i recently read headlines all over the russian internet screaming in full paranoia mode that china has just bought five percent of ukraine now they are writing that china will lease five percent of ukraine however ukrainian officials themselves claim that china won't be getting either and that this is a deal about some drip irrigation system didn't explode on to the internet to the fantasies of bloggers the south china morning post reported that one company does have a crop and pig farming plan design you live nine percent of ukraine's territory also last year the ban on foreigners buying land ukraine. been lifted although i am distrustful pro sovereignty type getting the rich foreign country to pay to develop your nation's agriculture might not be too bad of a deal it would definitely take a lot of money to restore ukraine's farming to its former glory they see that ukraine used to be the bread basket of europe to spec could really help the country but selling off or even just leasing nine percent of the nation's territory is absolutely unacceptable doing a large project with the chinese that is mutually beneficial is one thing but

selling or leasing off your country is another and by another i mean treason but that's just my opinion. today. showing corporations are.

oh and welcome to crossfire all things are considered on peter lavelle on the back of one fiasco after another in the middle east the u.s. says now it is willing to engage iran after decades of prosecuting a covert in proxy war against around can watch then change its behavior many in washington have dismissed obama's all of branch out of hand many in iran are just as mistrustful is this quest for peace a fool's errand. to close up all of branches i'm joined by mehdi how the g. in washington he's a senior fellow at the washington institute also in washington we have michael hughes he is a freelance journalist and foreign policy analyst and into and we cross the ford is id he's a political science professor at the university of toronto and gentlemen cross-talk rules in effect that means you can jump in anytime you want i very much encourage it find it's go to you first. do you believe a word that barack obama has to say given the last thirty years of bad relations

between the two countries and i'm talking about covert overt operations up to this day. you know. the last ten years cannot be blamed on obama i think he is responsible for his own presidency and he has been relatively a better president when it comes to iran haven't you compared him to others we have had occasions when the us congress wanted to pass a new sanction against iran and he has opposed to those type of sanctions and in his a speech at the u.n. i think he had a couple of good points it was the first time we have heard that from. u.s. president for example he talked about president rouhani having a mandate from the iranian people basically recognizing that these are vibrant democracy in iran and that the president is. elected by the majority and then he

has a mandate from the majority want if i don't get this job and i don't you think said well why don't you think mr obama is very much alone in washington because the congress is not going to go along with him i mean that he has a long long way to go and will talk about forces and so on but i mean it's what i'm getting at obama's words are just words because the political establishment isn't with him at least at this point go ahead. you know we could recognize three different groups in washington when president rouhani visited. new york last week one group basically read the talking points from tel aviv repeated what netanyahu said about the trip a second group sees rouhani as an opportunity to get things from iran that they couldn't get from ahmadinejad the previous president and then a third group is actually a group that has recognized that iran has the right to enrich uranium inside the country and they want to reset iran the u.s.

policy toward iran. the only problem we have is that the terror group the good guys relatively are the minority and the first and second group are the majority of it in the u.s. foreign policy establishment and that's a problem that we have and i think. what dr rowhani needs to do is actually work harder to make the terror group the majority by policies that he said he said things that he says and. they said. it was saying good things some some good things in ok the leaders are saying don't think of my name i'm going to you in washington ok where do we go from here some pleasantries have been exchanged that's not policy. that's true. they need to in geneva and talk about their concrete steps both parties should take to a bit of confidence and. describe to negotiations successful or maybe

here we would see which one is more serious which one is more detail you need to compromise we haven't seen you haven't started that process yet so it's too early to talk about the c.d.s. ness of president obama or the seriousness of president rouhani i think. up to now be just exchanged nice words and they made lots of public relations and stuff but you have to see when it comes to that action which one is really. a bow to deliver its promise ok michael i'll go to you who's blown the most smoke here so far i think we need to keep in mind that obama really the entire world to implement the strict strict sanctions on iran in history and world history yeah and number number two is there was he's got pressure from congress on both sides of the

aisle they want you know to pressure iran pressure iran and there was a deal that russia was involved with there was an iranian swap deal not too long ago that because of congress and the state department that window was missed so we got to think of those two things those are both in you know the iranian conscience through this whole thing so you know forgive them for having doubt and then again you know it goes both ways so iranian leader reached out to the american people through an op ed and obama responded in kind and then there was kind of the awkward miss when they didn't meet and shake hands and have the photo opportunity but i always say obama doesn't have to get reelected in the iranian leader does so come on give me a break if the shoe was on the. other you know foot obama would be reluctant probably to do a photo op while he was running against romney so that's where we're at it it's tough it's going to be tough for both sides there's you know there's decades of

mistrust there but i'm hopeful i think it's you know it's better to reach out and it's better to negotiate than the not to be able to. set on i mean it's better to talk when you can make a deal ok it can both sides make a deal because we know the the problems that obama has and with apac and we have the israeli lobby in congress they're already saying they're very skeptical extremely skeptical and that they even have more sanctions to pass but the the state departments and asking just wait a little bit longer let them talk a little bit first i mean i'm very pessimistic here after thirty years it's hard to break out it's good to down. here is. an iranian side i think the government is very much ready for some sort of approach montt we had iran's leader ayatollah khomeini making in a speech before rouhani strip and talking about felix ability and being able to

reach a compromise the problem as you said is actually these are the lobby in washington that is not to want to see. a reset of u.s. policy toward iran and quite powerful you know going to have sanction building in the u.s. congress the generally get passed. in the senate hundred to zero or ninety nine to one and to change that walt to. new sanctions bills are not passed it's going to be quite difficult i think you're right maybe if i go back to you in watching so what's different this time the deal the difference is that there's a new president internet on is that the only difference because if it's about the nuclear program the two countries had very bad relations for thirty years way before that nuclear issue was on the table go ahead. exactly let me tell you something before answering this question. some people exaggerate about the power israeli lobby in washington and i think israeli lobby would be flattered by this

exaggerations and they don't have any problem with it but it's misleading for analyzing the situation the problem with iran with islamic republic and with its nuclear programs. is not only an israeli problem not a start yesterday. iranians blame the united states for its role in nine hundred fifty three coup against prime minister was there and americans blame iran for its. seizing its embassy in tehran in nineteen seventy nine the hostility between the two government is deep rooted and it's goes beyond israel of course israel cannot accept a nuclear iran but we shouldn't forget that. extent to which saudi i have

turkey and persian gulf countries are worried about iran's ambitions is not less than israel and many arab countries in the region believe that israel is a strong country and it's a us ally and iran would not to harm israel if it gets nuclear capability but nuclear capability for iran would change the equation and that would give a lot of room of influence for iran over arab countries especially small countries like qatar bahrain. united arab emirates and so on so nuclear program is not an israeli problem. i'm sorry but i mean mr netanyahu had control of the american airwaves for almost a three or four days after his speech so i think you know it is a pretty big red line for the israelis that michael if i can go to you really what

it's all been about not to let me go to michael here because i don't hear that is that it's not well it is important but it's a bigger picture and i want to ask the bigger picture for michael here and it's always been about regime change and the nuclear program has been one element to get there. yeah it is regime change and after iraq the reality is is obama or the next president either really going to strike iran i mean all the experts say it's even ex cia that you know they say it's the most ridiculous concept in the world it's not going to stop the program it will be destructive it will on leash chaos in the whole region but you have this you know small subset in the us even a minority of jews that even. it's a minority of the jewish community here in the you know israeli community here that wants to strike that wants regime change which based on recent history i think

that's crazy you know and the question is are the iranian leaders going to let how long are they going let their people starve and are they is the u.s. ever going to strike and i mean if you said a bunch of foreign policy experts in the room i think they would say at some point iran is probably going to get a nuclear weapon and you know deterrence maybe the question is how do you how are we really going to stop them at the end of the day and it's up to the iranians to how long do they want to suffer the iranian leaders are they will in the compromise do we really need another country with nuclear weapons because it will start a nuclear weapons race you know the saudis are going to sit around and say ok let's let you know maybe i'm jumping in on a very important point let me jump in here we're going to go to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on u.s. lenient relations stakes. the.

there's a media lead us so we believe that maybe. the seat cushions to cure the play your part of the musical. questions that no one is asking with the guests that you deserve answers from it's all on politics only on our t.v. . real funny to me. it's ok james feet fall off to religious service and you can expect some of the toughest training. comes from the press conference of the film to keep. the. money on

cd. millions around the globe struggle with hunger each good. what if someone offers a lifetime food supply no charge. they cherry sub they can the very strong position against g.m.o. and we think that's. the genetic anymore the right products are pretty sure to tool out there is no. evidence to this any problem with genetic engineering when you make a deal. or is free cheese always in the most trash i don't believe that i destroyed four and then three. then primary market is profit at the minute. not for sure dusty's golden rice are cheap.

dramas that can't be ignored. to the. stories others refuse to notice. the faces change the world writes never. full picture of today's leaves no longer from around the globe. brokenly. welcome back across the uk where all things are considered peter lavelle reminder we're discussing relations between tehran and washington.

what have i to go back to you and to and first it seems to me i'm going to i'm i'm looking at the bigger picture of thirty years here and the one theme is that it seems evident from the american side and western account from western capitals is it simply has to surrender everything and then we could have a deal that's what it sounds like in the essence. wanted to say something about the nuclear issue and a statement that a person the woman read at the u.n. had this sentence that iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program and that's a contradiction there's a contradiction between what he said and what james clapper said if you months earlier james clapper as you know is the director of national intelligence he is the deed of the u.s. intelligence community is and he had testimony at the u.s. senate on march thirteenth two thousand and thirteen and in that testimony he says

he talks about iran's nuclear program and then he says that we do not know this is a quote we do not you know that iran you don't and leaders have decided to have a nuclear weapons program. which means that not only iranians don't have a bomb right now not only did don't have a program to make a bomb they have not even decided to have a program to make a bomb and you put that statement james clapper the statement next to obama as a settlement and you see that obama is going too far we don't have the bomb we don't have a nuclear program in and talking about iran's pursuit of nuclear program is repeating what netanyahu says which goes back to the point that israelis have a lot of influence in u.s. foreign policy in the middle east another thing that the one was said in his speech was he said that we are not that a regime change but the only problem with that statement is that the u.s. government since two thousand and six has been. spending about one hundred million

dollars every year on what they call democracy promotion in iran and this is just the state department funding and you know open source funding we don't know what cia is doing how much they are spending so we have all these kinds of actions and i think you're right that you have to be a little bit worried that and one hand. down of things that it's not doing the spending money. and changing its government and the other hand they're saying that we want to improve relations you have to worry about the idea if i go to you in washington if we can look at the surrounding area you know we have iraq he didn't have weapons of mass destruction it was invaded and essential he destroyed libya gave up its weapons of mass destruction it was invaded it was essentially destroyed we'll see what's going to happen in syria i mean people in the region have to be looking around and say you know there's is there a learning curve here because disarm make friends and then you know what regime change i mean i'm not being an advocate for to iran but i mean recent history kind

of gives you a clue what the americans actually think. look there are two things that i have to raise here one is that there might be some difference of opinions in washington or in other european capitals what their iranian regime is trying to whip and eyes its nuclear program or not any time soon but there is no doubt or. lead to doubt about iran's objectively. nuclear program is a tool it is not an object to the objective is to have supremacy in the region is to threaten the interest of united states not only united states and rats have. cold war against iran iran in last thirty years has killed americans in lebanon in afghanistan in iraq

and elsewhere and threaten u.s. interests everywhere in the word so you cannot just put the blame on the united states ok. but you still think that you really iran is a direct threat to the united states of america do you think that's true i think. the nuclear program is the direct threat to the security and safety of the ok well you know there is no we have been so that you know there is no evidence of that yet would you agree or disagree with that there's no evidence of no no look we have to . international community is trying to stop iran from reaching that point. if iran had nuclear capability we couldn't talk about that deterrence we have to talk about containment ok let's talk about deterrence let me talk about deterrence has he michael let me go to you which talk about to learn as he then it's not ok

activity well we don't know that you know the i.a.e.a. says different things let me go to my own a lot let me go to my goal in washington fair time everyone michael let's say let's say iran gets one nuclear weapon. ok. and it declares it to the world i wouldn't be surprised if it was a blitter rated fifteen minutes later is that a deterrent actually it makes it more of a target doesn't it more than it is right i would say people will be reluctant to attack a nuclear even if it's one or two people are going to be i would i would think there they'd be reluctant to go after anyone who knows you know in my opinion who knows who knows what could happen but i mean how many nukes that mao have that i was correct that i was insane that he wanted to he wouldn't care to you know why perhaps the world away and i mean frankly you know that some russian rulers i mean they had they had access to you know

a lot of nukes but the turn seemed to work for both sides the u.s. has a lot of nukes so. you know it's a good point most people want iran to get a nuclear weapon but you know it you know if we if that happens i think we have to rely on deterrence and. at that point it's it might be too late to invade ok if i'd let me go do you intend on i mean there was a very good historical comment made here communist china ok and if i'm you know i can remember correctly no my history is that the united states and the soviet union had arms agreements and didn't destroy each other china understood the game of deterrence as well i mean what makes it round so much different for the western world and certain lobbies that you mentioned the beginning of the program why is would iran be seen to be different is trying its out of self defense. right. based on what we hear in tehran. iranian government has decided not to.

its nuclear program because of the reason you mention it you don't become the target. of more sanctions more difficulties in the united states has going to seven thousand nuclear warheads iran even if it makes one nuclear bomb is not going to be able to compete with the united states in that area so they're not going that route i would encourage your viewers to go back to a debate president vice presidential debate with indoor biden and pod ryan in two thousand and twelve election and in that debate pod ryan was basically talking the same way that matter is talking repeating as early talking points with regard to iran's nuclear program and accusing the obama administration of not sanctioning iran more and not doing more and what joe biden said in the sponsors to padrone was

quite interesting he used this word malarkey which i didn't know what it meant and i went and looked up the dictionary and the like he means just use less stark images no no no i don't care talking about this so we have to be careful when you accuse a country of having a nuclear weapons program and then you sanction in its people inhuman the you know we have a lot of difficulties medicine is sure in tehran people are suffering from these sanctions based on mullarkey basically and you have to be careful not to accuse a country of things that it's not doing by then was talking about the fact that iran doesn't have the enrichment. union that is needed in this union that's needed to make a nuclear weapon by then was in response to ponder and by that was saying that iran doesn't have. it may have been a five person to any person but doesn't have

a thing and other things so you have to be of the. talking points maybe if i go back to you in washington i always try to be an optimist because i'm for peace what should washington one thing washington could do one thing to and could could do to get this whole thing started if it's going to go anywhere at all one on each side please. the level of mistrust mr obama. iran's nuclear program was not less than any other president in the past and what was thought. is not reconcilable with obama's policy since he came to office he has managed to create an international consensus over sanctions which were on preceding to in recent years michael if i could go to you as i just asked you earlier what's one thing washington can do and one thing to and can do to get some kind of negotiation started if it's going to happen at all i think each side can

you know just show a reasonable step forward whether it's the u.s. fully engaged in iran well you know visiting make making a visible sign of trying to negotiate and maybe iran just making sure that you know their intentions are peaceful let an inspector in or you know each taken one step that way towards you know a possible long term goal ok what if i go you could finish up with the winter down here maybe to stand some of those senseless sanctions that would be a good step. yes and i think the iranian administration president rouhani needs to work on u.s. congress as well just talking to people at the state department is not going to be enough we need to have a campaign of really letting their medical people also know what is iran and what iran is doing and sort of working against the propaganda that's coming from israel ok on that point gentlemen we've run out of time thank you very much many thanks to

my guest today in washington and in toronto and thanks to our viewers for watching us here narky see you next time and remember. you mean speak your language. programs and documentaries in arabic

it's all here on. reporting from the world's hot spots the v.o.i.p. interviews intriguing story for you. in trying. to find out more visit or a big t.v. show it's called. we know how to do banking it should be like infrastructure to support the economy it shouldn't be for the benefit of it leads to think they're above the law as we currently have. delivered torch is on its epic journey to such. one hundred twenty three days. through two thousand nine hundred ton two cities of russia. relayed by forging thousand people for sixty five thousand killings. in

a record setting trip by land air sea and others face. a leg or tree limb. on r t r c dot com. pleasure to have you with us.

today security forces targeted in a wave of deadly attacks across egypt. the destruction of syria's chemical. plant. from russia and even the united states challenges away. by athletes and celebrities before it heads off the cross russia. twenty four. hour.