si on iran. it is a judgment by this administration and the previous few administrations that an iranian nuclear weapon is a significant threat to u.s. rvitl national interests in a vital region. israel factors in making certain decisions but not in the ultimate course. i also think there's been some in evidence the last couple months that this administration isn't prisoner to israeli desires on this. how do i know that? because if this administration had been prisoner to those desires, obama would have laid out much clearer red lines than he did at the apac conference. we would have green lit an israeli attack on iran already instead of basically telling them not to do it and we think it's a bad idea. and we would have -- or we would have committed to doing it ourselves. now, i mean, this is a viable option. how do i know? because half the republican candidates running for president have suggested exactly, you know, green lighting an israeli attack or doing it jointly or doing it ourselves, clai

on the fence about whether iran needs a deterrent or not that they need one. so i don't want that conversation to happen. i want a different conversation to happen where they dial back their nuke clears and we can continue to hammer out -- it's not, ternl actors dropping bombs. >> colin pointed out a strike on iran's nuclear facilities could have negative consequences in terms of internal, domestic political events in iran. others have pointed out you might get this rally effect in the short tem but that over time it could leave to criticism for bringing the crisis on the country. so in the long term it could weaken the current regime. it might very well being the case that a strike would strengthen the current regime. i think getting nuclear weapons would strengthen them as well. it would buy them some legitimacy. both of those scenarios you're possibly looking at a stronger regime. >> president obamaia ahmadinejad's tern ends next year. are there things we're not thinking of that could impact the discussions of iran's nuclear capabilities. if you could each

for the first time ever a special rapporteur on iran. several strong resolutions on syria including the establishment of a commission of inquiry that has revealed so much about assad's abuses. kicking libya out in a special session. and there too an important commission of inquiry that has shed the light on gadhafi-era abuses. important resolutions on sudan, burma, north korea, democratic republic of congo, et cetera. a new rapporteur for the first time on freedom of assembly and association. and a working group of experts to prevent discrimination against women. among many other positive steps. with respect to u.n. women, let me say we very much strongly supported the establishment of u.n. women. we supported its growth and development. the challenge now is for it to become a presence in the field and provide tangible support to women on the ground. our resources, our 7.9 in the request, is meant for the core budget to do just that, to help it establish programs in the field. we think that's the most important step that we can take in th

iran, one of the concerns of a military action would be what iran could do in response militarily. i think it's important to point out iran doesn't have a powerful conventional military. that's not really a response option. it has been investing in a symmetric capabilities. it has ties to terrorist groups and has ballistic missiles and could cause a problem in the persian gulf. those would be the options. i do think in the event of a strike if they think the regime is at risk that they have nothing left to lose, that they koes exercise some of these more extreme retaliatory options including possibly trying to close the strait of hormuz. it's important if we decide to use military force we are very clooer in our public statements and private messaging and our targeting we're only interested in a limited strike against the key nuclear facilities, not after coming after the regime. i think iran can get that message. we have a number of ways of communicating with them. and i think that we can also play on iran's fierce. put yourself in the shoes of the supreme leader. your primary goa

jefferson or madison or franco on washington would respond to iran. i think they would they would test on me and because the founders of this country they swore they believed in altruism they served their nation and you know in my book i describe the conversation i had with your own brooklyn's who is the head of the of the i mean his duties from israel and israel he used telling me and i read in the book how he really didn't like the aspect of israeli society she he's from israel which involved sacrifice for the nation what this is what the hundreds were on sacrificing for the nation they sacrificed their fortunes and their lives for the nation of the rest practicing you know the philosophy of iran and the bomb with the british they may not have gone but with a provision in fact i've talked with iran many times debated many times and he's just right out front the objective is start believe in democracy in small democracy for example tell me about william william edward hickman and his influence on iran . well i don't think it's so much of an influence

you know i think many distinctions were lost on iran i think iran simply did not understand the american people you know in a century sort of had to have a connection with the way americans thought but i think in a deeper sense if you look at her philosophy she simply did not understand the american people she didn't understand american values and what you see her in in all of her books you see her would you would be aiding american values one after another in the judeo christian values in particular so what would america look like if iran was running the show or if one of her accolades or devotes he's like what arrives redemption. well what you'd see you would see basically a dismantlement of government you'd see every aspect of government with benefits people would just go away all they would have left would be the army you would have a police force and you'd have the courts and that was basically if i was her vision of america were basically the united states would be run by corporations and since they'd have no barriers to merge to merger or it may be no way to trust barriers it woul

, the united states has i think been very effective in imposing tough sanctions on iran. i sprongly support that policy both bilateral and multilateral to stop iran in its tracks. now i think everyone would agree that sanctions seem to be having an impact on the iranian economy. it's probably deflated about 50%. but do you see any evidence that the regime is seriously interested in ending or even delaying its nuclear program? >> let me reiterate what i said and this is the starting point for any discussion on iran. as president obama has repeated, the united states will not toll rat or accept an iran with a nuclear weapon. we will take necessary actions to prevent that from occurring. we think the surest way to underscore and rule out any future prospect of an iranian nuclear weapon is for iran to do as other countries have done and that is to give up its nuclear program. the best means of accomplishing that remains through a negotiated agreement. that is why we have increased the pressure successfully on iran with the aim of trying to change its calculus so it comes to

rather than a military one but in one nine hundred fifty one iran nationalized its petroleum it kicked out the what is now b.p. the anglo iranian oil company and as a result the british empire put a an embargo on iranian petroleum trying to convince nobody to buy it and then the us joined in under eisenhower and that embargo deeply harmed the iranian economy it caused labor strikes that caused crowd protests and weaken the prime minister and then the cia and the british intelligence on opportunity and they got up a plot to overthrow the elected prime minister of iran and his elected parliament and to put the shah on the throne so that when you when you start something like thoroughgoing. embargoes against another nation it can draw you in because you want the policy to be successful if you're afraid that the embargo will slip and you'll lose chris stevens you might be tempted into covert action or even a military attack as happened with with iraq so these deep sanctions profound economic sanctions or even embargoes are a slippery slope and they can

on "uss-china policy, u.s.-russian policy, and policy approaches towards a nuclear iran. his articles have appeared in many policy journals including foreign policy and the national interest, orbis, foreign service journal and others and he also has appeared on many television and radio networks. with that i will get out of the way and introduce our first speaker, michael adler. michael? >> good morning, and thank you all for coming here. >> would you please speak from the podium. thank you very much. >> oh really? okay. good morning. when i first was asked to the topic here today is can diplomacy work. when i was first asked to do this which was before the meeting of benjamin netanyahu and president obama in washington and they had asked meet to defend the concept of diplomacy could work, i thought this will would be a very thankless task. it is amazing how much things have changed over the past month in the month of march. and the first development was that the rush to war which seemed to be accelerating ground to a halt. not a screeching halt but a halt anyway, there's

iran. with me i have danny i know and the deputy israeli foreign minister thank you very much for joining us here on our pleasure to be here is israel preparing for war with iran. israel is not preparing for war in iran because we believe you run can be stopped through diplomatic and economic means iran use a very vulnerable and weak country economically politically socially but it all depends on a united front by the entire international community and if the indeed there will be enforced biting sanctions we will not need to resort to any other means so why all of the war rhetoric coming from government well. mostly it is media reports so we are not responsible for that however we do emphasize that iran he's a threat. not only to israel but to begin tire of the international community you've spoken for harsher sanctions on iran what sanctions just making radio national's close rank and support a government more fervently you know and this is a challenge that we have to address and we have been addressing you because we have nothing against the great iranian people the persian people in fact when you

on march 5th the iran an supreme court ordered the retrial of a former u.s. marine sentenced to death for supposedly spying for the cia. on march 13th the u.s. deported back to iran an arms dealer who had been caught in a sting operation in the republic of georgia a few years earlier. in this country it was revealed that our treasury department has begun an investigation into the former governor of pennsylvania, ed rendel, and several others for taking money to promote an organization called the mu jadin hulk, on the state department's terrorism list that has been trying to get off the terrorism list for years and has been paying very, very well known former u.s. officials great sums of money to advocate getting off the terrorism list. they have not gotten off the list. they were supposed to be i think on march 26th deadline for the state department to rule that deadline is gone. i would predict that there will be no decision on this issue certainly before the nuclear talks and this is another signal to iran because the iran an government hates this organizati

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 the air defenses you would need to get to those facilities. so this is a limited strike that, depending on iranian retaliation, could be over in days or weeks, not a decades-long ground war. >> josh? >> a quick follow-up on what regime change would actually look like and what we would do in the aftermath. i'm very dubious of regime change. the last decade has caused me to be very dubious of this. you're talking about undoing an existing political order. no matter how odious or rotten it is, it is in place and is in charge and they have procedures for doing things like making and storing fissile material. in the event of rejeemp change, those would be in debt. so in that case, it strikes me you can't just be happy with regime change because if they've done all of this enrichment up until now and they've done all this nuclear work, that stuff is still going to be there in the irk vent of a regime change. would y

well the sanctions are putting enormous pressure on iran the iranian middle class is nearly disappearing people can't afford to travel anymore that the iranian currency is losing its value against the dollar it's bad times in iran because of u.s. sanctions and now they even want to try to start of the government of the funds coming in from the oil sales so there isn't any doubt that enormous pressure is being put on iran but it can't have a total result you can't have the result of stopping their nuclear enrichment program altogether because that program is a guarantee from their point of view of future energy independence and we hear about energy independence all the time in america well that's what the iranians meant to. so what we what might we see then instead if the sanctions are not actually going to have an effect on iran's program of reaching irradiance if they can move towards energy independence as you said you know what are the adverse effects going to be on just the global economy. well the sanctions are being put on iran in order to get them to stop enriching uranium as i sa

whether it's israel israel has thought it had seven hundred nuclear weapons and is the one who threatens to strike iran so who is the real danger in the region usually is the only country in the world that has been threatened by other forces. to be exterminated we on the other hand have never threatened anyone else he's really has a very very clear position that we will not be the first to introduce a nuclear weapon if you are in the middle east we keep this. policy and. you may say we get worse position for decades and this is also a matter of highest national interest. policy for ambiguity is one of the cornerstone of our policy so to compare the situation or to compare israel with any other country is just wrong you cannot compare apples to oranges what about this country's ever increasing self isolation which is considered a major failure of israel's foreign policy well this is something that i'd like to take issue with i'm not at all feeling that we are isolated and you cannot really measure isolation only by your rhetoric from. opposing countries or not even by resolutions in the united nations i

our program focuses on the sanctions imposed on iran by the united states and others and the prospect of military confrontation. this program is the latest of a series of programs the council has hosted that have looked at america's on going problems with our releases with the islamic republic of iran. in january, the council hosted dr. treta parsi, obama's diplomat sit with iran author, that program has already been broadcast on our weekly television program and can be viewed through the council's website and our youtube channel. tonight we have a debate that will address the effectiveness of the sanctions regime in place and the wisdom involved in instigating military action in an attempt to deal with iran's nuclear development. dug dr. colin kahl and dr. matthew kroenig will be our speakers. il leave it to our moderator to introduce them. it is my pleasure to introduce our moderator beverly kirk, ce owe o of bev kirk international, and she is a member of the world affairs council. previously she willing and chored late news report for news channel 8. she anchored hourly news briefe

so i don't think you can bet on their rationality. iran is giving its terror proxies hamas in gaza, hezbollah in lebanon, it's giving them the most advanced lethal weapons. whatever weapons they have, they use them. they've fired now 10,000 rockets on israeli cities. they have been helping them to murder diplomats worldwide and to kill american soldiers in afghanistan. think of what they'd do with nuclear weapons. i don't think you want them to bet the peace in the middle east and the security of the world on iran's rational behavior. i think it's a much safer bet to do what i and president obama and others have said, prevent iran from acquiring atomic bombs. >> one thing that's interesting, though, when you talk about the nuclear parts of the regime, there is a jewish member of parliament in tehran. and one of the most popular soap operas there was zero degree turn. the main character, an iranian, falls in love with a jewish woman, he helps smuggle jews out of paris to save them from the holocaust. it's very popular in iran. what makes yo

do you see that iran taking it out on u.s. and u.s. not allowing such a thing to happen where you, where iraq become as battlefield and a proxy war happens? >> so your question is how would iran react to sanctions regionally? >> correct. >> iran is reacting to u.s. policies overall in the region not just specifically on sanctions but we have to look at the entire u.s. policy towards iran. iran is influential in iraq. it is hoping that the u.s. withdraws from afghanistan without maintaining permanent presence in afghanistan. iran is very much against any sort of status forces agreement between the united states and the afghan government and it's exerting a lot of pressure and influence in afghanistan, including arming the taliban in a very limited manner. so there are ways to exercise this power. reports suddenly that iran is also helping rebels in yemen, the rebels in the north and potentially al qaeda, and this is just not meant for the united states. it's also a signal to saudi arabia and countries like the uae that are supporting the

iran. any. one would be either hostile to iran or. corporation with iran as much as the bashar al assad regime has been so iran is tending to lose its supply of weapons to the syrian opposition enough to upset the regional arms balance right now no right no what i think saudi arabia started and started to were supplying them with weapons but we're talking about like weapons so this as far as or as long as that is what is happening i don't think this will change them in the balance of power in the middle east they're still very weak as a possible but they can be simultaneous interventions in syria and iran doesn't seem likely i don't see the european european union or nato going into syria and i don't see the european union or nato. taking part in an attack against iran this could be nato could. you know who would try to draw the europeans into attacking targets in iran doesn't seem very likely you have to accept here thank you very much for joining us here on r.t. you're welcome. issues that so much of isn't limited to the people at t

if iran enriches above 20% toward the 90%, i think that would be one red line. if we don't act then, iran will have nuclear weapons. a second would february iran kicked out international inspectors. inspectors on the ground in iran visiting the nuclear facilities about every two weeks, writing detailed reports every three weeks or so. so we can know that they are not -- have some confidence that they're not enriching above 20%. if they kick out the inspectors, that would be evidence they were up to no good and would be another red line that if they crossed, we should take military action. now there are some other things, i think, that would cause me some concern. so there are things that -- let me back up. right now experts estimate that if iran made the decision today to enrich to 90%, that it could have enough material for its first weapon in about four months. but that timeline is shrinking as iran brings more and more centrifuges online, increases stockpifls 20% low-enriched uranium. experts predict by the end of this year, december 2012, that timeline will h

iran as it goes through election ps. >> dr. kron anything? >> i agree with peter on that. >> yes, sir. >> i have a ten-secretary comment. negotiating with iran is a little bit like doing the hokie pokey. they're entering their second year. there's a that have been involved. my question is dr. kahl said one of your points was that in 60 years there have only been nine countries that violated -- we've only gone nuclear, nine countries have gone nuclear. we have not only the three mentions thatty of you have mentioned, saudi arabia, but also nigeria, bahrain, have all announced military programs. pakistan is building two more heavy water processing plants, a second chemical processing plant. the nine countries within the context of the u.s.-soviet competition now are within the context of the middle east and the sunni/shi'a ferocity. my question is doesn't that change the likelihood of more countries getting nukes? >> it could. we have to be very careful. one of the countries you mentioned was the uae. we should hope every country develops their nuclear program the way

if iran is throwing its weight around in the region, the region could be nor crisis proned. any one of these crises could spiral out of control. i don't think iran would intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war, but given the polar nuclear environment, i think that there are a lot of possibilities for accidental or inadvertent nuclear exchange. given the small size of israel, a nuclear exchange involving israel could very well mean the end of the state of israel. and once iran has ballistic missiles capable of reaching the east coast of the united states, which experts estimate could be in as little as five years, one of these could result in nuclear exchange on the east coast of the united states. so these are serious threats that the united states would have to deal with. so as president obama said, a nuclear iran is unacceptable. a u.s. military strike could almost certainly destroy iran's key nuclear facilities. this could set iran back. i estimate it would set iran's program back between three to ten years. iran could end up permanently without permanent weapons. there's a s

is iran take it out on u.s. and not allowing such a thing to happen where iraq recounts the battlefield and a proxy war happens? >> the question is how would iran react to sanctions recently? >> iran is react into u.s. policy is overall in the region not specifically on sanctions, but you have to look at the higher u.s. policy towards iran. iran is potential in iraq and is hoping from afghanistan without maintaining permanent from afghanistan. iran is very much again any source agreement in the afghan government entities exerting including arming those airwaves around can exercise. this is not meant for the united states in the signal to saudi arabia and the uae and the sanctions regime against iran. again, looking at sanctions there are drawbacks and the drawbacks that iran can we encounter u.s. interests when it is faced by sanctions. they're a very powerful act carries in the region and the fact that iran has threat to the strata for those in itself and not of deterrence and retaliation, oil prices have gone u

it would not to stop with a surgical strike on iran. what's the likelihood of that? there are experts that do not think that is something that would happen. it would just be limited to the u.s., israel, and iran. >> i am laughing if israel gets dragged into the equation, this is an entirely different ball game. i think if we did it, we would make sure the israelis did not go along with costs. we want to have a large coalition as possible. the israelis have an amazing military, but they do not add any capabilities that we do not already have. if the united states went alone, however, israel would still get dragged into it. the iranians did not draw any distinctions between israel and the united states. they think the great satan and a little segments are at the same entity. -- satan are the same entity. what they want to be able to do is position themselves against the zionist crusader. the way they would try to drag israel and is to get groups like hezbollah and hamas and others to do rocket attacks into israel. once you start that bolt rowling, there is a chance of a

iran. and essentially both countries were on the same side. e iran was helping pay the northern alliance composed of pro-irani pro-iranian groups. actually iran was probably the biggest supporter of the northern alliance along with russia, ind, et cetera. and there were even reports that iran helped provide intelligence to the united states in battling the taliban. the former commander in chech of the iranian revolutionary guard in an interview stated that there were iranian intel officers that were helping u.s. forces combat the taliban. and after the taliban was overthrown iran played a crucial role in establishing the karzai bomb in 2002. i want to go into great detail, my colleague at the rand corporation, ambassador james davins, worked directly to establish the karzai government. so i recommend you read his writing on the issue. but iran played an essential role in creating the karzai government and making sure that the northern alliance didn't dominate the karzai government to an extent it would really upset and destabilize the governmen

eric cantor joins us, and general barry mccaffrey on iran mobilizing for a cyber war to destroy the american economy. that's kudlow report just moments away.

the other side of that in terms of people that have signed on to the deal. we censor iran. and in our mind we have an "or else" statement at that end. i think the rest of the world doesn't really have an "or else" on the end of the security council resolutions or any other statements. we need to get our mind around that. if we decide there's an "or else," it will be us and a very small group, should it come to that. it's conservatives to have particular views about the united nations tend to endorse the idea that the security council sanctions should bite in important ways. i think we would probably have to make large, probably prohibitively large concessions at the outset to get iranians to believe that we're serious about diplomacy. if you look at 1737, 1747, i think it's probably unlikely that iran is going to agree to suspend outright as those indicate. and i think we would probably have to do something in terms of the unilateral sanctions from washington or from europe in order to convince the iranians that we were serious. i also think that that's probably a politica

just remember that the distance from the united arab emirates to on all the new iran is as far as from israel maybe even longer so. this kind of a landing rights would be helpful in case of attacking targets or in one thousand you run another. covertly aid might be but again it's problematic and maybe given by a. bunch on the north side of the rain and border they have no good relations with israel trouble is that to get from israel to a bridge and you have to overfly turkey and at the moment i don't see with the current relations between israel and turkey i don't see the turks giving and you again if we look across the border at syria why is serious so important for western nations could it be that it's the last obstacle before any invasion of iran that is tough one way syria is important. is it important i mean to to the west and the state i don't see any western country in the intervening in syria as they did in libya and yet there is so much attention and focus on syria and particularly on the president bashar assad's handling of the situation so how do you explain that where the.

he has said iran's nuclear proliferation, he said all options are on the table. he says he is not bluffing or in favor of containing a nuclear iran. he says it is unacceptable. it is clear. the question is, do we have to become even clear in the way that that suggests? i do not now. i think it is pretty clear. we have another hundredth -- 100,000 forces. i think they get it. we are there and we are present. the thing i am worried about from people who want to be to the war drum, we have to calibrate this because the iran in regime could believe we are so committed to military action that diplomacy is an illusion. we are trying to check the box on the way to war. like the bush administration was accused of doing. that could be a self to tilling prophecy. or you make of the threats so overt that becomes difficult to back down. he says we will not give in to pressure or threats. if you start to threaten the regime, it becomes that much harder to give them a way out that would save face. i think we have calibrated in just about right. not being too loose about war or

sovereign country in fact contrary to the claim made earlier that the international community is united on iran it is not a nonaligned movement which consists of three sets of the country of the world supporting iran but in the west the nonaligned movement in other words the majority of the world tonight are not considered as the international community the international community as well as our western countries they represent us and they're the ones who make the decisions. in their eyes the riots are not going to accept that the iranians are working with the frame within the framework of the of international law and they will continue to do so those countries that are not pursue a working within the framework of international law are those countries that are threatening iran with a military attack which is barbaric those countries which have placed an embargo on the iranian central bank in order to prevent iran from even importing rice that is barbaric that is inhuman those countries that are forcing third countries from from not purchasing iranian oil they want to destroy the iranian economy

have to make this tough choice between acquiescing to a nuclear-armed iran or taking military action. i was afraid we would wake up one morning and iran would have nuclear weapons, a situation that would be threatening to u.s. national security without having had this discussion. so i'm delighted simply to have the discussion. colin pointed out there are risks to a strike. i agree with that. colin pointed out that we have some time for diplomacy. i agree with that. i think we have less time than colin thinks. i think the risks of a strike are less grave than colin said. but nothing colin said leads me to back away from my conclusion, if we're faced with this difficult choice, a strike is the least bad option. >> thank you. >> you know, i think, actually, the tone of -- and the assumptions that one brings into this issue are really important. you know, and i think ultimately matt and i have done this now four or five times. it's like barnum & bailey. we go from city to city doing this thing. the problem i ultimately have, i think my discomfort kmcomes from the fact that on the one hand i'm nervous about adeveloping wor

the moment is no president obama is not remotely interested in waging war against iran so let's be clear about that no one at the top of the united states military establishment is interested in waging war against iran and the intelligence community has made it abundantly clear that iran is nowhere near the development of a nuclear warhead or the capacity to deliver one so we had those things up it's very very obvious that it least in the places that count the white house the department of defense there is no interest in waging a war on iran and let me say something that's so great there is a great push from israeli influence groups not president obama to just back a potential strike and as you said they had ministration says the iranians haven't even decided to build a bomb so all this war talk is based on what it's based really on i think the american israeli public affairs committee and it's a subordinate elements or affiliated elements they represent enormous quantities of money that over many years have cultivated enormous influence and power in congress and you simply are talking is just to appease

together a couple of weeks ago you said it was not in is all interest to launch a military strike on iran why do you think is also not striking around i don't think that the israeli air force is large enough or strong enough to actually destroy the iranian nuclear weapon project it might cause damage some damage but it would not. destroy it so it would not achieve anything do you think that the u.s. would consider carburated with israel in such a strike but quietly it's first of all those no quietly in this issue because things would tend to come out sooner or later so to begin with. on the one hand i think president obama has not truly blow out an american strike yet even though his military is very reluctant to get into another war in the middle east i don't think you would do it during an election year so contact the reason for it or to launch a strike now before there's a new american leadership in place. there is a stink there is a fear in the united states that is what we are going to do that an israeli attack mode draw the united states into that war probably prematurely it would f

one on first on pakistan and then on iran. with regard to pakistan, this august senator winehouse and michael bennett and i traveled to both afghanistan and pakistan with really one focus of our trip. and that was this question of ieds and the material components of. the four of us sent you a letter just recently that you may have just got an number of days ago. i want to ask you about that topic. but i guess wanted to focus your attention on what the pakistanens have done or not done. i would argue that despite the assurances they gave us on our trip, and i mean assurances at the highest level of their government that they would take this matter more seriously and they would implement the strategic plan they had in writing that they presented to us. it's my judgment, to say they are very slow in implementing that, to focus on the networks that are moving these component parts that become the foundation of these road side bombs, ieds, whatever we refer to them as, either killing our troops on a regular basis in afghanistan or g

from here to here. >> with all the focus on iran, what about egypt? oreign minister said that could be a bigger threat to you than iran. >> well, you know, i'm not sure that's correct quote but certainly where he is concerned with iran and we are both concerned with the direction of egypt and i hope that any government that establishes in egypt understands that peace between egypt and his real is as much an egyptian interest as it is an israeli interest and i hope to continue the peace. that's our desire. >> just for the record, the quote was in the jerusalem post from the foreign minister on egypt. and obviously, it is an ongoing debate what is really going on between these two countries right now but that moment when he stayed this is the middle east answered gestured to north africa and put his thumb on israel, such an interesting moment, it makes an interesting point. and then, well, someone in our bureau here in jerusalem said, wait a minute, you have to look at this i said who is that? well, it was prime minister netanyahu, who, at the time deput

but iran has been under sanctions for 30 years. and he believes that their progress on the nuclear program shows that its able to resist the united states. when you listen to how many spee speeches, this is a constant theme. he emphasizes iran's progress. last friday's speech was all about how iran is ranked number 11th in terms of scientific progress. this is what he claims, et cetera, et cetera. of course, hominy's viewpoint is not necessarily shared by all iranians. within the political elite, also the leaders of the green movement, reformists may not see the nuclear program in a similar ideological and political terms. in fact, the isolation iran has faced, the sanctions hurts the socioeconomic agenda of pragmatic conservatives who want to liberalize iran's economy, open it up to the world and have political reforms. but this is not hominy's mindset. very much, compared to these other figures rs an isolationist and an ideological leader. it's not clear how the iranian public feels about the nuclear program. we hear that there is a sense of national pride. a lot of i

places that count at the white house the department of defense there is no interest in waging a war on iran and let me say something that's so great there is a great push from israeli influence course on president obama to back a potential strike and as you said the administration says the iranians haven't even decided to build a bomb so all this war talk is based on what it's based really on i think the american israeli public affairs committee and it's a subordinate elements are affiliated elements that represent enormous quantities of money that over many years have cultivated enormous influence and power in congress and you simply are talking is just to appease the lobbyists well i think you've got a lot of people on the hill who fall into two categories one category that is interested in money and wants to be real. acted and they don't want to run the risk of the various lobbies that are that are pushing military action against iran to contribute money to their opponents colonel macgregor some say the leadership see this summer as that window of opportunity that they don't want to put

iran's interests are not just based on religion. the islamic republic doesn't let religion get in its way. it does things that we wouldn't think are -- you know, that would be contradictory for its interests. iran supports lots of sunni and shia groups despite being a shia state. it has ties with the taliban in the same group that has killed iranian diplomats and conducted attacks against iran. but when it comes to foreign policy often, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and that's how the view on the taliban. that doesn't mean that it will view the taliban as a friend in the future because i think that two groups are fundamentally to poetzed to each other. but it allows for a certain degree of cooperation as long as the united states is in power or has troops in afghanistan. in terms of pakistani support from jendola, it might not have been active. pakistan has problems policing its borders. to jend la might have used pakistan's borders. interesting, iran put a lot of pressure against pakistan and made accusations, but remember, af