you know that -- how does it feel to know that you have just been condemned to death by the ayatollah khamenei?" i said something like it did not feel good, and then i ran around the home, locking doors and shutters, as if that would help, and i did not know how to take it. was this just rhetorical, or was it real? doing in interview, cbs television, and i went, and even the journalists there did not know how to take it, whether it was rhetorical or real. tavis: what made it clear that it was not a joke? >> within 24 hours, i was being told that the british bleeped that there was, as they put it rather chillingly, that there was a high probability that i would be a target of attack. and the reason i was offered protection for the british was that the attack was being coming up -- was coming from another state. terrorism. tavis: how did you and others process the extreme amounts of money that was being spent by the british government to protect you? >> first of all, it was not as extreme it. i had to shoulder some of the costs. there is a view of all of these government safe houses. i was never

in 1980, the ayatollah khamenei said he would never stop the war but then he agreed to the un council security resolution for a cease-fire. prices were at an all-time low and saddam hussein had been using chemical weapons and under those circumstances, i ran had to succumb to the pressure. there is plenty of flaws in this but two of them i would like to bring up that are important. there was some clear choices that iran had. iran and ho,meini knew that if he drank a cup of poison, the war would end. if they drank a cup of boys and today, they don't know what will happen. will the sanctions be lifted? they may or may not. there is a lot of maybes. that was not the case in 1988. secondly, to obama's credit, obama is no saddam hussein meaning he is not a brutal ctator that does not have to deal with a pesky congress, it does not have to deal with the benjamin netanyahu government, does not have to deal with all the different things that obama has to deal with. saddam hussein did not have those things. if you disagree with saddam hussein, you would be dead. there are doubts of whether the

it is the ayatollah khamenei, the religious leaders and the iranian revolutionary guards corps whichs the nuclear weapons program. so when ahmadinejad disappears -- although he's fodder for us to talk about -- it's not going to change the policies of the regime. cheryl: i want to switch over to libya for just a moment. after losing chris stevens and the other americans there, there's a lot of pressure, a lot of people are pressuring susan rice to make more of a comment on the attack in the libya, frankly, they want her to backtrack her comments on the sunday morning talk shows when she said, oh, this was spore rad dick. you know, what should she do? what would you advise her to do? >> my guess is she was told to take one for the team, and they gave her this line, and she went out and peddled it on five sunday morning shows. she had no, no basis for any independent knowledge of what happened in libya. but i think, really, the problem is the administration's. it was an ideological response, they didn't want to admit that we had problems with al-qaeda still in libya, and now they're goi

on one hand the ayatollah khamenei and the mullahs. so can you give us a better sense of, you know, who can speak for iran, and under what circumstances? and then there's a larger question about the competition that happens. because i think in iran it's not a monolith. there are a lot of different factions. how does that play into all of this? >> if you compared iranian constitution with american constitution, you would see 95% of authorities of iranian supreme leader is like u.s. president. here the u.s. president ultimately should have the final say on foreign policy which many times he cannot like engagement policy with iran. he failed because he couldn't deliver. in iran the ultimate decision maker by constitution is supreme leader. but it has a process. we have foreign ministry, presidency, we have national security council which the speaker of parliament, head of judiciary, foreign minister, defense minister, interior minister, they all are there. and they discuss the issues. and they decide. then they send the decision for the l

february 14, 1989, valentine's day, a religious edict, a fatwa, was issued against him by the ayatollah khamenei. the fatwa called for his death "satanic verses" was accused of blasphemy against islam. he lived under the fatwa for nine years. on september 24, 1998 iran lifted the death threat against him. now he's written a memoir about those dark years called "joseph anton." i'm pleased to have salmon rushdie back at this table. >> thank you. >> it's always good to have you at this table. tell me about what you think is going on today about this movie. >> you know, i think in the-- of course this video of what may or may not be-- we don't even know if the movie exists. >> rose: it's a trailer, yeah. >> obviously i think that was a flash point. i feel now as we see it continuing that it's more than that. i don't think it's entirely about the movie anymore. i think unfortunately we live in an age of manufactured outrage. there's a kind of outrage industry where people deliberately pick things which they think can be used to incite large-scale violence. >> rose: if it involves mohammed it's likely

what i want to do is say that i think we have reason to believe that ayatollah khamenei and ahmadinejad and others who think like them may decide to use nuclear weapons, whether you want to make cultural, how can we say this theology is rational, it doesn't matter to me. the point is there are some people who have fewer inhibitions of that using nuclear weapons. khrushchev and kennedy thought to pull back immediately when khrushchev realized he finally understood the meaning of the word miscalculation. castro did not take that view. and that, we have to worry about that and you're in the middle east where you have famously rough neighborhood where people don't trust each other at all, or you don't have a superpower sponsor who could restrain, as khrushchev did, in 1962, who could restrain a surrogate. a client. so the point is that you do not want to have the stuff spread. ideally you don't want to spread anywhere, but you certainly don't want to give it to a country like iran. it's not going to make the world a safe place and we should do everything possible to see that they do not. >>

does not understand muslims deep reverence for the prophet mohammed during in supremely the ayatollah ali khamenei also expressed his anger with the mts long film and laid the blame for it not only on the us but on israel as well. as we just heard the though everything seems to be quiet now in this robot but the turbulence sparked by the film is getting closer. to your city so are are you ready are you expecting something to happen because because before that i was here previous question you seem pretty sure that everything is calm and everything will be calm in jerusalem well you know in the middle east you cannot predict. past so how could you even predict the future but the reality is that this is a privately developed film there is freedom of expression especially in the western world and of course in israel in jerusalem if people don't like it they can demonstrate they will get a license from us to demonstrate if they don't like it so we respect people's opinions we respect people's differences and as the mayor of the city of jerusalem there's no problem there's no problem if people want to e

iranian leadership about the degree of punishment because only the supreme leader, eye tole ya -- ayatollah khameneite a sentence. the local court acquitted him of apostasy or abandoning islam and convicted him of evangelism among muslims. they sentenced him to three years, he got credit for time served. many be believe, megyn, international pressure is what got him freed including media pressure from shows like "america live." jay sekulow, in the american center for law and justice, as we know, fought very long and hard for his freedom, and on this show in may jay sekulow predicted this would happen. listen. >> when the pressure continues, i believe he walks and so does his lawyer, and he's -- here's why. they don't do business the with the united states, but they do business with brazil, with the e.u., with germany. this becomes a diplomatic approach that has to be given here. >> reporter: now that said, the pastor's future is still very much a concern because two decades ago another christian pastor had his apostasy charge reversed, and two days later he was murdered when he got out of jail. now

he is the successor to the ayatollah khamenei who died several years ago.has a distorted view of the united states. it appears he is trying to block our efforts that might resolve this nuclear issue peacefully. make a sure there will crucial difference because power does resist with this supreme leader. we have a real problem with iran. they are trying to create a nuclear weapon. they have been very unhelpful in afghanistan and iraq. i would think that i ran would be the number one national security problem and i hope we can resolve it peacefully. we have to be tough-minded. host: david from connecticut -- joining us from boston. caller: how does the u.s. expect cooperation from china and russia on syria? every time there is a vote in the u.n., the u.s. videos that u.n. vote. i like to know -- the palestinians -- or was it a try to gain recently from the u.n. and it was vetoed by the u.s. and israel? ahmadinejad -- i heard he was misquoted on that statement or a wanted to wipe israel off the map. he wanted to say zionism was going to fall by its own volitio

he is the successor to ayatollah khamenei, who died many years ago. this supreme leader seems to be a very closed-minded person with a distorted view of the united states. it appears that he is one of the people trying to block our efforts to have negotiations that might resolve the nuclear issue peacefully. whether rafsanjani is the president or the speaker of parliament becomes president, i am not sure it will make a crucial difference, because the power rests with this very conservative, closed minded leader. we have a real problem with iran. the largest supporter of terrorism in the middle east. they are trying to create a nuclear weapon, which would be a disaster for all of us if they get eight. they have been very helpful -- unhelpful and afghanistan and iraq but whether it is obama or romney in the white house in 2013, i would think that iran is the number one national security problem here we have to be tough-minded and do whatever it takes to prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon. host: david, independent caller for nicklas burns. caller