i will ask the defense minister, ehud barak. then to another trouble spot, the afghanistan/pakistan region. with koran burnings -- the united states alone in the industrialized world is demo graphically dynamic. it adds 3 million peoples to the numbers every year and at some point, kids don't want to live with their parents and that will produce demand for housing and at that point, the recovery will gain full steam. the new potentially game-changing trend for the united states is the rise of shale gas, thanks to the new process of fracing, american now has 75 years of natural gas and most important, it is the world's low-cost producer of natural gas. the rise in gasoline prices and petroleum prices has obscured this much more important fact. energy costs are plummeting in america. that's why manufacturers like dow chemical are actually opening new factories in the united states. you see, asia has an advantage, lower labor costs, but now the u.s. has an advantage, lower energy costs than asia. and this is a process that has just

in that sense they're probably out of step where prime minister netanyahu and ehud barak are because i think they would be willing to take action without the united states. said as much in his apac speech. as it relates to the arab spring, we don't know, but i think we need to be very careful about either israeli or american action in the current context because of the renal nal dimics. for one thing, it would allow iran to play the victim and through its retaliation against us or israel's resuscitated street cred as the champion of resistance in the region, something that's suffered in the arab spring, a popular phenomen phenomenon, and as a consequence, the appeal in the region is in the toilet right now and i think an attack would allow them to start to pull up from that dissent. i also think it would allow islamists in the muslim brotherhood and other who is don't like the iranians very much to nevertheless use a strike against another muslim country to demonize the israelis, to demonize the americans. so as populism takes hold in this part of the world more and more, we have to

and because they do have this as matt referenced, what ehud barak has referred to a zone of immunity because of their limited military capabilities, i think there's a decent likelihood they'll strike in the coming months. i don't think that this administration can do anything more than it's already done over recent years or the previous administrations have done to convince the israelis otherwise. just because i do think that the israeli assessment which seems similar to our assessment is that iran is getting increasingly close to at least having that capacity to make a final push towards a nuclear weapon if it's so designed. >> just two quick points. one is i, surprise, surprise, agreeing with matt on both. one is that i don't think the latent capability is a highly likely outcome. i think it's a low probability toward which we should work and i think it's a probability that decreases if we strike iran. so i think the most likely outcome of not striking is iranian nuclearization. i just think we can contain that. the second point is i think israel has not only for operational reason

israeli defense minister ehud barak pointing out israel never promised not to attack iran during next's scheduled talks over its nuclear perhaps. this comes two days after the israeli prime minister said iran got a freebee when the west decide to schedule the next talks sometime in late may. >> reporter: this is a case of the israelis trying to ratchet up the pressure on the iranians and the united states and make the world think there is a real possibility israel is going to attack sometime sooner than later. you also have to look at this in the context of u.s. presidential politics. iran has raised their level of rhetoric. we had a military parade today and they have been tough in their language. however, the united states said lately they believe a man is willing to make a deal. you can look at this as one of two ways. either iran is doing what they have done in the past, that they have more time to work on their nuclear program or they are willing to make a deal. israel is neither hopeful nor optimistic about this. also right now experts are saying the window is closing when an is

ehud barak is now at the pentagon meeting with our defense secretary. why? >> well, i guess the main point, megyn, is that the talks in istanbul did absolutely nothing to stop the centrifuges in tehran. what's happening is iran is using its famous delay and maneuver tactics to buy time, and it's now just bought another six weeks, until may 23rd. they've tripled the pace of production of high-grade uranium. they're moving, rapidly moving their facilities underground so they won't be vulnerable to attacks. they're testing neutron generators. these guys are absolutely serious about acquiring a weapon, and the west at the same time is doing nothing except talking. so the bottom line is that america and the west have to show plausible, a plausible threat if we want to have any chance of stopping iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. megyn: and yet there is, obviously, real controversy in the thought of israel and/or the united states bombing iran over its nuclear program. and both sides that participated in these falks with iran -- talks last week with iran descri

us to say, co-man khamen khamenei, talking about the fatwa, and it's part of the deception and ehud baraknn saying it's part of islam, you can lie in islam. it's not that simple. it's very difficult to reverse a fatwa and it's very difficult to be, it's very difficult to not just reverse a fatwa, but the circumstance under which you can lie in islam, is really only to do with faith. and that's within the shiite faith, where if -- >> if they were discovered, is the tradition here which is a sort of -- a kind of protective lying to say that you are actually sunni, which is the majority -- >> otherwise you could be behended. >> if only there was an international agency that could actually determine the answer to these questions, we wouldn't have to rely on the utterances of supreme leaders. >> there is an -- >> they have not. they have all the outstanding questions. and the iranians have kept access to these things -- >> which one, which one? you're talking about çparchim. >> you're talking about more than that. >> there's a list of these places. >> i love how people in america can just mak

>> i think the average israeli certainly shares netanyahu's and defense minister ehud barak's generalm. they certainly understand that iran is an implacable enemy. everyone understands. and everyone agrees also that their nuclear program constitutes a menace. all of this is not a subject of debate here. the question is what do to do in the face of this. i think that the average israeli is concerned that somebody might on the spur of the moment be tempted to resort to an adventure. and doing the right thing is one thing, and resorting to an adventure is another thing. and israelis, at least who are middle-aged remember very, very i would say traumatically the adventure of 1982 in lebanon. this is one thing that people want to avoid. beyond that, there's the longer-term concern that israelis understand, i'm sure netanyahu also understands this, that iran is transarab. it is not an arab country demographically, nationally, historicly, civilizationally speaking and geographically, it is beyond the arab world. and the israelis recall the days when prerevolutionary iran was israel's ally. >

this has been widely discussed in israel, most recently and most forcefully by ehud barak, the former prime minister, now the defense minister, who has said that this is a painful choice that israel should not have to make. the second challenge arises from technology. to keep out suicide bombers, israel built an enormous wall. but the real threat now comes not from suicide bombers, but from rockets. hamas has thousands of them along israel's southern border. they are crude, lacking in guidance or destructive power, but they do create fear and anxiety, and no one can doubt that over time, they will have more and better rockets. on israel's northern border, hezbollah already has tens of thousands of them. the public estimates range from 30,000 to 50,000. they are somewhat more effective, and though limited in range, hezbollah is engaged in efforts to upgrade their rocket systems. finally, and most ominously, iran now has rockets that can reach israel from iran itself. they don't yet have the precision weapons that are needed to strike very specific military targets, but they could cause

this has been widely discussed in israel, most recently and most forcefully by ehud barak, the formerme minister, now the defense minister, who has said that this is a painful choice that israel should not have to make. the second challenge arises from technology. to keep out suicide bombers, israel built an enormous wall. but the real threat now comes not from suicide bombers, but from rockets. hamas has thousands of them along israel's southern border. they are crude, lacking in guidance or destructive power, but they do create fear and anxiety, and no one can doubt that over time, they will have more and better rockets. on israel's northern border, hezbollah already has tens of thousands of them. the public estimates range from 30,000 to 50,000. they are somewhat more effective, and though limited in range, hezbollah is engaged in efforts to upgrade their rocket systems. finally, and most ominously, iran now has rockets that can reach israel from iran itself. they don't yet have the precision weapons that are needed to strike very specific military targets, but they could cause eno

this has been widely discussed in israel, most recently and forcefully by ehud barak, prime minister and now the defense minister, who has said that this is a painful choice that israel should not have to make. the second challenge arises from technology. to keep out suicide bombers, israel built an enormous wall, but the real threat now comes not from suicide bombers, but from rockets. hamas has thousands of them along israel's southern border. they are crude, lacking in guidance for destructive power but they do create fear and anxiety, and no no one can doubt that over time, they will have more and better rockets. on israel's northern border, hezbollah already has tens of dozens of them. the public estimates range from 30,000 to 50,000. they are somewhat more effective and although limited in range, hezbollah is engaged in an effort to upgrade their rocket systems. finally, and most ominously, i ran now has rockets that can reach israel from i ran itself. they don't yet have the position weapons that are needed to strike very specific military targets, but they can cause enormous

being bluntly critical of the prime minister and ehud barak in terms of their rhetoric on iran? what, what does that mean? what does what is going on in israel in terms of the disk and and in terms of the muted sense more muted yesterday in new york how does that tie into the gaps between israel and the united states on iran? david? >> i would say, we need a little historical perspective on this if you go back. 1981, between '81 and iran today but if you look at israeli decision-making in '81 there is much more similarity than you would think. a the guy head of the mossad he was against an attack. the head of military intelligence was against the attack. in other words you had leaders of the military defense establishment in israel that thought this was a mistake. and there was no defense minister. weitzman had resigned over the differences with begi in the talks. begin was the prime minister and begin was the defense minister. what i take for that story, analogies are never perfect. do not underestimate political leadership. at the end it is a political decision. begin imposed

this has been widely discussed in israel, most recently and most forcefully by ehud barak, the former prime minister, now the defense minister, who has said that this is a painful choice that israel should not have to make. the second challenge arises from technology. to keep out suicide bombers, israel built an enormous wall. but the real threat now comes not from suicide bombers, but from rockets. hamas has thousands of them along israel's southern border. they are crude, lacking in guidance or destructive power, but they do create fear and anxiety, and no one can doubt that over time, they will have more and better rockets. border,l's northern hezbollah already has tens of thousands of them. the public estimates range from 30,000 to 50,000. they are somewhat more effective, and though limited in range, hezbollah is engaged in efforts to upgrade their rocket systems. finally, and most ominously, iran now has rockets that can reach israel from iran itself. they don't yet have the precision weapons that are needed to strike very specific military targets, but they could cause enormous

that by a lot of israelis within israel has allowed us of the top leadership buster.yahoo with ehud barak had this viewpoint that even a virtual nuclear iran is very dangerous. whereas, i would argue they do not want even in iranian nuclear capability, it is better able to handle that capability are not our israeli entries. president obama has stated that it's not his policies, for reelection and policies can change after presidents are like it. so there is a possibility even that the united states could move towards a policy containment towards iran. i don't think this is something israelis want. and not just israelis, but other allies in the middle east, especially the arab countries in the persian gulf. >> time for tumor questions. on the side i have two folks. keep your hand up either, great. >> arms control association. i agree with the assessment of this bill of handling israeli pressure in large, but it does seem in the process of doing that, he ended up making it very clear promise that if the iran move to acquire a nuclear weapons, he would respond with military action, which is