citizens to go to iran as tourists? >> americans have a little more hoops to go through but there are lots of companies in the united states that legally take groups to iran. and you can google that or get lonely planet's guidebook to iran and look in their resources chapter but there's a company -- i'm in seattle and there's a company that takes many groups to iran every year. the guy who accompanied is making his own educational tour of iran under the tour. the only way to go to iran is take a tour or visit friends. >> i had a friend with the stanford travel program. >> so stanford appearance program. >> but it was a big success. >> basically, i spent four months in european and leading tours and making the tv shows and i've had the three most powerful travel experiences outside of that that i've had are educational tours that i've taken to central america and it's educational tourism where you have an organization who meet with different aspects of society and you try to get a firsthand look at all these complicated i

overture to iran in the context of the u.s./iran contra affair. we had the removal of one ayatollah as the designated successor of khamenei in 1989. but seriously shook the regime. we have a serious rift over whether to end the iran/iraq war in 1987 and 1988. there are many senior figures who said no, iran should continue in 1999 we had major student riots, several killed. just in 2004 we had that the guardians -- basically disqualified all the major reformists candidates to the parliament. there were sit-ins, various protests right from within the regime. rifts are not new. rafsanjani was a key figure in many of these and he is a traditional, back-room operator. he tends to lose elections. he didn't win in 1989 and in 1993 but that was after khomeni died. people were just looking for continuity. after he left office in 1997 he has consistently lost. he lost to ahmadinejad in 1995. he is not popular. he is an underground, back-room operator. all of the senior figures, the reason why i think there will contain these and he'll these rifts is because

overture to iran in the context of the iran-contra affair. in which there were many arrests of people close to centers of power. we had the removal of ayatollah month certificate ri as khomeini's designated success accesser in 1989. that seriously shook the regime. we had a serious rift over whether or not to end the iran/iraq war in 1987-'88 when iran was losing, and there were many senior figures that said, no, iran should continue. that was a major rift. in 1999 we had major student riots, several killed. just in 2000 we had -- 2004 we had the council of guardians which vets the candidates, basically disqualified almost all of the major reformist candidates for the parliament, and there were sit-ins and various protests right from within the regime, so the idea of a rift in the regime is new i think is not correct. ayatollah rafsanjani was actually a key figure in many of these rifts. he is a very, very clever back-room operator. he tends to lose elections. he did win for president in '89 and then again in '93, but that was after khomeini d

it would pose a grave danger to the united states. focusing on iran should be a top priority of the united states congress and every minute we wait to address this issue, the world becomes a more dangerous place. the state department has not had an authorization bill since fiscal year 2003 and has continued to operate and while the authorization is important, stopping iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon is far more important. the republican motion to recommit would replace the authorization bill with the iran refined petroleum sanctions bill that mr. berman introduced earlier this year, along with congresswoman ros-lehtinen. this bill would impose badly needed sanctions on iran. we feel that this bill is the right way to proceed and should be acted on immediately. the legislation currently has 155 co-sponsors, with wide bipartisan support. this legislation would mandate the state department to open immediate investigations into alleged violations of the iran sanctions act. this legislation would implement sanctions on companies who do business with i

to religious their legitimacy. the u.s. has a window in which iran is weak, and my view would be to take maximum advantage of that weakness to press for a nuclear deal on very favorable terms to the united states. >> okay. >> well, i have a somewhat different perspective. it seems to me i've looked at iran for a while, not as long as ken has, but for a while, and it seems the conversation we've been having over the last several years is misleading in the sense that the nuclear program tends to be a red herring when we think about iran. we're concerned over the nuclear program, but if you transpose that onto another country, say luxembourg or what have you, portugal, you don't, simply don't have that kind of concern because the threat of the iranian nuclear program emanates not from the technology, but it 'em mates -- emanates from the regime that will ultimately wield it. we're concerned over the intentions of this regime, its involvement in international terrorism, its continued, continued source of instability for iraq, for afghanistan, and so i th

having gone to iran just for this brief trip last may, i want to go back. i just scratched the surface, obviously, and i just -- everywhere we turned there was interesting stuff and so many people in iran told me you got to get up in the caspian sea and the more lush area. it was a arid, high plateau we were in. it was just speckled with fascinating ancient sites and hard-working little communities and the great city we saw. >> well, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> this was wonderful. [applause] >> thank you. thanks. >> and we hope you go back. >> i'm going to go back. thanks a lot. what a delight to be able to just share this with everybody and it's fun to think it will be broadcast on radio and tv and so on. i want to rhyme you that peop-- remind you that keplers books worked and the three books they would have the core books is europe from the back door is how the travel book. that's the one book if you like traveling the way you see me on tv or whatever. the last are skills and the last chapters. postcards from europe is my autobiographical books.

yet iran is allowed to continue its nuclear pursued virtually unchallenged. additionally, iran continues to develop chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles while arming and bankrolling violent islamic extremists worldwide. we must bear this in mind when we determine what is the appropriate response to the iranian regime's policies and actions. but today we must focus on the hopes of the individual iranians who have been robbed of a better future for almost 30 years by a regime which only promises nothing but misery and malaise. now is the time for all responsible nations to stand four square with the people of iran as they seek freedom, as they seek true self governance at home, as well as to live at peace with the world. we must send a clear signal today to the iranian regime and all this proxies' and affiliate's that free nations will not tolerate further efforts to silence the voice of the iranian people through violence and coercion. with that, mr. speaker, all like to reserve the balance of our time. >> the speaker late thilays befe house t

this is the time to isolate iran. i think that what obama should do is get all the allies, india, china, russia, and take it straight to ahmadinejad that we will not allow iran to have nuclear bombs. i think that if the united states -- there is no way that ahmadinejad can be stronger. host: how would bring together an alliance with other countries around the world force the running in's hands -- iranian's hands? caller: they can do this politically. if the european union in the united states can have some options in terms of economic prosperity, it will force the iranians to tell ahmadinejad that we do not want you in power. host: hit them in the pocketbook and it will change their nuclear policy? caller: yes. host: pa., tom, democratic line. go ahead. caller: i have noticed that nobody is really saying anything about this. what about people realizing that obama will not always be in the white house? for instance, many people might realize -- think about how different the last administration is, goals and ideals? some

to talk about iran. i feel very fortunate to have the opportunity at particularly this time to be going around the country to talk not only my book but about this country that is so vexed in the american imagination. it seems as though right now the united states is very much having a conversation about iran. and this is for a handful of reasons partly because iran, it seems, permanently in the news. but also because now is a particularly unique time. it's the 30th anniversary of the iranian revolution, this february marked that 30th anniversary. and who can really imagine that three decades have now gone by. and it's been an opportunity for everyone who thinks about iran and covers iran and is related to iran to stake and pause about this revolution and where it may ago. it's also a relevant moment to be talking about iran because there's a new administration in washington who is reviewing this country's policy on iran. there seems to be a recognition of the fact that the previous administration's policy

hope you can see the show, it is a one hour long special and it's very exciting to open your eyes to iran. i wanted to go as a travel writer to look at all the great buildings and, you know, museums and culture and eat the food and that sort of thing and also to humanize the place. i wanted to get to know what makes these people tick because well, as my hunch was as i learned i think it would be dangerously naive to think that we could shock and awe these people into compliance. it is not going to happen and this is something i learned. and find it's not a free society. it's a society treated away freedom democracy for a theocracy. i know we have some iranians in the crowd and i would love to get your take in que and a and i will be the first to say i'm just a rookie. i didn't know anything about iran six months ago. i did my studying, learned a lot and i'm teaching in a way that simplifies things so it is much more complicated than what i'm saying but it's hard for most americans to get our brains around this stuff so i think we just want to stick to basics and not bald down to many deta

hand it to the iranians, they had a plan for iran the renovation and deserve the influence that they have. in light of this recognition is to come as no surprise the u.s. is trying to harness the activism through

and i certainly don't want that to happen in iran. these people, i feel sorry for them, and i hope the support will be through the u.n. and the other countries in europe. we don't always have to be first. that is not our policy. we should be bright, that is the main thing. host: now washington, ky. republican collar. -- caller. caller: i do think the president is a little bit too timid in what he has said. honestly it really does not matter what he says because even if the more moderate leader does get in, the ayatollah is still going to be in power and is still not going to ever accept israel's right to exist. host: a couple of editorial views here on the conflict in iran. this is "the washington post" this morning. he writes -- president obama was right to exercise caution, both because the united states should not imply false promises it will not able to keep and the increase could come indeed, heard them. and, paradoxically, european political leaders have been outspoken in criticizing the iranian government's abuse is precisely be

holding out for some illusory purpose in the arab world will not only fail to remove the iron claws of iran to return to prince turki's metaphor, but it could actually unleash a whole host of other unintended consequences. so with that i'll close and take questions. [applause] thanks, fred. i just want to start with one quick question to both of you and that i will open it up to the audience. david, you mentioned a number of retaliatory capabilities they all. in the specific instance of an attack on its nuclear capabilities from israel or the united states which seems unlikely right now, but the israel option certainly is still talked about, what do you think would be their preferred choice of retaliation, and where do you think it might take place? and, fred, and the saints and mario, how do you think the arab side will react to such an attack? . .

that is the topic here, the president's approach to iran. is it correct? caller: thank you for c-span. i think president obama is doing exactly what he should do. we need to stay out of that right now and the ayatollah over there i think it is beginning to understand that this twitter thing -- he cannot stop the people from communicating with the outside of. if they could have done that, then i think this would have all gone away. -- he cannot stop them from communicating with the outside world. host: the twitter aspect is the subject of several stories today. the new type of revolution is spreading -- it says that they are not only a mast industries, but have swamped the internet with huge numbers channeling anger into 140 characters or less. social networking is allowing members to broadcast anchor, fear, observations to the entire world. there are several other important twitter-related stories today. hear this story says that twitter is a player in the drama. the state department asks the social networking site twitter to delayed scheduled maintenance t

is there going to be a war with iran? whatever the suppression. the united states was supportive of democracy and was not willing to confront the regime directly. the threat with iran is there a possible acquisition of a nuclear weapon and a willingness to use it. if those judgments in israel and the united states, but also in other parts of the world, in france, britain, if those judgments are that i ran is out of control, dangerous, prone to violence, something may be done -- some type of greater action to stop denuclearization of iran. host: the person was touching on outside influences. other muslim countries such as saudi arabia could have an influence on iran. guest: right now, very little. in the philippines, will lead to a successful revolution was that a leader lost popular support. i do not think there is any country in the world that has a degree of influence in iran that we had to the philippines. an outsider is. to be able to intervene. the iranian people need to work out this on their own. host: we have someone on the democrats' line.

you are looking at video up loaded to video yesterday from an iran train station. supporters are encouraged to gather a thursday again to protest the elections in iran. we will be talking about that during our first our with our guest. you are probably well aware of our guests best-seller concerning iran. she lives here in the united states and has since the 1979 revolution. she will talk to us about her observations on current events there. host: good morning, thank you for being here. i would like to start before we get into details with your explanation. people are around the world have been watching. can you tell us what you think is a part of what is going on there? guest: you know, if you look back over the last 30 years to see that the contradictions that have come to the surface had been brewing from the start. i recall hundreds of thousands of women coming into the streets of tehran during the revolution. on the one hand you see a civil society that is far ahead of the government of the state. because of this is the constant division and rifts within the ru

iran. it is carefully targeted to focus only on financial ties with iran's energy sector to hit iran where it is economically most vulnerable and the bill includes a sunset provision to lift this authorization once the president certifies, certifies, that iran has ceased providing support for acts of international terrorism and has ceased pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. i am proud to have assumed the lead democratic role on this legislation tacking over for president obama, then senator obama, who served the lead role when he was in the congress. mr. president, secondly, let me also take a brief moment to comment on the iran refined petroleum sanctions act of which i'm proud to be a cosponsor with the majority of the senate. the bill would clarify existing legal ambiguity by authorizing the president to sanction foreign firms involved in supplying iran with refined gasoline and or assisting aran with increasing its refining capacity. iran is forced to import as much as 40% of its annual gasoline consumption due to the fact that the refining infrastructure was destroyed during the ir

this leaves a vacuum for factionalism to thrive. iran has a history of very informal and opaque decision making. this goes back to the time when decisions were made behind closed doors and out of public view. there are two broad a factional groupings competing for power in iran. this is not a strict interpretation of these actions, but you can divide them to the right and to the left. they do not have established voting constituents and they tend to be very malleable organizations. factions have to operate within the system of the islamic republic, meaning that they have to accept the role of the supreme leader. secular, democratic and nationalist forces are not allowed to operate freely. they have a relatively open system, but it is rather confined when compared to countries in the west. the islamist white and left have fundamental agreements, but they also have some disagreements. for example, when it comes to the rule of the supreme ruler, the right believe that the leader has divine authority over the state while those on low left be

to speak over leaders and mobilize population against the rulers. which you find in the rhetoric is iran off with the chin with fantastic power to bypass state to state channels and mobilize a range of opposition groups ranging from the the zaidis in yemen, the nedj, the reports of shia conversion and even when we look at the fear of nuclear capable iran the biggest fear is not so much that it will use the capability against arab states but provide some top cover for iran to continue the policy of meddling in internal affairs of states. to dynamics may be at work. the first as arab leaders may actually believe their populations are susceptible. particularly reductionism on the arab-israeli front but they remain sensitive to the fact the islamic public kuiper activism on the palestine issue expos is of their own deficiencies especially dependence on the usn process to domestic and regional audiences and certainly iran does have a number of important ways with nonstick actress in the societies. the sudden dynamic is their regimes may actually be benefiting from threat inflation. they're es

if it's, an israeli attack, it would be to try to show that the -- that iran is going on the offensive against this attack. but even in the event of a u.s. attack, it would be to try to draw israel into the -- into the conflict. one question is whether they would try to close the straits innist -- in this event, and i think that might be a little more difficult because as keith showed, iran is quite vullinable to shutting off its oil exports. and -- vulnerable to shutting off its oil exports, and the iranians will have to, i'm sure very carefully think about whether to try to inhibit exports out of the strait of hormos with the possibility that they could get hit in this area as well. i will point out that this will be something that if iran attempted it, it would be one of the areas where it could actuallyiment pose a strategic cost -- actually impose a strategic cost on the united states by internationalizing the conflict. global energy markets would, would speak to that. after, after conflict in the straight of -- stait of hormuz or the persian gulf. other than that, one would have

we have to understand something -- here we see iran -- we look back to 1979 and we see a very bumpy road. factionalism playing at. controlled chaos, competing power centers. this is not how most gulf leaders see iran. i would argue most arab leaders. kasey continuity. they see linearity. they see the revolution as having a profound motive -- consistency -- that is not well- understood and the west. -- in the west. we want to see the nuances where they see a purpose-driven system that is expansionists and hegemonic. what is the assessment about this new iran? not much has changed in the formal structure of power. the reality of power is very different. the assessment right now is that we can no longer talk about iran as an islamic republic. it is a route islamic republic dictatorship. many in the arab world will argue this was always the case. the past two or three weeks have just raise the veil on the democratic pretense that the islamic republic has cultivated for the past 30 years. in that sense, the election of ahmadinejad was good news in this sense that it does away with the illusio

reassure israel that our nuclear guarantee to would detour iran because if i understood you were suggesting you said we have sufficient credibility that if we offered to do the guarantee that would be a deterrent to iran so how are we going to persuade the israelis even though their nuclear capability cannot detour iran that ours can? >> first of any guarantee by the united states would designed to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons and would be designed to protect them house also its focus is not entirely on his real. as far as israel is concerned i think there is the legitimate question to ask how serious are the israelis about the existence of threat and that the iranians because they are suicidal will attack them and even are going to perish and so we would be in a sense of arnesen initio which hasn't been discussed seriously in israel namely how serious is that argument that the moment the iranians have the bomb they will be inclined to commit suicide, extinguish 3,000 years of impressive national history for the satisfaction of damaging his rea

try to set up a dummy corporation in iran. they used the influence of the british to obtain their objectives. there was an assassination during that time and ever since then iran has had trouble. currently, ahmadinejad has a statement that a standing strong and conveying the needs of the nation to be recognized as a super power [unintelligible] however, the conservatives seem to keep us focused in the need to have war. weather through loss of life or through israel whom we directly support. would it be better to assume that it is better for them to use a stronghold to keep him in office to preserve the potential for them to rise to be a super power rather than to open a dialogue that could result in their being attacked? host: in the short form a think his suggestion is that having ahmadinejad continue in office allows them to continue their desire to become a superpower. guest: the whole point is that being a superpower does not mean using violent rhetoric against the rest of the world, intervening in the affairs of other coun

it's reasonable to have women in a separate place in that society. women in iran cannot go to the soccer stadium because they don't want women to hear the "f" word. they can go to field events and bad minton and volleyball. you may say that's evil. they say that's respectful, you know, who are we to go in there and condemn them? this is our way and this is their way. we need to give them a little benefit of a doubt.3u i love looking at people. i'm a great people watcher. i like looking at men and women. more women than men but i'll look -- i just find people good-looking and in iran, people are out looking good, men and women. according to their modesty regulations and so on and their respect for women, women -- you don't find girly magazines, you don't find women -- in america, a sexy girl stands on a platform to sell a car at a car show. is that something we're proud of? well, some of us are and some of us aren't. america is really pissed off sandinistas 'cause they refuse to let women takele degradation. there's a lot of these revolutionary societies that have

to the president? >> yes. >> one more on iran? i will run out of material. >> we will supply the material. >> do you think it is appropriate to have the people -- the iranians coming on july 4. is there thought of taking back the invitation? >> no. >> it is important to have a social dialog? >> we have decided to engage with iran on a number of fronts and we tried many years of isolation and we are after a different path. >> the president keeps saying -- that it is important for the u.s. not to be seen trying to influence iran. but the government is blaming the united states and the british for meddling or making social networking available. by simply saying that they stand with the people. this morning, we heard from the press, essentially asking obama and the state department to say more about this. if this -- is this going to be the pathway? >> what you can see, they are using this as a foil, the great satan, to justify policies and gain public support. we do not want to get into this necessarily, but what you saw over the weeke

to be heard. there is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks. we do not yet noknow how any potential dialogue will have been affected until we see what has happened inside iran. i will tell you, and this is the point and was making earlier in response to jeff's question, we have a continuing set of national security interests that are going to have to be dealt with because the clock is ticking. iran is developing a nuclear capacity at a fairly rapid clip. they have been doing so for quite some time. iran pose a possession of nuclear weapons would trigger an arms race in the middle east that would be bad, not just for u.s. security, it would be bad for the security of the entire region, including iranian security. even as we clearly speak out in a unified voice in opposition to the violence that has taken place in iran, we also have to be steady in recognizing that the prospect of iran with nuclear weapon is a big problem. and that we have got to work in concert with the international community to try to prevent that fr

to address everything. we have major concerns, iran, the war's going on. if he will focus on anything he needs to be able to get to the people he has delegated to do certain things and make sure that their report card is up today. he is the principal. host: we approach your calling and went to get some of the viewpoints in. we will also speak about iran in a little bit. we will talk about the media and tomorrow and speak with the editor in chief with sync progress concerning congress of the white house. in this case matt is mccann the specific point that the media has a letter with president obama. he cites some statistics. the writer has worked for a couple of gop senators. this is from "the philadelphia inquirer," and this is one of them. there's definitely a bias for the president -- we have a caller now from franklin, new hampshire. caller: a think it is the type of media, as far as the visual, sound, the radio -- he sounds good and looks great and is easy to sell, but the further you get away from where you visually watch him and listen to him -- i bel

would be a deterrent to iran. how are we going to persuade the israelis that even though their nuclear capability cannot deter iran, arts can? >> any guarantee by the u.s. would be designed to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons and designed to protect them as well. its focus is not entirely on israel. as far as israel, there is a legitimate question? how serious are the israelis when they make that argument about the existential threat? because the iranians are suicidal, they say. we would be addressing an issue which has not been discussed seriously in israel, namely how serious is the argument that the iranians would be inclined to extinguish 3000 years of a rather impressive national history, when they achieve a nuclear bomb. i don't take the discussion versa visit. >> from the american foundation. i would like to take you back to your mark on identifying some of the ideas that seem to be shaping a good deal of the policy deliberation in washington about how to proceed with a negotiation wit

the fact is that iran's arab neighbors are not quick ever to comment on iranian internal affairs. they are neighbors, and they are nervous about iran's influence in the region, and very often they calculate that to make the kind of comments which you recommend could worsen matters between them and that big neighbor, so they are always cautious. this is also a point here, too, that the internal affairs of some of those countries don't bear too close scrutiny anyway. some have elections. some have elections which a lot of international observers doubt. some don't have elections, so -- although elections are not the be all and end all of a political system based on consent. this would be a very complex area for the leader of an arab country to get into if he sought to give the kind of lead which you advocate. host: mona wrote in thursday's "washington post," she calls it the sounds of silence on iran and writes arabs are quiet but their silence is surely tempered with discomfort. the majority of arabs are young, and it's likely that many young arabs watching thousands of iranians dema

to james. caller: good morning. i do not think people are seeing the piece -- they're making iran to look like a bad guy. israel and iran at one time had an alliance which was against said don and against the russians -- it was against sad dam and against the russians. it seems that we are endorsing all of this writing. the votes have been stolen. they said this before the election as if there were anticipating it. guest: james, you have a good point about iran. it is the role of iran in shaping defense and the influence has been kind of exaggerated. the palestinian issue has never had very much resonance among the iranian public. the regime uses it to try to attract popularity and works to a certain extent. people want someone to stand up to the united states periodically. in solving the occupation, i think it will defang a lot of the radical movements. they can jump up and down and scream all they want and no one will really care. in iran, after the israeli hezbollah war, israel said they would send a lot of aid. those hit by earthquakes rioted. they said, you have not rebuilt houses. while sending mone

iran is work of the british. it is a well-known thing. that goes back to the interest of the british have had in that region, particularly in iran. that is one aspect of it. the other is actually as i monitor the awnian media from state with the opposition newspapers and such. i think the fact that mr. obama has basically not gone out in support of the protestors, he voiced concern, but hoe hasn't condemned the regime has also led into the u.s. being spared this wrath right now. of course, saz we have seen before -- as we have seen before, it doesn't take much for that change. that is one thing that i noticed in the press in the last couple of days, they're saying we're glad mr. obama is not modeling in -- meddling in the system. host: republican line, your on the "washington journal." how are you doing? caller: my key question is regarding the ayatollah. the president of iran has somebody above him. in the united states, the president is coequal person with the congress, senate, judiciary. in their country, it is a different-type system. i don't understan

iran has the same interest. going back to 2001, there was effective cooperation between the united states and iran in an effort that produced the current government. we will be waiting to see that once we get through this, that is one of the areas where we will see what iran has -- is prepared to do. we have the ministerial meeting coming up next week on the margins of that. it will be focused on afghanistan and pakistan. iran has been invited to attend that meeting. we will see if they accept. >> [unintelligible] >> i am not aware of it. >> there appears to be a significant division within the administration when it comes to darfur, and whether or not there is a genocide occurring there. yesterday, they say they are seeing the remnants of genocide implying that the worst violence is behind the region. on monday, ambassador rice -- can you clarify where the administration stands on that? >> edit there is no question that genocide has taken place in darfur. we continue to characterize the events as genocide. we want the specia

their support for it buy wind organizations was a liabilities of a began to cut back and as they did specifically with hamas iran rushed to fill the void and gave them more funds and more assistance by the time the elections to replace january 2006 and sanctions put in place by the west it was iran that completely filled whenever hamas was not getting it from the outside. >> host: one more question that i will go to the audience for questions even though i have about 30 more here and 40 more in my head. you also have at this point* the interesting predicament that saudi arabia and egypt and other water called moderate arab states are increasingly concerned about iran's growing power in the region, the possibility they may have nuclear weapons or iran will continue to expand it has hezbollah allied with hamas and lebanon growing in power, hamas increase in me as a proxy on one side of israel, syria as a client state. is there any sense that each of your saudi arabia or the gulf states up this point* would functionally align themselves with israel against iran? or is it the enemy of my enemy can be useful what tha

now's the time for all responsible nations to stand four square with the people of iran as they seek freedom, as they seek true self governance at home. we must send a clear signal today to the iranian regime and all of its proxy's and affiliate's that free nations will not tolerate further efforts to silence the voice of the iranian people through violence and coercion. with that, mr. speaker, i like to reserve the balance of our time. >> the speaker lays before the house of the following bills. >> an act to designate the federal building in united states court house located at 306 east main street and elizabeth city north carolina at as the j. herbert w. small federal building in united states court house. >> i yield myself one minute. mr. speaker, my friend, the ranking member correctly cited a whole series of very important issues that we -- the united states has with the government of iran. she is correct. the reason i worked to bring this up on this quick notice is about what she pointed out at the end of her comments. this resolution is not about a recitation of all those issue

still willing to have the p-5+1 meeting despite what's going on in iran? >> p-5+1 at the g8? i think it's up to the italian hosts. i think you have to ask them. >> but the u.s. -- >> we have said if they would respond to of invitation that we would take it up. >> one more on the iran. you were sitting watching with great interest can you be more specific help the secretary is watching this because a lot of the dramatic stuff is real-time coming over to the tv reporting on a twitter etc. and also there is this case of the young woman that died. is the secretary aware of that? is she making any comments about the role of women in this which is significant? >> while i think that as i said before, dennis ross is playing an important role in briefing the secretary. it's been frankly very difficult as it is for all of you to get a good hard, for mobile information about what is going on because of the inability of the media, the representatives of the organizations to cover the situation. it's been dangerous on the streets of the foreign diplomats of course have had no difficulty as

now is the time for all responsible nations to stand four square with the people of iran and they seek freedom, as they seek true self-governance at home, as well as to live at peace with the world. we must send a clear signal today to the iranian regime and all of its proxies and affiliates that free nations will not tolerate further efforts to silence the voice of the iranian people through violence and coercion. with that, mr. speaker, i would like to reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the speaker lays before the house the following enrolled bills. the clerk: h.r. 813, an act to designate the federal building and united states courthouse located at 306 east main street in elizabeth city, north carolina, as the jay herbert w. small federal building and united states courthouse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. berman: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. berman: mr. speaker, my friend, my ranking member correctly cited a whole series o

not certain its own nuclear capabilities can deter iran, what steps can we take to reassure israel our nuclear guarantee would deter iran, because as -- if i use you suggested, you said that we have sufficient credibility that if we offered a nuclear guarantee that that would be a deterrent to iran and how are we going to persuade the israelis that even though their nuclear capability cannot deter iran, ours can? >> well, fest of all, any guarantee by the united states to the region would also be designed to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons. and designed to protected them as all and the focus is not entirely on israel, as far as israel is concerned, i think there is a legitimate question to ask, how serious are this israelis when they make the argument about the existential threat and the iranians bass they are suicidal go attack them, and they are going to parish and so, we would be in a sense addressing an issue which really has not been discussed seriously in israel, namely how serious really is this argument, the moment the iranians have the bomb they'll be i

what we will have to do is basically be willing to accept that iran is going to have civil nuclear activities and work with iran to implement international verification mechanisms through the international atomic energy agency that would give the world confidence that the risks associated with those activities are being controlled. if we continue to hold out for suspension of their in richmond program and ultimately 0 in richmond in iran, -- for suspension of their enrichment program -- my view is that what iran wants is first of all recognition. they want to have security. they want the islamic republic to be recognized as the legitimate government of iran, not as by the regional neighbors but perhaps most importantly by the united states. they want to know the united states except to the islamic republic and that's 70 million people, the biggest country in the region by far, huge hydrocarbon reserves in a critical geostrategic location. there is no way this country will not have an important role in this region. they want to have that role legitimate and except it by their neighbors and by

we look forward to iran in response to our engagement. we want to bring about a concrete -- a comprehensive peace to israel and the neighbors in the region. they're right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. hothey should be able to live in peace and security. arab states must do their part to support the palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. they must recognize israel's legitimacy and in doing so choose progress over a self- defeating focus on the past. the u.s. will never do anything to undermine israel's security. we do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. we believe they are critical elements of a comprehensive and effort to secure peace. i hope you enjoy your first visit to the united states. i look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues. >> madam secretary, i like to say to you how much the government of israel appreciates your support of israel. we value your friendship greatly. you made many contrib

iran. i voted from maryland. i voted and i am zpwhrad to see signs of dem crassy. t is not true that it doesn't matter who is the president of iran. we saw a totally different face of iran during mr. ahmadinejad's presidency. it really is important. the president densey in iran matters, people should give a chance to iran to pursue the path to dem crassy. host: can i ask you, if it does happen that mr. ahmadinejad wins, how will that path continue in your mind? caller: i think he will see a lot of iranians are not happy. i think he will method rate his stance and be more a meanable to make a certain deal with the west, particularly the united states and his views will be moderate towards israel. host: we had a reporter join us at the beginning of the program saying in her words, he was still pretty defiant as far as making changes in his policies and certain attitudes that he holds. she said she didn't see that changing. caller: i believe that's right. mr. ahmadinejad is a very hard-headed individual. the reality will force him to change. he's going to be hearing fr

iran. they wanted to demand tougher sanctions through the u.n. on iran. the united states, france, and other countries are included. things have changed. it is the nature of the system. responsibility or accountability, is the real threat. not of the nation's right or sovereign right to technology. it has never been that. of course, the regime, as capable as they seem to be in twisting every word and act to make it like a national cry, do not tell people of iran that day, the regime, is responsible for us havinlost that right, and only them. as far as the military usage of that, it would be in total violation of our own signature to the treaty. in principle, i would end by saying that there is no question, in my view, that a democratic iran and a nation committed to peace need not pursue weapons of mass destruction. i cannot envisage in my own mind, if i were there today, as an iranian, i would feel safer if everybody around us at their own set of nuclear weapons pointing at each other. that is not a safe environment. under any circumstance. i do not buy

of oversight regarding the nuclear assistance that the iaea provides to member states especially to iran, syria, cuba and sudan. the g.a.o. report noted that from 1997 to the year 2007 the international atomic energy agency's technical cooperation program provided over $55 million to these state sponsors of terrorism, supposedly for peaceful purposes, but as the g.a.o. report notes, nuclear equipment, technology, and expertise can be dual-use, meaning capable of serving a peaful purpose but also useful in contributing to nuclear weapons development. the g.a.o. report criticizes offices at the state department for having little or no idea what these programs actually consist of, much less working to stop the most harmful among them. . unfortunately the bill contains no language that addresses this problem despite the administration's full request for over $100 million to be given to the iaea. the bill before us does not mandate that the state department take immediate action to implement the recommendations of the g.a.o. it does not require our representatives at this agency to do anythin

we have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with iran. we tried many years of isolation, and we are pursuing a different path now. >> the president keeps saying that it is important for the u.s. to not be seen as trying to influence elections one way or the other. but the iranian government has begun blaming the u.s. and the british, who were meddling, making social networking tools available. just saying that they stand with the people. this morning, we heard the -- essentially asking president obama and the state department to say more. is this narrow path the u.s. is treading going to be the path and if so why? >> what you are seeing in iran what we saw on friday is what you have been seeing all along. they are using the u.s. as a foil, a way to justify the policies or gains, public support. we don't want to get into a polemic necessarily on this. what you saw over the weekend, you saw a very strong statement by the president, setting out these fundamental principles that the country was founded on. these are the kind of principles that

right now, this is a premature subject to debate about what we will end up tomorrow in iran. the point is what we're trying to do today to liberate our country, and that is what i'm doing right now. [applause] >> thank you very much. you have given a couple of examples, but what would you -- when would you be able to say, what would be the sign or the person who would make this sea change, the change of heart within the establishment that would signal to you that there is something going on within the religious establishment toward more democratic? >> i am at maintaining, among other things, close contact with highly placed elements within the system, on the civilian side as well as the military intelligence all of it -- military intelligence level of it. we are tirelessly examining every possible scenario of their own exit strategy. we're not reinventing the wheel here. let me explain the scenario where security forces of any state or system that has been repressive, and we saw this in the case of the soviet union, the case of czechoslovakia, we saw that in many other example

to respect the essential right of freedom to speech has iran been denying them that right? hat citizens are protesting the results? >> referring to the same kinds of images that you have been seeing and the same kinds of reports you have been hearing in terms of the reaction of some law-enforcement authorities and news of access to the internet been blocked and certain newspapers. >> how concerned is the u.s. this will affect its account to engage tehran or our people already be calibrating what is happening? >> as you know, very well we have had very serious concerns about iran living up to its international obligations particularly regarding the nuclear program and the support for terrorism. what we will do going forward, we are going to continue to try and address these concerns with iran and of course, of these concerns of the nuclear program is very much, these are very serious concerns and get at the very heart of this administration's priorities in terms of non-proliferation concerns, the possibility of the arms race in that part of the world. we will continue as the

iran is threatening to wipe israel off the earth, keeps saying it is going to do that, and there is no communication, no hot line, no diplomatic relations. there is no communication,. . then you have another factor, some of the apocalyptic statements of some of the leadership. ultimately, iran makes a decision on a cost-benefit analysis and they are not suicidal. but this is a whole dimension that we did not have to deal with with the soviet union. the president of iran says statements about the 12th imam, the messiah. but he is not the one who decides, it is the ayatollah, n who is still in charge. there are a lot of differences in the iran grace vs. the soviet union case in the cold war. -- in the iran situation versus the soviet union case in the cold war. caller: my comment on the speech -- the speech was a very warm speech, especially the one that he did i did not really listen to -- this is a good thing. he did not touch on the sedan issue because sudan is one of the arab nations, and on the sudan issue because sudan is one of the arab nations and -- host: i should point out that

not to mention what ever reprisals iran would have in store for israel to an attack

i may be reassigned to god knows where tomorrow, i don't know to reckon we stay with iran? >> i sense something saying at was worldwide available to mchenry stay with the iran situation just a moment? to questions, do we see in the evidence that you have been describing authoritarian regime revealing itself with such? >> well, i think our concerns about iran and the lack of transparency, accountability is well-known. i mean, it has been said and from this podium, it has been said in our human rights reports. right now we are focused on was unfolding and iran. and we had a lot of our allies including the foreign ministers of the e.u. today, have expressed our concerns about the allegations of election irregularities. we're concerned about some of the treatment of the demonstrators and we're calling for the irony in authorities to respect the right of people -- to the iranian authorities to respect the right of people to express themselves peacefully but we are, what we are focused on is on the unfolding of events. and will also continue to focus on the need to get iran to adh

if there needs to be a change in iran, it has to be from within.it has to be the iranian people on a daily basis have to live the life that they're living, calling for it. i know it is extremely difficult to do that in an oppressive regime where they go out and unfortunately at times, do the kind of things they do to put down these kind of concerns and questions, even if it is in a peaceful manner, which generally it has been in the past week. be that as it may. for it to have a longstanding impact, i think it really has to be done internally. on the other hand -- again, having been here, understanding the way the politics of this country and particularly the hell, i can see why there would be these movements to try to come out in support of a certain group, for a number of different reasons. you know, i think we are all aware of how congress works. there are a number of different reasons that they come up with certain statements such as this one. i am glad, however, that at least it is only to the extent that they're condemning violence against pe

i am not faulting the media -- it discuss you perhaps do not have access within iran to get such data. -- it is because you perhaps do not have access within iran. i want to express my gratitude to summon a -- so many who have the opportunity to connect and said this kind of information. we may be able to get a better assessment. as for the veracity of the information, from my own part, i am trying to be extremely careful to make sure that the information we receive is accurate, because in the middle of this game, some people always try to come every now and then, and i hate to use this word -- tried to get cute and exaggerate numbers and things like that. we are very cautious about statistics and numbers that we get. but to address a question, the numbers have been able but higher than what has so far been reported. we hope this will not continue, in the sense that we will try to encourage, as i said earlier, the security forces to reduce their crackdown. but we cannot control in any form, and as i said, there are two elements that are the question mark -- how long will the basij con