more news today violence is once again flared up. these are the images the world has been seeing from the streets of canada. trying to corporations or the day.

hello and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle kicking the can down the road this is how many see the reason negotiations in moscow regarding iran's nuclear program are the western powers negotiating in good faith is tone with these talks designed to fail in the first place and is a military strike only a matter of time. to cross-talk the five plus one talks here in moscow i'm joined by side a zebra. he's a professor of political science at the university of tehran in jerusalem we have dan williams senior correspondent at reuters and in stanford we cross to david

henderson he's a research fellow with the hoover institution right gentlemen cross-talk rosen a fact that means you can jump in any time you want they would if i go to you first in stanford because you got up early as for the program was this where these negotiations seriously think when we where as we're recording this program right now we're still waiting for the press conference but there hasn't been any kind of optimistic words coming out. i'm not sure whether they're serious i'm not there i'm not in the room i'm kind of doubtful that they were serious because i think various organizations have their agendas and i saw you know i don't think they were particularly serious then what do you think were going through this process who achieves what by just going through the the motion i think it. again i'm not in the room but i'm guessing it's a kind of a show and the idea is that a lot of people especially the israeli government want to you know want to

potentially make war on iran and so they've got to look as if the negotiate in good faith and united states is essentially in line with israel on that and i think that's a large part of his game and if i could just stay with you one more second here do you think it's been the is there in good faith. again i'm not sure i think that it depends what you mean by good faith also like if two sides have irreconcilable differences i don't know whether what you would say is a good faith i mean the iranians want to develop certain a certain degree of. you know nuclear strength they want to have this twenty percent number that they they're hitting and that they want to keep hitting americans and europeans want to keep it down to three percent the kind of thing you would you would have for nuclear fuel not even three percent you want a saudi want to just in richmond all together said if i can go to you in town what's the iranian perspective of talks here in moscow again we're waiting for the press conference but nothing has really come out positive all we've heard is that

they've been intense and possibly constructive. well the iranians have been very positive very construct very serious as far as negotiation in moscow is concerned because iran is not seeking further sanction iran. is not seeking where their threat of military a strike against. sides so iran really has never mind about the past but this really has interested in good prate. negotiation with the five plus one ok dan if i go to you in jerusalem what do you think the level of faith is on both sides here i mean you know it seems a bit hard for me to believe that obama want to say i have made an agreement with iran ok i mean that's not good for his campaign right now being tough on iran is a good good campaign issue. well i'm not sure that's quite

true if the agreement would be one that would be seen that would be seen to avert war and of the possibility the threats the alleged pursuit by iran of a nuclear weapon i think that would be an interesting pitch for him to make to the american population especially given the fact that there is definite war fatigue in the united states after afghanistan after iraq. and in terms of the good faith or lack of good faith from what we've heard so far from moscow and we may hear other news as they progress is it doesn't seem especially encouraging in terms of a negotiated resolution and perhaps may be. useful in terms of letting the facts of this confrontation so that if i go back to you in time and it seems to me when looking at western media and their analysis of what's going on here in iran has to surrender everything to get an agreement in the agreement that the west wants it and just has to fold. it won't well if if this is the

attitude that that. there is. we have to say here on giving dean it on virtually waving a white frock then i'm afraid they are wrong they are mistaken because the wives you don't use quite reading and he says he is unseen sierre aswell as negotiation is gonna send but no one should expect you don't to given everything that iran. believes that. agency that the that the norm are better all desirable nations you don't eat on has every kind of religious timoci to what she's doing at that moment ok david i mean one of the things that's being pushed in iran should be allowed should be allowed to enrich any uranium i mean it is a member of the nonproliferation treaty and under the terms of that treaty it has the right to do that why should

a man be denied that just because the west doesn't like it because i don't like it . i don't i don't defend that it should be denied that i think that should be able to do that and i just think i think the bigger picture here and it's very hard to get that across to americans because we've been so propagandized but the bigger picture here is that iran even if it got in the extreme a nuclear weapon i don't really think there's any evidence that they're trying to get a nuclear weapon but they even if they got one they are not really a threat they're definitely not a threat to the united states and with israel having approximately two to three hundred nuclear weapons plus second strike capability with three nuclear arms submarines they aren't a threat to israel and so if you look at the history of the development of nuclear weapons it's mainly for defensive reasons and north korea probably doesn't want to be invaded and having nuclear weapons is help to iran if they were to develop nuclear weapons and again i don't think there's evidence that they are but if they

were it would mainly be defensive but as today's sad under the nonproliferation agreement iran isn't violating anything. and so that right away that says something about the good faith of the people in moscow on the five plus one is you know. how do you negotiate to tell people they can't do what the law says they can do and what i'm not going to ask you to speak for the israeli government but i'm sure they did tel aviv sees things very differently. yes they do my colleagues rightly pointed out the n.p.t. the privileges that accords to signatories there also requirements in terms of transparency openness and there's a documented history of iran not being as open as it might be or as transparent as it might be with its projects this is been noted by independent analysts the facility in common for which has been also the center of these talks is a major enrichment facility but it seems quite clear that its capacity is not

designed for reaching uranium on an industrial energy producing level however its capacity could be consistent with enriching uranium for potential nuclear warheads i'm not saying that that's the case but certainly there is a pattern here which is not consistent at least with the spirit of the n.p.t. as for the strategic the military overview that david gave i'll leave it to him i think also part of the pressure here is not just because of the actions or inaction of iran as an n.p.c. p.t. signatory i think it comes hand in hand with its public posture regional issues towards its arab neighbors towards israel some of the rhetoric that hasn't been welcomed in israel or among israel's allies so hand in hand i think the impression has been less positive less clement than might have been presented so far in a person if you in and around me it seems to me the demands nuclear program is the most research the most you know studied the most everything you can conceive of regarding the i.a.e.a.

but still iran has said it's called not transparent why. well that goes to the heart of the issue many here in and believe that iran has been deliberately punished by the vest because of its political a stance not for her nuclear program in fact the iranian nuclear program for many iranians have turned into a nationalistic issue because many iranians even those iranians who are critical of the islamic regime they they feel that that they're really they are being punished . for political reason by washington by london and by the rest of the european powers iranian believe that we have been transparent as much as we could have possibly been now on a number of occasions. inspectors have demanded to look and to search and

to go and to visit sites and places that have nothing to do with nuclear with iranian nuclear program and because of these behavior iranian feels that they are being punished by the various for our political it stands for our political attitude and not for our nuclear program they what do you think about because it's never really presented that way in western media ranches or demonized country and western media and it's you know that's along in the short of it here and there always been have been for thirty years betrayed is an enemy of the united states is around an enemy of the united states. well it's not my enemy and i don't think it's in a literal sense an enemy of the united states either and i think the problem is a lot of americans start their history with iran on nov fourth one nine hundred seventy nine when the embassy the u.s. embassy was taken over into iran which is a pretty bad day what they don't start with jim woolsey talk to the naval

postgraduate school where i'm an economics professor a few years ago and he said the war with islam started nine hundred seventy nine those are interesting words themselves the war with islam but i stood up and said. mr woolsey i think you're off by twenty six years i think it started to the extent there is a war and i don't think you know it's not a total war by any means but it started in one nine hundred fifty three when eisenhower was the newly elected president united states and to have two cia people the cia gave money to people to try to stir up dissent and help overthrow mossad and most americans don't even know about that and i think if they did know about that they'd be a little more a little more on the fence about some of this stuff but they don't word were handed a lot of propaganda in our media even private media and there isn't a lot of understanding out there among americans all right gentlemen to jump in here we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on the state

. you know sometimes you see a story and it seems so you think you understand it and then you glimpse something else and you hear or see some other part of it and realize everything you thought you don't know i'm tom harpur welcome to the big picture. the mission of free critic ation free zones for charges free to

arrangements free risk free studio type free. download free broadcast clothing video for your media projects and a free media dog our teeth on tom you. download the official anti up location on the phone oh i pod touch from the top story. which all teachers life on the go. video on demand teasing blindfold costs and says feeds now in the palm of your. questions on the dot com wealthy british style.

market why not come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy with max cause or for a no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune into cars a report on our. company. welcome at the cost of time people remind you we're talking about iran's nuclear program. ok dan i got to go back to you in jerusalem a former negotiator for iran said that a few days ago that what the americans and its western allies want from are willing

to give iran or peanuts and they want diamonds from iran what the but the preconditions of the talks here i mean you know if you sit down and have talks with us and you and you lower enrichment we won't punish you anymore ok i mean what kind of a negotiating stance is that. there's always a possibility i think it's worth keeping in mind that there is the aspect potentially of an opening gambit you asked for the moon and then you settle for something less and i think there's some evidence indicate that while the p five plus one of talked about an outright and an outright rolling back of uranium enrichment it seems very clear that my focus for now and potentially for the forseeable term is the twenty percent enrichment the hired as a percent of richmond which would potentially bring iran exponentially closer to weapons grade uranium should it make that step so again one has to keep in mind the dynamics of negotiation especially with a country like iran that's proven very adept at long term negotiating i think we'll see especially the outcome of these talks where things stand today if i go back to

you and intent on it than i can i just go ahead david you want to jump in. peter i just want to point out exponential is a stretch financially is a strong word you get from three to twenty and you get to twenty but weapons grade is twenty to ninety plus so that's not it's not just like that's a slam dunk that's a very very expensive process ok so that's a very good point there but if iran is doing it all under the laws of the metrics david forgive me but if i had dan jump in that's really going to true. it's forty to eighty percent easy it's considerably easier to to enrich from twenty percent to about ninety percent that is from three percent the metrics are off we're talking exponential terms here i mean that's proving that's a matter of scientific fact ok so they and we should should do. sounds implausible but i'll check out go ahead today go ahead i'm not. going to matter physicists go and i go ahead can i just add can i just add one sentence as well as

the twenty percent is concerned the twenty percent enrichment is concerned iran actually was forced to opt. to go for producing twenty percent because iran has a scientific and nuclear reactor in the north of there on the american built that there are many you can install that about forty forty four forty five years ago. the fuel which iran needs for that reactor is twenty percent now iran and literally begged the. agency for the twenty percent enriched uranium and no one gave iran no one gave iran the twenty percent so you know iranian how to produce twenty percent no the americans are saying no they're really sharp saying that why have you pretty used thirty percent and you must give that to it is twenty percent to us

no one says that iran four was forced to produce and to go forward to a deeper. then production of interest. david in stanford i mean how is this approach is carrots and sticks working because when you negotiate with someone you want to have good faith but i mean these negotiations are full of threats still lots of threats and there are there are circles in the united states in circles and certainly in israel it's a baton the window is of opportunity is closing we have to attack we have to attack soon we've been hearing this for a long time now. right we have and by the way not just threats but if you look at the sanctions you're nations are increasingly biting and you know the whole idea of not allowing the iranians to buy aircraft parts which means that when people get on airplanes in iran they're putting themselves at greater risk than otherwise sanctions really do bite and the problem of course is that the

sanctions mainly hurt the average iranian who has no you know has very little effect on his government just as we in the united states as individuals have very little effect on our government and so even more so there in iran and so it's it's really kind of trying to punish innocent people so that those innocent people will go after the leaders of iran and that's that's problematic and jerusalem what about do you know if the sanctions are working you know that's why the iranians have come to the table etc etc then why do you settle for sanctions you know why all the violent rhetoric about attacking iran you know that the violence is still on the table etc etc one just let the sanctions work if they're working. peter well peter if you're stating that the sanctions are working and that's why the iranians came to the table that would appear to clash with what david just said that this is basically a toothless punishing of the iranian people and there's an interesting disagreement

on oh i didn't know that was the case i didn't sit down again i didn't say it's toothless i said i'm going to first toothless in terms of changing policy. listen to the policy makers have sent a negotiator clearly they've been affected you suggested the sanctions on affecting the policy that's what i'm saying and again i'm. going to be i'm talking now what i think gentlemen is you know we did use well sanctions i'm going to be saying just words for change there i mean that's the difference of opinion here and it probably won't happen ok sanctions alone won't do that well i'm not sure about that but i'm talking more getting communicate clearly i'm talking about the injustice of it i think it's incredibly uncivilized to hurt innocent person a so innocent person a will go after guilty person potentially guilty person b. i just think that is not that is not the method that is not the language of a civilized society dan which i can reply to that.

again you know i report on the situation i'm sure that if david has a better way of settling some very serious difference about iran's nuclear policies . actions of the rules and should be plenty of policy makers would have to hear him i said and turn around how long how much longer is going to find other ways for ok i was going to ask you know what was point of the program that their earnings are very good at negotiating long term negotiations how much longer is this going to go on in your mind. well. as i said at the beginning of our program iran is really sincere. is quite genuine is not the vase thing time it on the wind dying less than media so it's just you don't see it is because because it's a reality it's a fact that sanction is hitting iranian people there are some seventy five million iranians that can't be in softening for many years as a result of sanctions alone divest of their say that sanctions against the

islamic regime but i'm sorry that the sanctions are. in this and iranian people are not the islamic regime they would if i were in the way if i were iran i would want a nuclear weapons i would want one ok after all of the threats after decades of threats you know hundreds of military bases around the country i would want one for security what's wrong with that i don't think there's anything wrong with i mean i'd like every country in the world not to have nuclear weapons and that i agree with my hoover callie george shultz but short of that as long as a lot of countries have them as a lot of as long as a lot of countries threaten to invade or bomb other countries i can certainly understand why a particular government would not would want nuclear weapons and to get back to the point dan made look i don't i'm not saying i have a better way to have a ramp not to have a nuclear program i'm saying iran's nuclear program is not a threat and so. and i don't think there are many politicians here other than ron

paul who are paying attention who are saying those kinds of things in america everyone takes it as given that iran's threat is iran having nuclear weapons is some kind of existential threat to united states or israel and i don't think it is and so no there are a lot of politicians listen to me because ever since nine eleven there's just been such a climate of fear in the united states that people just think of anything anywhere in the world as somehow being a threat to the united states danny you know and i think it's very interesting is it and i can understand a country like israel that once it wants to its security ok fair enough the united states wants its security fair enough why can't a rand have its security and it's being asked to always compromise no one else does . i think i think if you're talking about iranian security every country has a right to its security again it's not really my opinion to him but the fact is

that iran signed a very very solemn document a voluntary document called the n.p.t. undertaking not to pursue nuclear weapons in exchange for access to peaceful nuclear energy and i think it's important to be blind about the very real possibility that the n.p.t. which is already threatened by north korea's actions could collapse completely i mean post-war post world war two security in the modern world this is one of the pillars of that security and stability such as that is so to say on the one hand that iran is honoring its n.p.t. . commitments but on the other hand it would be such a big deal if it did go ahead break those commitments and get the ball is i think alive and and serious this is a very serious document and voluntarily and i think i think people who signed it countries that signed it should be kept to it because i said i want it what about iran's security i mean i don't know how david really when what yeah well ok so what if the iranian government got out of that agreement i don't think there'd be all these people around the world saying oh that's great they are breaking an agreement anymore and the fact is you know the nonproliferation agreement is not is is just

not that he's doing it on the political side of atlanta let me finish dan there's a political scientist at ohio state university and john mueller i hold up his book atomic obsession where he talks in detail about this how various the various countries acquire nuclear weapons there are all these worries and nothing happens look at india look at pakistan they were always argue with each other potentially fighting with each other they haven't fought even though they have both know they both have nuclear weapons look at china versus the soviet union both got nuclear weapons and we're not talking a couple of nuclear weapons we're talking hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons so i just don't think that if you lost the nonproliferation agreement that would be that big a deal but i don't think people agree with me and so i think if the iranians pulled out of that agreement there wouldn't be people saying oh no problem they're not breaking their agreement because there's no agreement i think the pressure on them would even become greater so if i could finish a program with you an intent on what's the next step. well

iran was hoping genuinely that there would be some kind of compromise you don't he's obviously prepared to have compromise to give a concession and there but you don't need something in return it would be wrong to expect that that all the conservations be made by you. ok gentlemen let me jump in here are run out of time in iran just being discussion here many thanks today to my guess is around jerusalem and in stanford and thanks to our viewers for watching us here to see you next time and remember across type rules. if you. want to.

there hasn't been anything good on t.v. . it is to get the maximum political impact. the full source material is what helps keep journalism honest we believe. we want to present. something i'll. leave.

he feels he. has to eat. up. such. machines.