i want amos yadlin to respond to that. it is about walking up to that line, not going over it. >> i think somebody has to understand the iranian strategy. the iranians are smart, sophisticated, and they have learned history. history told them that libya, syria and iraq -- did it wrong. india did it well. the air not going to the bomb as fast as possible-- they are not going to the bomb as fast as possible. they are going as safe as possible. the shattered she is to develop -- the strategy is to develop a nuclear program that zacaria could call civilian. they have developed all the capabilities that will enable them to become nuclear at the time. strategically, they decided to go to a nuclear weapon. otherwise, they will not suffer the sanctions and difficulties they have now. the want to go to the nuclear- weapons it would be very difficult to stop them at this time. it was the security council. they cheat, they conceal, they lied. they found high levels of enrichments because they deny that the iada into the view. strateg

we have only fighters bombs. >> reporter: general yadlin should know, he flew a fighter- bomber in theing, 1981 mission to destroy saddam hussein's nuclear reactor in iraq, a strike washington tried to dissuade. >> you know the americans can wait until they really see the iranians really breaking it out. for the israelis it will be too late. >> reporter: yet many in israel's military and intelligence establishment, even yadlin, are cautioning netanyahu not to rush ahead of the u.s. this time, at least not yet. >> the vast majority of the military and intelligence people do not believe that a military strike today will be effective enough. look at the way the iranians have scattered their nuclear program. let's assume that israel is capable of identifying the weakest points in the iranian nuclear program: they act against the iranian capabilities; they don't change the iranian motivations. >> reporter: halevy still thinks iran can be persuaded to freeze its enrichment by sanctions, covert sabotage and the threat of force. >> they are not demonic and they are not messianic. they are very

we have only fighters bombs. >> reporter: general yadlin should know, he flew a fighter- bomber in theg, 1981 mission to destroy saddam hussein's nuclear reactor in iraq, a strike washington tried to dissuade. >> you know the americans can wait until they really see the iranians really breaking it out. for the israelis it will be too late. >> reporter: yet many in israel's military and intelligence establishment, even yadlin, are cautioning netanyahu not to rush ahead of the u.s. this time, at least not yet. >> the vast majority of the military and intelligence people do not believe that a military strike today will be effective enough. look at the way the iranians have scattered their nuclear program. let's assume that israel is capable of identifying the weakest points in the iranian nuclear program: they act against the iranian capabilities; they don't change the iranian motivations. >> reporter: halevy still thinks iran can be persuaded to freeze its enrichment by sanctions covert sabotage and the threat of force. >> they are not demonic and they are not messianic. they are very, v

i want amos yadlin to respond to that.is about walking up to that line, not going over it. >> i think somebody has to understand the iranian strategy. the iranians are smart, sophisticated, and they have learned history. ,istory told them that libyam syria and iraq -- did it wrong. india did it well. the air not going to the bomb as fast as possible-- they are not going to the bomb as fast as possible. they are going as safe as possible. the shattered she is to develop a nuclear program that is that korea -- that zacahariah did call a civilian. -- could call civilian. they have developed all the capabilities that will enable them to become nuclear at the time. strategically, they decided to go to any clear weapon. otherwise, they will not suffer the sanctions and difficulties they have now. the want to go to the nuclear- weapons it would be very difficult to stop them at this time. it was the security council. they cheat, they conceal, they lied. they found high levels of enrichments because they deny that the iada into th

krauthammer and amos yadlin are arguing question ma? >> how do you argue with that accent. i have great respect for him. i think that you the united states's position on this issue, which is a somewhat technical point, is understandably ambiguous. you do not want to signal in advance exactly what point you would go to war. you know who else has the same position? the government of israel. even though the israeli prime ministers has been asking washington to draw a red line, israel has not drawn a red line itself. i would argue, they are right not to draw a red line. you want to keep the other guy guessing. you want to keep the pressure on. you do not want to be entire clean -- entirely clear as to when. you do not want to give the other person a timetable for war. if they do an action that triggers an obvious response, but in a situation like this, we contain much more room to maneuver if we maintain some degree of strategic ambiguity, as the israelis are doing. it is important to point out, the iranians do not have a nuclear weapon. it is something worth pointing out today

so why is general yadlin wrong about the intent of destruction? why are you right about the impetus toward domination? >> well, first of all, iran and israel have been in a low-level warfare with one another over a number of decades. he referred to the back and forth over what happened in south lebanon with the bombing and the retaliations that iran did in argentina. there have been attacks on israel here and there and currently as we're speaking there are cyberattack operations on iran as well as assassination of their scientists. they're also hitting back. but launching nuclear weapons is a whole different order of magnitude in terms of escalation. particularly against the country which has several hundred nuclear war heads, with much more accurate ability to deliver them and as fareed said, with second-strike capability off of submarines. iran is in no way in a position to be able to take israel on at that level. now, of course iran would brandish these missiles very broudly. it wants to change the conversation in the middle east from syria and

yadlin, who is no one's lefty and who is very involved in military intelligence in israel and i know both these develop, he said if only to prove to israelis and to the palestinians that we are interested in progress we must have negotiations. we must move toward the negotiating table. nothing has been happening. for all the reasons that have been discussed at this table. away may disagree but i think we can agree that next to nothing has been happening. and great tragedy awaits. we haven't even discussed the region surrounding. one of the nations two and a half feet away from israel is jordan. jordan seems relatively stable. >> rose: increasing worries. >> on the far right you have people who see jordan as the real palestinian state. it allows them to entertain their own-- i wonder about in an arab spring atmosphere, how an hashmight king put in place many decades ago is going to fare, even in a democratic or islamist revolution or potential revolt. it's a tiny country and it all could happen very, very quickly. >> rose: we all know these arguments will and you said and you said and

i want amos yadlin to respond to that. it is about walking up to that line, not going over it. >> i think somebody has to understand the iranian strategy. the iranians are smart, sophisticated, and they have learned history. history told them that libya, syria and iraq -- did it wrong. india did it well. the air not going to the bomb as fast as possible-- they are not going to the bomb as fast as possible. they are going as safe as possible. the shattered she is to develop -- strategy that we have discovered is to develop a nuclear program that zacaria could call civilian. they have developed all the capabilities that will enable them to become nuclear at the time. strategically, they decided to go to a nuclear weapon. otherwise, they will not suffer the sanctions and difficulties they have now. the want to go to the nuclear- weapons it would be very difficult to stop them at this time. it was the security council. they cheat, they conceal, they lied. they found high levels of enrichments because they deny that the iada in

the world cannot tolerate an iran with nuclear weapons capability are charles krauthammer and amos yadlinrs and applause] well, given tonight is an anniversary of sorts for the munk debates who better to have on stage than one of the debaters from our winning team from our first debate in 2008. he writes a must-read column, it is syndicated in over 150 newspapers around the world. he is on fox news for not suffering fools gladly ladies and gentlemen, please welcome charles krauthammer. given recent events in the middle east we're fortunate indeed to host as charles' debating partner as his career in israeli defense force was synonymous with the nuclear threats that confronted his country. high liabilities include being one of eight f-16 pilots in 1981 and to most recently playing a key role in managing israel's overt campaign against iran's nuclear enrichment program. now, let get out on the stage the duo who will be arguing against tonight's resolution the world cannot tolerate iran with a nuclear capability vali nasr and fareed zakaria. [cheers and applause] vali nasr leads john hopkins