into their crisis and these policies seem to be spreading globally as a response to this crisis in the united states the european union and increasingly the world and i think it's very dangerous because my wife so we've done this once before you know the famous american literary figure mark twain once used to say that history doesn't repeat itself but it certainly rhymes well in the one nine hundred thirty s. and actually one thousand nine hundred says well we had governments in germany japan and italy all try austerity policies in response to crises which they experienced and with all of them within a couple of years they opted for military fascist regimes as responses so you see it is something that people. radicalization of political class that in the fact that you also had radical nationalists within their respective militaries who were not happy with just how much their nations were being weakened so i'm not suggesting that we'll see an exact repetition of that but what i am suggesting is that we're playing with fire by introducing these austerity policies and they're really really hurti

is not so much about the america as a great nation but rather the end all thirteen policies by the united states government that you view as no longer sustainable yes definitely and in fact i also find the term somewhat problematic because it's very value laden as you suggest but what i'm very concerned about is the introduction of these austerity policies frankly which have been the primary response of not only the u.s. government but also of the european union to their crisis and these policies seem to be spreading globally as a response to this crisis in the united states the european union and increasingly the world and i think it's very dangerous because my wife so we've done this once before you know the famous american literary figure mark twain once used to say that history doesn't repeat itself but it certainly rhymes well in the one nine hundred thirty s. and actually one thousand nine hundred says well we had governments in germany japan and italy all try austerity policies in response to crises which they experienced and with all of them within a couple of years they opted for

when the united states decided that it wanted to thwart. supremacy because of the you know the shiites seem to be the dominant force now after saddam hussein there was a concern in washington that now iran would be the dominant player in the middle east and the united states saudi arabia is. rael decided to. join forces with the muslim brotherhood the salafi is these alarmists in order to bolster sunni muslim strength in the middle east and thereby warty iran and i think that what happened a few years later is it the direct result of this and any the odd thing is that it was in libya they had actually pressured gaddafi to release of the various islam is who he had imprisoned largely at the behest of the united states and as part of the war on terror the extraordinary rendition program and some of these very same people that gadhafi had released and then joined forces with the united states and nato and and the and so to topple his regime and much the same is going on in syria where again the united states of saudi arabia got into bed with th

i am not an alley of the united states, of the government of the united states. there are countries that are allies that are procapitalist, proimperialist, and that's their right under the constitution, this is a freedom of thought, but have them spy on their own allies or spy on their businessmen. but the business in brazil, that's intolerable. you cannot accept that. and that's why it was a general protest in the world with these types of espionage. >> i want the ask 24 question now, and then get your response to it. the button on this section of our conversation for me, is this. the u.s. is your country second leading trading partner. shouldn't the two before working to improve relationships. i will guest your thoughts after the break. this is talk all al jazeera, we are back in a next. what happens when social media welcome back. we are speaking with bolivia's president. i asked you before we went to break, if given the trade relationship between the united states and your country, if more effort should be put into improving that relationship? what are your th

states because unlike the united states syria is not threatening the united states it would be the victim and so the assumption of the attack by the obama administration is that syria is too weak or small are vulnerable to actually use its legal right to carry out an attack against u.s. targets and he's telling the american people they won't strike there won't be representations but in fact obama or hegel or john kerry or mccain they don't know what the representations are going to be this is dangerous games when you carry out another war of aggression with the latest most developed high tech weapons against a country that's at peace with the united states so they don't really know where it ends they know how to start a war they don't know as we learn from iraq how to end a war michael they know how to start it but they don't know how to end it but you know there. well that's true because i think and that's what we have here what what they're operating under as far as i can see is in force meant for once of the of the chemical weapons convention there is no there is a compliance provision

the united states is chastised for medaling in the region, at the same time the united states is blamed not doing enough to solve the problems and showing indifference towards muslim populations. i realize some of this is inevitable, but these contra dickried a ought to have an impact on the american's view of the region. so let me take this opportunity to outline what has been u.s. policy towards the middle east and north africa, and what will be my policy during the remainder of my presidency. the united states of america is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force to secure our core interests in the region. we will confront external aggression against our allice and partners, as we did in the gulf war. we will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. although america is steadily reducing our own dependence on forge oil, the world still depends on the energy supply. we will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. wherever possible we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations and work to add

the united states can sit down and talk with the united states when the united states behaves in such an irrational and hostile way and on the other hand the united states at this stage has isolated itself. are improving relations thanks to obama with the russians with the chinese with the indians with brics countries and other non-western countries and even in europe we see countries barry dissatisfied with american behavior for example in the case of. both both in britain for example parliament rejected war which i think came as a surprise to all of us who you know with the former prime minister in england supporting the war and being an american political and italy for example and in germany being opposed to any aggression by the united states so the world is changing and obama really needs to change is his relationship with iran otherwise the only allies he has left is saudi arabia israel an apartheid state and the al qaeda like groups in syria and the war and others in libya as well the united states has destroyed and the europeans have destroyed libya for him that doesn't sound

that we're experiencing daily ok refuse how many syrians have to be killed for that to happen by the united states well that's that's well the question we've been asking is how many syrians does the assad regime need to kill before the world pays attention we have more than one hundred thousand dead already and that's only what's been verified our question is how much weaponry will russia continue to supply to the assad regime how many hezbollah soldiers need to come in and kill syrians how much iranian people it's to be really interesting to see what saudi arabia. are you interested in the jihad is to go there is that interest you whatsoever oh absolutely absolutely peter we are extremely concerned about the jihadists who flock to chaos and that would be chaos perpetrated by the assad regime we are absolutely concerned about all the foreign agendas that have entered the fray what we started with was a popular uprising it was a peaceful revolution for freedom and dignity and democracy for all syrians but now the white house now it looks like the united states is going to give an air force t

objected to yes well i mean the reason primarily is because the united states cannot just unilaterally one day decide to disengage from the rest of the world but it is slowly disengaging and if we take a look at syria for instance which you've mentioned there have been pressures from the united states actually to engage much more intensively but it has not and one of the reasons of course is that the country is broke and plus they're tired the american people are tired of this military adventurism so while they are intervening they're not intervening with the vigor and the strength that they have previous i think the way they are intervening is quite consistent for the obama agenda all leading from behind a case obviously they're still in talks with many of the countries in their own just for the arms are still being flown into the region for example saudi arabia and qatar who are the main receivers of american arms are also very active on that front so they may not be intervening directly in terms of standing troops and having troops on the ground but obviously the impact on the count

much modernized trained by the united states and so forth and yet it was impossible to get rid of that regime except through a process of combined military force by another regime in the same country that is vietnam plus a negotiated settlement and so i simply want to point out that the reality is that it is not realistic to expect regime change to bring down this regime in the absence of overwhelming military force from outside which of course i know rififi would like to see or a long term process that involves negotiations a political settlement and political evolution all right on that but on that point we're going to a short break and after that short break we'll continue our discussion on obama's plans for syria stay with. me. michoud. couldn't take three. three. three. three. three. moseley braun video for your media project a free media. were all things considered on peter a level we're discussing a possible american strike against syria. ok to you in washington again when you look back over the last ten years of american foreign policy in the middle east why do you think it'll

states is above other countries, that the united states is above international law, the united states is above the very institutions the united nations represents. you don't want to reduce it down to such a simplistic concept, but that is the reality of international relations when it comes to the united states. of course, their anger with the russians, their anger with vladimir putin is his and russia's inability to accept this principle, and we are seeing a tectonic shift i think in global geopolitics as countries who even 10 years ago would never even dare question the notion of american exceptionalism and america's ability, albieit right to assert its military authority, now it is being questioned and this is a combination of different factors, not the least of which is america's global prestige in decline. >> syria's foreign minister said damascus is ready to comply with the roadmap, but is worried about provocation from rebel forces. >> we control our chemical arsenal, but we are worried that the terrorists who also have chemical weapons, they want to use it to show the west tha

states is the savior of the world that attitude madeline albright more recently united states if we have to use force it's because we are america where the indispensable nation we stand taller and see father than other countries hillary clinton the same thing obama this notion of where the indispensable nation what makes us indispensable nation but we're the most powerful nation on basis most powerful nation we have the atomic bombs we had a monopoly on atomic bombs what right do we have to worry about talk about other countries using weapons of mass destruction we began the process of the most serious iteration with the attack on hiroshima and nagasaki and have we apologize for that have we criticize that question that right now in outside of washington d.c. in the air and space museum next we're displaying the enola gay the plane that dropped atomic bombs on hiroshima to start the modern era of weapons of mass destruction and the head of the air and space museum said we're going to display the you know the gay and all of its glory as a magnificent technological achievement i don't

because the united states of america is stronger when the congress of the united states representing the people and the president of the united states are acting together. and the president wants that strength represented in this initiative. >> you're making the case, mr. secretary, which i understand, as you made it on friday. i think i'm still trying to understand the abrupt shift. i know that you and others on the national security team, based on my own reporting, were opposed to the president seeking congressional authority, thinking he didn't need it. the reaction from the syrian state media is that this is the beginning, they say, of an historic american retreat. do you feel undermined? do you think the united states has undermined its leverage in the world, its credibility, having ramped up the specter of military action as being imminent and then saying, well, no, we're going to go to congress first? >> david, i completely disagree with the fundamental premise that you set out. no, i did not oppose going, nor did anybody else that i know of originally. the issue originally was

i mean a lot of straits the united states sells a lot of arms in the middle east let's not forget about that also yes ok all right yes it does united states the united states does so does russia so do other states as well but instability is not in the interest of the united states instability is very definitely not in the interest of israel a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors that have made war on it half a dozen times in the last sixty five years so no it's ridiculous to say that this is somehow serving the interests of the united states or the interest of israel stability as internet is is in the interests of both of these countries as in the interests of the west in general it's frankly in the interest of russia as it is countering other regional threats the threat of terrorism and very definitely the threat of a of iran getting nuclear weapons capability ok george. well i find this extraordinary the say that if america wanted stability there was always a very simple way to go about stability there would have been to avoid getting involved in libya for all get off his reg

i mean a lot of straits the united states sells a lot of arms in the middle east let's not forget about that also yes ok all right yes it does united states the united states does so does russia so do other states as well but instability is not in the interest of the united states instability is very definitely not in the interest of israel a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors that have made war on it half a dozen times in the last sixty five years so you know it's ridiculous to say that this is somehow serving the interests of the united states or the interest of israel stability as internet is is in the interests of both of these countries as in the interests of the west in general it's frankly in the interest of russia as it is countering other regional threats the threat of terrorism and very definitely the threat of a of iran getting nuclear weapons capability ok george. well i find this extraordinary the say that if america wanted stability there was always a very simple way to go about stability there would have been to avoid getting involved in libya for all get off h

now joined by one of the most venerated american diplomats who served as an ambassador to both the united nations and russia thomas pickering ambassador pickering it's a great honor to have you on the show think you are now i don't know if you would agree with me but i think these years russian clash over syria comes down not only to a difference of opinions or a difference of agendas but to significant extent a difference of diplomatic styles and the perception here in moscow is that. the united states sees russia as on call put it simply because russia wouldn't submit to the ten american position but diplomacy or negotiations and as i'm sure you would know. is not about take it or leave it it's about give and take so my question to you. is rather american diplomacy at this point of time is killed equipped and open to a dialogue at balloch when it will trade russia any other country as equal i think oksana i would say in principle style plays a role but not the predominant role the predominant role is played by the positions of governments taken in their capitals often in response to dom

there were many exhibitions, in fact here in the united states. there was an exact that tramps to gent issues, there's the-- you had works being acquired by the museum of modernary here in new york. the you see all these connections coming together, and at the same time an unprecedented state pratronnage inside of whether they likeraphy shawrchg aand the foster of the scene, the domestic art scene? in aurora. and the congress, 'toine museum of cob interest rate after the. donald judge, jackson polac that would really be the envy of any of them here. >> rose: and all of. >> durks bai, london, paris, new york, los angeles, and even iran. >> rose: some is in iran? is it displayed prominently in iran? >> interestingly enough, in august, there was an exhibition of the art from the sa saqqakhah movement. in iran we're seeing new scholarship and new attention. >> rose: were there problems in doing this because of political conflict between iran and the united states? >> well, we do have sanctions here in the united states. >> rose: right. and so part of t

weapon attack i wonder why is that if you are indeed an international organization why not wait for the united nations which is the main international body concluded its investigation and then decide and what the course of action should be well i should say that you know human rights watch does not represent any government we represent the truth and i would love it if the u.n. inspectors were going to tell us who they think was the author of this horrible chemical weapon attack but unfortunately that's not their mandate they're going to come back and tell us the obvious which was that chemical weapon was used we all know that we've seen the videos we've seen the pictures their mandate is not to tell us who initiated it now human rights watch has done our own investigation looking at the facts looking at the delivery mechanisms looking at who had those delivery mechanisms we've also reviewed the evidence put forth by a number of governments we've looked at you know the summary denials put out by russia or syria which you know frankly are fairly unconvincing i have to say that. everybody has loo

the issue of military action by the united states. let me start by saying that the assad regime's use of chemical weapons against the syrian people is morally reprehensible and a serious violation of long-standing international law. the various treaties and conventions addressing these issues have been ratified by most of the world's nations. there is reason why almost the entire world has gathered under the chemical weapons conventions to ban these weapons. it is because chemical weapons are truly barbaric in nature. they are a global threat, and they therefore require a global response. the president has made the right choice to seek congressional authorization for any potential military action in syria. the gravity of these issues before us are significant, and they deserve a full debate. president obama should be praifd for understanding -- praised for understanding and appreciating that fact. we must demand that all presidents, not just this president, come to congress to get approval before taking military action in another count

is this from the united nations? >> no. this is independent. this came to the united states. it's independent. >> okay. >> but it is confirmation of the silg that which you ares of sarin and the case gets stronger by the day and i believe the case for action will grow stronger by the day. >> secretary of state john kerry this morning on cnn's "state of the union." if the u.s. does decide to strike syria, ultimately, who benefits? according to my guest, al qaeda does, next. >>> obama administration adding evidence to the case for a strike. signature toxic gas sarin have been found. lawmakers are weighing in on the president's request for a vote for authorization of a strike today. they held a classified briefing on capitol hill for members of congress. one house member said afterwards, quote, there was a lot of skepticism in the room. and the decision to -- whether to strike isn't black or white. one reason it isn't as simple as president assad's regime versus the opposition. there are other players in the mix, as well. one of them is al qaeda. and last night a research fellow

the united states sees russia as uncooperative simply because russia wouldn't submit to the ten american position but diplomacy or negotiations and as i'm sure you would know. is not about taking the lever that it's about give and take so my question to you is rather american diplomacy at this point of time is killed a quick and open to a dialogue at balloch when it will trade russia any other country as equal i think oxana i would say in principle style plays a role but not the predominant role the predominant role is played by the positions of governments taken in their capitals often in response to domestic policy imperatives as well as foreign policy interests and to some extent helps to determine the differences in their approach i think what is quite fascinating is the degree to which the differences of the last two years in syria have begun to become translated into what seems to be at this point a cooperative effort in geneva and i don't want to be too overly optimistic but i've been very pleased by what prime minister lever off and what secretary of state kerry have been saying

you need to know this the united states is inching toward yet another middle east military misadventure early today secretary of state john kerry secretary of defense chuck hagel and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff martin. mc testified in front of the house of representatives to shore up support for president obama's plan to launch strikes against the syrian government in his testimony secretary kerry defended an attack on syria as necessary to prevent future violence in the area. if we don't take a stand here today i guarantee you we are more likely to face far greater risks to our security and a far greater likelihood of conflict that demands our action in the future. the senate foreign relations committee held hearings today as well approving a modified version of the president's strike plan that would set a sixty day time limit for any attack the possibility of a thirty day renewal period although secretary of state john kerry has assured congress and the american people that quote there will be no american boots on the ground and quote in syria the public remains skeptical of

well that's up to the united states the iranians are not going to wait for us acceptance the iranian position has been strengthened over the past few months. the recent iranian elections have shown iran's strength the high turnout has shown that there's a great deal of legitimacy in the iranian a process the reason why in fact yesterday some of these people in prison were released was not because of any human rights. work that they did was it was basically because after the previous elections they were creating helping to create unrest in the country but they claimed fraud but after this election president rouhani and many reformists and people from all backgrounds in the political establishment have said that they were never were there never was fraud and that. basically this is strengthened iran's position right now while the rest of the region is in uproar and there is increasing instability thanks for the united states iran is basically the only country that is completely stable and with a high turnout and the public in the political process in the country on the other hand the u

with the united states? >> translator: this is about one of the miscalculated, inaccurate and wrong judgments about the iran people and the iran government. the people and the government of iran abhor threats as much as they hate war. the passion of the iranians is friendship all around the world. we do not see any reason for anyone to threaten us. and the effect of threats against our people will be that they will despise those who threaten them. >>> the world believes that iran could build a bomb very quickly. you've said this period of time for resolving for the nuclear issue is not -- will not be unlimited. just how short is this window -- weeks, months or years? >> translator: firstly, we disagree with nuclear bombs, because our religion and our faith and more or less tell us that weapons of mass destruction, including nux lar weapons, are inhuman and destructive to humanity. we have never sought nor will ever seek nuclear weapons. we solely seek peaceful nuclear technology, and therefore, in this regard

war on syria from the united states. it was discussed overwhelmingly in the halls that the reason that assad but would have these chemical weapons was a deterrent to israel's over two hundred atomic weapons and these weapons are pointed at syria and it's. if he does have and apparently does have these chemical weapons it's because israel is such a dominant power in the middle east without stating the fact that they do have nuclear weapons you go on any of these talk shows and no one will ask the direct question what about israel's new killer power and it's only right that iran should have nuclear power so it can sell its oil overseas iran does not process refined oil if they were if they were able to sell their oil and use nuclear power for their energy consumption at home this would make iran a very powerful very wealthy nation and thing and angela's ok and then dependent right you said i'm from los angeles and los angeles is what they call it toronto is and a lot of san julian those who are. around to send persians ther

there are good people in the congress of the united states. i know politically it's been difficult, but this is a matter of national security, it's a matter of the credit and bilitye united states of america, jordan which is threatened by what's happening, israel, turkey, leb about a november, all of which are just a stiff breeze away from chemical weapons being used. there are huge interests here. and in the long term, gloria, what we may or may not have to do if we cannot find a peaceful resolution with iran, what we need to do with north korea, all of these things are part of a continuum of decision making that is made in foreign policy and we believe the congress of the united states will recognize that responsibility and do what is right. >> but mr. secretary, the head of the council on foreign relations, for example, says that in fact president obama has gone -- these are his words -- from leading from behind to not leading by going to congress. he says that it raises doubts about the united states' reliability and determination. can i ge

but it's also correct to say that the united states. is a particularly crucial part to. all what is happening in afghanistan. because of dieter's it or not the states that the international community notably u.s. and i serve. started to engage men to military engagement in afghanistan and it is now only clear and very dominant to goodman to the united states that we can have certain solutions but why do you thing after so many years of waging a gang of waging a war against the taliban and the taliban of was proclaimed alamy of the united states one the american invasion into afghanistan began. so after all those years of typing. root out the influence of taliban in afghanistan why do you think the americans are changing tactics well i will leave assessments of different phases of disengagement. to military and political historians for me the most important thing is. that. the international community together with afghanistan came to the conclusion that there is no military solution to the situation the duma solution is political one and therefore. the political trick must

the non units can't be altered. and section 1 city and county h prohibits the now a units in the public works dr district but they have to be consistent with the planning district. today's ordinance would first allow non-coming from units to be expand but not beyond the envelope as it you fisted in 2013 and the supervisor will propose a further amendment that would prohibit the expansion of units where there's been a no fault e visitation in the years and finally it would allow non-conforming units to expand in a similar way in the public works dr striktd for the department remedies approval and we felt this will reduce the likelihood that those would be less affordable. we there feel there's a change that would make a naturally unit into a smaller and less affordable unit by setting a the building envelope as it was on january 1st, 2013, we first say that the non conforming units could be expanded. as proposed the units will be limited in size and scope. that concludes any presentation i'm available for questions. >

the clerk: to the congress of the united states, section 202-d of the national emergencies act 50 united states code 1622-d provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the president publishes in the federal register and transmits to the congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. consistent with this provision, i have sent to the federal register the enclosed notice stating that the emergency declared in proclamation 7463 with respect to the terrorist attacks on the united states of september 11, 2001, is to continue in effect for an additional year. the terrorist threat that led to the declaration on september 14, 2001, of a national emergency continues. for this reason, i have determined that it is necessary to continue in effect after september 14, 2013, the national emergency with respect to the terrorist threat. signed barack obama, the white house. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the committee on foreign affairs and ordered printed.

could that ever happen in the united states? everything we can. >> reporter: which could mean passing that salad while passing on the fries. jim axelrod, cbs news, new york. >> pelley: and that's the cbs evening news for tonight. for all of us at cbs news all around the world, good night. , good night. captioning sponsored by cbs cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org abbed to death.. after last >> your realtime captioner is mrs. linda m. macdonald >>> i have no clue what anyone why anyone would do this. >> a dodgers fan stabbed to death after last night's giants game in san francisco. and tonight, his family says he came here to celebrate husband father's birthday. i'm elizabeth cook. >> i'm ken bastida. we have new details in last night's deadly stabbing of the fan. we learned in the last hour that san francisco police charged a 21-year-old suspect in custody. he made incriminating statements in questioning. the victim 24-year-old jonathan denver died after being stabbed last night near at&t park. >> there

we're the united states of america, and people look to us. hey look to us for the meaning of our word, and they look to us for our values, in fact, being followed up by the imprint of action where that is necessary. we are not talking about america going to war. president obama is not asking for a declaration of war. we are not going to war. there will be no american boots on the ground. let me repeat, no american boots will be on the ground. what we're talking about is a targeted, limited but consequential action that will reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons. and general dempsey and secretary hagel will tell you how we can achievement and that. -- achieve that, and their confidence in our ability to achieve that. we're talking about an action that will degrade assad's capacity to use these weapons and to insure that they do not proliferate. and with this authorization, the president is asking for the power to make sure that the united states of america means what we say. mr. chairman, mr. ranking member and member of this commi

of the united nations. who asked mr. obama to be the bully of the world? >> reporter: of the war of words continues. the war on the ground also continues at pace. look at this. now, that is a video we are told was shot in the eastern suburbs of damascus. as usual we have no way of confirming the authenticity of that video. one other word tonight, shep, there is increasing word of some important defections including possibly according to some opposition members the defection of the former defense minister, a former member of president assad's inner circle. if true, that would be very significant, shep. >> jonathan, you hear a lot about the opposition in syria. so what is and who is that opposition? well, it's not as if there's just one group fighting the regime. far from it. the reality is there are many different groups with many different interests and goals and while we hear a lot about rebels linked to al qaeda the analysts say they are but a small minority responsible for a lot of destruction. consider t

the middle east, u.s. access to oil. huxley united is prepared to use all elements of our power , including military force, to secure our interests in the region. we will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the gulf war. we will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. >> that was president obama speaking yesterday at the u.n. general assembly. .> your response >> during this section, my jaw hit the floor. he said the united states is an imperialist nation and we will do whatever we need to to conquer resources from people around the world. it was a naked declaration of imperialism and i do not use the word lightly. he pushed back against the russians when he said i believe america is an exceptional nation, defended the gulf war, said the motivation was about oil, and that we will continue to take such actions in securing national -- natural resources for ourselves and allies. it was a bold declaration, especially the way he has tried to portray himself around the world. on th

states wants to walk away from the security council but in this case if the russian the united states can come up with an agreement with other countries involved obviously of course mr obama will go to the security council i mean again to kind of echo what alexander was saying just gross hypocrisy when i mean the united states is protected israel from the security council sixty times or something like that go ahead paul you know historically we use the u.n. when it's in our national interest to use and we ignore it when it when we don't want to. that's happened you know getting back to kosovo for a moment there are those who argue that our military intervention there actually lengthened the atrocities and not shortened and it was illegal on a number of fronts it was illegal here cost. only. president clinton only had the provable from the senate and when the finally the house voted on it a month later it was tied so you didn't even have a congressional support for kosovo we need to learn how to move forward not only within our own laws here in the us about the use of force but within

who delivered the longest speech ever at the united nations? india, b., cuba, c libya, or d, america's own bill clinton? stay tuned. we'll tell you the correct answer. this week's book of the week is "unthinkable, iran, the bomb and american strategy." if you wonder how to deal with iran and its nuclear program this is the most careful, thoughtful and intelligent book on the subject. i hope people in washington are reading it. now for the last look. egyptian lawmakers have announced that a final draft of their new constitution will be ready by november. that's actually quite quick. after all, you can't just google how to write a constitution and get the answer. or can you. google launched a website called constitute this week with the comparative constitution project. the site is a digital archive of constitutions and other founding documents from more than 175 countries. one of its goals is to assist countries like egypt that are emerging from political crisis to amend or replace their constitutions. there's more demand for this kind of thing

american president barack obama and also addressing the united nations general assembly the focus of that address and his meetings will be on iran and here the israeli prime minister's message is quite simple don't trust the rain ians netanyahu has ordered his government members not to give comments regarding the recent phone call between the radian and american presidents in fact he's ordered them not to talk at all regarding the whole issue of iran and this is presumably to avoid any kind of embarrassment while natanya who is in the united states and also for israel to seemingly present a united front prior to leaving israel for new york netanyahu said that he was going to use this opportunity at the united nations to show the truth about to rant particularly now while all these plays in trees are being said last week when the rainy and president rouhani addressed the united nations general assembly netanyahu criticized that addressed severely saying that was full of hypocrisy and cynicism at the time he ordered the israeli delegation to boycott the station and warned the internati

that also yes ok all right yes it does the united states the united states does so does russia so do other states as well but instability is not in the interest of the united states instability is very definitely not in the interest of israel a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors that have made war on it half a dozen times in the last sixty five years so you know it's ridiculous to say that this is somehow serving the interests of the united states or the interest of israel stability as internet is is in the interests of both of these countries as in the interests of the west in general it's frankly in the interest of russia as it is countering other regional threats the threat of terrorism and very definitely the threat of a of iran getting nuclear weapons capability ok george. well i find this extraordinary to say that if america wanted stability there was always a very simple way to go about stability there would have been to avoid getting involved in libya for all get off his regime was extremely stable and a good ally of the united states during the war on terror the a

much more than the united states and my fact the united states might even welcome the shutting out of latin american voices so therefore i don't think that really seems like the best course of action but certainly something needs to be done. perhaps the internet general assembly resolution but also some other more diplomatic measures taken in order to show that this kind of actions cannot be tolerated and talking about hurting either side here overall looking at the very highly strained relations between south america and the u.s. who's got to lose this current strain particularly amongst significant national merican countries. well i think the united states actually has quite a bit to lose and it's losing more and more as my fact if we look just in the last week over this past few days actually. brazil's president. canceled a trip to the united states that was planned a long time ago over the whole spying scandal that the u.s. was involved in in brazil and other shows that more and more people are more countries are resisting the exercise of u.s. power around the globe and in other w