soundly at night. we are palestinian women working in israel we've done more for our kids than our husbands. we are phantoms in this life. to least be told language. will programs and documentaries in arabic it's all here on. reporting from the will talks books of the ip interviews for intriguing stories for you to. see them try. to find out more visit our big teeth dog call.

or. download the official application to your cell phone choose your language stream quality and enjoy your favorites. if you're away from your television just doesn't matter now with your mobile device if you can watch ought see any time anyway. hello and welcome to cross talk where all things considered i'm peter lavelle targeting the so-called rogue states north korea and iran are very much in the spotlight are these countries really a threat to the international community we are told both north korea and iran are

impossible to negotiate with both deemed to be irrational states they ask for comprehensive security guarantees but face the very real threat of utter annihilation. to cross up north korea iran and much more i'm joined by richard white's in washington he's a senior fellow and director of the center for political military analysis at the hudson institute also in watched and we have zachary an assistant editor for the diplomat and in philadelphia we cross to dave lindorff he is an investigative reporter author of the book the case for impeachment and the founding editor of the online newspaper this can't be happening dot net all right gentlemen crosstalk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want but richard if i can go to you what is a rogue state we hear the term all the time what is it it define. it's out of fashion charm under the bush administration they used the term rogue state to describe states which was behavior was so. so it

redeemable that they were considered to be equivalent of a criminal state and that was a ran that was a racket under sadam hussein and that was north korea with those of the three common ones other countries went in and out of that category the obama administration that was revise that category they now just find these kind of states as outlier states and has a different and different implication implies that they can be brought inside more easily as long as they change their behavior and i think that's what the moment ministrations agenda and efforts have been aimed at zachary jump in what do you think about the term and who does it apply to if it's useful yeah really i would say i would divide ron in north korea i don't think there are two comparable except for their an adversary nature towards united states but i don't think that's very useful because we end up negotiate these people anyway so i would just i think i was probably the better dave what do you think of bill and althea and we don't have

a problem the state well i actually take. well the road term actually the concept goes back further than bush goes back to the reagan administration and it's a cold war relic and as as far as moving it forward to the obama administration i think what it basically is conceived of this notion is that these are states that are outside of the western. supposed consensus which i think doesn't even apply anymore because really it's falling apart you've got you've got china you've got brazil you've got turkey you've got countries that do not travel in a u.s. axis but that have a lot of influence because their economies are strong militarily they're strong and so it's really a. a strange term that is being used by the u.s. because the u.s. still sees itself as the sole superpower and countries that don't line up with the

us or the outlier states richard i would agree with zachary that lumping korea and iran together is a real mistake because they have very little in common richard what do you think about that. i agree that there are differences in the nature of the governments and in their behavior i mean north korea is close to being a failed state the one thing it does have there are nuclear weapons and other tools that it can either threaten other states with or offer to sell to try and earn money iran is a different category altogether it's got a very rich set of tools it can use it it's not clear that iran is going to seek nuclear weapons soon but they certainly have a very powerful conventional forces but in a way there are economists much stronger despite the sanctions so in the category of rogue states not use that much outlier though i think it's helpful in

the sense that it indicates those states that for one reason or another are not to fill in their national implications and then you can lay out a path by which they can we enter that in the international community so that creates reform school no i just think that eventually you know the u.s. and iran i don't know if we'd call it reform but i think they have too many interests in the in common to stay apart so i think iran certainly country can work with whether we call that reform or not i mean i mean we can but i don't think iran is going to change it think that will end up working out our differences with north korea i think was when i think the u.s. if i was with them i don't have any interest in dealing with them and i don't think we really should dave so unfair. well in terms of the reform thing i think you know first of all i would argue that when it comes to hearing to international norms that probably the biggest outlier state right now is the united states' self in the u.s. this as as soon for itself the thirty to do whatever it wants regardless of

international norms and i would look at the the invasion of iraq the threatened war against iran which which does not pose an imminent threat to to the u.s. certainly and probably to anybody and the use of a place like the one that defies all international norms these are thing and the use of drone attacks in any country we want to attack these are all the actions of what would qualify it's a rogue state so you know let's let's be honest about what this is about this is really all power relationships and whether you add here to the dominant powers the thing that's troubling for the united states is that there it isn't the dominant power anymore it can to dominate power but it isn't that controlling power and so countries are defying it. that what i would say about iran and iran and korea that is really different is i think they ran it is

a leading power in the region where it is there's nobody who can really tell it to go to lay off of its policies and it also is a country which has seen its own people rise up and throw a government out in recent memory and and also rise up against the current government fairly impressively although it didn't achieve their goals so the government in iran has to be responsible to its own people on some level in korea you have a more of a medieval. equivalent of a medieval absolute monarchy and so what's going on in korea is is palace politics and i agree with zachary i think the united states would be one. as to what that sort of close to fields the plane. i mean richard what happens if you get to the point of a war what happens if north korea does fail though. you can imagine some good scenarios you can imagine some bad scenario and probably some

even worse than a chinese. right well the chinese can do well on what they consider their nightmare is that you know north korea collapses all people flee north to get to china step below refugees all that loose nuclear material chemical stuff that's floating around maybe they get fans up in sion jang the american troops and the south koreans move north to try and save the situation there in their border. china's lost an ally but you consider doing so really good i said good good scenario isn't it you could be far worse than then you know i get i consider a good one which would be a unified korea. that has. does not have its own nuclear weapons has ties with the united states maybe not even a u.s. military but that somebody would be that would make any would it well it depends i mean that but the one thing china probably is fair concerned about is all the

investment would flow as you saw in germany would flow into north korea to bring it up to south korean levels and that would hurt the chinese economy but in terms of other disasters i don't i mean we're not going to go to war with china so i don't think it really matters that where there are u.s. troops are if they're not there and this regime is going to drag this has the potential to drag us all into a nuclear nightmare and so i think china if they think about would better off without them exactly do you want to jump in there. yeah i would just say i think it would think it's overlooked too much as it could reorder the whole asian security order depending on how unified korea goes so the on the an immediate nightmare of a secure the nuclear materials and avoid a clash routine china coming in from the north west in the us and south korea from the south then it becomes a battle over it's a unified korea more worried about japan or china has huge implications for the future of the asian security order so i think that's going to be huge event want to happen now or trying to contain it from the words that are rich are talking about

dave but the u.s. wants regime change there yeah you know i think you know the u.s. to be understood but the regime change there in an orderly fashion what is it will believe. what is the orderly fashion mean and i don't understand well what is it i mean. a similar similar to what happened with east germany where west germany took over and basically oversaw the conversion of the system into an integrated state that korea certainly has that well thing or enable it to do that if it is done you know without war without violence you know if the north basically. the northern government is basically pushed out by an uprising of its people or whatever i think that because there are so many family relationships between north and south because you know it's basically ignorance on the part of people in the north of what's going on that keeps them down it could be

a less than horrifically explosive changeover at some point but. the other thing i would say and i spent a lot of time in china i lived there for two years covered it for business week for five years i think the chinese would be happy to see a unified north korea a unified korea also i don't think the chinese are particularly happy with what they've got on their border it's mostly problematic for them and they would see a unified korea as an investment opportunity and. trading partner and not as a threat i mean it's too small to be a threat to them economically all right gentlemen we're going to go to was short break and after that break we'll continue our discussion on so-called rogue states state with arcane. legal. is a. good

some media write only. ten thousand tons per told through space towards russia. with the power. of a nuclear bomb. should have been sky full on r.t. .

so. this land. by conflict. has changed. a modern islamic nation. and a peaceful one islam is first of secular law a second. fashion. and still. in place of. traditions still and mando cannot go on the catwalk in a swimsuit. republican country safe.

the international airport in the very heart of moscow. welcome back to cross talk we're all things are considered i'm peter lavelle chill mind you were discussing north korea iran and other things rogue.

which or do you think the united states really is interested in negotiations with iran and north korea really. i think under this administration yes i would agree that everything being equal. better or the you give us preference would be for a change in their regime well most of the other countries that are involved in these negotiations they want just a change in these policies and i think the a bomb ministration is not willing to use military force or take strenuous acts to secure regime change i think they would want to see it in cap'n internally evolve over time and i think i'd suspect that these two regimes they are a bit out bit of outliers if you will from the global trend so i think over time both of them will change it's just a question of when ok exactly you agree with that because the regime in iran is

going to surround it's not going to surrender no no and i don't know if it's going anywhere i mean i think it over the long run maybe but i don't think that the islamic republic has so much opposition that it's the going anywhere so it's also china and all its borders now trying is in central asia and it's in southern iraq and it's right next to iran on the east coast of its border so i think that there's so that it's going to be probably become iran's are going to security threat of the could next decade or so and so i do think it's the long public right still be there in ten years and you can change many times but i think us going to develop to deal with the at some point and i don't think going to surrender i think that each side is going to give in i don't know that i have an obama successor but i think that it should have been sort of the later date in philadelphia go ahead jump in. well i would hope that's right i think there are forces that could lead to a conflict between the u.s.

and iran and i would hate to see it. and i think that. you know my my hope is that there will be some kind of ritual response to the fact that arin is a nuclear capable power and hopefully won't get a bomb but will always have that capability and the u.s. is going to have to accept that it's going to require standing up to is really concerned including in israel there's there's a lot of argument against going to war you know it's an attacking iran so i'm. cautiously optimistic that this is going to be worked out in a rational way but let's be clear that there's a recession ellaby on both sides of me there are neither country is fully fully grant you know but neither one is irrational richard i like that you agree or disagree it's a bit hard to get a definition rationale that i want to actually reminds i want to make a point or earlier which was that one reason why these countries are categorized

together is that they do interact on sort of the french's of the international system so we've seen a lot of changes and cooperation in korea and iran and syria and others on missile developments the fear is now we're going to see this spill over into the nuclear around with north korea sharing its insights on how to make and nuclear warhead and functionally unishe nuclear device and so randel have that capability without even having the test so that's one beans and why people tend to consider these countries together despite their differences zachary but they feel threatened by the west yeah i think that they're i think iran actually fears becoming north korea because it's you know a story a country and i think that the current regime wants to continue that so i do. it's more of the fact that we've cut off all these avenues to. sort of nuclear cooperation even the civilian realm for iran that drives them towards north korea

and i think i also think we should overstate their early shift because we don't really know exactly and i don't think we know exactly how much deep this cooperation goes and i think whatever however far it does go i think it's more driven by iran and we can't get any sort of cooperation from the west on these matters anyway so dave why should the iranians trust the americans go ahead dave jump in go ahead probably the best thing the u.s. could hope for would be that iran would start relying on north korea for missile and nuclear technology given the you know number of duds they've had it's not it's the korea and korea has achieved you know some huge technological advances either in bomb technology or in missile technology most of what they have is. you know spare parts and an extra materials from old soviet equipment so you know the u.s. tends to blow it out of proportion but there's not much there i think likely first of all it's more likely iranian scientists are quite intelligence of studied in the

west and have the capability of doing this on their own they also have enough money to buy a bomb if they wanted one so on the black market so i think all of this has been hugely overblown in u.s. propaganda and israeli propaganda but the reality is it's not that big a threat if the rain ians want to buy it tomorrow. so but but in terms of that question about the u.s. and iran in getting together i think i think it ran has you know the question of rationality let's go back to that rationality and irrationality has to do with are you acting in an intelligent way to serve your own interests as a nation that's all you can ask of countries and i'm not sure that korea is fully professional because it's such a palace politic thing that you know the into. become extremely parochial within that conflict but in your way and. you've got a country with an enormous history

a desire to be a dominant power in the middle east and they're acting rationally in their own terms to achieve that so i don't think they're going to commit suicide richard or acting rationally you agree or disagree with that. yes they're acting very cleverly they've managed to string along the nuclear negotiations until the capabilities they they might need if they want to get a nuclear weapon without going so far as to and really engage in some kind of shooting war with anybody and i think that it's you're correct in drawing the differences between north korea and iran they are the one reason why we haven't seen clear evidence of a nuclear cooperation i suppose missile cooperation is i think the iranians are reluctant to get too close to north korea because they also are uncomfortable with their behavior so actually let's say that watching seeing what lessons learned that we would see iran did get a nuclear weapon wouldn't you wouldn't use it they wouldn't i don't think they

would use it necessarily or at the back but i think that probably would be the crisis negotiations in the first ten years or so i mean the soviets in the. set a bunch of the girl in berlin on one nine hundred forty and and before the soviet union had nuclear weapons but there's a lot of crisis negotiation figure out where the people each side red lines are and that's a dangerous time period so they were best to avoid that i think that if he runs not not rational i mean the they you know they outmaneuvered the u.s. in iraq time after time and we've got a lot say for the u.s. of if there are rational they seem to be very clever as richard put it and this diplomacy game so they've got it i hope they rationalize it makes us look specifically especially bad dave in philadelphia what do you think. about what would happen if they got yeah i don't know if they'd use it i think they're not crazy israel's got it israel has about two hundred nuclear bombs and

you know very high quality delivery systems. and would be toast if they used it and they know that so what you'd actually have if you ran had the bomb would be a similar situation only probably more stable than the one you have in india and pakistan with the two countries that are really hate each other have any nuclear weapons and the difference being that those two countries have borders that are flashpoints there's no borders that are flashpoints between iran and israel so i think if iran had the bomb it would make israeli diplomacy more difficult but it might me and actual he have a salutary effect on the two having to work out some kind of modus vivendi richard what do you think about that when we're dealing with counterfactuals i mean you can think that i mean the rand like north korea probably wouldn't use nuclear weapons but with each additive country that has a nuclear weapon it's been the kind of more concern and more of the possible ease of use content increase there's also on certainty over command control arrangements

in iran. about how the different factions will would use the nuclear weapon and the capabilities i think that the main concern though is that what iran can do is engage in the kind of provocative behavior you've seen the case of north korea and then hide behind the nuclear shield so you could see them intervening more aggressively in lebanon or syria or iran or yemen because they have it because they have a nuclear weapon locked in a challenge because they have a nuclear weapon right. correct because then nobody would people the lesson people seem to be learning is as long as you have a nuclear weapon the united states will not attack you as opposed to libya or syria which doesn't or. are serbia so if they had that then they would be they could use that leverage that's the stability and stability parent paradox yeah exactly

you want to jump in there go ahead. yes i think that is a real concern in washington i think a lot of people have that concern but i mean i think the ija will judge the majors are the polar sea and use of force up to now i think they've set the rules very early by attacking has and saying that we're not going to and iran is the same entity you know we kind of said they are for a while and i think that there's no reason to think that israel can carry out operations has with him that would provoke iran to move i mean i think the u.s. and the soviet proxies for you know a bunch of years and so i don't i don't think that that would necessarily iran might try to do that i don't think it will work but it's far is why the danger of iran having nuclear weapon iran borders pakistan to you. if you were talking about india and pakistan going to other really round borders pakistan to where there's a bunch of. tribal or ethnic groups there and i mean there's

a lot of potential for for clash there too so i just think that israel in iran's might not be a. nuclear ivery is pakistan india but i don't think it's something that we should welcome it might work out that it would stabilize the situation but i don't think we should take that risk ok gentlemen fascinating discussion we've run out of time many things that and i guess in washington and in philadelphia and thanks to our viewers for watching us here archy see you next time and remember. these. admission is free credit tastes three cents for charges free to make

amends free risk free stuart chaifetz free. download free books can split video for your media projects a free media. tom. wealthy british scientists some time. markets why not i'm going to find out what's really happening to the global economy with mike's cause or for a no holds barred look at the mobile financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on r t. two million speech or language. programs and documentaries in arabic it's all here on all t.v.

reporting from the world talks books that will be our pee into the most intriguing story for you to. see in troy faulty arabic to find out more visit our big tall t.v. dog called. cave ok steve. steve. good to see. something. coming up on our t.v. .