'm joined now by am good morning marcelo project manager for the people's book project that column welcome to the show andrew. is america addicted to war well it's just part of the culture i mean if you look at it upon america's founding seven hundred seventy six george washington referred to the united states as

a nascent empire in fact expanding to the west was one of the reasons why the founding fathers rebelled against the british because they set up a lying saying that you cannot expand past this point and so immediately after the revolution of course they began expanding its a part of america's imbedded history as an institution in terms of part of the nation state itself and yeah of course you could call it an addiction but it's just a fact the state structure and ideology itself which is the excuses are are always changed and whether it's to keep out the europeans like as stipulated in the monroe doctrine of eighteen twenty three whether it's to fight great wars or whether it's world war one on world war two or the evil empire of the soviet union and it's even acknowledged that these are simply excuses if you look at the national security doctrine and official document put out by the national security

council in one thousand nine hundred one at the end of the cold war they stated quite explicitly bets the excuse of communism was never really a threat in the middle east but our interest there still remains so it's basically saying sorry we've been lying for the past fifty years but we're still going to be going to war now and who benefits from going to war. elites of all types you have of course the political elite you get expanded power domestic power as well as international power the financial and economic elite so you have the corporations and the banks and their interests and they're all embedded together in various institutions such as think tanks which bring together elites from. academic media banking corporate world and foreign policy circles just actually work together to decide policy so it benefits the whole coterie of

different social groups and the military industrial complex is very common in that structure creating military equipment. these types of things that but it expands beyond that every every major industry and source of power benefits from war and you look at right after nine eleven and the declaration of the war on terror i mean the united states alone didn't benefit you had states all over the world began using terror as an excuse to serve their own benefits so war is essentially the health of the state now do you think that often times of war can serve as a diversion from problems in our own country whether they be social or economic problems and we have plenty of both today. yeah that's an important facet as well and that certainly plays a part i think the part that plays is more so in terms of not dictating the decision to go to war. so much as complicating it for the public so that the public

is distracted war is always on the agenda no matter the circumstances whether it's an economic crisis or economic growth i mean you look at the clinton years where there is in theory great economic growth and development in the country there was wars all over the place you know you had the yugoslav destruction you had all the sanctions on iraq. the congo civil war all these other interventions that the united states were involved in so war is a constant when the excuse is propagated to distract that's also very relevant and that's why of course the europeans are increasingly militaristic of late because it's a great distraction for their major problems at home and it's a great way to sort of rally the nation the population around a cause that doesn't threaten the power interests them sounds now war should always be a last resort i mean it when is it ok to go to war. personally i

don't think it is ok to go to war i think that it's ever. i. i can't say never but i would say that it's i can't imagine a circumstance in which i would be an advocate for war personally but if there is the heinous atrocities that are being committed against a certain group of people ethnic cleansing or if there's a legitimate threat to our country war is a heinous atrocity war is a threat to not only countries here in the west but countries everywhere war is howard zinn once said you can't declare a war on terror because war is terrorism so in that sense it's impossible to make legitimate what if there is a legitimate threat against our country. well we are at the i mean against our country i guess i mean the united states but the united states is the legitimate threat for the world so there is no legitimate threat to the united

states of the largest military power in the world nobody even comes close to being a threat to the united states and if you look at the conceptions of what a threat is i mean take iran for example is a very good example what is the threat of iran today we hear that they're developing nuclear weapons and they're going to wipe out israel or be a huge threat to the region even though top officials defense secretary intelligence officials the national intelligence council announced that iran has no nuclear weapons they have no nuclear weapons program there is no evidence so what is the actual threat and if you look at the pentagon and intelligence reports to congress they're a little more blunt they state that iran's military structure is not geared towards aggression and it expansion it's geared towards deterrence so why it's not a threat because if you're a world empire and you think that you have the right to own and control the world any country no matter how small or how big having a deterrent capability is

a threat to your interests in the sense that you can't go in and they take to them thank you whatever you want them to do so in a sense when deterrence is portrayed as a threat you have to really look in the mirror and say who's the real threat we're the ones threatening iran which is itself an international war crime as it related in the nuclear nonproliferation cliff aeration treaty one thousand security get were very dangerous very to get a hold of a nuclear weapon. but nuclear weapons are dangerous in any sense but if you look at . public opinion in the middle east there was a major poll taken in two thousand and ten of arab public opinion and. the arab world generally felt that the middle east would be more stable and secure if iran did acquire nuclear weapons because it would be a deterrent for israel in the united states in terms of aggression in the region i'm not personally in favor of any nuclear weapons i think that should be declared

a nuclear free zone which was actually speculation that the us signed onto in the nuclear nonproliferation proliferation treaty. i'm sorry to cut you off there we just we're out of time but thank you very much for coming on the shout i was and you got in our final project manager for the people's book project. well the white house says it wants a diplomatic solution in syria but is considering military intervention in the country and the pentagon has been ordered to review its options and according to officials this includes enforcement a no fly zone defense secretary leon panetta says as a long term sustained air campaign but pose a challenge because syria's air defenses are more sophisticated. and ocean reports foreign interference in the syrian conflict is raising fears of an even bigger crisis. as the syrian conflict stress just like it has also spread geographically ok so. far from the country's borders what's happening in syria is heartbreaking.

and what you've seen is the international community mobilize against the assad regime strategic analyst talk to somebody who says one thing. it's certainly gone far beyond the words of sympathy and the call to those on the ground in syria that mobilisation has many more than officially stated. that the syrian army arrested fighters from countries in afghanistan iraq libya and some european states their work was coordinated by tori and saudi intelligence officers as well as cia. and blackwater agents but it's also seized is really weapons are specially and taking missiles and israeli drones the u.s. defense contractor formerly known as blackwater and now called academy was notorious for its heavy handed tactics during operations in iraq and pakistan while the u.s. and many other countries have admitted all kind of link to extremists groups

fighting beyond opposition in syria dr salim says some countries are using those groups to further their own interests. to get local players involved in order to hide there and this is why we hear mostly arabs like saudi arabia and qatar or i are. these countries don't have democracy at home of course they cannot after first dabbling in syria they have another agenda. there are books and written sources where this plan is described in detail. and holocaust blogger and freelance journalist has been investigated for a serious crisis since last year she says this is a story with three main chapters smuggled across the border overseas contractors and foreign cash when you see a lot of money then i believe this is comparable to what happened in.

there were plenty of money then you will find not. valid or something nobody would kill him. now. now this is. here with more and more reports on international involvement emerging and calls to the opposition getting louder for those the grassroots of the uprising the initiative for us is turning the tide. we can say we regret what we did but we don't want things to go that could turn so much militarized. while and we never want to and don't want intervention. but here's our. could be too late to stop this older foreign claims of conflict. damascus syria. so as the u.s. considers intervening in syria may want to take a look at libya nato intervene there incidentally their country remains torn apart

just this week a region in eastern libya declared there is semi autonomy but libya's national transitional council doesn't want to let this happen and its leader says he's willing to use military force to ensure the country doesn't split up so as libya struggles to find stability as it always signed up military intervention foreign military intervention simply doesn't work done glasser assistant editor for in the war dot com there and us earlier today to discuss this and more fierce take. well it certainly doesn't seem so i mean the potential breakup of the country is an interesting development to some extent it's not i mean it should be expected the borders of libya are based slightly on you know a legacy of colonialism from the audience from the ottomans to the italians and then you know an era of arab nationalism to follow and of course there are you know power plays that you have to take into consideration it's

a resource rich east which now wants to secede. in today's context though the potential breakup of the country is an indication of the weakness in fill the year of the nato the pact national transitional council they have personally no control over the country and well actually see as more relevant is the fact that the militia groups that the u.s. and nato helped oust gadhafi seem to be terrorizing the country i mean they've committed widespread torture arbitrary arrests extrajudicial executions looting and destruction of property and they've done it with total impunity and to the detriment of the libyan people the u.s. that interventions there seems to have been a really nice stabilizing force and i mean does this all serve that and the after the death of gadhafi we are seeing this turmoil and the country far from reaching any kind of a resolution does this all serve as proof that foreign military intervention

doesn't work. yeah i mean first of all when you intervene in this so-called humanitarian basis you have to realize that states don't care about humanitarian basis they care about interests and that's what their their interest was in libya to the interest about you know the perceptions of the arab spring and of course it's an important vital region with lots of oil and so forth. and what you ought to also have to take into consideration with these so-called humanitarian interventions is that you have to be on the side of some pretty nasty people almost all the time so now we know that the militias that we supported the u.s. supported have committed crimes it can work rhymes and you know various ugly things and this is this is what what happens and when you take out the power force which was the khadafy government you end up with a power vacuum and libya by for example you know i should say is like it is like

a light version of what could possibly happen syria by any measure would be far worse and far more destructive now john if we see what's happening in egypt now in libya posts intervention why hasn't democracy promotion worked in these cases the united states is not interested in democracy promotion that is a code word for extending influence and military domination and control i mean was it democracy promotion when we for the entire twentieth century support for the dictatorship in the middle east. today i mean was it a mark. sorry i do want to bring attention to. the plan secretary leon panetta said recently and our arms about this conflict yesterday let's take a listen. although we will not rule out any future course of action currently

the administration is focusing on diplomatic and political approaches rather than military intervention guided by our approach from libya and elsewhere. guided from our approach from libya looking at what's happening there in libya is intervening in syria really a good idea no it's a terrible idea and i'm appalled that people in the congress and the foreign policy elite actually have the gall to be calling for any sort of serious intervention it would it would by most accounts escalate the violence and put more civilians at risk and besides it's a civil war that the u.s. again has trouble taking sides on because of course there are crimes on both sides it will end very disastrously we should be happy that the obama destruction has been sort of reluctant to get fully involved oh there might be some involvement

behind the scenes that we're not so sure now as the death toll rises and more bloodshed happens every day. for in the powers that be blamed for allowing it to go on by not intervening. oh well they could and they probably will. if it if it is the case that more and more. death occurs and actually powers to intervene but you know it's not it's not the proper are going to be made what is what we should recognize which is pretty clear among most experts is that violence in syria will escalate with intervention and it will be for the worse not the better. thank you very much for coming on the show in a way and that was john glass heiresses an editor.