david albright, a former weapons inspector -- entitled starving iran will not free it, and also, jamie reuben. great to have you with us. what he said about president obama. >> i think he was allowing some room. a clear indication for iran that negotiations is their preference. they constantly say we won't negotiate under threats. when you start stepping back from the threat of war, that's an opening and i think the he wanted to signal that. that they are open as long as these threats are stepped back from. >> do you think there will be talks and breakthroughs especially with this whole issue of preconditions? it makes a lot of sense that iran would say get out of my business if i want to have nuclear power. a lot of countries have nuclear power. why should that be a precondition? >> i think there's a lot of smoke being thrown in people's eyes. let's start with prime minister netanyahu. the israels want the world to be talking about the possibility of a nuclear strike. they believe and have said candidly, the more that seems real to withdrawn iran, is greater the chance this can be rev

. >> for more on the significance of the announcement, i spoke with david albright, who worked with thetomic energy agency. is this a modest step or a big breakthrough? >> it is a modest step, but it is important. it was long in the making. the death of kim jong il could have derailed it. id was set on its way before his death. >> do you think the new leadership is dedicated to the negotiations of some sort? >> that is what it looks like. that is a big relief that that is the direction they want to go. the deal includes shutting down the at nuclear enrichment plant and allowing monitors back into the plant for the first time. this is the most important part of the deal. to get north korea to agree to shut down this nuclear enrichment plant. >> others have suggested the same thing. we have been here. we have had negotiations go further than this. >> is very difficult in a presidential alexian year. there are significant concessions which will draw significant concessions from the north koreans. the hope is to get the negotiations going and to make some progress. i do not have big hopes t

david albright says this seems to pit the iaea against u.s. intelligence, which has indicated there hasn't been much activity in iran on a nuclear program in a while. what is your take? >> we need to be careful to say this is not a site where there would be a nuclear test. basically, what is tested there is what they called expressive composures and that means that the trigger for a nuclear device would be tested there, but not necessarily a nuclear test. what officials and diplomats say is what they could be working on is the so-called weaponization or the militarization of the program you've been talking about for so many weeks of the show. that could be going on and inspectors said in the recent report that they thought iran might be working on that at that site, but no one is saying that a nuclear test could be going on there and our sources are saying that they don't have any evidence of any kind of nuclear tests, but they do believe that iran is working on the so-called trigger components that they could use to build a weapon for a nucle

david albright, a former weapons inspector and president for the institute for science and security. and the iranian american journalist who is also author of the ayatollah begs to differ. great to have all of you with us. let me start with you. what the ayatollah said about president obama, what was he really saying? >> i think he was allowing some room for negotiations. a clear indication for iran that negotiations is their preference. they want to negotiate. they have indicated that for a long time. they constantly say we won't negotiate under threats. when you start stepping back from the threat of war, that's an opening and i think the he wanted to signal that. he's in charge. it's not president ahmadinejad. he's going to make the decisions on iran's nuclear program. he's signaling they're open as long as the threats are stepped back. >> do you think there will be talks and breakthroughs especially with this whole issue of preconditions? it makes a lot of sense that iran would say get out of my business if i want to have nuclear power. a lot of countries have nuclear power. why

every three months about what iran has come and again, according to the experts, according to david albright, respected nuclear expert in town about four months from having enough material for its first bomb if it makes the decision to do so. so much closer than saddam hussein must. second, the operation we are talking about is different and this is what jamie got to. the reason iraq was so expensive and so costly in the blood and treasure is because we put 100,000 troops in state for ten years. no one is talking about that kind of operation in iran, the kind of rationing talking about is bombing a kung fu key facilities and where you would need to get for those facilities so it is a limited strike depending on the retaliation could be over in days or week and not a decade long ground war. is to make a quick follow-up on what regime change but actually look like and where we would do in the aftermath. >> i'm very dubious of the regime change. the last decade has caused me to be dubious because you are talking about undoing an existing political order. no matter how odious it is and rotten, i

again, iran has come according to experts, according to david albright, respected nuclear export here in town, about four months from having enough material to make a bomb. so much closer than saddam hussein was. second, the operation were talking that is very different. this is what jamie got to be the reason iraq was so expensive and so costly, blood and treasure, with the 100,000 troops there and stayed for 10 years but no one is talking about that kind of operation in iran, the kind of operation i'm talking about is bombing a few key facilities and air defenses you need to get to those facilities. so this is a limited strike that, depending on retaliation, could be over in days or weeks, not a decades long groundwork. >> a quick follow-up on what regime change would actually look like and what we do in the aftermath. i'm very dubious of regime change the last decade has caused me to be very dubious because you talk about undoing an existing political order. that no matter how odious it is, how rotten it is, it is in place come in charge. so in the event of regime change those proc

crimes ambassador for the united states working for then secretary of state albright, in his new book, all the missing souls, david gives a real insiders account of the creation of the first international tribunal since nuremberg, set up to try the perpetrators of the wave of killings that took place in the 1990s. and i should also say that david is a very good friend of the museum, and we have worked with him over the years on many projects and most recently on a project that we're going to do on the cambodia war crime trial. i should say david has been appointed -- he has a new job, he's a special expert for the, your honor, on the trials so he's in the middle now of the controversies over how to handle that important set of cases. william shawcross has addressed these issues from a different perspective. as really one of the leading a journalists of his generation and who first made his mark actually chronicling the terrible events in cambodia, but injustice and the enemy, william tackles a different issue which is how we're going to deliver justice to the new breed of stateless islamic terrorists that would ch