from washington, "the mclaughlin group," the american original. for over two decades, the sharpest minds, best sources, hardest talk. one, iran beware! >> we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with iran. the united states will join with its partners and allies in making sure that they pay a price. >> president obama announced this week that an elite military unit of iran's armed

forces was plotting to assassinate saudi arabia's ambassador to the united states, where he lives. the u.s. department of justice says flat-out that iran's military unit known as the quds force planned to hire a mexican drug cartel to kill the saudi ambassador to the united states at a d.c. restaurant. but federal authorities foiled the plan because one of the two plotters, manssor arbabsiar, worked with an informant of the u.s. government. arbabsiar, who has dual u.s.- iranian citizenship, is now under arrest in a federal prison in new york. the justice department says that arbabsiar and no concerns about how many u.s. lives would be lost if this plot were to be carried out. >> when the confidential source noted that there could be 100 or 150 people in a restaurant where the requested bombing would take place, including

possibly members of the united states congress, the lead defendant said, no problem. >> the other alleged plotters gohlam shakuri, a member of the iranian quds force. he is believed to be in iran. u.s. attorney general holder was asked on tuesday whether the plot was sanctioned by any high-level member of the iranian government, whether a mula iranian presidahmadidineja >> yoyou're n not playaying tha chargege atat this s poinint. >> but t th house intelligence committee, mike rogers, believes that the highest level of iran's power structure were involved. >> i have a high degree of confidence that there were the highest echelons of the iranian government involved in this particular act. >> question, if this plot had succeeded, bombing and assassination in a d.c. restaurant, would it be an act

of war? pat buchanan. >> it certainly womb it would be another lockerbie in washington, d.c., john. this has an aroma of fish about it. this mansour is not -- wasn't in interested in politics or religion, according to his buddies. he drank and smoked and chased gals. he's a used car salesman, and he is an obnoxious character to all friends. the guy he contacted turned on the just happened to be a dea deep penetration agent. so i think there's something fishy about this. i do not for a second believe that the ayatollah or the quds force or anyone in the high level would authorize this insanity because the next day there would be 20 b-2 bombers over tehran. so i think basically, john, the neocons are dressing up, but i don't think this justifies as of now any military action. >> that would be quite a

condemnation of the attorney general. >> john, there's too many holes in this. if someone said this looks like a bad plot from a novel. >> eleanor? >> well, the principal guy who you described in very unflattering terms, he was kind of a -- dare do el and he couldn't seem to carry out his life right, would not be the kind of person this elite force in iran would normally pick. plus he was dealing with non- muslims, which is not their m.o. and iran's been very good at carrying out target assassinations around the world. so they know how do this. so i think it's appropriate to have skepticism. but the administration has a 100,000 dollar wire transfer from the quds force in iran to this fellow, and they feel comfortable they have evidence tying this to iran almost it goes to ahmadinejad or whether it reflects on sort of disintegration of the iranian

regime and conflict between them, i don't think we know but we shouldn't be allowed it to be a green light for the israelis or the u.s. to somehow wage war suddenly on iran. >> richard? >> the smoking gun is that money transfer that eleanor mentioned which came from an account associated with quds force and was monitored before and that had transferred money for overseas operations before, so that apparently is why everyone believes this is the real deal. and it's not just eric holder, the fbi director, the it's the southern district of new york, it's the guys on the hill as we saw from mike rogers. so every intelligence service occasionally has floppy operations. this would be a very sloppy operation, you wonder why they wouldn't have plugged no their he's network bum it seems to be real and they may assume we're allies are killing their scientists on their own soil, and they just may not fear us very much anymore. >> mort?

>> i think they have a different interest and motivation, which is that they want to destroy or at least diminish the relationship between saudi arabia and the united states, which is already very fragile. and were this to happen on american soil it, would have a major effect on that relationship, and saudi arabia is iran's principle opponent within the arab world. so in a senses there's a motive there. it's also crazy -- >> but doesn't make sense. if they build up the restaurant and killed this ambassador, that would bring the saudi saudis and the united states. they did this and we ought to just hammer them and target. saudi arabia would love that. >> there there would be people saying the iranians would never do this. crazy used salesman and the mexican drug cartel some the other argument is that would give you plausible deniability and all the same voices doubt this is was real -- evidence should -- >> we wouldn't catch the cartel

blowing up a restaurant in washington, d.c.? >> no. >> but saudis might blame america for not being able to protect their person. but i think the iranians have to worry about retaliation from the saudis, not military. it's the oil wars over there. and the saudis just have to ratchet up their oil production and that will bleed iran's economy. >> far-fetched? >> there are several parts of it that are totally implausible. >> okay. now, is there any other reason -- >> part is for real is the transfer of $100,000. >> why did the attorney general make a big deal out of it? >> well, because -- >> he goes on television -- and tells the american people -- [everyone talking at once] >> look, if they were going to do it, john, you're right, that would be an act of war right in downtown d.c. i just somehow -- you know, this says -- this looks like a false flag

operation to me. >> why would he do it? is there any other reason why the attorney general would do it? anything else happen to him? >> let me tell you something. if there was -- if the united states -- if obama attacked iran, i'll tell you, it was close to the election, obama would win the election. >> was therein an embarrassing story regards to -- >> it might be -- [everyone talking at once] >> caught on capitol hill, giving a false answer, whether he deliberately lied or not is the wrong answer about when he knew the program. but the idea that he would cook up this massive conspiracy to cover that up -- that's not -- >> that's not the point! let's assume everything he said was true, as far as the factual details concerned. why does he go on television and tell that to the american people? unrolling another carpet? >> i don't know. >> because of successful american national security. >> and it also -- >> carried out and they want to take credit for it [everyone talking at once] >> oh, is that the reason?

>> we get -- fast and furious -- >> what is fast [everyone talking at once] >> fast and furious is an insane program where by our friends in the atf or the -- they -- >> alcohol, tobacco and firearms. >> two thousand weapons shipped into mexico. we've got all the serial numbers to trace them when the cartels use them and get them for gun control. >> right. how many guns -- now loose in mexico? >> we got a border patrol down there! >> so this -- this -- this mission went awry. the guns ended up in the wrong hands. but -- [everyone talking at once] >> excuse me! this kind of mission began under the bush administration. this went awry, but the fact that the national rifle association is using rn over go after the alcohol, tobacco and firearms because they want the free flow of weapons across the mexico -- and of course they

do. and. >> let's get out it will be around -- for a while. exit question. should the united states with its allies preemptively strike iran's nuclear facilities, yes or no? that doesn't mean a nuclear strike, by the way. just a -- >> that's insanity to start another war in the middle east against iran over this thing? >> insanity. what do you think? >> i agree. i'm with pat on that. >> insanity. >> not in response to this but i believe we'll have to do something like that eventually to stop this criminal, bizarre -- not in response to this plot but if you want to stop them from getting nuclear weapons and we should redouble our seriousness in light of this kind of plot, eventually you probably have to take military action. >> you think they're redeemable? >> no. >> beyond redemption? >> i agree. they're beyond redemption and this is not the occasion on which we should go in to iran. we've got enough on our plate at this stage of the game with

several other wars. >> there is nothing in the international community or domestic community that prevents a nation from developing civilian usage for nuclear energy, and you know that. >> yes. >> we have loads of nuclear plants. >> yes. they signed -- >> why should they be deprived? because they're not -- >> how do you know that? >> mort, they got a nuclear reactor operating right now! they got a nuclear react okay operating at brashear with help. >> so what? they're making -- [everyone talking at once] >> why would russia want to do that? >> they're going to take the stuff when it's processed and take it out themselves. >> what's it called? >> plutonium. >> okay. what is the evidence of their doing that? 72 there's no evidence now that they're going all out for nuclear weapon. i'm not getting it. >> why do we condemn iran for

developing nuclear power when it's all over every place? >> because -- [everyone talking at once] >> real concerns over what they're going to with their power. and there's a very legitimate reason. >> you have lost sight of -- that used to be our theme song. [everyone talking at once] >> i welcome global warming. >> smokestacks. nuclear is clean. >> i know nuclear is clean, but not when it's used in military sense. >> are you listening to netanyahu? >> what does that have to do with it? [everyone talking at once] senators. >> you go through the american intelligence community they'll give you the answer. the answer is, yes, they're developing nuclear weapons! >> i want to go public with t mort. >> i two point out that if iran launched a nuclear weapon they would be obliterated by israel. and i don't know they're totally -- >> the answer

congratulations on the book, suicide of a super-power. >> thank you very much, john. >> how is it selling? >> pretty well on amazon.com but it's not out yet, job. >> 428 pages before you get to the great set of -- >> 35 pages. >> encyclopedia. it's more than your opinion. you've got positive and negative views of various issues, liberal and conservative, and it all comes together, footnoting is terrific. it's a great book. i want to read one paragraph. america is entering a time of trouble. the clashes of culture and creed are intensifying, and both parties are perceived to have failed the nation. republicans were repute 88 in 2006 and 2008, and democrats in 2010.

and the crisis that afflict us. here you list them. culture wars, race division, record deficits, unpayable debt, waves of immigration, legal and illegal, peoples never before assimilated, gridlock in the capital, and possible defeat in war may prove too much for or democracy to cope with. they surely will if we do not act now. got a question for you. what is the war we could possibly lose? >> i think when we come out of afghanistan, it probably in my guess will turn over to the taliban, and i think iraq is moving towards iran. i don't think either war was worth it, john. >> i'm assigning this to the other members of this group to read and be able to report on. >> i feel confident it represents the maturing of pat's views, but not the mellowing. >> right. i detect a certain recalcitrance about reading it. >> we are all anti-mellowing on

this group. we need pat! my top priority is 9-9-9! >> it's working. herman cain is now the clear front-runner for the republican nomination to become u.s. president next year. polls show that cain leads mitt romney by 4 points and rick perry by 11 points. cain's ascension is attributed to his 9-9-9 plan. he wants to replace the current tax codes, with all of its provisions and loopholes, with a triple flat tax. 9% flat tax on corporations, a 9% flat tax on individuals, and a 9% flat sales tax on bought goods. does this plan sound better than it is? some reputable independent economists seem to think so. robertson williams, a senior fellow of the tax policy center

linked to the prestigious urban institutes and brickings institution, says this. >> it will raise taxes on the poor. it will cut taxes on the rich. >> so this was directly affect the two groups. one, low income earners. under the 9-9-9 plan, 30 million low income households would be forced to pay a 9% federal income tax, when they currently do not pay any income tax! on top of this new income tax, low income households would also have to pay the flat 9% sales tax on all bought goods. two, high income earners. 9% income tax is much lower than what richer households currently pay. 9-9-9 would dramatically cut taxes for the rich and heavily reduce income taxes roll as a

major revenue source for the federal government. so is the 9-9-9 cain formula a net plus? cain says in effect that his critics overlook that 9-9-9 cancels out all these taxes. >> the 9-9-9 plan replaces payroll tax, capital gains tax, corporate income tax, and the death tax. >> by the way, herman cain, when he speaks about the death tax, he means of course the estate tax. is the popularity of cain's flat tax proposal a current reaction to obama's soak the rich tax proposal? i don't mean to -- you know, postulate anything negative about the president. >> people like it because it's bold and it's simple, and there's a hugely entertaining and appealing politician out there in the person of herman cain talking about it all the

time. i'm not sure people are focused on the details. when you get down it, it's a 27% tax on wages. >> there's a tax codes that's an abomination and everybody knows it. it's replete with special benefits, privilege, earmarks what, you have. we should widen the tax base and simplify the tax code. the commission suggested it. the -- it's the one thing we can do to rev revenue neutral it stimulate the economy. he provokes that, in -- concern in the country. this program of and the broade the tax brace really does. >> just to hold on for a minute. why doesn't it work? >> why doesn't it work? for some of the reasons that are mentioned. the fact it's iffy, huge increase on the poor and a huge deduction for the rich. that does month nick sense in this country. >> he postulates and he says failing to take into

consideration the taxes that are eliminated, which directly affect the poor. they benefits by those eliminations. >> i look through this. without going into all the details, i don't share his views. it's an oversimplification of what happened -- >> is there any way -- >> increase taxes on the poor and decrease for the rich. >> is there any way of retaining the 9-9-9 and -- the country takes care of the poor, there's no question about that. let's get that straight. truly poor. and -- >> no, no, no! [everyone talking at once] >> we take care of the poor. free education, free food, free medical care. look, another thing it would do, it would almost eliminate the i.r.s., accountants. billions of hours everybody spends doing tax. >> right, right! >> out the window. >> all right. if you eliminate that and somehow you transfer some of that to assist those who are marginally poor, we've got a poverty rate of 15% in country. >> that's right. 46million people live below the poverty line in america.

makes me feel terrible it. would not eliminate the poor. >> doesn't necessarily mean poor. below the poverty line. >> you know what the poverty line is for a family of 4? $21,000 a year. that's poor. >> it is poor in today's society. >> absolutely. >> this sounds like an abomination too. having to exist today -- maybe we should be thankful to him for bringing about a possible reform of the total tax code. >> i hope it gets republican support and democratic support for this -- simplification of the tax code. >> his plan is simplification but it would be a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. it would layer a 9% national sales tax on top of the sales tax that people are already paying. it would eliminate the funding for social security and for medicare. >> i think it eliminates -- >> i'm with michele bachmann. >> he characterizes at the end to save his plan.

>> that's not -- >> you know, he cited those. in other words, give the plan some kind of look again. we'll be right back with predictions.

will mormonism be a major issue in the fall, yes or no? >> if romney wins, the democrats will promote it. >> an issue, not major. >> the left will smear mormonism if romney is the nominee. >> i agree with eleanor, an issue but not a major issue. >> it will not be a major issue whether he runs or does not run. bye-bye!